Should we live longer?

There are several problems with your idea... The biggest problem is our growing population which is already out of contol and heading us for doom. Our planet simply cannot support that many people... as each extra person creates more pollution and requires more food and water. As it is... we are heading for a major disaster. So... if you are doubling the age expectancy... it just mean that humanity will die even sooner. Remember the present situation... 6 billion people heading for 9 billion by 2040 and 13 billion by 2080. Add to that India and China becoming industrial countries and doubling our current rate of pollution. Furthermore... while it is true that older people become wiser... they don't become more intelligent. They are simply wiser about life. But most are not capable to find the "switch on" button on a computer. Intelligence requires learning... and keeping up with the times. Not everyone wants to keep learning. Only a few do. Not every old person let their health coming in the way of their life either. I have a 75 year old friend right now... who is contemplating building a new house and doing all the work himself. I think he is nuts... but many old people attitude is to work until they drop... because they reckon that if they stop working... they will die. There is something in that... as your body needs exercise to stay healthy. And there is no better exercise than working. As long as it is physical work. You also have an economic problem with doubling the age expectancy. At what age do you retire?... If you don't retire... you create more unemployment for the young people... and if you do retire... you are going to need a heck of a super-annuation to support you for 100 years. All in all... in the last 200 years... we already have doubled our age expectancy from 40 to 80. And as far as I can see... it has done us more harm than good. Yes it is good from a personal point of view. But from a humanity point of view... it is a total disaster.

Thomas, i already do not like such a high life expectancy, i feel if people die at 40 then, the earth will be a better place. Young people will get more jobs, the problem of generation gap would be lessened, in a nutshell the world will be a better place to live. 80 year old people are a drag on the society, they eat up society's money in the form of health insurance, tax benefits, pensions etc. Plus, its a big lie that they are an asset, i really doubt they become wise, most of them are affected by dementia, they do not know the difference between the car key's and house key's, they p*ss in the pants like small babies. The whole concept of wisdom with aging is a lie, if the same eighty year old people somehow get youthful vigor and vitality, they would also start behaving like kids. Take the example of Viagra, after consuming Viagra even 70+ men started visiting wh*res, just because their manhood was restored .... where was the wisdom in these h*rny old men...ha ha. The big problem is not aging, its the gray cells in the head that need repairing and fast to make the world a better place.

Very good point, Thomas. People do tend to ignore the global problems because they know that more than likely that it won't affect them in their lifetime. It is like the mentality, well it ain't my problm, so why should I care. However, we need to concerned with these issues. We forget that their are others who will be following after us, and would we want them to deal with the problems? However, preventing it, I don't know if it ever can be fixed. Like so many things you find one answer for some other problems and the next thing you know that is something in the dust just waiting to attack. Tampering around too much with mothers nature, could actually cause more remaifications in the long run. There should be some answer. It seems though with people living so much longer, is there a solution? With each prolong life and with each generation, you get new problems. People think different then the generation before them. No one seems to want to work at this, because everyone just views their opinion. Because we are living longer,and the ones who come after us will also be living longer, how are we to get by? I see so many things as I am writing. As the poplulation grows, and people are living longer, the job market will be full. Are there enough jobs to support everyone? It is like a ship. You can put only so many on it before it sinks. Something needs to be done, but just what that is, is unknwn.

Yes, research is taking place but so far the result is pathetic. The main reason is that scientific research is targeted at diseases, rather than good health. Also, if people start living any longer than 80, then there would be a explosive growth in population, it would put a strain on the resources of the planet earth which is already wheezing with excess human capacity. All green forests will have to be chopped for modern high rise buildings to house people. There are very few countries left with low density population like Australia, Canada they would have to be conquered to house the ever increasing world population. In other words such long life research scheme represent a threat to the environment of the planet itself, let us hope that such research remains stillborn and never sees the light of the day.

I see your point.People tend to ignore the global problems because they know that those global challanges won't affect them in their lifetime.So,they are more concerned about problems in their own life.Now if we live for two centuries,then the global problems would concern us and if our brain doesn't decay ,then more old people will add to the wisdom in the world and should have better chances of finding solutions. I think prevention of physical deterioration might be tackled to only an extent and beyond that point if we try to tamper with the natural process of wear and tear ,then it might manifest itself in some other form in our body.But,if both physical and mental decay could be stopped and life could be prolonged ,then your theory won't be fallible.Do you think it could ever happen or it's just a fantasy ?:-)

I understand the fantasy of living 2 centuris but, maybe that is too much for a human been. We have a way to live, and that not include our old time. When we past the 60 (aprox) we stop living, no matter how many years of life we have left there are a lot of thing we stop doing just because we are tired. So de bigest problem of your idea is that we are not prepared for such long time of life.

