Forever Young

[pusher robot]

Medical science is rapidly discovering the causes of aging, and it doesn't seem wildly improbable that within a generation or two, we will be able to halt or even reverse those causes along with most other major diseases like heart attacks and cancer. The effect would be that a person could live indefinitely, until killed by something other than disease or old age.

What's your opinion? Would this be a good development or bad development for the human race?

[Dr Mindbender]

As long as space exploration and colonisation keeps up then absolutely it would be a good thing, otherwise we would risk 'running out of space'.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Might be interesting for psychologists/neurologists/etc to see how much "diskspace" a human brain has, I mean if we could live forever, would there be a limit on how much the brain could remember.

@Mods/etc: please keep this thread here and dont move it out of this place since...well us restricted members can join in this little discussion here :)

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 04:17 pm
As long as space exploration and colonisation keeps up then absolutely it would be a good thing, otherwise we would risk 'running out of space'.
True - the alternative would be strict reproduction controls or strict controls on who can receive the treatment.


I mean if we could live forever, would there be a limit on how much the brain could remember.

Quite so - I believe that research suggests that older memories gradually fade away, though their impacts on your personality and other learning do not. I would suppose that the longer you go without reinforcing those neural pathways, the greater the fade effect.

[Herman]

I'd love to be young forever. Of course, we'd have to be careful with the population, at least until we advance enough in space exploration to colonise other planets.

But it would be great. No more fear of getting old!

[Faux Real]

Yeah, this is sweet. I fear looking like Marx.

If this research becomes practiced and public then we could all be buried or embalmed looking like Lenin for centuries. :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot

True - the alternative would be strict reproduction controls or strict controls on who can receive the treatment.
Who would qualify for the treatment though? Those with most genetic merit? I would have a big problem with that, since it would effectively be an application of fascist eugenics. Either all should recieve it, or none should.

The way forward IMO would be colonisation and terraforming of the Moon and Mars, and later on the Galilean system (moons of Jupiter) which would avoid this moral quandry.

[luxemburg89]

Interesting question. Personally I hate the idea of living forever (or much longer than expected) and want my youth to be something special - even if it is short-lived I want those years to be face-paced and enjoyable. I don't want to be too grumpy in middle-age, or too scary in old age :P . I want to die at the end of a reasonably long life having enjoyed myself than drag out my youth so that it becomes ruined. Personally I think youth is so special because you have to enjoy almost every moment of it. Then again this is a personal opinion - I would not oppose scientists making it possible for those who want to be forever young. However I find such Romance in the nostalgia people display for their lost youth - part of me wants the satisfaction of longing for it when it's gone.

P.S. I am perfectly aware I probably sound very weird.

[Dr Mindbender]

Who wants to die though? Dying sucks. Given the choice, I'd much rather see the wonders of the future, with Teleporters, holodecks, and doors that make that 'swishy' sound! :lol:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:47 pm
P.S. I am perfectly aware I probably sound very weird.
I totally understand your point. I think that one of the major impacts on human civilization would be a massive increase in risk avoidance. Currently a person's life is known to be limited. It's "use it or lose it." As a result, people can rationalize a certain level of risk-taking because the maximum loss is a finite number of years from the end of your life.

If you could live indefinitely, the maximum loss from a risk of death is a nearly infinite number of years! I think this would lead to a much more risk-averse species.

[Dimentio]

The best thing which could happen, but only as long as humanity as a whole eventually could transcend.

[Demogorgon]

It would be nice and all, but it ain't going to happen. As best as we know our bodies seem to know to just give up after eighty years or so (longer in some people's case). Of course we can certainly continue to extend our lifespans but mark my words, nobody will ever find a way to put off death entirely. We just don't work that way.

[Ol' Dirty]

That kind of development could be good or bad, depending on the context. Monarchs and dictators would live for a long time, which would be bad... "unless I'm the dictator". The other problem is that the recources and technology needed to do what you're talking about would be available predominantly to people who can afford it. Additionaly, that could have adverse affects on overpopulation. Still, it could help bring technological breakthroughs closer, like sleeper ships.

The title of this thread could also get a song stuck in my head. -_-

"I want to be forever young...
Forever, Forever, Forever young..."

