ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Could Immortality be Yours for the Price of a Vaccine?

Updated on September 12, 2019
AdeleCosgroveBray profile image

Adele Cosgrove-Bray is a writer, poet and artist who lives on the Wirral Peninsula in England.

Would You Want to Live Forever?

Immortalists and transhumanists think that the developing sciences of nanotechnology, nanomedicine and artificial intelligence could eventually enable the aging process to be treated like any other bodily malfunction.

While this prospect may still sound like science-fiction to many people, the boundaries of what has already become medically possible have already changed and consequently improved the lives of millions, of not billions, of people.

These ground-breaking developments are expected to continue to evolve, improve and expand at an ever-increasing rate.

Read on to discover why achieving real immortality is not as far-fetched as it may at first be assumed.

Meet Jason Silver, Immortalist.

What is Singularity?

By the year 2025, or quite possibly sooner, computer and nano intelligence and ability will equal that of humanity's. Soon after, it will begin to overtake it.

At this point, people will be able to make use of nano-robotic implants to vastly improve their intelligence and longevity.

But this stage is just the start. We may reach the point where un-enhanced "natural" people will be too slow and undeveloped to keep up with the enhanced people, and so fall behind those who embrace transhumanism.

This stage of human evolution, then, is what futurist Ray Kurzweil names the Singularity.

Could a new elite be created, populated by artificially-enhanced people whose income and resultant lifestyles reflect their advanced abilities? Would this, in turn, create a new underclass of those who cannot afford these technologies, or who choose not to have them? And how would this alter societal structures across the world?

Meet Ray Kurzweil, Immortalist

Death is a Disease

How many times have you been told that death is a natural part of life, and that the cycle of life and death is not only unavoidable and inevitable but somehow good for our spirituality?

Every religion has its own death stories - tales which endeavour to make dying sound like a good experience. The usual story-line declares that life here is tough, but things will get better after you're dead so long as you obey the rules of whichever religious system wants you to remain a loyal subject. And down through the millennia countless billions of people have reacted to such myths like donkeys following the proverbial carrot.

However, things may be about to change.

A growing number of eminent scientists, such as Aubrey de Grey, have been patiently researching ways of isolating those parts of our DNA which causes our bodies to age.

They consider death to be just another disease which, given enough scientific research, can be fully conquered and eradicated like any other disease.

Imagine: with a short course of vaccines, you could not only continue to live forever but also experience a reversal of age-related deterioration and illnesses.

This possibility will naturally bring its own questions. How much will this cost? What about those who can't afford it? Can Earth sustain everyone, including people not yet born? Would some people, through economics or religious or philosophical beliefs, choose not to receive life-extending medications?

Meet Aubrey de Grey, Immortalist

A Future Rich with Potential

Imagine if people could extend their biological lives indefinitely. Through the use of emerging technologies, such a nanomedicines, nanorobotics, DNA engineering, stem cell research and artificial intelligence, this is a very real possibility - some might say an inevitability.

But how will this impact on familiar societies? There are some very real issues which will emerge as a consequence of these developments, and which will cause intense debates.

The division between those who can afford to purchase life extending processes and those who cannot will inevitably emerge. This has its parallel in current times, where many people the world over either struggle to pay for medicines, or who perhaps can't even afford them at all. In time, life extending processes may well become cheaper - just as many household electronic equipment has tended to be expensive when first marketed but which then later drop in price. Perhaps, one day, life-extending medicines will cost no more than a packet of paracetamol.

Artificially enhanced people might leave unenhanced people trailing behind, as the enhanced person could have a much higher IQ, physical stamina, more experience (having lived longer) and greater adaptability.

The Immortality Pill

This may lead to a split-tiered society - even more so than now, with the social divisions between poor, middle and upper financial classes appear to be widening with every passing year. Perhaps there will always be those who seem more successful than others, according to however 'success' may be defined by any given individual or culture.

What of those people who opt out of taking the Immortality Pill? Their reasons for doing this may not be economical at all, but related to religious or cultural beliefs. Might such people be viewed as committing suicide by choose not to extend their lives?

The Right to Die - The Right to Live

Some people might chose not to accept artificial enhancement, just as followers of some religions today decline certain medical procedures which would otherwise save their lives. This would surely be their choice, and to be respected.

The replacement of hips and many major organs are common operations now. Not too long ago, these would have been considered impossible. Keyhole surgery was a pioneering technique only a decade or so ago, whereas now it is often used. Who can foresee what may be possible medically within two decades, or three, or five?

It is not enough to merely extend life. The aim is to enjoy a healthy, full and youthful life.

Population control may continue to be a very serious issue in the future. If people can live for 1,000 years or more then they would wish to do so in comfort, with plenty of food and water for all, of course. Can the Earth's fragile ecology sustain an ever-growing population?

