(December 14, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 9:12 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: What do you mean "any cost"? We're talking about living in what would basically be a healthy, fully-functioning body... forever. What's not to want? If you ever get bored, by all means, you can still kill yourself.

When I first posted, I was thinking along the lines of incremental delays to the aging process through ongoing scientific/medical advances. I don't believe that it's capable of producing the sort ageless immortality that's being described in your above post, so I guess we're just not on the same page. 

I'm imagining a desperate stretching of inevitable decay, not somehow becoming a Highlander.

Then you need to look more into it. We're talking about actually reversing the aging process and solving those issues that make our bodies age and ultimately die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCpHugyI80

The movie Bicentenial (sp?) Man with Robin Williams addresses this issue. It was a good movie.

(December 14, 2015 at 12:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 12:22 pm)KUSA Wrote: Sure. We can all live and limit new people to replacing the ones that died from accidents and such.

How in the world would that work? Lol. Are we going to forcefully sterilize all men and women, except the ones we deem fit to reproduce or something?

What is the alternative? You would rather let people die of old age when they have the cure to ageing or overpopulate the planet so that them or others starve just so they can make some babies who would have to go under that exact same process?

When you talk about those things, think about the context you're talking about them in.

(December 14, 2015 at 1:26 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCpHugyI80

I've heard him talk before, it's just the Atheists version of wanting to live forever and denying our mortality. His 'evidence' relies heavily on the idea our life expectancy is going up. However that ignores what he really should be looking at, which is our maximum potential age, which hasn't really gone up at all or just marginally. There is no good reason at all to think a living person will live to be 500.

(December 14, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sounds like we should just let nature do its job.

Immortality would open up a whooooole can of worms.

That's like saying we should comit mass-suicide, all of us, because nature apparently wants us dead anyway.

(December 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 1:26 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCpHugyI80

I've heard him talk before, it's just the Atheists version of wanting to live forever and denying our mortality. His 'evidence' relies heavily on the idea our life expectancy is going up. However that ignores what he really should be looking at, which is our maximum potential age, which hasn't really gone up at all or just marginally. There is no good reason at all to think a living person will live to be 500.

If that's what you think he's saying, maybe you should listen to him talk again.

(December 14, 2015 at 1:32 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I've heard him talk before, it's just the Atheists version of wanting to live forever and denying our mortality. His 'evidence' relies heavily on the idea our life expectancy is going up. However that ignores what he really should be looking at, which is our maximum potential age, which hasn't really gone up at all or just marginally. There is no good reason at all to think a living person will live to be 500.

If that's what you think he's saying, maybe you should listen to him talk again.

It's just wishful thinking and he's a pseduo-scientific quack.

(December 14, 2015 at 1:20 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Thena323 Wrote: When I first posted, I was thinking along the lines of incremental delays to the aging process through ongoing scientific/medical advances. I don't believe that it's capable of producing the sort ageless immortality that's being described in your above post, so I guess we're just not on the same page. 

I'm imagining a desperate stretching of inevitable decay, not somehow becoming a Highlander.

Then you need to look more into it. We're talking about actually reversing the aging process and solving those issues that make our bodies age and ultimately die.

Seems great at first glance, but would it would present a shitstorm of logistical and ethical issues. 
Just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Doesn't matter at any rate. Immortality isn't attainable, realistically.

(December 14, 2015 at 1:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We'd have to solve an even wider range of potentially more difficult problems.  I wouldn't be worried in the short term /w regards to resources...but there's no such thing as a short term to an immortal race.  I suppose I just can;t see it leading anywhere but other choices that I couldn't possibly make or sign off on.  Things I wouldn't trade for immortality.  

Besides, I'm already going to live forever, or at least as close to forever as it matters to me.  It'll be my genetic boot on the throats of the oppressed masses soon enough.

I'm pretty sure you would think differently if you actually had the choice to live forever. Not taking that cure would be paramount to comitting suicide, essentially, just because you're a little scared about some complex issues your society will have to face at that point.