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:01 am
It would be nice and all, but it ain't going to happen. As best as we know our bodies seem to know to just give up after eighty years or so (longer in some people's case). Of course we can certainly continue to extend our lifespans but mark my words, nobody will ever find a way to put off death entirely. We just don't work that way.

We just don't work that way.

That's just superstition talking.

Nothing happens without a reason. That is the nature of the universe. Cause...effect. The fundamental particles of the universe do not grow old and die. Aging is an effect, and like any effect, it has a cause. Remove the cause, and you remove the effect.

This technology is under development, and personally, I think it will arrive much sooner than most people realize.

[RedAnarchist]

I would like to live for a lot longer than 80 years, personally.


Does anyone think that the majority of people on this board (who were born in the mid 70's to mid 90's) will live to see technology expanding human life past the current record of 122?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 19, 2007 02:01 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 19, 2007 02:01 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:01 am
It would be nice and all, but it ain't going to happen. As best as we know our bodies seem to know to just give up after eighty years or so (longer in some people's case). Of course we can certainly continue to extend our lifespans but mark my words, nobody will ever find a way to put off death entirely. We just don't work that way.

We just don't work that way.

That's just superstition talking.

Nothing happens without a reason. That is the nature of the universe. Cause...effect. The fundamental particles of the universe do not grow old and die. Aging is an effect, and like any effect, it has a cause. Remove the cause, and you remove the effect.

This technology is under development, and personally, I think it will arrive much sooner than most people realize. [/b]
It is not superstition talking. Our bodies ag. It is not just individual cells aging as they are constantly being replaced anyway. Quite simply life doesn't go on forever. it can be extended yes, but it will never be made indefinite. This is just more techno-utopian nonsense, no ifferent from the other rubbish that has been floating around for the last hundred years or so.

[Dr Mindbender]

what if the technology existed to replace and even rejuvenate existing cells? I think that is the concept pusher robot means. Sure it sounds far fetched now, but so did manned flight 200 years ago.

I'm just worried about the political implications, unless other fields of science and technology find more places to live for all these people living into their 500's and 1000's.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 pm
what if the technology existed to replace and even rejuvenate existing cells? I think that is the concept pusher robot means. Sure it sounds far fetched now, but so did manned flight 200 years ago.

I'm just worried about the political implications, unless other fields of science and technology find more places to live for all these people living into their 500's and 1000's.
Are we going to be doing that to our brains though? I eman theoretically it is possible to keep replacing organs, but that isnt going to keep people going forever as the brain itself won't last forever.

And if we are able to do things to our brains that opens up a whole new can of worms such as will we even be the same person?

At any rate I don't view the likelihood of this as being particularly high.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+September 19, 2007 02:53 pm--> (Demogorgon @ September 19, 2007 02:53 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 pm
what if the technology existed to replace and even rejuvenate existing cells? I think that is the concept pusher robot means. Sure it sounds far fetched now, but so did manned flight 200 years ago.

I'm just worried about the political implications, unless other fields of science and technology find more places to live for all these people living into their 500's and 1000's.
Are we going to be doing that to our brains though? I eman theoretically it is possible to keep replacing organs, but that isnt going to keep people going forever as the brain itself won't last forever.

And if we are able to do things to our brains that opens up a whole new can of worms such as will we even be the same person?

At any rate I don't view the likelihood of this as being particularly high. [/b]
Einstein once said ''the ones who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are usually the ones who do''.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+September 19, 2007 02:53 pm--> (Demogorgon @ September 19, 2007 02:53 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 02:38 pm
what if the technology existed to replace and even rejuvenate existing cells? I think that is the concept pusher robot means. Sure it sounds far fetched now, but so did manned flight 200 years ago.

I'm just worried about the political implications, unless other fields of science and technology find more places to live for all these people living into their 500's and 1000's.
Are we going to be doing that to our brains though? I eman theoretically it is possible to keep replacing organs, but that isnt going to keep people going forever as the brain itself won't last forever.

And if we are able to do things to our brains that opens up a whole new can of worms such as will we even be the same person?

