The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What would the effect/affect be of hugely increasing the human llife span  (Read 3096 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Greeting forum,

I have just finished reading an interesting book by Damien Broderick,, which gave some really good possibilities both pros and cons of science extending the maximum human life span beyond 200 years or even making that statistic the average life span in some near future world

Not just increasing life but maintaining a high quality of life.

This should raise a number of interesting facts dilemmas  etc. in this brave new world,

Who would rule this future rule?

How would genetic diversity be maintained?

Would, should  or could there be a state law that limits how long we live?

These few points are my own and not from the book I just thought I would bounce off the topic with these and see where it goes

Alan


 

Offline akhenaten

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
First problems would be too many people and unpredictable economic effects. In my lifetime the world population has nearly quadrupled. My mother had 7 children, my father another 6 or so. I have fathered 3 children, my second wife 4 children, and we have 13 grandchildren. So you see we would quickly run out of space or there would have to be limits on reproducion. For some people I know reproduction is closely linked with their economic activity ie for some young females having a child is both a source of income and a social benefit with regards to obtaining social housing and other financial benefits (this in the UK).
Other wider economic issue refer to "working life" and pensions and the effects of "compound interest" on savings over say 100 years, inflation would get out of control. And the situation I have noticed where it seems the older generation (that's me) more or less have to support the younger generation (our children mainly) even into their 30 and 40's; this situation would worsen. So whereas my generation left home as soon as we could in our mid to late teens and never asked our parents for anything; couples would have children still living at home into their mid or late 60's.
Whereas it probably be nice to live to be 200 years old the numbers allowed to do so would have to be limited to a very small number, and I guess they would become very scared of accidents and extremely cautious.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
It's not the length of one's life that's important, it's the quality of the overall contribution that counts......................Ethos
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Assuming that a person would still be capable of working until a retirement age of say 150 years, imagine the problems for the younger generation trying to get a job! Imagine what would happen to the cost of property if the financial institutions could get us to pay a mortgage over a period of 100 years. What would happen to our already overcrowded cities? How much more wilderness would we have to turn into farmland? If we were required to retire at the age of, say 120yrs, think of the burden of tax on those at work to pay each individual a pension for up to 80yrs!!!

I think the prospect of such longevity is frightening and unsustainable. It would probably lead to Age Wars.

Anyone makes a film called 'Age Wars' (ahem, are you reading this Mr. G Lucas?) I want a cut of the profits.

I hereby declare copyright to the title 'Age Wars' to be mine, all mine.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Would, should  or could there be a state law that limits how long we live?

These few points are my own and not from the book I just thought I would bounce off the topic with these and see where it goes

Quote
Logan's Run is a novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, it depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources is managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expedience of demanding the death of everyone upon reaching a particular age, thus avoiding the issue of overpopulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run


Sorry Don_1 someone has beat you to the "age wars" concept ...

Quote
The science fiction novel Holy Fire by Bruce Sterling deals with a future society, in which life expectancy has been expanded to more than two centuries by means of medicine and technology (see transhumanism) to the effect that the gerontocrats wield almost all capital and political power. Adolescents and young (and by modern standards middle-aged) adults live as outsiders with virtually no access to wealth or power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontocracy#Fiction
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
The idea of extending the human lifespan is to keep us in a state of youth for much longer.

I would think that anyone willing to live longer would sacrifice having multiple children.

Certainly many social/economic/political issues will need to be addressed, but why should they prevent us from saving ourselves from death?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length