Longer life could have downside

[El_Machinae]

Longer life could have downside

MSNBC is starting a series on whether it's a 'good idea' to extend the healthy portion of the human life, and thus have longer lived people. I'm predicting that they'll say that, over all, it's a negative thing, though other major news sources are starting to get excited about the idea.

For me, there are two questions - what's better for me, and what's better for society. Clearly, a longer healthy period is better for me; and so we have to balance the social implications of this type of research in order to make it a net gain for society.

Delayed pension and medical costs, longer productivity, expertise retainment all strike me as positives.

If science can stop aging, then we should get ready for that day.

If scientists could create a pill that let you live twice as long while remaining free of infirmities, would you take it?

If one considers only the personal benefits that longer life would bring, the answer might seem like a no-brainer: People could spend more quality time with loved ones; watch future generations grow up; learn new languages; master new musical instruments; try different careers or travel the world.

But what about society as a whole? Would it be better off if life spans were doubled?

 

[friskymike]

Well, just briefly there would be two main problems.

The first would be massive demographic problems - the world is already a crowded place; and society is already struggling to afford to support the current retired elderly, so more longer living people would have obvious negative effects.

And secondly, society and cultures would become much more hidebound and conservative; more resistant to change and taking risk as those that achieved power lived longer and become (even more) interested in keeping power and keeping the status quo.

 

[pboily]

Asimov had an interesting take on this (the Spacers), especially when it came to science. According to him, our short life-spans is the reason we collaborate so much. Double or triple our life-spans and there will be no need to collaborate as you'd have enough time to get interesting results.

 

[Shaihulud]

Yeah like getiing old

 

[Winterfell]

There many reasons to object longer lives:
1. Who know what will be the implications of living longer will have on our mental state?
2. As someone mentioned earlier, society is already struggling to sustain itself. There is no need to increase the demographic burden.
3. Cultural/mental paralysis. Innovation and refreshing ideas come with new people. Having people living longer will slow the process of new theories etc, which is the thing that moves us forward as a society.
4. What about the less wealthy? will longevity treatments be available for everyone or just the rich?
5. Worldwide distribution - Even if the treatment will be available for the poor, it will the poor of western society. What about africa and asia?

 

[El_Machinae]

2/3 look like actual objections. The other ones just look like policy questions.

Are there any reasonable ways of responding to 2 & 3?

 

[pboily]

Presumably, if we lived longer, we would value our own lives more and not have as many kids?

I don't know...

I mean, if the biological imperative to have many children is so that the species survives (i.e. that there is a member of our species in 300 years, then living longer could justify saying: since I will longer, I will wait until I'm 250 years old to have an offspring.)

I really don't know...

 

[Che Guava]

2. As someone mentioned earlier, society is already struggling to sustain itself. There is no need to increase the demographic burden.

Like Chairman Mao said: "With each mouth is born two hands"(at least I thnk he said that...). If we could increase the efficiency on which we use the land and house ourselves, then maybe we could sustain an extra 20-30 years per person....

3. Cultural/mental paralysis. Innovation and refreshing ideas come with new people. Having people living longer will slow the process of new theories etc, which is the thing that moves us forward as a society.

Perhaps, but perhaps its more wisdom and experience that we need in our society, and less newbies. Our collective braintrust might actually go up if more people that have 'seen it and been there' are able to stick around longer and offer thier experiences to the new.

 

[spankey]

2/3 look like actual objections. The other ones just look like policy questions.

Are there any reasonable ways of responding to 2 & 3?

Most of the objections from #2 are Malthusian in nature. Innovation has greatly expanded the food supply and creative thinking and ideas could help alleviate resource questions and problems.

Even so, the majority of lives lost in the world are not lost to old age. I do not have stats on it, but I would be surprised if the #1 cause of fatalities in the large majority of countries was old age.

 

[Elrohir]

Asimov had an interesting take on this (the Spacers), especially when it came to science. According to him, our short life-spans is the reason we collaborate so much. Double or triple our life-spans and there will be no need to collaborate as you'd have enough time to get interesting results.

Dang, you beat me to it.

Anyway, I think a complete stop of aging is impossible. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't believe we'll ever reach the state where human beings can simply be treated to stop aging. I think, with significant advances, we can dramatically slow the aging process, so that it is not unusual for everyone to live well past 100, but that's hardly immortality.

As for the moral implications, I don't have a serious problem. I think God gave us minds and curiosity for a reason - to use them. I don't think trying to extend how long you live is necessarily bad or immoral - only if it becomes an overreaching concern, an idol in your life, does it become dangerous. Of course many may agree with me on this point.

