This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Longevity

edited June 2008 in News
This looks great, AT FIRST. Then that stupid limit-your-caloric-intake guy comes in and ruins everything. I want to live longer, but I DO NOT want to limit my caloric intake to do it.

The article's promise is so enticing, though. Do you think we're in the verge of extended life spans? Would that even necessarily be a good thing?

Comments

  • Do you think we're in the verge of extended life spans? Would that even necessarily be a good thing?
    It is a quality v. quantity issue. I've had this discussion with my father many times, and he values existence over non-existence as long as the brain is functioning normally. That being said, we have to evaluate the quality of life of those that live past the average life-span. Are they mentally and physically well as a whole? Can these improvements in longevity extend health as well as life? Also, there are social and financial issues in question when considering longevity. Can we afford to live longer? Do we want to work for more years to finance our retirement?
  • It's a question that every person has to answer for themselves. Should you "spend" 5 minutes of your time as a young person to gain 10 more minutes of life as an old person? Is it better to live the lifestyle of River Phoenix, or should you aim to beat out Edna Parker? I say, to each their own.
  • Even though they say the science isn't "science fiction but the next generation" its always interesting to imagine a novel worthy, worst case scenario outcome.

    Like everyone takes the pill and things are great for awhile, longer life=more production, but then suicide becomes more popular because death comes so slowly. Or something from that strain of thought.
  • Even though they say the science isn't "science fiction but the next generation" its always interesting to imagine a novel worthy, worst case scenario outcome.

    Like everyone takes the pill and things are great for awhile, longer life=more production, but then suicide becomes more popular because death comes so slowly. Or something from that strain of thought.
    Sort of how Tolkien elves are grief-stricken, because the weight of years presses down on their souls.

    I've always thought that immortality would sort of suck. Having everyone you care about die, while you still persist.
  • I dunno, I think I would go more for Neil Gaiman's early Sandman vignette where a person will hold onto life for the sake of it. Once one gets used to living, why stop? Problems resolve themselves and new reasons to live arise.

    Besides, suicide is, on average, for the young.
  • Besides, suicide is, on average, for the young.
    That's not true at all.
    2005:
    Young(age 15-24) - 4,212
    Elderly(age 65+) - 5,404
    The elderly are among the top-ranked suicide groups in the nation.
  • edited June 2008
    Why'd you use raw numbers, the suicide *rate* is more critical here.
    Rate per 100,000
    Elderly (65+ yrs.) - 14.7
    Young (15-24 yrs.) - 10.0
    Even more convincing, too.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Stuff like percentages, rates, and odds are often misleading because they make numbers sound bigger than they actually are. But yes, the elderly suicide rate is very high.
  • Stuff like percentages, rates, and odds are often misleading because they make numbers sound bigger than they actually are.
    I don't really see how.
    In any case, it seems we were discussing who is *more likely* to suicide, and hence the rate is the more critical.
  • edited August 2008
    Well, are the people creating the statistics including euthanasia or just straight up suicides?

    I meant suicide would be because of the world becoming a dulled, gray, eternal environment.
    Post edited by Magnum_Opus on
Sign In or Register to comment.