Experts say humans can live to 1000.. would you want to?

What I don't understand is why everyone is approaching this issue with such a highly anthropocentric perspective.

Surely with immortality, we would have the time to experiment with new modes of conscious existence? Why would we even bother with our current human physiology, when we could aspire to anything imaginable? Could you imagine being subject to the same psychological tendencies you experience today for all eternity? That would be hell. Boredom would be our biggest struggle.

Of course, the first few generations would probably be tough for everyone. We would have to invest all our creative energy into the discovery of these new modes of existence, and in the process we would have to endure the hardship of living with a human body and mind for what could possibly be tens of thousands of years.

However, after that point, as a community of sentient beings, our top priority as a civilization would be the constant expansion and acquisition of resources to allow for an immortal, malaise free existence for all involved. This is what we call Singularity. Although we would no longer be physically human (although some individuals may be inclined to remain in a state of mind something similar to what we experience today), we would comprise the same civilization, recognize the same values, and convey the same inherent principles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless I'm totally mistaken and this thread is simply about living for 1,000 years? Hopefully, before that point we would have developed the technology to do away with the suffering associated with the human body. Even today, new technological and medical advances in Cancer treatments focus more on improving the quality of life than prolonging life, or even preventing death, for obvious reasons. Similarly, I predict that scientific advancements in the future will lean toward improving life over merely prolonging it. That is obviously the most rational direction.

Although there would be an advantage in prolonging life, essentially enhancing our reproductive fitness, there doesn't really seem to be a point for a biological species to continue reproducing when there are few visible and immediate dangers to its existence. At this point in time, it would be hard to discern most of the visible dangers, except for asteroid impacts, or gamma ray bursts, when you have become so used to being top on the food chain.

On the other hand, as a species, which is capable of directing its own reproductive success, we should be focusing our efforts on expanding the population across the galaxy and beyond. Longer lives would mean more chances to procreate, which would mean exponential population growth. Of course you could imagine the absolute mess of a social system one would have to create to care for all those children. Then again, the most successful individuals might become so rich in the future, having lived such a long life, they may be able to somehow, although merely extensionally, provide their children with everything needed to rear them into adulthood. And as a being that has lived for thousands of years, paying for 20 years of the basic necessities of life, along with education, for a hundred or so children probably wouldn't be too demanding. Where do you balance overpopulation with this new found capacity to ensure our species' safety from total destruction, through widespread procreation?

One of the biggest social concerns regarding this interval of time between "immortal biological life" and some sort of "Singularity", would be the obvious dissolution of the family unit. We would undergo a rather massive cultural paradigm shift. How would we deal with this is a highly contentious issue. Who would provide for young life? Large government social institutions? Surely that's not the most effective way? Perhaps some individuals wouldn't mind caring for them personally (I can see where that would get old), but how would you choose among all your children? Would there be limits to procreation? As an immortal individual, one hardwired for the biological imperative of reproduction, could you or would you respect such an authority? I'd assume one would only obey such a law if there were conferred some additional benefit to your offspring by withholding from sex.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by cognoscente]

I can think of one good thing out of this imagine if a person in 2008 lived to 1000 think about how many partners he/she would have and children and so on by the year 3008 came everybody born after about 2500 would be the same race through the mixing of races which would be probably the color of sand.

If people could live to 1000 that does mean everybody will though in a timespan of 1000 years we are bound to have a couple hundred wars/ couple plagues/ extinction of something/ messing up the planet more/ murders/ so in the end only a few would actually reach it to 1000 so wont much change except for the descandants of the 1000 year olds will be the new elities.

reply to post by Solomons


No. You are wrong. There are way too many people on earth. And we all contribute to it's destruction, so we all need to just die.

reply to post by Dermo
Yes provided I could have access to and afford a really good plastic surgeon.





[edit on 13-11-2008 by ofhumandescent]

Living to 1000 years of age would be amazing. The advances we would make as a society, and scientifically would be immense.
As a child of the 80's I have seen tremendous advances in our technology, and it seems to be advancing ever faster. Even if I live to be 80 years old, what I witness in my lifetime will be amazing. I can only imagine what I would see in a millennium.
Overpopulation would be a big problem, but could be offset through education and a cap on the amount of children that an individual could produce. As someone else stated, maybe breakthroughs in space travel and exploration would happen early on in our new extended lives and we would colonize new worlds. And likely to new wars over galactic resources, which would further keep populations in check. Unfortunately.