Societally, I think, without an "escape valve", like, say, the colonization of space, we would rapidly run out of room. True, the Earth has vast untapped potential, and we are every day increasing our production of food and materials. But, there is eventually a limit that would be reached. Whether that limit is 20 billion, 50, 100 or 1000, it doesn't matter. Something would have to be done to curb it. Short of declaring having kids illegal, I think colonizing space is the only viable alternative to keep the Earth's population in check. (Although admittedly, it would take a long time to get there, with population falling in so many Westernized countries)

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Longer life could have downside

MSNBC is starting a series on whether it's a 'good idea' to extend the healthy portion of the human life, and thus have longer lived people. I'm predicting that they'll say that, over all, it's a negative thing, though other major news sources are starting to get excited about the idea.

For me, there are two questions - what's better for me, and what's better for society. Clearly, a longer healthy period is better for me; and so we have to balance the social implications of this type of research in order to make it a net gain for society.

Delayed pension and medical costs, longer productivity, expertise retainment all strike me as positives.

If science can stop aging, then we should get ready for that day.

These kinds of shows are so sanctimonious, and usually inaccurate only most of the "facts" they present. At the very least, they present more controversy than there is. I can bet you that 99.9999999999% of the human race wants life extension. The reason is that no one wants to die. People only accept death when they realize it's inevitable.

 

[Scratcher]

Another bad point,

More sunday's with the mother inlaw.

 

[El_Machinae]

There seem to be too many people 'waiting to retire'. If we crack aging, then you can easily still have retirement - they'd just take the form of extended vacation. We tend to save our 'vacationing' until near the end, but there's no reason why that has to be the paradigm.

Today's article is on the morality of working to cure aging. Comments?

For John Harris, saving a life and delaying its end is one and the same. Using this logic, Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, England, figures that scientists have a moral duty to extend the human life span as far as it will go, even if it means creating beings that live forever.

"When you save a life, you are simply postponing death to another point," Harris told LiveScience. "Thus, we are committed to extending life indefinitely if we can, for the same reasons that we are committed to life-saving."

I'd like to remind people that it's possible to take active steps to get society to the point where aging is cured.

 

[Blazer6]

I would love to live longer just because that itself is my reward. I can do anything I want without worrying as much about time-intensive tasks. The longer people live the longer they can continue working on problems without reverting to new people who have little experience and slow down the progress.
People always try to find anything wrong just so change will take longer and the future suffers because of perceived morality issues.

 

[El_Machinae]

Anyway, I think a complete stop of aging is impossible.

I can't see how this is true. Considering the years between 10-20 are filled with the physical body improving, there is precendent (biologically) that aging doesn't need to happen (or, more clearly, the bad aspect of aging don't need to happen). It surely just comes down to engineering?

Like Chairman Mao said: "With each mouth is born two hands"(at least I thnk he said that...). If we could increase the efficiency on which we use the land and house ourselves, then maybe we could sustain an extra 20-30 years per person....

Remember that the first 20 years (longer nowadays) and the last 20 tend to be unproductive. It's the middle years where we're helping improve our species, society, etc. through work and innovation. By lengthening this period, we have more resources to bring to bear on any issues that come up.

 

[Che Guava]

I guess the real question is: If we do manage to extend the life of a person by, say 30 years, is that 30 more years as a productive member of society or 30 more years as a drain (not to say that seniors are a drain on society, of course!)

 

[Elrohir]

I can't see how this is true. Considering the years between 10-20 are filled with the physical body improving, there is precendent (biologically) that aging doesn't need to happen (or, more clearly, the bad aspect of aging don't need to happen). It surely just comes down to engineering?

Remember that the first 20 years (longer nowadays) and the last 20 tend to be unproductive. It's the middle years where we're helping improve our species, society, etc. through work and innovation. By lengthening this period, we have more resources to bring to bear on any issues that come up.

But that is a period of unparalleled growing inside of a human being. And even as that happens, you still get older. Growth does not mean you stop aging.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I say the avrage life expectancy should be about 100-110 years old. That would balance the factors. I think it is important that if people live longer they have to work and be young longer otherwise things will collapse.

 

[Blazer6]

It will be as much as technology allows. Trying to find economic reasons why people should only live that long is just another means to control people.

 

[taper]

I don't see any major problems with extending the productive years of life, but keeping someone alive in a nursing home for 40 years is a waste. If medicine gets to the point that we can keep someone alive indefinately, a person could easy consume more than they produce over their lifetime, and that would quickly collapse any economy. Kinda funny, but I first realized this while playing SimCity3000. If your life expectancy in the game reached a certain point, you'd have more retirees than workers, and your city would enter what the fan community dubbed "The Great Depression." All you could do was wait for everyone to die, and hope your city didn't go under in the meantime. I know the real world is a lot more complicated than that, but the basic idea's the same.