At any rate I don't view the likelihood of this as being particularly high. [/b]
First of all, there's good reason to believe that it will be possible to stimulate the body to grow additional brain cells which can replace those that die over time. Secondly, there's no theoretical reason why current living cells cannot be maintained indefinitely or even replaced completely with cybernetic substitutes. Thirdly, there is no theoretical reason why the brain couldn't be entirely replaced with an electronic substitute.

I view the likelihood of these technologies as inevitable.

[Dr Mindbender]

would someone with an electronic brain be classed as a human or a cyborg? I think this is where we start to open all sorts of ethical pandoras boxes, i thought the idea of this invention was an elixir which staves off aging, not all sorts of billion dollar man bionic upgrades.

[pusher robot]

would someone with an electronic brain be classed as a human or a cyborg?

Why does it matter?


I think this is where we start to open all sorts of ethical pandoras boxes

Perhaps. But don't you think it's best to peek inside, so we are better prepared once fully opened?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:01 am
It would be nice and all, but it ain't going to happen. As best as we know our bodies seem to know to just give up after eighty years or so (longer in some people's case). Of course we can certainly continue to extend our lifespans but mark my words, nobody will ever find a way to put off death entirely. We just don't work that way.
Learn how to constantly renew stem cells and we could probably live for ever and ever more.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:31 pm
Might be interesting for psychologists/neurologists/etc to see how much "diskspace" a human brain has, I mean if we could live forever, would there be a limit on how much the brain could remember.
Uh, we forget the older stuff to remember newer stuff. I thought that was generally known to be true.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 19, 2007 08:20 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ September 19, 2007 08:20 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 04:31 pm
Might be interesting for psychologists/neurologists/etc to see how much "diskspace" a human brain has, I mean if we could live forever, would there be a limit on how much the brain could remember.
Uh, we forget the older stuff to remember newer stuff. I thought that was generally known to be true. [/b]
True - but unfortunately that's only one of a number of theories, that one is known as 'displacement'. The other major one is 'decay' where long term memory (LTM) forgets things over time - due to the process of ageing. To be honest it is really a combination of the two.

[RevMARKSman]

First of all, there's good reason to believe that it will be possible to stimulate the body to grow additional brain cells which can replace those that die over time. Secondly, there's no theoretical reason why current living cells cannot be maintained indefinitely or even replaced completely with cybernetic substitutes. Thirdly, there is no theoretical reason why the brain couldn't be entirely replaced with an electronic substitute.

I view the likelihood of these technologies as inevitable

The one thing I most want to happen, especially to me. It's one of the reasons I'm going into biology and/or computer science.

I expect that if this happens, leisure will become much more important. I have tons of things I want to do with my life, and if I have an indefinite amount of time to do them, it's ok to take a break sometimes, right?

People will definitely be more risk-averse, as you said. People will overall be more conscious of the time, or lack thereof, that they have to reach long-term goals because they'll be thinking ahead more.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 08:04 pm

would someone with an electronic brain be classed as a human or a cyborg?

Why does it matter?

I believe its a philosphical point about wether it is actually postponing the end of our human lives, or is it merely a transformation from a human life to a cybernetic existance. I think thats quite an important question. Humans and machines are not the same thing.

[apathy maybe]

Hehe, on the cyborg matter, we are all cyborgs now (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=we+are+all+cyborgs+now.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a) (see also http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s850880.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s409607.htm ). We are all augmented, I use my computer to remember things for me (and/or paper and pen), I use my computer to calculate for me (and/or paper and pen), I use my telephone to communicate long distances (and my computer and the Internet), I use clothing to keep warm, I use a bicycle or car to travel.

Not only that, while I don't personally have a pace-maker, or a hearing aid, plenty of people do.

Humans are already augmented by technology, and while it isn't always physically part of us, it still helps us.


Anyway, who wants to live forever? Wouldn't you get bored? Once you have watched the final movie for the 1000th time? There are only so many experiences in life, and contrary to what some of you are saying, I think that as people get older, but not physically less able, they will take bigger, and more risks. After all, who wants to live forever, what is there to live for?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 12:54 pm
Hehe, on the cyborg matter, we are all cyborgs now (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=we+are+all+cyborgs+now.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a) (see also http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s850880.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s409607.htm ). We are all augmented, I use my computer to remember things for me (and/or paper and pen), I use my computer to calculate for me (and/or paper and pen), I use my telephone to communicate long distances (and my computer and the Internet), I use clothing to keep warm, I use a bicycle or car to travel.

