A drug slows ageing in middle-aged mice
nature.com
nature.com
As it stands now, we have an overpopulation problem. We also live in a world where, whether we like it or not, segments of the population can be considered either a drag on society or a benefit. Who decides?
I have little doubt that someone will crack the code to indefinite lifespans within my lifetime, whether or not this breakthrough is publicized. But do we have any reason to believe that life-extension technology, even adding 10-15 years to the average lifespan, would be accessible to anyone but the super rich?
I just don't see how regular joes would be allowed to have this, but I'd like to be convinced otherwise.
ALSO: If you're going to downmod me, can you please explain why? This is a serious question, and people seem to want to shy away from it whenever it is brought up.
The economic benefit to life extension is that you can work longer. If life extension works the way we think it will (by reducing the aging process), then it will also extend physical youth, giving us more productive years without the loss of productivity over time that comes with age (but with the gain in productivity over time that comes with experience and wisdom!)
Finally, it won't mean immortality, because it'll only fix old age. People will still die from suicide, homicide, and accident. Since there is a non-zero probability of these things happening to someone, the life expectancy will be more of an expected value than an expiration date, with some people dying at 1, some at 100, and some at 1000. It'll still be possible for people to have kids.
This will probably lead people to adopt an extremely risk-averse culture, and things like casual sex and automobiles will be the first to go. (The risk of dying in childbirth may be high enough to reduce birth rate in such a culture.) That, combined with a slower rate of generational replacement, will cause a very conservative culture in total.
I don't think it is a question of 'allowed'. Governments have tried to stop people taking certain harmful drugs without much success. So how do you think they will be able to stop people from from taking drugs that keep them alive? Even if a nation could ban it effectively other nations would allow it for a fee. How many intelligent people would stay in a nation that tried to enforce their death?
Initially the cost of any really effective life-extension technology is likely to be high. But the costs should rapidly fall like most other technologies. The ongoing costs of living for the 'immortals' would of course have to be self funded.
1. Increasing average lifespan.
2. Increasing maximum possible lifespan.
This article deals with the first. I, and I would think most others, would be most interested in the second. I do recognize that the first is easier to achieve.
Additionally, a greying population in the developed world means a much higher fiscal burden on younger people in the economy, even if governments begin raising the retirement age (which is probably political suicide).
The first paragraph .. well, we'll just have to do better with resources, won't we. We need Fusion, basically. And the 3rd world always has population problems. They will have to sort them out themselves. Most developed countries are going backwards in population, so it's not a problem there, assuming we can solve the resources issue.
Anyway, I think society would change. The stigma that comes with a perfectly able young man sitting on unemployment benefits would also be applied to the able 90-year-old collecting benefits while playing golf. Assuming, that is, they could stand the pathetic trickle of cash pensions are, compared to their worth on the job market - and quite a wealth it could very well be.
Anyway, don't people like working?
In order for a war to happen, it would need to be a zero sum game. Given that the sun produce more energy in one hour than all of humanity consumes in one year, it would be a really long time before scientists run out of way to get more energy from the sun.
A greying population, like other said, will have the anti-aging cure. This allow the elderly to be in their prime as they grow older, so that won't put much burden on the younger generation.
For example we have cured cancer in mice many times over using things which are ALREADY in humans, because we are much bigger and live much longer then mice.
Therefore all those mice cures, do absolutely nothing for us.
That's why I want to see specific mention of how this applies to all mammals or just humans.
There's always a catch...