what would change if we lived longer?
unavailable
Member Posts: 268
in Off-Topic
Do you think if we could all expect to live for centuries that we'd be less willing to take risks on account of having too much to lose? Or maybe we'd find that at around the first half century or so of life that sex becomes not terribly interesting resulting in humanity in general thinking very little about it at any stage of life?
2
Comments
If you slowed down reproduction as much as you slowed down aging, then our future wouldn't be quite so bleak. We'd probably try to train ourselves to be better long-term planners, but also get very set in our ways, struggling to adapt when the world changes and we can't stop it.
This isn't to say strong stress relieving tools are bad, just that most people recognize their limits and don't indulge anymore. I think with a longer life the same processes would occur, assuming the same gross chemical changes. Obviously if we stayed children longer we'd have a much bigger window of abysmal decision making, but I assume we develop normally, then bask in prolonged adilthood.
What would people do with their time in my view? Most would watch more entertainment, a small number would develop astonishing skills. TV is very addictive afterall.
Lots of fictional immortal characters wind up rich, if for no other reason than because they've had centuries of accumulated wealth compounded.
Small income disparities would result in HUGE changes in wealth outcomes that make today look like nothing.
Like @elminster mentioned , how aging would work would be important. Would we be fully functional all those years or really bad off, with no quality.
MAJOR population problems for sure, even if many might wait longer to have kids (we can see this isn't the case in many places though).
Many young folks think they have all the time in the world to live, but when we get much older time seems to fly by.
I think it would result in more risk taking as the end would seem to be even farther away.
People have much lose as it is and it does not seem to really have changed. It's an interesting concept though, I mean many here probably watched Highlander. I was particularly interested in this when in college working on public health ed. With the way genes are being studied I suspect this limit will be extended more.
Not a bad graph so I added it. i wonder what it will look like in the next couple hundred years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-throughout-history-2015-6
I miss the Stone Age. It had just the right amount of humans on the planet.
Why are you writing what?
We will be able to attain longer lifespans long before we have the ability to adjust ourselves to that new reality.
So, if adulthood is held for a few centuries (<40) and middle age may another centuries or two 40-59, major changes we normal experience now would not show for much later, into old, and finally, old old.
Very rarely do we have Alzheimer's before 60, and less chance if it does not occur by 85 or so. I am asuming the normal<i class="Italic"> ageing processes would be delayed to reflect this MUCH longer life.
But yes otherwise, beyond the normal record's of early 100's with a continuing declining body would NOT be good after a while and cause reductions in all sorts of things.
My research and study in both health and gerontology, in retirement homes and esp memory care centers has shown some rather interesting observations with regards to sexuality and ageing.
As this is a theoretical question I am just following the line of thinking that would be needed to casue such an increase. I don't see it at the moment and there are various theories as to the why's of ageing it is an interesting concept, esp. in light of genes and really , just now understanding more what might be edited or tweak to extend life, or at least, more importantly, quality of life.
Of course, we know how there is always a backlash/'correction' to people as they age, but I think the educational framework exists to make some very good citizens. People naturally change as they age I suppose, so it will be interesting to see how millenials and those almost millenial use their growing influence. Many old boils are being slowly lanced to death, and I think the right wing surge in the US is perhaps leading to a very big lancing. Millions voted for an openly racist candidate, so the story that racism was dead already has been shown to be false, and you can't effectively address a problem you don't believe is there.
Regarding having more time to be jerks, don't most elderly people tend to be progressively more isolationist as they age? Not all naturally, but statistically speaking. Isolation of the elderly is a huge problem in most developed countries afaik. There will always be jerks, unless they get out bred.
Given many have some savings, and have SS for quite many more active years, it is causing a shift.
There is the problem with rising chronic conditons though, just from the normal processes of ageing, a particular problem for the poor Many are shucked off into nursing or retirement homes and half forgotten. Others feel home bound and cannot, or feel as if they cannot get out more, making them seem more isolated. Most do not want to feel that however but it is a problem.
As to the millennial's, I do think it will be an interesting change in government. Having gone to school with many in my forties I was at times pleasantly surprised, taken aback at times, and worried at some views of many that seemed unable to grasp the connection between various issues.
There were also outliers that ALWAYS surprised me in a innovative way, that made me think differently, often leading me to new ideas, so in general good. A combination of ages is best IMO.
Now we seem to moving from later Baby boomers (old guard) to GenXers leading, which is also a change, with a more openness in part but still mistrusting of many things government wise.
It is really about hard to say what a centuries longer lifespan would bring (staying in
tip top adult age state). Wisdom and learning new things is possible (probably good), as well as becoming more entrenched in centuries of old ways of thinking(could be bad, unless the new was dangerous).
**If, as in Highlander & the series in particular, only a very few lived a long time, that shows very much what one could end up feeling, at least with relationships that continually cause one hurt from seeing it pass away.
Then those gene engineered humans revolted in the depths of space against their mother ship's computer, founded the Abh Human Empire and artifically reproduced at such speed that they now hold 50% of the Milky Ways total population. In the end, the Abh Human Empire and the Human Alliances go on a total war with each other (like always).
Anyway, his Abh first age like normal humans until adulthood is reached. Then the aging stops completely. At around 250 years they die of old age, with an appearance like they're still in their 20's.
I suspect that after a while, the temptation and desire to 'design' people to order for those wanting children will come to be. We are already looking at a point now when defects can be found, it may be possible to correct it. Then just a small step of doing it just for the heck of it.
Certainly there are those now that don't have reservations to designing people, with the research being done somewhere, at least.
I would also bet that the tinkering at first will probably have some flaws.
If slowing down the aging process would also slow down reproduction, then we'd be giving bacteria lots of extra time to evolve new ways of infecting each generation.
Then again, I hear the Cavendish banana is losing viability, so it could be an issue if the original genes aren't especially hardy.
When thinking of slow-reproducing races, they're usually come with record holding long gestation periods as well. That elephants are 22 months pregnant is more or less widely known. But alpine salamanders carrying their eggs for 2 years? Ouch! That goes even more so for the frilled shark and its 42 months of preggo time.
Wouldn't surprise me if the gestation period of elves end up well over 10 years. :P
I would assume though that someone having the ability to live for centuries, engineered or not, would have superior resistance to disease, both chronic and acute. I assume that as in order to do so gene would need to edited in a fashion that removes certain genetic markers that make one predisposes to many diseases. Or, in the same regard strengthen the ones that provide more resistance.
As to the ability of viruses in particular to adapt, that would be a problem. Right now, the knowledge and technology exists to combine the DNA of a creature with the DNA of a virus and make it (the virus) resistant to existing vaccines. I would imagine that tech to be even greater if the ability to make humans live longer existed.
So as to what would happen if people would live, with quality of function and mental capability, more of the same tinkering and things people have always done. Maybe not all but by enough, as it always has been.
The mistake would be not to think as how oneself might be, if benevolent, but to think in the way the worst possible example of humankind might think, if granted that longer lifespan.
That said, I'm all for it, for various reasons.