A lot of people go on about how terrible life would be, and some use archaic religious reasons to not want to live past our currently alloted timespan. That makes me scratch my head and wonder why people are so pessimistic and superstitious.
One of the benefits we would see, (those of us who choose the extended warranty) would be a dramatic decline of stupidity, and religious ignorance. I for one would not terribly miss those who are too stupid or lazy to think for themselves. Or those who are too lazy to better themselves, and instead blame society as a whole, the human race in general, some nebulous secret society, or even a vengeful god for the way their lives have turned out.

That would leave room for people who have a lust for life and learning, and the world would likely become a better place.
Sure, some people would slow down and take their time when it comes to learning. But others would continue to advance their education and the state of our sciences and other fields of study at a relentless pace. Imagine achieving multiple breakthroughs throughout your life! Imagine the possible technology, and maybe even a new society where energy is free, where we are all well educated, have careers in fields of OUR choosing, and no longer work as puppets for corporate slave masters? We could invent a new way of life where everyone is prosperous, and we could also do it more environmentally friendly.
It would be wonderful to witness something such as this for one thousand years.

As for the Singularity, I think that's a bit of a pipe dream, and will be the new carrot-stick to control people when we finally rid ourselves of religion. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by lorehorrible
There are way too many people on earth. And we all contribute to it's destruction, so we all need to just die.

Spoken like a true Christian

Id love to live way past 1000, im not afraid to die mind you i just want to see how things turn out. I love the idea of living to see comercial space travel or living on another planet. with the rate technology is advancing i can easily see myself living to 150+ maybe even 200. genarations after me could easily live double that, keep in mind that just 40 years ago computers were the size of rooms, calculators were 300 dollars and the internet was barely a pipedream.

Though id really want to live that long if i could keep my body at around 25-30 years old as well as my mind, though i might be fun to go insane for a few hundred years.

Originally posted by lorehorrible
If everyone lived for 1,000 years, this world would be even more overpopulated than it already is. Screw that.

Who wants to live forever?
There can be only one.

Duncan, if we all lived for a 1000 years we would be zipping around the galaxy in space cars fueled by water and steered by thought. And that's probably undershooting to say the least.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Dermo


What shocks me is the trivial level of funding that these projects receive. Aubrey De Grey is the leader of the field and has only about 2 million in funding, up from about $0 a few years ago. His M Prize has a lot more than that though, but the way he has it set up it may not be for decades that prize winners will have something applicable to humans. But I suppose I really would expect anything earlier than that any way.

People just are under-confident and really imprison them selves in idea cages.

reply to post by Dermo


No. I am happy to maybe live another 20 years. More than that I don't think I could handle it.

I would prefer to come back another time and visit, just like I did this time.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by kyred]

reply to post by Dermo


I don't think I would want to live that long. I cannot imagine the condition the human body must be in at that point, think about it, that many years with arthritis, bursitis, all the aging health disorders, and you have HOW many years to go? LOL! Seriously, health would have to be much improved for seniors before this could be possible.

Originally posted by Solomons
Yes,this would be great,they have already made fruit flies live for 5 or 6 times their natural life span,problem is,DNA has a habit of correcting itself as they found with fruit flies.

And people still have the naivity to think we were created a few thousand years ago by some mystical god. It's laughable.

We can genetically engineer organisms to live longer. WE CAN TAMPER WITH GENETICS. Just like some beings tampered with our primitive genetics and created us. Don't the religious folk ever stop to contemplate this for a second, or is it too far outside their realm?

Shouldn't this article be stating that anyone 40 and under is basically now considered IMMORTAL? The reason being that, if you're able to live to 1000 years, then I'm sure by the year 3000 death will be cured considering that only in the 21st century a human's life span will be multiplied by 1000% according to them so imagine what would be achieved scientifically in the 31st century etc?
So, IF within the next 100 years they find out how to make humans live 1000, that means you'd bet your ass that by 2900 when you're 900 years old, there will be a cure for death period and you will thereon be immortal.

See you all in 5000 guys woohoo!

I think part of what makes us human is our mortality. Death can be counted on...nice an reliable.