Attempts at population control have already been tried, for example in China, where it resulted in widespread infanticide. Nobody likes to be told how many children they should be having. Who has the right to dictate such a personal thing?

Perhaps the world's human population will find its own balance, once the instinctive need to propagate the species in order to survive becomes obsolete? Only time will tell. Most likely we will have to be at that bridge before we can work out how to cross it.

Ethical questions are bound to occupy people as these new sciences and technologies emerge.

Are you ready to embrace the possibilities offered by an eternal life?

Do you want to live forever?

Share Your Opinion!

Do You Want to Live Forever?

See results

Did You Enjoy this Article?

Cast your vote for Immortality

© 2010 Adele Cosgrove-Bray


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image


      7 years ago

      I have never read Ray Kurzweil's book (The Singularity Is Near) but I have read about it on Wikipedia and the predictions that Kurzweil makes in it. I admit that I find some of the things he predicts possible and interesting but there are other things about it that scare me. For example in the book he says that after the singularity the only way for AI's to become more powerful is to become larger so they turn the whole Earth into a giant supercomputer (except for a few nature reserves for people who choose not to become enhanced humans and remain natural) and that eventually pretty much everything in the universe (planets, moons, stars and even meteoroids) would be turned into giant highly efficient supercomputers (he calls this process waking up the universe and the final epoch). What I am concerned about is if this does happen and if this is how humans achieve immortality than how will it effect nature and animal life and plant life. I like science but I also love nature and animal life and plant life and don't want to live in a world without those I think the world would be a very ugly and undesirable place without them.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      8 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Perhaps, if lifespans were hugely extended, or even extended infinitely, the relationships which people have would unfold in ways we have yet to foresee? Perhaps the idea of staying with the same person for 1,000+ years would seem horrendous to some; to others, this might seem wonderful. Or perhaps, with the pressure to reproduce within a limited time-frame having been removed, then people might develop a select circle of intimate partners? It could be pointed out that polyamorous partnerships do this already. Time will tell, hmm?

    • LongTimeMother profile image


      8 years ago from Australia

      Gee, this is an interesting hub.

      I love my husband and would happily stay married to him forever. I'd feel dreadfully sorry though for anyone who was in an unhappy relationship and didn't have the ability to escape from it.

      And imagine if you had an extraordinarily annoying mother-in-law who insisted on visiting every Sunday for eternity. That would be a worry. :)

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      8 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Immortality may well not be everyone's choice, though declining the option of immortality might be considered a form of suicide.

    • profile image

      jOSEPH bOLDEN 

      8 years ago

      As with sex for fun or procreation we human's for the very first time is our short eon expanding h-her/istory have a choice between the grave or gravy

      (Death/Emortal or Immortal live). Those choosing life will fight for every healthy year they can while others may not only want nature to chose for us but impede that choice.

      Evolution is change sometimes slug slow to quicksilver quickened.

      I believe we're in the Q-Q stage global internationally all people's are piecing together our renewd life extension-Emortal-to-Immortal birth rite. Those who want to die should not slow, delay, or stop those up who want life eternal. Their are three unknown countries:Peace, Death, and Immortality. Everyday death takes us we do not chose, when we have the power to chose between life and peace instead of Death and War; we as a species can then truly say we have matured. As for belief in God?

      That to is up to all of individually (personally I believe God welcomes the challenge and see how we'll deal with time on that limitless infinite scale.

    • profile image


      8 years ago

      I helpful to find at the top of living although as of late We have accumulated the level of resistance.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      10 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Cultures are bound to change in response to whichever scientific possibilites become widespread. My view is that some of the resulting problems could only be really solved by those who are actually facing them, using the context and choices available at that time.

      Maybe in the future, just as with now, some people will choose not to have children. Longevity offers scope for so much more than homo sapiens' usual rush to reproduce itself. These-days people say that 40 is the new 60, as our lives have changed so much since our grandparents' time. How will we feel when adults are not considered mature until they're 150?

    • RachaelLefler profile image

      Naomi Starlight 

      10 years ago from Illinois

      The only problem I see is that we would no longer be able to allow anyone to have children if everyone could afford nano machine life extension or the ability to put their brains into robotic bodies. I personally wouldn't mind doing away with children, but many people really want to be mothers and fathers so much that they might feel that it's their right to do so, even if having children would cease to become needed or desirable.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      10 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      While you're reading, Epigramman, make a DNA archive and you'll be far more likely to be around to benefit from the merging technologies mentioned above! ;)

    • epigramman profile image


      10 years ago

      ...well if I keep reading your life affirming hubs I will probably reach immortality within ...30 minutes or so!!!