Not only that, while I don't personally have a pace-maker, or a hearing aid, plenty of people do.

Humans are already augmented by technology, and while it isn't always physically part of us, it still helps us.


Anyway, who wants to live forever? Wouldn't you get bored? Once you have watched the final movie for the 1000th time? There are only so many experiences in life, and contrary to what some of you are saying, I think that as people get older, but not physically less able, they will take bigger, and more risks. After all, who wants to live forever, what is there to live for?
No, I find that idea inconceivable. There is so much to do in this world, so much to know and to experience. And the world keeps changing, so there always will be even more.

I think people only become bored with life if they are mentally or physically incapable of finding joy in exploration of the unknown.

[Dr Mindbender]

Religious people would be miserably unhappy with immortality because their one source of joy is that one day they will 'meet their maker'. Perhaps the primary reason why it will not come about; because the religious right will lose their power by fear over the rest of us and will thusly pressurise elected officials to keeping it science fiction.

[TC]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 18, 2007 05:10 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 18, 2007 05:10 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 04:17 pm
As long as space exploration and colonisation keeps up then absolutely it would be a good thing, otherwise we would risk 'running out of space'.
True - the alternative would be strict reproduction controls or strict controls on who can receive the treatment.


I mean if we could live forever, would there be a limit on how much the brain could remember.

Quite so - I believe that research suggests that older memories gradually fade away, though their impacts on your personality and other learning do not. I would suppose that the longer you go without reinforcing those neural pathways, the greater the fade effect. [/b]
I'm not especially interested in this thread but I thought to point out that ifvyou do the math overpopulation is a complete non-issue in this scenario.

As long as people don't average more than 2 children each, how long they live is irrelevant, they'll still die eventually (through accidents, viruses, etc) so the population would be stable or declining...

...and realistically it would be declining since every socioeconomically advanced society (which such a society obviously would be) has a below replacement level birthrate: when people have decent lives and can control their reproduction, people on average want less than two kids.

[Dr Mindbender]

People would want fewer kids because their lives are better? That logic is lost on me. Surely they'd want more kids if theyre economically and materially better equipped to look after them? I understand why poor countries have large families, but that is down largely to lack of education, lack of contraception and the influence of the evangelical right.
Anyway, eventually one day over-population would certainly become an issue, because without people dying to keep the numbers down there would be no equilibrium met.

[Ismail]

Forever young... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7CuJ8cR9sg)

Anyway, the worlds oldest man (at 112) wants to live "indefinitely" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7000487.stm). I think the "boring" argument really has to do with happiness and such. If you're confined to a bed with a machine keeping you alive and suffering from Alzheimer's, then yeah, you probably won't want to live much. But if you're relatively healthy, active and have friends then I don't see why you wouldn't want to continue living at least a "little bit longer".

Sure, forgetting stuff can be a pain in the ass, but it does have its benefits. Besides the world constantly changing, forgetting a movie you once enjoyed or game you once played and then finding them again is a basic way to pass the time. What about meeting old friends again? And so on and so forth.

[Dr Mindbender]

I wonder who is the world's youngest man? :lol: :lol:


Chris Morris fans will appreciate that one.

[Robespierre2.0]

I could see this happening... I'd like to live long enough to see communism achieved. When the people are free and our work is done, then I can die. :marx:

[spartan]

This century (The twenty first) is going to be intresting to say the least what with the slow collapse of the American empire the slow rise of the Chinese as the next global superpower (Along with Brazil and India) and of course the advancement of space exploration. Luckily i was born in 1990 so i would only have to live till i am 110 (Easier said than done) to see the whole of the twenty first century. I also think this will be the century when the left gets even more popular support from the Proletariat. So we can only hope that we can convert that support into a Proletariat revolution! This could be our century comrades!

[Dr Mindbender]

If a workers uprising doesnt destroy capitalism, then mother earth will (and much sooner than the beourgiouse think).