I'd assume that to live to be 1000 I would have to cease to be human. Artificial parts, artificial organs, regenerated skin (perhaps not even my own).

I look forward to a normal life span, with all my own guts and my own saggy wrinkled skin and hopefully a few of my own teeth by the time I'm ready to kick the can.

It's normal and natural and the more we mess with our DNA and natural biological functions the less human we become.

I like the thought of getting old (minus the aches pains etc) so long as I remain in good health. I enjoy the thought of reflecting back on accomplishments and maybe even a few romantic regrets.

In my generation the world has changed so dramatically and so quickly it's been a bit daunting. besides...I eventually WANT to retire!!! can't do that if you live to be 1000...just an extra 920 years to work IMO LOL.

And what of the costs to keep us alive for so dang long? Pffft...let the elite end up looking like Ivana Trump and Dick Clark if they wanna...ewww.

Cheers to a "normal life span" and good clean death

reply to post by justgeneric


Does it really matter if we become less human? Spoken like a true evolutionary biologist I must say... We are so comfortable with death, for one, because death, unlike dying, isn't difficult at all for the person concerned. Wonder why we're so risk averse in life, yet when it comes to the prospect of death (say within minutes of it) one doesn't really care? Second, death may have in the past been a mechanism to free up resources for future offspring in highly competitive environments. Some archaebacteria, living deep within geothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, may as well be biologically immortal. The organism has seemingly limitless resources and no competition whatsoever. They fill a particular environmental niche so effectively, that they are unparalleled in their quality of life to any other organism (they can live in the most extreme of temperature scales, some even in highly acidic environments). All of these things you mention are merely rationalizations of your psychology and evolutionary tendency to provide for successive generations. Surely you must recognize that.

As a conscious being, however, we are more than just our bodies. We are more than a product of our surroundings, though by reading your post it appears you may have not been aware of that. If I had the option, I would refuse to submit to death.

Edit: I forgot to mention that my longing for immortal life may also be a result of my evolution, by the fact that a longer life span is equatable to greater reproductive fitness, because there are more opportunities for procreation. But then again, my point wasn't for a longer life span, but for using that life span as a transition period to a greater mode of conscious existence, unhindered by our biology. What's so great about being human? Seems to me you're a bit of a species-ist.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


The question was: if I could would I want to live for to be 1000.

You're entitled to your non-humanist view I'll take death before a synthetic kidney, silicone bladder and miles of "amazing new polymer" intestines.

A new nose or some boobs might be a kick but hey I'm overall pretty content knowing I'll die when I'm meant to.

I just wish you'd used a few more big werds so i culd reely unnerstan bedder.

(cheeky and sarcastic and doomed to die)

reply to post by justgeneric


I guess understand your point. I was probably taking a much more pragmatic approach than I was really required in answering this question. However, this thread and the question itself seems to be gravitating to one of a philosophical debate, one that might actually prevent us from understanding the full scope of such a possibility. My reasoning, when looking at it from a practical sense, is that technological and medical advancements will be achieved first in improving the quality of life, before prolonging it. So your point of living for one thousand years in a constantly degrading biological form, with all the chaotic tendencies of a human psychology are rather moot. But since this thread never specified from which angle the poster should address the question, I'll leave it as an open discussion, criticize a few points by some of the posters, and leave it at that. I really hope this isn't considered off-topic, because I've basically just proven that notion wrong.

As it stands today, most advances in Cancer research are concerned with its actual treatment, of enhancing whatever life remains, rather than eliminating the cancer itself, or prolonging the life of the patient. That is, I believe, because the value of life to an individual is economically unparalleled, we tend to allocate all our productive capacity toward sciences, which produce the most immediate results. This may be efficient for some purposes, but then it brings us to a point where we must reevaluate our priorities. Should we continue along this futile path, stumbling behind nature at every step of the way, and in the end only benefiting one person, that single patient, or should we plan for the longevity of future generations, so that many may experience the same things that you had? Surely we must strike a balance, though today it seems that beam is balancing heavily toward one end of its scale. All of the money generated for Cancer research is almost entirely demanded by areas of research concerned only with the treatment of pain. Even the most advanced of our genetic technologies are being utilized for these rather benign purposes, as opposed to actually addressing the problem itself, which we would like to believe is impossible to solve. Now if I were in that position, you could probably guess where I'd donate all my money to. It's just human nature to place your own interests above those of all the others. Pain is easily empathized with, so you won't get people rejecting your decision outright, even though it amounts to little more than satisfying your own well being for the time you have remaining.