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      10 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      The process of creating life is brought to a halt daily in clinics throughout the world. Also, in a wider context, each time a grain crop is harvested the natural process of life is halted, or rather diverted, to create another product.

      People are so familiar with the belief that death is inevitable, or even somehow good for us, that the possibility of death being overcome feels alien to them.

      Transhumanists, however, willingly embrace the possibility that future sciences - which are currently being developed - could eliminate many, if not all, of the causes of physical and mental decay which lead to death.

      I'm pleased you enjoyed this Hubpage; thanks for adding your views.

    • D.Virtual.Doctor profile image

      Funom Theophilus Makama 

      10 years ago from Europe

      Unfortunately, we can't escape death and there is nothing science can do about it! If death can be stopped, then Life creation can also be stopped. Imagine such a world....

      This is such an awesome hub. Very contemporary and indeed breath- taking. I am so privileged to read this hub because I am duly informed and educated. Hoping to read more of such hubs from you. Cheers!


    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Hello JBK; thanks for adding your views here.

      Most groups develop their own terminology to varying degrees. This behaviour doesn't make them a into cult, it merely saves the bother of having continually define terms in order to be sure of what each other is talking or writing about.

      Life expectancy in the Western world has already risen and continues to rise due to developments in medical science. This isn't a rosy-visioned hope, it's a verifyable fact.

      At this point in time (October 2010) nanomedicine is still in experimental stages. This is readily acknowledged by all interested parties. This does not mean, however, that its potential should be dismissed as far-fetched. People once believed that organ transplants would never work, or that mechanical heart regulators (pace makers) would never work - and yet now these are common procedures.

      This is, indeed, an important topic. Today's advocates of life-extention and cryonics will be owed a great dept by future generations.

    • profile image


      11 years ago

      "Immortality within 30 years" If it isn't a question, I think the latter statement is very loose on being factual. The only one in this room we call life who knows for sure could be a very much higher authority. What is only certain is that it is personal thinking and perhaps an optimistic wish...At least 30 years ago, the same prediction was circulating in life extension circles and verging among some to the point of religion. Unless I need new glasses, it's not operating in my neighborhood and beyond on the rest of this planet...

      It is somewhat frustrating for an advocate such as myself are those who stare into their crystal balls and play authoritative with the unknown and unproven. I can understand those who don't see credibility here, walk away and lose their curiosity and interest in the life extending concept.

      Other aspects that I think are not helpful include the fluff and pageantry of predatory concepts wrapped in cultish terminology that don't directly and immediately enable serious real world R & D to make life extension tech happen.

      This is very important stuff. I personally know people who are counting on us to build the effort to wake them up someday.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Exactly, Dave. An immortalist chooses, and continues to choose, to live.

      The alternative is always available.

    • profile image


      11 years ago

      To those with the argument of some people wanting to die: nanotechnology is for people who CHOOSE to remain alive. If you get tired of being alive, end it. Or freeze yourself.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Making a DNA archive is easy and economical. I've written a Hubpage on this subject (see Links above Comments.)

      Your ContinueMe project looks very interesting, and I wish you success with it.

    • profile image


      11 years ago

      There are a number of really hopeful developments on preserving and extending human life, including storage of stem cells, organ regeneration, and mapping and recording actual human thought with MRI. Progress on artificial limbs, livers, eyes and human – machine interfaces is moving forward. Translating new technologies into real physical immortality will take time, and it is doubtful to happen within the next 10-20 years. That is why its important to record and store as much actual and important information about yourself, in anticipation of the day when you or your descendents can employ life-extending technologies, and perhaps return your stored DNA, your body cells, and your imaging data into some semblance of a functioning you. Storing stem cells is a start, and a few visionary companies are looking at a more over encompassing approach, including

    • Absent Friend profile image

      Absent Friend 

      11 years ago

      Certainty of a better future may turn out to be arrogance. Look at all the points in history where mankind has gone backwards -at the moment, the England football team. (smirks). I think all the time we have choices that send us backward or forward, or remain about the same. The world is in costant change, look at the 50's, it may have needed tweaking, but the golden age was abolished for the chaotic uncertainty we have now.

      Yes. These technologies may reduce suicide on grounds of health, though people may yet reject them on the grounds that they don't want to have to put up with the side effects they bring. This will in turn slow/stop the advancement down as less money generated means less research, or at the cost of other things... This brings up the point that the public are reduced to being made 'guinea pigs'.

      If one person got genetic strength, for example. Goes into a pub meets a young lady whose perhaps blown away by his strength -or this has been determined elsewhere, and so she's stunned by the fact every-one likes him. So her head is turned, while the poor lad who thinks the world of her pretty much has to sit and watch while she runs off with a stranger. If he has the brass he might get the inplant/whatever, by then though his oppinion of her will be much less, the memory even if he ends up with her may spoil his happiness, and therefore theirs, especially if he tries to fix what can't be undone.

      Or suppose the implant was a botch. Even lazer eye surgery seems frought with less reputable companies that are still allowed to advertise as though the sun shines where it probably doesn't.

      The unpassable limit: SuperNovas are stars that have grown so big, but their energy is running out, when it does bang! No more bright star. With that in mind how long is this earth going to last? And as the technology of 'live forever', if you will is man/woman-made there will be those succumbing to temptation to sell it, or for that matter developing it for themselves in other worlds whether humans from earth have terrorformed them or whatever. Eventually we'll run out of places to live, then what? An End is inevetable. Even if people can live in space ships, where will the resources come from -esp. with every-one fighting to survive!

      OK. So planes fly, transplants and god knows are possible, but limited. Transplants fail, I heard one person got a kidney, the person that donated had a strain of flu that she'd never had, and because of the required immuno suppressants, they had to take the organ out! And due to the rates of decay they can't replant it. Such things weren't known before the technology was developed, so surely it is best to leave such things alone, and accept that we won't be around forever. I for one believe that this is only a secondary life, and we must leave it some day for the real one. Where the whole thing might look different, and that limit may be necessary as a measure for where every-one is because those with too much skill will/would put off those trying to take something up. (WOW! I bet that's it!)

      I remember a story the Headmaster told assembly at Junior school (ages 7 to 11). I've got to admit he was also a local vicar, protestant I think. He made sure we all knew this, but the story itself isn't so bad. So I hope you'll accept it...

      There was once a king, who said one day, "I'm going to reach God. He spoke to his subjects, gather me all boxes, everything suitable to stand on etc.

      God looked down, saw what he was doing, and sent word "You must stop this". But the king refused 'I want to be as high and mighty as God himself!" he said.

      So he went on building up his climbing frame. When all was mounted up the king climbed up, got to the top only to find he was short. He shouted down find me something more to stand on, every-one had to get down again and look. Eventually they had to give up as nothing suitable could be found. The king on getting back up again said "Right, take one from the bottom!" ...And of course, the whole thing fell down killing the king with it.

      And also, planes crash, damage the environment with fuel, the way materials are made etc. Not every-one needs, or can use them, their are usually alternatives.

      SURELY! The reality is that some possibilities are best left to fiction and fantasy.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 

      11 years ago from england

      If we wait, isn't there a risk it might be too late by then. We deal with all sorts of problems today that technology brought claiming some kind of miraculous breakthrough. Heart transplant 'victims' (of this over eager wish of mankind to live for longer/ever.) has already brought complications, In the case of above Memories from the life of the donatee, this must be quite confusing, disconcerting to live with. Something doctors didn't know because invariably they don't seem to have to put up with what they're selling. I think realistically the future technologies that you speak will be subject to the same/similar type flaws in design and manufacture. Like those cloned sheep that turned out were born middle aged, and their cells decayed quicker than the originals. With things like that showing everything is most likely under the laws of ageing, the best hope is to buy a bit of time in order to get things done. This is fine but not really much of a substitute for better teaching, nurture etc.

      I know as a topic that is close to my life. Kidney transplants. The risks are Skin Cancer, which can lead to other types of cancer due to the treatments. Deafness, a suprise one but just about every-one I hear of now has severe hearing problems, the required steroids are heavily, though not solely suspected. CardioVascular Problems, adjusting to Op. etc. The Immuno Supression causes people to go down with everything that goes round, even water containers aren't safe! I do genuinely hope they find alternatives to this barbaric treatment!

      Millions spent on research and development into robots, and other technologies you mention, all for the rush of the sensationalism the breakthrough will give them. While not one penny is being spent on research into better economies, or helping people deal with the scary changing world. These mechanical things break down. -don't forget that even stem cell research comes under the term "genetic ENGINEERING"!- However, one robot may be able to do the work of many people. This may justify the cost. While the farmer will only grow crops that the supermarket, people will buy. If 'he' wasn't getting anything in return s/he wouldn't do it. This looks bleak to me, as more are out of work!

      And talking about films. Those come to mind like Terminator, and Independence day. Humans are already reaching space, mainly the war mongering americans.

      I don't trust star trek, I used to love it, it's idealism, perhaps too much. I eventually noticed that in the Picard film where Zephram Cockron meets The Vulcans for the first time. Jean-Luke is telling a rather petrified woman "In our century we've expanded beyond material gain..." claiming money had been outmoded. Then in the series' we see the likes of The Ferrengi and other races still trading, fighting etc. etc. So our imaginations can't be that much! Like Scottie says in the Song "Ye Cannae change the laws of Physics!" -not even with the most powerful imaginations known to mankind.

      Therefore I don't think we'll be able to change the need to work to live, though technology seems to make comminities less unified, and increases crime -certsocsci(open), books have reported this non-iction-

      With the added burden of globalisation, a few communities will supply the many, unless a balance can be found and kept this will lead to even greater poverty and crime. For communities that have nothing to supply/be bought will send all their money, (or whatever technology might replace it with), one way so it will diminish to nothing. A better economy was where small communities were self sufficient -but the world had this in the first place, before greed via technology took over.

      Your topic does raise some interesting points. If we have the technology to go on living, is a refusal going to be labelled Suicide? Don't people get locked up and are forced to continue living when they don't want to, and with even less freedom, more scrutiny and stigma than they had before! -thys... Is all the money into research to live forever worth it, if people enmass don't actually want it in the end?

      I will leave you with the thoughts of The Film "Field of Dreams", where the mystery voice keeps saying "Heal his pain", it turns out he finds the doctor, who as a youth was quite a talented baseball player with ambitions of winning the world series. As an old man, he had forgotten what happened, and was fed up with facing the concerns of others all the time. I guess you will know the story. As time goes on this doctor faces the same predicament, finding again that he will do the same giving up his dreams of baseball in order to help some-one ...perhaps this is why doctors want to live forever -they missed the chance/s to be Sports people???

      I do certainly feel 30 years is unrealistic, though I'm sure this is time enough for many 'advancements'. Remember though that while going towards one place, one is always moving further away from something else!

      Now, I must go. It would be an irony if when I face my maker, I have to say sorry boss I didn't get done what I was supposed to do because there was an interesting topic on hub pages. I can imagine it now, what was the topic lad ... "Living forever." -if i had forever, I'd probably spend my time side tracking forever. Knowing there's an end may -may- just help me to use my time wisely, and more efficiently to get those things that gleam as a priority within me, completed. -or try to.

      Thanks again.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Days Leaper, you're welcome! The comments here have thrown up some interesting speculations on how things will pan out. My guess is that with some issues we'd have to wait until the situation arises for real before we can figure out how to handle it.

      As robots can increasingly perform manual tasks - farming, building, reparing etc. (which is already happening right now) - then the human workforce may well find itself redundant or largely redundant. People said the same thing twenty-five years ago when PCs began to be more widely used (and to an extent they were right; I remember mass unemployment through the 1980s and 1990s.)

      Maybe - and again this is pure speculation - our values will change, and less emphasis will be on working to live. Do people really want to put in a 40-hour week, or longer? They'd much sooner be fishing, painting, doing yoga, chatting with pals or whatever - but the bills we all have today all need paying, so we sacrifice much of this fun stuff to go to work. Maybe there's another way, if only we let go of fixed ideas of how to organise our lives and our societies? Hey, it worked in "Star Trek"...!! *chuckles*

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Absent Friend, some people decline certain medical aid on religious grounds today, and are allowed to do so. However, the development of the technologies mentioned above will eliminate many of the issues which may seem overwhelming today, and help people to overcome (or work around) many others.

      If a person declines aid which could readily save their lives, isn't this a form of suicide?

      Some people today choose to commit suicide, either because they're mentally ill or because their consider life too intolerable for a host of diverse reasons. If a person is determined to follow this route in the future, despite the ready availability of technologies which could resolve their problems, then it's unlikely that anything or anyone could prevent them from commiting suicide.

      People have increasing free choice in these matters now. There is no evidence to suggest this would change in the future.

      With regards to a person whose life had been greatly extended becoming incredibly specialised in their chosen areas of study or work, surely this too is a constructive thing. A person can have many interests - I certainly do! - and also a variety of developed skills. Why assume they'll hit a limit which can't be passed? Imagination, or lack of it, is the only real limit.

      People once determinedly believed that planes would never fly, that submarines would never work, that heart transplants and organ regeneration from stem cells were mere science-fiction - there are so many more examples. The limits of what may be possible today are already being challenged by the emerging technologies which this Hubpage mentions. This isn't delusion, it's a verifyable reality.

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 

      11 years ago from england

      Jobs would be lost. So the economy would change for the worst! There would be less need for those who care for the ill. Nurses, doctors, dss workers. This would not allieviate the stressors of being out of work -A contributor to illness! Now, at best we're going round in circles. But you spoke of a possible conspiracy as regards quack remedies for flu. I've got to say, if this does go on with flu then how much more so when so many jobs are at stake and so many peoples lives would be affected. IF the science worked. It looks like there is already less to do not more! So 900 years old looks a very long time indeed!!!

      It takes alot of strength of mind to opt out. There are those who get into things only to regret it later. Sometimes the one tradition is better than many conflicting, confusing influences.

      I would say optional rather than inevitable. Does something have to be proved in court to be true? Sometimes attitudes and so on that come out in court reflects more on the people forming the court rather than the thing itself. For instance one of the first boats to come from europe to uk shores, crashed. The only living survivor was a chimpanzee, they formed a court and questioned the chimp. Only to hang it as a French spy!

      Interesting. Would the DNA replica be the same soul underneath, could we prove this in court? And would the court get it right? Sometimes even courts require trust/faith in order to function, hence the term "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to no existing doubt!

      I think education, and personality are two different things. With a good teacher, I might've in time been able to paint, but doubt I would ever be even on the same level as Leonardo Divinci -even if I got those 900 years! And if genetically enhanced. Well this strikes me as being a bit like drugs in Sports! DaVinci didn't need genetic engineering his skill was natural, or dare i say it 'God given'.

      Great topic. Best Wishes

    • Absent Friend profile image

      Absent Friend 

      11 years ago

      Thanks for your reply. I still think it would be folly for the rich rather than a saviour for the suffering/impoverished masses. With all the investigations, and interrogations etc. by doctors when some-one tries to free themselves from this life. Would this be worse. That is people being riddiculed by some as ungrateful or whatever of technology. Many are dying of diseases in other countries that are curable. I think in the same way, a horse and cart can be a necessity/practicality rather than an option. Some doctors try to control patients, including though not exclusive to hiding information or minimalising risks so as to be able to put every-one in the same place making it easier for themselves. Hot debate is something which may be part of the problem as automatic individual freedom to choose with full uninvasive knowledge being accessible, while there will always be those who won't accept that other people have different views, will science, nano..whatever prevent people bullying? But if it did isn't this preventing free choice?

      I think the nature of doing things is that people often choose from a list of what is possible, and put each on a heirarchy of need/importance. Then aim to become skilled and proficient at one thing over time. Once skill is reached, and time has been long in the undertaking of a task it is rather hard to abandon that task. To clarify, it would be like giving up ones own new born flesh and blood. Could be that nanotechnowledgy is also influenced by such forces. And so proove to be a waste of time and money. Chopping and changing while you find something of real value to you seems to be a safe point, but once you seriously take something up there is a point of no return. eg. Writers who've stopped writing have ended up in institutions for mental issues.

      I like the fact that you have a dream. As it is always good to keep an element of your childhood. But I wish that this hadn't become confused with adulthood insistence/persistence that it should/could become realty. I don't think it is safe to mix the two. (sorry).

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Absent Friend, no-one's planning to halt Earth's orbit. The intention is to free ourselves from slavery to death.

      It's very possible that someone who is aged 900+ years will have experienced a degree of boredom occasionally. For myself, I've always had far more interests than I could possibly fit into one currently-conventional lifespan. If it's a choice between applying a modicum of initiative and creativity in order to find something to interest myself in 900+ years time, or opting for the oblivion of death, then I'll apply initiative and creativity every time! :)

      You ask if science would eradicate a person's wish to die. Maybe suicide will remain an option, just as it is now. Like I wrote above, some people will not want immortality, just as some people decline some medical procedures or the benefits of technology today - for example, those who crawl round with a horse and cart rather than own a nice Porshe 911. The freedom to choose will surely be hotly debated.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      With anti-aging technologies, such a nanomedicines, a person may well be able to do exactly as you suggest - reach a certain age for the sake of experiencing it, and then undergo call regeneration to possess a more youthful version of their body once again. Nanomedicines could also fix more minor stuff like the need for glasses or a hearing aid, or even improve a person's IQ.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Days Leaper, the development of nanomedicines and synthetic cell regeneration, and similar technologies, would mean that far fewer people would struggle with the physical limitations - ie. ill-health - than they currently do. Therefore far fewer, if any, people would require state benefits on grounds of ill-health.

      The economic divide between those who can and cannot afford such treatments, and how this will be tackled effectively, is something which can surely only be dealt with when the time comes. Global economics in fifty years or one hundred years may well be very different from its condition now.

      Many people believe the common cold could be readily cured, but that such treatments are withheld as otherwsie pharmacutical companies wouldn't make so much profit on bogus flu and cold remedies - which are mostly just sugar, asprin and caffeine in one form or another.

      Whether a decision of right or wrong is very much subject to a person's point of view. And just as, as I wrote above, some people currently opt out of certain medical procedures for religious and/or ethical beliefs, or opt out of many aspects of contemporary Western lifestyles for similar reasons, it is most likely that some people will decline transhumanist technologies and prefer to die of old age and disease.

      As someone with interests in Druidry and the Vedas, I'm familiar with various philosophical beliefs about reincarnation. As interesting as such ideas are, there is no actual proof - of the sort which would stand up in Court, rather than of the sort which is merely strongly believed - that reincarnation is inevitable.

      If reincarnation was a possibility, and a person was both re-born into another human form and also had a DNA replicant of themselves living a life, would this necessarily be a problem? Multi-tasking on a bigger scale, maybe? :)

      If reading didn't change a person, then education wouldn't work. This brings us back to the issue of 'What is Mind?' again.

      Thank you for your interest in this debate, also.

    • Absent Friend profile image

      Absent Friend 

      11 years ago

      What a vast subject. With many complications and unknowns.

      Not sure stopping time is answer, wouldn't earth stop spinning and all life just drift off into space?

      If science does learn to stop ageing then, well people could/would continue to 900+ years old but be as fit and healthy looking as a 23 year old or whatever age they chose to stop at or revert to. ...Would that get boring?

      Some say when it is our time to go, we are ready, and even want to... Like a "this is it then" acceptance rather than a panic, as though it is necessary for us or something. Would science get in the way of that?

    • saddlerider1 profile image


      11 years ago

      I would be happy if when one reaches seniority like say 65 then one starts getting younger, kinda like the well acted movie starring Brad Pitt, Benjamin buttons. Unless of course one could choose to stop time at a given age of their choice and remain there forever. Now were talking:0) Great hub, very interesting and most definitely worth thinking about, however this cowboy may not be around by 2025 and if so very Old I will be:-)

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 

      11 years ago from england

      on the quote. Not moving forward but death, cryogenics, I'm sorry to say is heavily based on the fear of the unknown, of suffering and of death. what happens when we die? Only a truly gifted psychic can answer this.

      And some consider it bravery to face all manner of ills etc. And who can argue with that? Not some-one trying to erradicate it from this earthly existence. Medical science has come far, I agree there, but it is not yet able to erradicate side effects or even cure the common cold! Every treatment has it's drawbacks, and it seems the worse the ailment, the worse the downside of the treatment/s available. And as I tried to say before the cost of science progressing brings poverty, look, if you will at the nhs debt. All the new fad equipment has to be paid for. Sometimes with peer, or even medical "nastiness" (for want of a better word), the general question, one way or another, is asked before too long "Are they worth it?" or words to the effect.

      As regards ethical debate. Thanks for bringing the point up. Try this if you will. A modern day truth. Albeit after several letters, the dss. decided, quite without notice to stop it's payments. On the same day of the letter arriving, being a saturday, therefore stifling any way of reacting quickly. They wanted info. that they already have access to. Patient quite ill, and stressed tried to point this out, perhaps should've jumped through the hoop at cost, energy and time taken from the self. There has been debate on benefits somewhere, all modes is to reduce help to the needy, rather than those making profit by the fact the needy exist. Does that sound like the right answer to you. If it does. Thank You for your time, and Goodbye. As no consideration was made to allow a month at least from date of letter. Society can't even get that right, or banking, and if I'm being fussy voting leaves something to be decided. So it would be Arrogance to assume that peoplke are in any way capable of making the right decision on matters concerning life and death or disease, if you're claim is anywhere near about being some bad thing. If you would entertain my thoughts for a moment longer, as you've been kind enough to do so far. I would say falling ten thousand feet from a plane is not good, while going peacefully in ones sleep is like lifes version of a big lottery win in itself!

      Re. the flippant point. No, I don't think they exist now. Looked everywhere. Nor do I think it would ease my memory of my dad being dissapointed, upset with me and feeling rejecyed. Though of course the gesture may wash over the surface a bit. That was my serious point. Our experiences aren't all good -for some of us, and these could mount up to an unbearable limit. To try to blank these out would change the person, and become a lie. Death therefore may wipe the slate clean so that we are clear to move forward, or experience more learning without past burdens, errors etc.

      I don't think reading biographys or even autobiographys makes any genuine, thorough change to a person. I've learned from deciding what is rubbish for me, at least from that information which strikes a chord. I read once a lot about Leonardo Divinci, but I still can't paint. But theres nothing to say that in a past life I wasn't some great painter or other, I've just moved onto other things -as a hypothesis. So death frees the individual, cryogenics is the baby of the nation, like Nazism, these had a notion of what was or wasn't "pure" and look what happened..

      Thank You for your time, looking at the subject has helped me clarify my own thoughts.

      Best Wishes

      days leaper.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      Hello Days Leaper, and thank you for visiting this page. Immortality will inevitably not appeal to everyone.

      Physical regeneration from a DNA archive is a possibility that is already being explored, and several human organs can now be grown in laboratories, and in fact scientist Craig Ventner has recently (summer 2010) created a living synthetic cell.

      The ethics of regenerating of any person, whether they're of historical significance or not, will no doubt become an issue of hot debate - particularly if that person had not previously indicated in a legal Will their stance on this.

      The DNA of a clone is identical to that of its origin. Therefore the regenerated physical body would be identical - minus whatever scars, tattoos or modifications the original picked up along the way. The mind of the clone could absorb the memories of the original person through diaries, photos, etc. This raises the topic of 'What is Mind?' - which could easily be the subject of another Hubpage (or vast book, even.)

      Without research, medicine would be an awful lot more primitive. Research has brought cures to millions, if not billions, of people. Research which is taking place right now will bring further cures in the future. Therefore I don't consider this to be a waste of money at all.

      World poverty has no easy answer, I agree. Future world economics may well be handled in a very different way from our current situations. Only time will tell.

      Quote; "Sorry, but I would hate to live in a world that is scared of the process of moving forward."

      Scientific progress has often unnerved people. But aren't you contradicting yourself here? Anti-aging technologies and transhumanism is totally about embracing the potential of future sciences.

      And on a more flippant note, sorry to hear you broke your toy tractor. I'm sure you could buy yourself another one. :)

    • days leaper profile image

      days leaper 

      11 years ago from england

      I don't mean to burst your balloon, but personally, even if I was healthy, which I am not. I do not wish, under any circumstances to be immortal. Not for one minute. I think it is like many "scientific"/philosophical ventures -made closer in prospect by human advancement. I honestly dread the thought of being super human, think of all the devastation of wars by greedy people always wanting more. It would be forced on people who don't want it in the hopes of winning wars and power. Immagine bringing Einstien back -that dope brought us the ability to anhialate our entire planet, or any bodies for that matter.

      And all the money wasted on research, JC brought healing without science as a true vision of what is possible -for some anyway. I think perhaps we might stop wasting money on fancy things when countless go starving in this world. Sorry if this is too much, I could go on but will end on the thought that when I was young my dad bought me a tractor, I loved that tractor but mum resented him buying it as though he would be favourite. She got cross and i threw it down the stairs at her. It broke, she threw it out. No hesitation, no chance to see the damage done. I still miss it, every time dad is withdrawn I seem to think of that tractor. I can't bring the tractor back, and nothing similar has ever been seen since! I can't make my dad love me either, and no i don't want to trick his mind into making him think he does. Or even give him the ability to express it better even as this wouldn't really be him! I don't want some other force making such a pretence, I want my own dad. (not asking you of course). This is just something that is actually beyond mankind. Like virtual reality, pretend to play tennis in home on a wii, or go out and enjoy the fresh air! Without which tennis is dull/er! The genetically engineered plants scare me, how can a dead thing create life?

      Sorry, but I would hate to live in a world that is scared of the process of moving forward. AKA. death, If I don't manage it now. I might in years to come albeit with a new identity and free of the burdens of before that mount up in life.

      Thanks for the subject matter, I didn't realise I felt quite so strongly about it. I think best try to enjoy life as is, instead of saying I will be happy when i get perfection etc.

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      I'm familiar with Heinlein's book, and would recommend it to others interested in the possibilities presented by immortality.

      Governments come and go. With a draconic shift in social expectations, and with a more forward-thinking view of world economics, the role of goverment would alter over time too, propelled by circumstance.

    • profile image


      11 years ago

      Robert Heinlein had an interesting perespective on living forever in "Time Enough for Love"! Lazurus Long was intriguing as well as the entertainment he pursued to keep things interesting.

      For myself, I would like to live forever in order to learn more and give others a hand up whenever possible. There are several issues that would make living forever less than desireable, mostly government related!

    • AdeleCosgroveBray profile imageAUTHOR

      Adele Cosgrove-Bray 

      11 years ago from Wirral, Cheshire, England.

      I, personally, certainly do wish to live forever. The potential for being able to achieve this, via science, is fascinating to me.

      We would do with eternity whatever we wished to do, just as we choose how to live our lives now. The difference being that, with time no longer a limiting barrier, we'd have much more potential to achieve our ambitions and to develop interests that we've previously set aside - the roads not travelled could now be travelled.

      Nanomedicines would eradicate disease and aging (itself a disease, according to some.) Science is working on this right now.

      Maybe, with the ever-increasing development of artificial intelligence, the need to remain in a workforce would be greatly lessened. The socio-economic effects of this could probably only be fully addressed once we arrive a that situation.

      Change usually makes people feel unnerved. But I feel we have far more to lose by not embracing these emerging sciences - such as the possibility of immortality, even.

    • FGual profile image


      11 years ago from USA

      Good Hub on a sensitive topic. Would you really want to live forever? If you could, what quality of life can we expect, and what would we do with our life? Could we remain productive indefinitely?

      Would we remain disease-free?

      This is a pandora's box, and I fear what we might unleash.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)