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 11:08 am
People would want fewer kids because their lives are better? That logic is lost on me. Surely they'd want more kids if theyre economically and materially better equipped to look after them? I understand why poor countries have large families, but that is down largely to lack of education, lack of contraception and the influence of the evangelical right.
Anyway, eventually one day over-population would certainly become an issue, because without people dying to keep the numbers down there would be no equilibrium met.

That logic is lost on me. Surely they'd want more kids if theyre economically and materially better equipped to look after them?

At some point your suppositions as to what people "surely" want must yield to empirical data, and there is a nearly universal trend going on for at least several generations of wealthier societies having fewer children. Just look at the demographic data for yourself.

The most common explanation is that the marginal utility of each additional child becomes negative for most people in wealthy societies around the third or fourth child because childrearing is a costly and therefore mostly luxury activity. As a result, people will only have children so long as doing so provides psychic benefits. In poorer societies, children are actually a source of profit for the parents and so their marginal utility stays positive longer.

[TC]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 11:08 am
People would want fewer kids because their lives are better? That logic is lost on me. Surely they'd want more kids if theyre economically and materially better equipped to look after them? I understand why poor countries have large families, but that is down largely to lack of education, lack of contraception and the influence of the evangelical right.
Anyway, eventually one day over-population would certainly become an issue, because without people dying to keep the numbers down there would be no equilibrium met.
no...

statistically speaking, standard of living is inversely correlated with fertility.

As to the logic, in pre-industrial economies, children are net-economic gains for patriarchal heads of households because they provide cheap domestic and farm labour.

The less developed the economy is the stronger patriarchal familiar relations are so the more women are coerced into having children, and moreover, are taught to see it as the only thing they're good for. Just compare the affluent US coasts to the rural US interior.

People who aren't socially fulfilled see children as a way to be fulfilled, people who are already fulfilled see them as undermining the things that allow them to be fulfilled.

In fact, the single biggest predictor of a the number of children women in industrialized countries have is their educational level, the more education someone has, the fewer children they have on average.


Already, every advanced industrialized nation has below replacement (2-2.1 children per person) level population growth (whereas most unindustrialized nations have huge population growth)...provided that people don't have more than 2 children per person, the population wont grow if people live longer.

[Ol' Dirty]

Even if this technological breakthrough is inevitable, I don't think we should concentrate on the distant future. The present is far more important than the year 2525.

Damn! Another song!

[Marxist]

I kinda disagree with living forever ideas, Except overpopulation , people wouldnt value their lives

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:43 pm
I kinda disagree with living forever ideas, Except overpopulation , people wouldnt value their lives
the fear of death should make anyone want to preserve it. Plus, even if you were in a seemingly hopeless situation (under capitalism that is) youd have potentially an infinite amount of time to do something about it rather than suiciding.

[jasmine]

The idea of living forever has been around forever. It ain't gonna happen. The body wears out and you die. Maybe with good nutrition it can survive a little longer but the current average lifespan is 70 or 80 years. Forever is ... a million, ten million, a billion years? Who knows? We live for the briefest blink of the cosmic eye. Is science really on the brink of changing that?

[piet11111]

i know i would want to live as long as possible because there is so much left to learn and to explore.

i would also resort to transhumanism if given the option so that i can push my capability's.

[MrT]

This 'living forever' stuff is old hat!


Researchers lately have been astonished to discover that in contrast to nearly every other animal studied, a turtle’s organs do not gradually break down or become less efficient over time.


Dr. Christopher J. Raxworthy, the associate curator of herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History, says the liver, lungs and kidneys of a centenarian turtle are virtually indistinguishable from those of its teenage counterpart, a Ponce de Leonic quality that has inspired investigators to begin examining the turtle genome for novel longevity genes. “Turtles don’t really die of old age,” Dr. Raxworthy said. In fact, if turtles didn’t get eaten, crushed by an automobile or fall prey to a disease, he said, they might just live indefinitely.


Turtles have the power to almost stop the ticking of their personal clock. “Their heart isn’t necessarily stimulated by nerves, and it doesn’t need to beat constantly,” said Dr. George Zug, curator of herpetology at the Smithsonian Institution. “They can turn it on and off essentially at will.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/...gewanted=1&_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12turt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

[jasmine]

Are you a turtle?

