The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Discussion & Feedback
  3. Just Chat!
  4. Living for ever?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Living for ever?

  • 2 Replies
  • 3981 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ben Aldhouse (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Random and Twisted
Living for ever?
« on: 07/07/2007 08:22:03 »
Listening to a recent episode in which Chris and Kat describe a commercial service for somehow storing individuals' immune systems I was reminded of a recent documentary I saw about Aubrey de Grey. Aubrey de Grey apparently has proposed technique(s) for vastly increasing human life span and has fans including people such as Ray Kurzweil and Marvin Minsky.

I could certainly do with a few more hundred years in order to give me time to actually start doing some of the things I really want to do - However, would having that time just make me an even worse procrastinator?

I was wondering what other people thought about Dr de Grey, his work and its implications.
Logged
 



another_someone

  • Guest
Living for ever?
« Reply #1 on: 07/07/2007 10:36:57 »
I am generally concerned that the tendency for ever increasing human lifespan, while probably being helpful in increasing human knowledge and intellect (the longer you live, the more you can accumulate and use knowledge), is nonetheless imposing ever greater risk upon the species (most of the long lived species, such as turtles, and yew trees, are the species that are most greatly under threat as they are genetically, and in terms of population size, least able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment - whereas fast breeding animals, such as rodents, are far more adaptable).
Logged
 

Offline Ben Aldhouse (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 65
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Random and Twisted
Living for ever?
« Reply #2 on: 07/07/2007 11:01:02 »
There would be horrendous ethical problems arising as the population grows and resources dwindle - but who wouldn't give up an opportunity to live longer?
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.341 seconds with 28 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.