Science may have found the first keys to immortality.

[EGarrett]

This is pretty heavy stuff...but I knew it would happen eventually.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist so don't expect my approximations to be perfect)

Scientists discover/study an enzyme that stops cells from aging.

http://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june2000/sw_may-june2000_page8.htm

Of course...people started pointing out that if you can stop human cells from aging...you can stop people from aging.

http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm13/topic2c.html

There's still plenty to figure out...like various conditions that occur with age...but apparently most are linked to the weakening of the immune system that results from aging cells...and could be stopped.

This is very real...and the possibilities and ramifications have my thinking at 100mph.
_________________________________________

This might be old news to some...but it's very profound (IMO) to those of us just hearing about it.

My reaction #1:

I knew this would happen. I've always said that one day it will get to the point where we know the human body so well that we can open people up like cars. That includes fixing or replacing whatever parts are broken...and yes...even restoring old junkers if the parts can still be used.

I mean, really, there's no barrier that stops us from understanding or manipulating the brain or our bodies. They're just complex organs that we're still figuring out.
______________

My reaction #2:

If anything should be "worshipped," it should be the scientific method...because it takes the magic of Gods and makes it very real. (Viagra, Flight, etc).

And it's quickly becoming clear that there are no limits to what it can accomplish. I mean...we're talking about immor-frickin'-tality here. It doesn't get any more important than that.

So should we push harder for science? Imagine if we had the manpower behind this type of research that we do going to church every sunday?
______________

My reaction #3

Given the structure of our society...it seems like...if people didn't die...the trade-off would be severe limits on reproduction.

Would you accept that? An indefinite life span (meaning aging isn't a factor, you only die by incurable disease or accident) in exchange for an end to reproduction.

In my opinion...I'd have to say I'll take it. I'm fairly young (22) so I feel a world of things I need to do...but I'm eager for everyone else's opinion.

Can't wait for everyone's reply.

 

[tamiO]

My reaction #3

Given the structure of our society...it seems like...if people didn't die...the trade-off would be severe limits on reproduction.

Would you accept that? An indefinite life span (meaning aging isn't a factor, you only die by incurable disease or accident) in exchange for an end to reproduction.

In my opinion...I'd have to say I'll take it. I'm fairly young (22) so I feel a world of things I need to do...but I'm eager for everyone else's opinion.

Can't wait for everyone's reply.

I wouldn't go so far as to agree that there would be a absolute need for limits on reproduction. If people would live longer, the chances of solving many problems that limit us to living on this one planet would go up. At first, we would have a lot of people convinced there must be rules. Isn't that almost always how we start losing our freedoms?

How many great scientists have we lost that would have most likely solved a thing or two had they not gotten old and died?

Imagine Einstein still being around, walking with Stephen Hawking through a campus, sharing ideas and insights and brainstorming solutions.

 

[toddjh]

I opted for the "no kids" route even as a mere mortal, so I don't think it's a difficult question.

I've thought about this topic a lot, and I don't think you could trust people to keep their own reproductive urges in check. There would have to be government restrictions to stop the exponential growth from screwing everything up. Sure, there would eventually be economic checks on population growth, but that lags behind the problem by several decades. Better to be proactive and not wait until everyone is on the edge of starvation.

I'm envisioning a zero population growth system. Somebody dies, and then a new parent is determined by lottery and allowed to conceive.

Jeremy

 

[EGarrett]

I opted for the "no kids" route even as a mere mortal, so I don't think it's a difficult question.

I've thought about this topic a lot, and I don't think you could trust people to keep their own reproductive urges in check. There would have to be government restrictions to stop the exponential growth from screwing everything up. Sure, there would eventually be economic checks on population growth, but that lags behind the problem by several decades. Better to be proactive and not wait until everyone is on the edge of starvation.

I'm envisioning a zero population growth system. Somebody dies, and then a new parent is determined by lottery and allowed to conceive.

Jeremy

That's very similar to what I had in mind.

Basically...after having been married a certain number of years (say 5), a couple can apply for a reproduction grant or license that would allow them to have a baby.

