Fancy having "immortal" children?

[speedy_thrills]

If you could give your children a longer life would you? We've always regarded the length of a life to be limited by old age but as with so many other things clever scientists seem to be ever closer to solving the puzzle (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase ).

So while it may not be an option for you your children or grandchildren may well have this option.

So, to butcher the sacred cow of old age or not?

Edited by speedy_thrills on Tuesday 3rd March 08:14

[funk odyssey]

how awful

[TUS 373]

Strange question really - but I don't see scientists being able to combat mortality due to death at the cellular level rather than the body wearing out.

[kambites]

Lengthening human life expectancy too much would have a catastrophic effect on human population levels unless you could somehow force people to have less children (or have them later). Affordable immortality, or at least greatly prolonged fertility, is probably the most likely way for science to wipe out the human race, IMHO.

[speedy_thrills]

TUS 373 said:

Strange question really - but I don't see scientists being able to combat mortality due to death at the cellular level rather than the body wearing out.

Eventually organisms do die but not due to reaching the Hayflick limit.

[Scraggles]

recall kids used to have their lives as kids extended by castration, very popular with altar boys, not sure they had much choice

guess the op wants the kids to stay as kids - bit like michael jackson ? and never grow up

[speedy_thrills]

kambites said:

Lengthening human life expectancy too much would have a catastrophic effect on human population levels unless you could somehow force people to have less children (or have them later). Affordable immortality, or at least greatly prolonged fertility, is probably the most likely way for science to wipe out the human race, IMHO.

Perhaps, but we seem more than happy to extend peoples lives at present.

[kambites]

speedy_thrills said:

kambites said:

Lengthening human life expectancy too much would have a catastrophic effect on human population levels unless you could somehow force people to have less children (or have them later). Affordable immortality, or at least greatly prolonged fertility, is probably the most likely way for science to wipe out the human race, IMHO.

Perhaps, but we seem more than happy to extend peoples lives at present.

True but we're tending to extend how long they live in old age rather than how long they're fertile for which is less of a problem.

[speedy_thrills]

hora said:

Violent death would become the norm. No thanks.

Can you explain that a little further?

People would still suffer from heart attacks, car crashes etc. You are just taking away "old age" as a method of death.

[speedy_thrills]

kambites said:

speedy_thrills said:

kambites said:

Lengthening human life expectancy too much would have a catastrophic effect on human population levels unless you could somehow force people to have less children (or have them later). Affordable immortality, or at least greatly prolonged fertility, is probably the most likely way for science to wipe out the human race, IMHO.

Perhaps, but we seem more than happy to extend peoples lives at present.

True but we're tending to extend how long they live in old age rather than how long they're fertile for which is less of a problem.

So if people live longer they would have more children? Even understanding the changes in society?

I've always wondered how many marraiges would survive if people lived hundreds of years .

[kambites]

speedy_thrills said:

So if people live longer they would have more children? Even understanding the changes in society?

I've always wondered how many marraiges would survive if people lived hundreds of years .

I suspect if people were fertile for long enough to see their children grow up to adulthood, then there would be those who wanted another family later in life, yes. Say you have your first family at 30ish, I could easily see people deciding that they wanted another family at 130.

[Hub]

speedy_thrills said:

hora said:

Violent death would become the norm. No thanks.

Can you explain that a little further?

People would still suffer from heart attacks, car crashes etc. You are just taking away "old age" as a method of death.

Overpopulation leading to a further shortage of natural resources means there would probably be more wars, riots, starvation etc

[Don]

Dramatically lengthened lifespans would HAVE to be accompanied with very significant reductions in childbearing. Or there would be war over territory.

[Fittster]

On average you would only live to 600 before you would probably have a fatal accident.

[JagLover]

I voted yes, because if they could have the opportunity, why not give it to them?.

If someone offered you a chance of another 50 years of healthy life, would you turn it down?. So why deny it to those you will come to love.

Yes it will increase population pressures, but given the population growth rate in places like India and Africa, the fact that the richer areas of the world are prolonging their lifespans is of less importance.

I can't see humanity becoming immortal, but it should be possible to prolong life significantly.

[stu67]

I couldn't afford my son to live forever!, he's at uni at the moment and steadily eating his way through any savings we have!!

ps love him really

[Don]

JagLover said:

I can't see humanity becoming immortal, but it should be possible to prolong life significantly.

Whilst it's possible that human beings could be made biologically immortal I suspect it's more likely we will make AIs that are.

It won't be us that finally explores the universe. It will be our machines.