dagblog - Comments for "I Want You To Live Forever"

I think prolonging death is

Donal — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:44:41 +0000

In reply to Interesting and well-written,

I think prolonging death is amore accurate description of some treatments than prolonging life.

AIUI, they were selling home testing kits that purported to tell you whether you were at risk for such things as breast cancer, so you could get a mastectomy early enough to do some good. There have been some high profile women that have done just that, too. But if it isn't accurate, then they're just fooling people into getting expensive elective surgery.

Interesting and well-written,

Ramona — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:32:11 +0000

In reply to I Want You To Live Forever

Interesting and well-written, of course. (But why is it in the News sidebar and not on the main page?)

I'm looking at this from my vantage point, (which may well put me at 80-90% of my life span) wondering why we're so intent on lengthening normal life spans? We're already living longer, and possibly better, than the last generation. I don't quite get what this group is trying to do, and I didn't get what is in the home testing kit. What are they testing for? How does the FDA fit in?

What are the benefits of extending normal life spans? Death is not a solvable problem. Prolonging death may be, but only in the short term. If we each could live to be 100 (which of course is my goal) wouldn't that be long enough? If we managed to live to be 110 or 115, fantastic! I guess.

One hundred years is not a short life span. Anything beyond that is gravy, of course, but why mess with it? What will it cost to try to help people gain a few years? Will it be worth it in the end?

We've been debating this

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:38 +0000

In reply to We'd fix it because we'd have

We've been debating this since Malthus in the late 18th century, with some significant counterproofs like Norman Borlaug. At the moment we're fixing our energy distribution for the next century, which helps moving the goods around as well as we move from combustion to electric vehicles. People like Stewart Brand became amazed when they realized that these sprawling urban environments like Nairobi have a lower eco-footprint than farms - efficiency at a much higher level despite the squalor. And that's 3rd world - one of the great economic treatises is "how can I walk out of my office in Manhattan and get a sandwich with fresh lettuce and tomato at the street corner" - vast self-organizational capabilities. Why don't we trust these? It's the scumbags that rig the system that screw things up, not our ability to innovate & evolve new needed processes.

We'd fix it because we'd have

Michael Maiello — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:12:48 +0000

In reply to Living space isn't the

We'd fix it because we'd have no other choice. That's the crux of my argument.

Living space isn't the

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:17:00 +0000

In reply to I have a kid in Manhattan,

Living space isn't the problem. Earth has plenty of space for more people to live in Manhattan-sized apartments or even McMansions. Farmland, on the other hand, will run out. Water will run out. Fossil fuels will run out.

It would be challenging enough if we lived substantially longer, but if our reproductive periods were extended as well, the problem would go geometric.

I have a kid in Manhattan,

Michael Maiello — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:52:00 +0000

In reply to Interesting think piece. But

I have a kid in Manhattan, you think I'm scared of overcrowding?

Interesting think piece. But

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:17:09 +0000

In reply to I Want You To Live Forever

Interesting think piece. But you've neglected a negative consequence of significantly longer life-spans--massive overpopulation.