Careful count would be kept of the number of deaths due to disease, accident, murder or execution. Then each month that number of grants would be given out in a first-come first-serve order.

posted by Tamio:
If people would live longer, the chances of solving many problems that limit us to living on this one planet would go up. At first, we would have a lot of people convinced there must be rules. Isn't that almost always how we start losing our freedoms?

How many great scientists have we lost that would have most likely solved a thing or two had they not gotten old and died?

Imagine Einstein still being around, walking with Stephen Hawking through a campus, sharing ideas and insights and brainstorming solutions.

Rules are key to a functioning society...and right now are society depends on people dying on schedule (social security, population growth etc)...so I imagine that if you pull that brick from the bottom of the stack...you'd have to come up with some new rules very fast. Of course...with experience we could later adjust them.

Being able to keep the world's greatest thinkers around would help us a ton. An end to aging would be key to space travel as well...as suddenly those multi-year missions don't require as much sacrifice for those involved.

 

[Tricky]

I opted for the "no kids" route even as a mere mortal, so I don't think it's a difficult question.

I've thought about this topic a lot, and I don't think you could trust people to keep their own reproductive urges in check. There would have to be government restrictions to stop the exponential growth from screwing everything up. Sure, there would eventually be economic checks on population growth, but that lags behind the problem by several decades. Better to be proactive and not wait until everyone is on the edge of starvation.

I'm envisioning a zero population growth system. Somebody dies, and then a new parent is determined by lottery and allowed to conceive.

Kurt Vonnegut's excellent short story, Welcome to the Monkey House explores not only the consequences of virtual immortality, but suggests "ethical suicide parlors" as a solution to it. But of course, the point of the story is the flaw in this plan, because humans will be monkeys.

 

[Donn]

Thought-provoking topic, my first reactions:
What are the chances of the drugs/procedures needed to create (or maintain...) an immortal being being available only to the very rich (or very usefull)?
Could we then face an Eloi vs Mortal kind of world?

This isn't too far fetched when you look at HIV and the medicine required to slow it's progress. Africa gets the short-end of the stick every-time.

Could this immortality go hand-in-hand with genetic tailoring of new generations (while there is still room on the planet)?
We might end up with a very real Eugenics issue, like something out of the X-Men.

We'll also have a long period (decades, hundreds?) of time where those becoming immortal will outlive the pack by their cunning, riches, ruthlessness and plain hunger for long life (murder?, genocide?, oppression?, war?). I am sure it will ensure a small population of Eloi and a rapidly dwindling one of mortals at the end of the line. What kind of 'human' will emerge?
Not sure if this is good or bad, maybe it's just Evolution of a kind.

Lastly, think on this. Life is tough, it's pretty much hell for most of the people I know. Can you imagine having to work and earn a living for hundreds of years? I would hope that society would change so that humans are liberated from the oppression of the office, but I can't see our social behaviours moving as fast as Science finds ways for them to move to.

 

[toddjh]

Here's the real tricky question: should people who already have children be given the immortality serum?

Jeremy

 

[SGT]

There are already immortal living beings on Earth: the trees, so ageing and death are not necessarily unavoidable.
Would I like to live 200 years with perfect health? Probably, yes! Would I like to live forever? I am not so sure. I have a good life, but even that would not become boring after hundreds of years?
As have being pointed, the tradeoff for immortality is the absence of new births, so the stopping of evolution. Is this a good thing for the species? I don't think so.
Besides, old people tend to be conservative. What would be the tendency of a society composed by millenaries when presented to new ideas?
I definitely vote against immortality.

 

[rwald]

Personally, I don't see evolution as being that big a problem in this context; we can always just genetically engineer any changes we think we might evolutionarly want. But you make a good point with politics; if everyone were immortal, would society evolve? This is a bigger concern, now that I think of it.

 

[EGarrett]

Thought-provoking topic, my first reactions:
What are the chances of the drugs/procedures needed to create (or maintain...) an immortal being being available only to the very rich (or very usefull)?
Could we then face an Eloi vs Mortal kind of world?

I figured that it would be very expensive at first...just imagine how much money the first people offering this procedure would make. And it would be a procedure...here's a quote from the DNAfiles article.

"They added the telomerase gene to aging human skin cells and transplanted them into mice. The results appeared to show that telomerase could restore normal function to some aging cells: their ability to divide increased and the pattern of gene expression changed.

