Would you want to live to 150?

1. 73

   Quilligrapherposted 12 years ago

   Today I learned, "scientists believe they will have a drug within the next 5-10 years that will extend the average human lifespan to 150 years. Given the retirement age is 65, that would give you an extra 85 years, meaning you would probably have to extend the average working life to 100 or 120 years to prevent the economy becoming totally unbalanced and pensions running out. That assumes that the life extension is all 'good years', and not a prolonged period of dementia and physical decline."
   
   Would you want to live to 150?
   What do you see as being the most likely issues and what do you think you would do with all the extra years?
   
   Link:
     http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci … 1lrm5.html

   replyreport
   1. 57

      stoneyyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The birth rate would have to decrease dramatically. There would also be hefty problems involving food production as well as continuing pollution.
      
      Accidents and disease would also take their toll.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Do you really think so, stoneyy?  I would expect to see nursing homes adding pediatric staff, nurseries and day care centers for their residents.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      2besureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If I was strong and healthy.  However, it will probably be so expensive only rich people could afford it!

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Sure, why not.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose living to 150 years would not be so bad if we were in good health and able to live a reasonably comfortable life in retirement. if, however, we were expected to work until the age of 100 years and then retire on a meager pension, then, no thanks.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         How true Hollie!  The quantity of years is not as important as the quality.
         Will people spend all this additional time on furthering their education, traveling, or leisure?  Like how many rounds of golf can you play in a lifetime?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think if I could retire comfortably,(not in order to lead a life of excess, but enough money to pursue my interests) I'd want to see a lot more of the world, as I've only traveled outside Europe once. I would definitely want to further my education, academically and otherwise, such as learning more about photography, painting and drawing. Still, I've got the rest of my average lifespan for that.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Can you really live forever? And, would those who chose eternal (maybe not life) ever learn? Perhaps, we'll see. Although I doubt it.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hollie, I will have to read Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray again.

               replyreport
3. 62

   Lisa HWposted 12 years ago

   Right now, I'd say yes.  But, I'm thinking that after about 100 more years of crap in life maybe I'd think differently once I got there. 

   replyreport
   1. 59

      paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 65

   jcmayer777posted 12 years ago

   I would if I was of decent mental health.  As long as I had my mind, I would love to live that long. 
   
   Can you imagine all the things that will change on this earth in the next 100+ years?  It would be amazing.  Things now thought impossible would be commonplace, just as things once thought impossible 100 years ago are now.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. Health is primary with financial situation being a close second.

      replyreport
5. 60

   JGoulposted 12 years ago

   I think that whatever our feelings considering the issue in the abstract, if the drug was actually available, most of us would be begging for it. Survival instinct trumps all.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That depends, younger people perhaps. But, there are also people who want to go, when most of their friends and family already have.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @ JGoul
      Good point assuming good health.

      replyreport
6. 68

   waynetposted 12 years ago

   No, to be more wrinkly and aching bones and stuff...nah give it to someone else! lol

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Cheeky and eloquent.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         waynetposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, I'll have wrinkly and sagging cheeks at age 150!!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            At age 150, you're an optimist.

            replyreport
         2. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @ Waynet
            I have wrinkly and sagging cheeks and I'm only half way to age 150!!

            replyreport
   2. 77

      Sally's Troveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      My sentiments, exactly. Even if wrinkles become some kind of badge of surviving to 150, I will have had enough when it's my time to go (way before 150). No need to extend the inevitable.

      replyreport
7. 60

   janesixposted 12 years ago

   yes

   replyreport
8. 95

   cat on a soapboxposted 12 years ago

   Although it is interesting to think about, I would have to say NO. I wouldn't want another 80 + years unless I could start over and pursue something entirely new. I've always said that I have so many interests that I could live life over a few times and not get bored; however, extending this life would be altogether different.  I am irritated by planned obsolescence, the decline in personal responsibility and good morals, and the general state of the global economy and world affairs. Even if my body and mind managed to keep working, material things I own would break down and need replacing. I'd outlive my financial resources.
   I'd be comparing the future to the days of my carefree youth and would sound old and bitter. One average life-span is enough for now if I am lucky to see it through.

   replyreport
9. 61

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years ago

   ...sure...if i could stay in the same spot in time until I reach 150...I figure July 30, 2011 is a good date...good times...good health...good...good...good

   replyreport
10. 82

    thelyricwriterposted 12 years ago

    I would love to go back for one day but that is it. I believe it would be cool to travel as long as I had a car when I traveled back in time

    replyreport
11. 60

    Captain Redbeardposted 12 years ago

    I think that this would be a huge mistake. Most people can barley function as it is with lifespans of 60-80. Could you imagine a 120 year old G-thug wanna b driving down the main drag in your town bumb'n 140 year old snoop dog? Jesus God help us! I pray this never happens!
    Or for this matter the poloticians and bankers that promote the decline of your country staying with their jobs longer! Or another 80 years of Beiber Fever?! Oh God.............my daughters would love this drug.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Lisa HWposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       With 60 not being all that far off for me (I can't believe I just admitted that), I thought I might like to post this about more and more people living to be 100 these days.
       
       http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/scienc … id=9836752

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Age is but a number, it's how you feel that counts

          replyreport
       2. 60

          Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks Lisa for the post, I was shocked at the number of "centurians" lol that word is funny to me. Anyway, I don't know what kind of debate this will spark but people of my grandparents generation were raised with a certain trait of respecting thier parents unlike how almost all of my generation was raised and is raising their children. God did promise a long life of prosparity for those who honored their parents. Interesting isn't it? It makes me curious to see how many of my generation will make it to 100....90......70?

          replyreport
12. 60

    Disturbiaposted 12 years ago

    Only if I could do it looking and feeling like 35.  There are worse things in life than death, like say... 80 years of old age.  If the aging process over all could be slowed down, and we matured more slowly, and could control the birth rate to avoid any further over crowding (we are quickly heading to 7 billion people) I would think it a fantastic idea, but at the rate we age now, well I don't even want to think about being old and helpless for half a century.  That wouldn't be a blessing, it would be a living hell with all these helpless old folks stumbling around.

    replyreport
13. 78

    cebutouristspotposted 12 years ago

    Yes but only if everybody else would be around.  I dont like to live that long while I out lived the rest of my friend and family. 
    
    Also a lot of change need to happen or else economy will collapse and over population and not enough food to go around to supplement population growth.  I mean birth rate would still be the same.  The only difference is that the dead rate will dramatically decline for the next 80 years.

    replyreport
14. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    Given that lifespan in the US is actually decreasing I doubt we will be breaking any lifespan record here....

    replyreport
15. 60

    couturepopcafeposted 12 years ago

    Assuming one had the money to live on for that long, one could hold off marriage and mating until age 50 or so, get several degrees/careers under their belt, travel extensively, then marry and divorce several times, visit different planets,etc.  By the time one is about 140, perhaps cloning will be a viable alternative to death.  One could clone oneself then go on living another 150 years.  Wow.

    replyreport
16. 60

    couturepopcafeposted 12 years ago

    Of course, on the down side, overpopulation coupled with food and housing shortages would create probable havoc and anarchy.  Tribes would necessarily need to go underground or to other planets, or live in biodomes to survive.  Governments would be outmoded.  Technology, however, might suprise and astound us by coming up with ways to live in a bubble, sans everything but virtual reality.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Live in a VR world?! Sleep our lives away and be nurished through IV tubes? Sounds interesting, good grounds for a story!

       replyreport