Great topic! I think that overpopulation is not a problem. The problem here is how we explore our mother Earth. Human body is designed to live 160 or longer. We always vision 90 years old as disable, but if you can imagine 90 years old working and playing soccer, the whole perspective looks different.

A big aspect of aging gracefully is what we eat. The closer to the garden that we eat is the better we function and therefore age. Barring accidents and enviromental factors we could conceiveable be young til about 100 years. Indeed medical science could possibly discovered some new thing or things that could even extend our lives more. Would be concerned that only the rich could then afford that with the way things are going.

That is a very good analogy, maybe old people will help us. But as you said unless there is a medical advancement, the older ones will be more of a burden than an advisory. I think with the current medical advancements, life expectancy is supposed to be higher in the future. But again, older doesn't necessarily mean wiser. Only a certain set of qualified ones will be of use rather than the entire population of senior citizens. They may have seen changes around them since long, but they might not necessarily be capable of providing solutions and offering worthwhile advice. This is the other side of your theory. Well, it pays to be positive so I think I will go along with you. Let's see if time does bring about such a situation.

Interesting concept. Then we would not hear people say about so many important issues" Oh I don't care it wont be in my lifetime". Although I would have to be in top physical condition to enjoy 200 years, I think I would be kind of tired by then. LOL

I can agree with some of this. But why instead of living 200 years, why not 300 or 500? Where does it end? With people living that much longer, or twice as long, it brings about a whole new scale of problems. How are they going to support themselves? Are they going to work from age 20 to 150? What about younger people waiting to move up in the world or even get a job. If older employees are working longer, fewer jobs might be available to younger workers. I think solutions can come to many world problems by more people working to find them, not necessarily living a whole lot longer. It might eventually happen, but it will create a host of new problems in the long run. I don't think it want to live 200 years.

It is quite possible with nanotechnology that allot of what ails us could be a thing of the past, whether this is for the better good is yet to be realized. We could end up part human, part robot and it would be called being alive! Hopefully there are geniuses in the making in our schools or universities as we speak planning to better the world and we would do well to encourage and nurture them to help us all.

Thomas, wishful thinking will take us nowhere. The problem is even scientist's will not prefer to work in this field, it is a worthless cause. Why would anyone try to tackle the problem of aging when they are aware of the fact that people in the 60+ age group are retired!. There is insufficient funding and rightly so, its more important to solve the problems of people below 60 who actively contribute to the society.

of course this is a fantastic thought and who knows in time to come science may be able to achieve breakthroughs in this sphere. but then a downside could be a tremendous explosion in the population figures that would play havoc with the food supply situation; infrastructure in cities would also come under tremendous strain. the only way would then be to control population especially in asian countries.

Ironic indeed Tom, even the point of retirement coming after we bust our butts for 40 odd years and start to find it difficult to do some of the things which were easy when we were younger..lol.. they should have retirement from 25 to 55...work from 18 to 25, roughly and then rejoin the work force at 55!! haha As for the global problems and extended life...I would like to think we do some things already, but the over population control for extended life creates a much larger dilema!! We would definately need to perfect space travel and colonise!

For me it doesn't matter how long you have lived but how well you lived. It's the quantity of life and not how many years you've been in this world. Life can be meaningful even if you've only lived for a short time if you can make a difference, if you cna make a dent in this world.

Until attitudes towards the older generations change, this will not help us much at all! Sure, it would be great for some to be able to live much longer but how do they support themselves if businesses will not employ them because of their age? What would this mean for retirement age? What effect will this have on taxes in terms of government provided pensions for much longer periods of time? There are many, many economic and sociological factors that need to be considered. Who the hell would want to live an extra 20 - 50 years if it meant being healthier longer but having to live on the bones of your a@@?

You have made a number of thoughtful comments here. My "idea" at the moment would be to see an improvement in the quality of life, for the aged, not necessily a longer life. Better medical care, a cure for the debilitating mental states that many elderly find themselves in. If this could be achieved, I think the chances of the Wise-Elderly contributing to societies problems would increase. For many elderly, life is a daily battle.Even if improvements didn't lengthen ones life, but improved the mind, then I would be satisfied. You have a made a good point above, as you often do in your discussions.

I can see a snag with this fantasy Thomas! This longevity would initially be an expensive process - not something available to everyone - and therefore I could see a situation developing where only the wealthiest would be in a position to afford it. They're not necessarily the people who will be blessed with the required brainpower and desire to solve the problems you talk about. If this state of healthy longevity was available right now who'd be front of the queue? Michael Jackson, the Beckhams, Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise ... it really doesn't bear thinking about LOL.

From my own perspective I don't want to live longer. 80 odd years is enough. I f I could tack on extreme youth to the beginning half of my life, then it would be worth it, but not to continue in a geriatric state. I also don't think it is feasable or fair in terms of world resources and population issues.