Many stress-associated and inflammation-related genes slowed their work, while those involved in the maintenance of skin structure increased their activity."

Take all the money people spend on botox..."age-defying lotion" and all that junk...and triple it (to add the non-quacks).

The one thing I am sure of...the company that perfects this procedure will make unprecedented amounts of money. They'll have an instant customer base of thousands of very old, very very rich people who would pay anything they want.

Remember how many people signed up for Viagra when it was first introduced? It would be an eventful year to say the least.

This isn't too far fetched when you look at HIV and the medicine required to slow it's progress. Africa gets the short-end of the stick every-time.

Unfortunately...I think it will be a ripple effect that starts at the richest levels and ends up in the third-world. I don't think there's anything that can be done about that...

Could this immortality go hand-in-hand with genetic tailoring of new generations (while there is still room on the planet)? We might end up with a very real Eugenics issue, like something out of the X-Men.

I don't think so...that might be a false slippery slope. It's one thing to get younger...I think most everyone would sign up. Other stuff would be deemed too "weird" to mess with initially. Though of course...if it is possible...science will inevitably do it.

We'll also have a long period (decades, hundreds?) of time where those becoming immortal will outlive the pack by their cunning, riches, ruthlessness and plain hunger for long life (murder?, genocide?, oppression?, war?). I am sure it will ensure a small population of Eloi and a rapidly dwindling one of mortals at the end of the line. What kind of 'human' will emerge? Not sure if this is good or bad, maybe it's just Evolution of a kind.

Well...theoretically...adding the gene restored normal function to old cells...so if you got it to someone while they were still alive (and stem cell research allows us to replace non-replicating cells like brain, nerve etc)...you could restore an elderly person to a state they were in 30 or 40 years ago. Sounds crazy I know...but that's the way it seems to work...(from what I gathered in the dna article and the quote above)

Lastly, think on this. Life is tough, it's pretty much hell for most of the people I know. Can you imagine having to work and earn a living for hundreds of years? I would hope that society would change so that humans are liberated from the oppression of the office, but I can't see our social behaviours moving as fast as Science finds ways for them to move to.

Is life really that bad? Even so...no one would force you to under go the procedure. I know I want to stick around for a while.

As for earning a living...having to do so for hundreds of years straight would be tough...but I was thinking that people could save their money for long periods of time...then take sabbaticals...a year or two off. Heck...people might switch careers.

As have being pointed, the tradeoff for immortality is the absence of new births, so the stopping of evolution. Is this a good thing for the species?

I don't think it is either...but I think a population maintenance plan where new births are allowed to replace those that die by other causes would allow us to get some new blood in the world.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

This also solves the very long space mission problem. 50,000 years to Phi Theta Kappa IV, no sweat.

 

[rdaneel]

I wonder if overpopulation will really be an issue. Everyone seems to have taken the view that we will be limited to the resources of this one little world. Personally, I think by the time immortality becomes an issue, humanity will have begun to move outward. People will begin living and working in space and will have access to the resources of the entire solar system(and others, eventually). Overpopulation only happens when there's no place to expand to, and we've barely even started.

 

[toddjh]

I wonder if overpopulation will really be an issue. Everyone seems to have taken the view that we will be limited to the resources of this one little world. Personally, I think by the time immortality becomes an issue, humanity will have begun to move outward. People will begin living and working in space and will have access to the resources of the entire solar system(and others, eventually). Overpopulation only happens when there's no place to expand to, and we've barely even started.

I disagree. Colonization might well be the solution to the "all our eggs in one basket" problem, but I don't think it'll ever help with overpopulation. Barring some kind of exotic warp drive or whatnot, it's simply too expensive to move enough people to other planets or solar systems to make a dent in population growth -- especially when you're talking about a planet with 10+ billion people to start with. No, we'll have to solve the overpopulation problem all on our own.

Jeremy

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I must say I'm looking forward to seeing Sol as a Red Giant. From an ocean city on Europa.

 

[BPSCG]

Of course, if you're going to live forever - barring accidents and such - you're going to have to expect to work at that meaningless, stupefyingly boring job that you hate hate hate. Forever. After all, what pension system, government or private, is set up so that it can support everyone forever with nobody paying into it?

