RE: "The first person to live to [200, 300, 500, 1000] has already been born"
December 14, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 1:35 pm by Athene.)
(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.