Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Who Should Live Forever?


Who Should Live Forever?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. [click all that apply] If scientists discover a way for humans to live for hundreds of years, who should have access to this?

    • Only those who can afford it can be immortal, even if only 1% can afford it.
    • No one should have it.
    • Only those with advanced degrees can have it
    • Only Americans can have it.
    • Only people of my faith can have it.
    • Only those without a criminal record can have it.
    • Only those of my political beliefs can have it
    • It should be available, with few exceptions, to everyone.
    • It should be available for everyone without exceptions
    • Other (mention below)
  2. 2. How would we deal with overpopulation if we live for hundreds of years

    • Introduce a 1 child policy
    • Deter having children with a child tax
    • Ban children completely
    • Kill off “immortals” who are evil at the rate children are born
    • Speed up technology to colonize Mars and make it habitable.
    • Other (mention below)
  3. 3. If the technology existed, would you extend your lifespan by hundreds of years

Recommended Posts

For #2 we will have to create cities in a totally new way and probably exist off food that doesn’t require farms or land. Probably something artificial but nutritious. The world would be one giant megaplex eventually. We’d have a way to generate artificial oxygen and other things to keep life afloat without the prerequisites today. We might have to somehow live in a kind of holographic form or in some sort of form capable of being sent about sort of like an email attachment. In the future, it might be possible for us to live on multiple planes of existence on the same world somehow. If bodies don’t atrophy or decay, we could theoretically never have to physically move. We’d sort of act like a server and our brains just engage in some sort of cyber world. Maybe we won’t even have bodies. Who knows. Just my thoughts as I have my morning coffee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

My great grandmother lived to 104.  Her life from 90-104 was a living hell.

I have no desire to live past 70.  That’s old enough to have a full life and make sure my daughter is fine (she’d be 40 by then), but young enough to actually be missed.  


What if 90-104 is like being 60-74 with this technology?

I have a friend who is 84 and lives a happy life. He almost never complains about anything. He swims and dances and etc. 

I do understand what you are saying about your great-grandmother. My grandmother lived to be 102 and her memory was basically gone from 90-102. She actually forgot how to speak English. She would speak in German, which was her first language, despite having been born in TX (born in a German-speaking community in 1900). I didn't know German when I last saw, but after I took German, I was able to translate the one thing she said, which was, "My eyes are hurting." 

My grandfather (husband of the above) lived to be 85 or 86. Despite the heart attack that killed him, I don't remember him seeming old in movement. He certainly never complained. 

My dad only lived into his late 70s, but he seemed to complain about getting old routinely from about the time he was 60. 

I'd be happy to keep on living so long as I can think and remember things. I'm too curious to ever want to go away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Overall, I think life-extending technology MUST be available for everyone. It's immoral for it to be confined only to Jeff Bezos and his income-group. The big issue will definitely be in regards to overpopulation. 

I just don’t see the purpose of it.  Overpopulation would just be the start of our problems.  We already live much longer than social security was intended to last — are we going to be working for 150 years?  

I think current life expectancy is fine.  There’s just no reason to push past that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a cool concept but I'd never extend my own life and leave my entire family, friends, etc. behind. If all of them did it I MIGHT extend my life. But I have no desire to live for hundreds of years and potentially see what a doomed future looks like for whatever reason. 

If anything, I'd extend my life, go explore something in space, see some things I havent seen on Earth, then I'd want to be put down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Yeah, but I was getting more at would they want to do it. It's all in or nothing for me. 

Ok that makes sense. 

For me, I'm okay with concept of dying, and I'd accept it, but I'm too curious about the history of the world and the upcoming elections and new technologies and things like that to refuse life extension if it is available. I would do everything in my power to get my friends and etc to do it too, but I don't think any part of me would refuse it if they refused it. This might be because I'm not really a communal or people-person person. I get my joy more from ideas and solo activities and projects than I do from people. I have hundreds of friends (I'm not counting virtual friends) but 99% of them live outside Philadelphia. I don't really keep in touch with them regularly. I haven't seen most of them in 10 years or more. I'm kind of used to being detached from people I love. I would do everything in my power to help them get life-extension, assuming I could even get it, if they want it. But they're refusal to join in wouldn't deter me from accepting it. They'll live on in things I write. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

This might be because I'm not really a communal or people-person person.

You could say I'm not either. But I do have a solid group of very close friends who if I could help it, I wouldn't want to live on Earth without them. So yeah, I'd try my best to get them aboard but if they're not going, I respect it either way.

You could argue with some of my friends I'm closer with them than my own family. At least, outer family that is. 😛 

The idea of outliving them all alone does appeal to something in me... but its just something I ultimately wouldn't want to do. Cue "People are Strange," by The Doors. 😛  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

Overpopulation isn’t as big a risk as they make it out to be. Population decline is actually a bigger risk IMO. People (especially in the west) should have more children.

One of the big arguments for overpopulation being dangerous is our ability to produce enough food for a growing population.

The United States throws away "nearly 40 million tons — 80 billion pounds — every year. That’s estimated to be 30-40 percent of the entire US food supply, and equates to 219 pounds of waste per person."

Yet, "Before COVID-19, it was estimated 35 million people across America — including 10 million children — suffered from food insecurity". Somehow, it doesn't seem like being able to produce food is the issue...

I'd argue the biggest issue we'd have would probably be housing, especially if we don't upzone/rezone more and drastically increase development of affordable housing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...