Also going to have to get up at 5:30 in the morning to catch the 6:28 out of Springfield, just like today. Forever (pray you have a job that lets you telework).

And put up with that annoying jerk in the cubicle to your left who spends the whole day on the phone starting every third sentence with the phrase, "So then I told him..." And the lady in the cubicle on the right who not only wears the same perfume you can't stand every day, but marinates in it.

I think the devil's deal here is that you can have immortality provided 1) you have yourself sterilized and 2) you never retire. The first item should be easily enforceable. But how do you enforce the second? Execute people whose yearly appraisals don't measure up?

 

[Donn]

I would also love to see what we achieve in times to come. I would like to be like a character in a Heinlein novel, moving out into space, ever confident, ever capable; colonizing new planets and having huge families. I want to see all the amazing technology and the ways we will invent to augment the mind and chip away at the fundamental questions of the universe.

The reality is, I think, more prosaic. It's time and dullness and long years of more stuff. Perhaps I am just a little cynical. Perhaps constantly changing careers after year-long holidays would be a fine romp of a life, but I bore very quickly.

I would have to say that the only kind of immortality or long-life that I could really stand would be a punctured one. I would like to leave a list of reasons to wake me up and then sleep until they do. I would then look around, marvel and return to sleep. And I don't mean cryo, I mean digital!
Where do I sign...

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Re: Re: Science may have found the first keys to immortality.

Also going to have to get up at 5:30 in the morning to catch the 6:28 out of Springfield, just like today. Forever (pray you have a job that lets you telework).

And put up with that annoying jerk in the cubicle to your left who spends the whole day on the phone starting every third sentence with the phrase, "So then I told him..." And the lady in the cubicle on the right who not only wears the same perfume you can't stand every day, but marinates in it.

Sounds like you need a job change. You ever watch Star Trek? Why do you think a money-less utopia is an impossible pipe dream?

 

[plindboe]

I would also love to see what we achieve in times to come. I would like to be like a character in a Heinlein novel, moving out into space, ever confident, ever capable; colonizing new planets and having huge families. I want to see all the amazing technology and the ways we will invent to augment the mind and chip away at the fundamental questions of the universe.

The reality is, I think, more prosaic. It's time and dullness and long years of more stuff. Perhaps I am just a little cynical. Perhaps constantly changing careers after year-long holidays would be a fine romp of a life, but I bore very quickly.

I would have to say that the only kind of immortality or long-life that I could really stand would be a punctured one. I would like to leave a list of reasons to wake me up and then sleep until they do. I would then look around, marvel and return to sleep. And I don't mean cryo, I mean digital!
Where do I sign...

I doubt people would get bored over time, since there's a limit to the human memory. If you have experienced something fun, a few decades will pass and you have forgotten about it. That means you can try the same thing again and find it just as fun as the first time you tried it. At that time, there might also be technology to erase specific memories. So you can see an exciting movie, and use the memory eraser, and then see it again and enjoy it just the same.

That said, if anyone ever gets tired of living no one is forcing them. With strict control of births and immortality, I doubt suicide will be considered a sin, since it will give room for another life to be born. There might even be "ethical suicide parlors" as Tricky mentioned earlier.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I thought of one draw back. Jerry Falwell, Sylvia Brown and their ilk will live forever! Hey, but wait, Randi is immortal too! Fighting irrationality until the end of time. Woo hoo!

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Science may have found the first keys to immortality.

Sounds like you need a job change.

No, actually, I like my job, the pay, and the people I work with.

But imagine doing it for two hundred more years?

I suppose there'd be career changes somewhere along the line - after all, what work is there today that existed 200 years ago? Farming comes most immediately to mind, but how much need for farmers will there be 200 years from now?

You ever watch Star Trek? Why do you think a money-less utopia is an impossible pipe dream?

A money-less society would be a DIStopia. "Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. ...

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others." (from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged)

Without money, how can we exchange goods and services? If I propose to shovel the snow from your walk, and I want two chickens in exchange for that service, what do we do if you have only one chicken and one duck, and I don't want a duck? You have to find someone who will give you a chicken for the duck. Money is the way we make up the difference between the values of goods and services exchanged between people. Life would be much more complicated and difficult without it. It is almost literally the oil that lubricates the movement of goods and services betwen people.