Personally I don't see a point in increasing physical well being if in the end all we are accomplishing is the maximization of pleasure, and the elimination of pain, and all still over the same short life span. I couldn't stand a life of practical hedonism.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by Ferengi
I would love to live for 1000 years, why? I'd be able to visit thousands of planets, go wherever I please. In 50-100 years, I'm sure we would have warp speed spaceships. Sounds good to me, I'd love to see how women look on other planets.

They're gorgeus and sex mad but you have to be careful it's the male that carries the foetus. I came home frustrated but safe

OK, I have a theory, assuming the Bible is telling the truth this time:

Man used to live to a thousand years. But God gradually shortened man's life span after the flood.

Just after the flood, mankind was coming together, they are seeing through their differences and making a legacy for themselves, the first global project ever taken, even possibly, the first ONe World Government.

The the Gods realized they must not let it happen because at this point, nothing will be held from them, and I guess, that's in the form of knowledge. They don't want us to know the true nature of things. Then they confused the language of man.

What does this say, first shorter life span, then different language? The progress of knowledge and information. With shorter lifespans, knowledge over the course of hundreds of years can easily be retarted or even corrupted. With the language barrier, exchange of knowledge doesn't happen easily. And finally, man won't have enough time to establish himself/herself financially to have enough time to discover the true nature of things.

Instead, with a very short lifespan, we are simply preoccupied with work, trying to survive, and not even thinking what went before us, and what's in store for the future

HOW WILL IT WORK RE AGING PROCESS?

No, people will not endure puberty for 150 years, nor will one be old and feeble for 900 years. You must understand that in controlling aging, it is integral that quality of life be considered. It has been.

See the work of Dr Aubrey DeGrey, particularly his book 'Ending Aging'. It has a lot of detail. You can also find a 50 minute presentation by him on ted.com which is very good to explain some of the concepts, and ethics behind this.

You will be able to live, continuously, in your 'prime'. Aging may even be able to be reversed, not just held at a certain point. Consider it akin to restoring and maintaining a vintage car (not my analogy).

ARE WE MEANT TO DIE?

Whilst it may take some time to get your head around, this is an ingrained deathist belief cultivated primarily through religion. Consider that in 1800, the average lifespan was 37 years old. Perhaps they would have thought that extending life by over double would be wrong? Are you all prepared to take the step of ending your life when you hit that age? No. Of course not.

Instinctively, we all DO embrace the gradual changes which have led to much lengthier lifespans. And we will generally continue to do so.

ETHICS

Is it wrong to want to live forever (term used loosely) considering the planet's overpopulation? Nope! In time, with increased technology and intelligence, we WILL colonize space and other planets. This argument is akin to whether we should be spending the money we do on entertainment when there are starving kids out there. A Utopian society cannot ever exist. It is best to make the most of what we DO have.

BOREDOM

Getting bored? Far from it. Technology is developing at an exponential rate. By the end of this century it is expected that a single computer will have more 'brain power' than the collective intelligence of the Earth's population. (Again, imagine the world problems that will be able to be tackled with such development). Life in the 1800s was very much the same through one's entire lifespan. Now, we see change around us. It is only going to get more interesting from here!

THE PROBLEM

World religions and conservatives who attempt to resist change are the biggest enemy to the advancement of the human race. Consider that they originally refused to look through a telescope for it would show that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Their reason: 'the Devil would get in their eye'.

They continue to resist change now, as change loosens their control. Also consider that 92% of Americans recently were polled as believing in 'god'. The power and control that exists here already is much more worrisome than the New World Order.

THE OUTLOOK

The best outlook to have is this... You are a human being, part of a greater human race. As the human race has developed over thousands of years, you wish for it to continue its development. Embrace technology. Embrace change. Embrace a future that is going to be more exciting than any other time in history.

Be not fearsome of the NWO. People in 1800 would have considered things like licenses, passports etc as invasion of their privacy too, but in actual fact they have given us newfound freedoms. That does not mean all is good... It means that making the best of what the world offers is what will give one the greatest life they can have.

Even if we can life forever, life is too short to fight wars that cannot be won.

AZ