[pusher robot]

Is science really on the brink of changing that?

Yes, I think it is.

You might well have argued 100 years ago that human beings have always died from bacterial infections, and nothing indicated that was about to change any time soon. But in the blink of an eye, science changed that. You might have argued 75 years ago that human beings have always been crippled by polio and felled by smallpox, and accept it as a fact of life, but in the blink of an eye science changed that too. You might have argued 50 years ago - as many did - that humans have only ever set foot on the Earth and so it would remain for the foreseeable future, but in less than a decade that changed too. Few people 30 years ago predicted in a computer on every desktop, but it wasn't long before that too changed.

The point is that every significant challenge seems impossible, until somebody solves it, and then it seems inevitable in retrospect. Now as to this particular challenge, we might argue about what constitutes the "brink," but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw true anti-aging treatments within 25 years, and I would be surprised if we didn't see them in 75.

[Herman]

Once you have watched the final movie for the 1000th time?

I will never get tired of watching Indiana Jones.

[Dr Mindbender]

For once i agree with Pusher Robot. Most people's generations on this board have missed the big scientific breakthroughs- penicillin, Flight, the television, man on the moon, etc. I think we're overdue for a 'biggie'.
Might not be indefinite life though, maybe a cure for cancer or AIDS. Whatever happens, it'll be nice though.

[jasmine]

The point is that every significant challenge seems impossible, until somebody solves it, and then it seems inevitable in retrospect. Now as to this particular challenge, we might argue about what constitutes the "brink," but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw true anti-aging treatments within 25 years, and I would be surprised if we didn't see them in 75.

The solutions you describe (in conjunction with changed social conditions) have increased the human lifespan for a couple of decades. Even to increase it for a couple of centuries would require an enormous breakthrough. Science has so far put us on the moon. What you describe is a form of technology far more advanced than that envisioned in Star Trek (warp drive, 'beam me up Scotty'). It's a vague possibility but in the next 75 years I don't think so.

Also were this to appear under capitalism it would be available only to those who could pay the exorbitant price (perhaps a trip to the moon would be factored in as an incentive). I don't think eternal life would be on offer to a cleaner or schoolteacher or south american landless peasant. Do you?

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:09 pm

The point is that every significant challenge seems impossible, until somebody solves it, and then it seems inevitable in retrospect. Now as to this particular challenge, we might argue about what constitutes the "brink," but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw true anti-aging treatments within 25 years, and I would be surprised if we didn't see them in 75.

The solutions you describe (in conjunction with changed social conditions) have increased the human lifespan for a couple of decades. Even to increase it for a couple of centuries would require an enormous breakthrough. Science has so far put us on the moon. What you describe is a form of technology far more advanced than that envisioned in Star Trek (warp drive, 'beam me up Scotty'). It's a vague possibility but in the next 75 years I don't think so.

Also were this to appear under capitalism it would be available only to those who could pay the exorbitant price (perhaps a trip to the moon would be factored in as an incentive). I don't think eternal life would be on offer to a cleaner or schoolteacher or south american landless peasant. Do you?
just because not everyone will be able to benefit from an advancement under capitalism doesnt mean that we should oppose it.

actually an advancement like this could actually motivate a lot of poeple to join our struggle for communism.

[Dem_Soc]

Hmmm im in two minds about living forever, on the one hand it could improve certain aspects of life, it could also on the purely theoretical side of things -

Intensify class conflict as a overclass of immortals could devolop.
worst case scernario you get a fascistic master/slave class system.

It could lead to a stagnation of ideas??? Not sure if it would pan out this way but wouldn't a man born in the 21st century who lived for 5 centuries still be grounded in the ideas of the 21st? There would be no accumulation of new ideas to replace old ones and we would eventually stagnate.

It would stunt biological evolution - If we stayed young forever would we not have new genetic mutations evolving over time, wouldn't adapt to new enviroments(Im no expert on evolutionery theory so I really don't know if this would be the case, laymans guesswork :D ).

^ I spose through transhumanistic technolgies though that this might not be an issue as some people may evolve though technology.

I am all for the devolpment of such technologies if possible though, as I believe it should be up to future socities to decide how to utilise such technology.

Eubrey de Grey is a major thinker in this area

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm