Should scientists study lobster DNA and find out how to apply it to humans so we can have indefinite lifespans (potentially live forever)?

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Longer Life, Eternal Youth

    Lobster DNA regenerates instead of aging. Lobsters still die from getting eaten by predators and their shells become harder to shed as they get older which sometimes kills them. But the point being they have cells that don't age. If we could alter our own cells so they wouldn't age then you could potentially live forever. Eventually something would probably happen and you would die but living for thousands perhaps millions of years would be great too.

    If you are a scientist this is where you should be. Make this happen faster. I have grandparents I'd like to still have in my life in the many, many years to come who are getting pretty old.

  • A "yes" with an "if"

    If an indefinite lifespan went along with infertility, then yes. But being an egoist, I'd prefer other means of research in life extension, because genetic engineering couldn't help those, who are already alive.

    Still, I'm not sure why so many people seem to be opposed to the possibility of living forever (maybe only cognitive dissonance). Those who claim that people "get things done because they know they don't have forever" imply, that it is acceptable to tell someone "you seem lazy - I guess I'll kill you in 10 years, so that you start doing something, which I accept to be valuable." If people wanted to be lazy all their million years of new life, why not let them?

    For all opposed to indefinite lifespans, please consider this: A 35-year old man and husband turns out to have a dangerous cancer, but it could easily and safely be removed. Yet, the doctors tell him: "Nah, we won't remove it. If you die now, the shortness of your life make it much more valuable. Knowing you only have some weeks left, this will drastically increase your motivation to get things done. And if we save you now, you might live decades more and get terribly bored. Also, living more than 35 years is unnatural - this is the natural life expectancy of humans." Does this seem OK to you?

  • Being Biologically Immortal

    I am all for trying to be immortal. I understand the arguements of the people who are opposed to this. Hey, if you want to die, then just die. Please do not criticize the people who wish to live. How could you be in favor of people's death. That's Nuts!

  • It would cause too many problems.

    Increasing the human lifespan to that extent would cause a multitude of problems. People get things done in their life because they know they don't have forever. Overpopulation would soar and kill earth as we know it- how can it sustain so many people? It is a nice thought, but realistically, it's a disaster begging to happen.

  • No, they shouldn't

    People die while their children and shared knowledge live on, isn't this is a form of immortality? Anyway the world is populated enough, our quality of life would be significantly decreased if we let older people keep on living while we use up the remaining resources faster to support a greater population.Then we could place birth control and reduce people being born while the rest of the population is still aging. So more old people and less young people with new ideas. Death is also part of our culture, the mystery of it and life after death had always been an interest.

  • The amount of problems are too numerous.

    Longer lives aren't entirely good. Most people would rather not exist that long. The problems to the world would also be terrible. Over growing populations, and not enough economic growth. Death allows economic growth to be good, as if people didn't die, economic growth would be countered by population, so GDP either never goes up, or (much more likely) decreases.

  • No, no, no.

    There are already too many people in the world - we rely on the deaths of others to make space for future generations. And while it may be sad it IS necessary. And one of the supporters of this motion might say that you could regulate the distribution of it. But you could and shouldn't. Someone could get a hold of it and sell i on the black market and it's also unfair to give some people it and leave out others just because society views them as more valuable.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.