Do you support research to cure aging?

Posted by: JS103

Also comment if you think this is possible in our lifetimes?

Vote
22 Total Votes
1

Yes, people have a right to live.

19 votes
8 comments

People should be able to choose how long they live. Humanity can become immortal and we will create a living paradise.

2

No, people have no right to life.

3 votes
0 comments

People should die because I want them to die. Aging is natural, like Malaria and AIDS, it's here for a reason and I approve of natural deaths, like aging, AIDS, and Malaria.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Mister_Man says2015-05-28T18:07:01.1893046-05:00
Kind of a biased poll, lol. But it would be extremely beneficial to the whole of humanity for people to live longer, mostly due to retaining information that they've learned. Imagine if Einstein or Newton were still alive...
JS103 says2015-05-28T18:09:53.4357224-05:00
There is no morally justified reason NOT to cure aging. Any objections to the the cure for aging is immoral and probably considered evil. Why would anyone WANT people to suffer and die from a theoretically and probably eventually preventable disease?
OpinionPersom121 says2015-05-28T19:23:10.1714967-05:00
Yea this is probably a biased question
Najs says2015-05-28T19:23:54.6565078-05:00
Even if we found a cure for aging and discover immortality, it will only strictly be given to the rich, prohibited from most of the middle class, and prohibited from all of the poor. It will be a cure only for the rich and if the secret of a cure leaks out to the public, wars may break out and mass murders will occur.
Mister_Man says2015-05-28T19:32:37.2094400-05:00
Maybe that'll be good. The rich are usually smart, and will know how to make the world a better place.
Reeseroni says2015-05-28T19:35:01.3555370-05:00
Aging is not a disease, therefore needs no cure. There is a fault in your logic sir.
Reeseroni says2015-05-28T19:35:18.9235876-05:00
And this is a biased poll.
Mister_Man says2015-05-28T19:36:01.6258828-05:00
Reese, are you talking to OP or the guys commenting?
Najs says2015-05-28T19:42:22.6802589-05:00
@js103, "Why would anyone WANT people to suffer and die from a theoretically and probably eventually preventable disease?" There will be many people who would want others to die in order for mass depopulation such as in poor countries and poor areas in the developed countries. Especially if too many people are able to obtain this cure, then lies the risk of already present overpopulation due to the continuous rate of new births. Also, the cure will not be given to prisoners or the mentally ill, because they are considered unfit to society. I still support the idea of an aging cure, it will be ideal to not fear death (excluding g murder of course).
Reeseroni says2015-05-28T19:57:46.1717966-05:00
Mister_man, i'm just kinda making a statement to you guys i guess
blackkid says2015-05-28T21:25:32.2584210-05:00
I do not. The longer human lives are the worse the planet will be; nothing can adapt to human needs including the planet itself since humans have almost tripled the survival rate; it isn't that humans never lived to be "old" it's that more and more are getting there that is the problem; if they were getting there AND getting older than normal this would present an infinite crisis since the death rate would be too low.
Kreakin says2015-05-30T08:58:28.8655138-05:00
Logans Run, some are terminated at 30 yrs so the elite can live on.
AlwaysRight12345 says2015-05-31T14:46:34.1102583-05:00
Wow, very biased comments on the No side. 1. Overpopulation 2. We could be doing something like working to cure diseases like AIDS and Malaria instead 3. It's not very reasonable to just cure aging. It's not a disease
JS103 says2015-06-02T22:10:58.9559725-05:00
"Aging is not a disease, therefore needs no cure. There is a fault in your logic sir." Actually it is. You get old, have problems living, and die. Unless you don't count other types of disabilities, illnesses, and natural phenomenon and death as not a disease. "And this is a biased poll." Maybe it sounds that way but think about it. Only an evil person would deny some innocent person who they don't even know the right to live. If we have no right to live then why are you still alive? Do you like living? If yes then continue to do so as long as possible. If you don't want to live, who are you to say others should not? If you don't want to live then stop living. It's like a suicidal person who wants to kill himself, but then decides to kill others as well. That's a dangerous mentality to think what you want must be done for everyone else. "overpopulation" Uh... Really? Actually no. Overpopulation is only an issue in the developing world like Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America. In the developed world it's simple. Want to live forever? Well don't have children if we're too over populated. Simple as that. "longer human lives are the worse the planet" Hahahah really? Like they are now? How about no. Unless you opt for the extinction or drastic reduction of the human population, as long as we work out overpopulation then there is no problem any more than there is now. And with technology at an ever progressing rate we can make better technology. And of course technology will grow faster if we have people living forever, since they can continuously learn new things unlike the constant reset of knowledge. Having to raise a baby/child for 18 years and hope he's better and smarter than the previous generation. "Logans Run, some are terminated at 30 yrs so the elite can live on." Well we know that's not going to happen. No one needs termination for someone else to keep living. The "elite" and the "rich" yes is a concern. However modern medicine we have today such as antibiotics, x-ray machines, MRIs and the list goes on were once only for the elites and rich people. However the cost of those technologies went down over time so the average person can also have them. Same should be applied with this. How long it may take to reach the general population is a concern but it should happen. This technology should be no secret since the developers now are being very open on their progress. As far as not fearing death. We all have some aversion to death otherwise we wouldn't care about walking in traffic and getting killed. There is no reason not to fear death. There is no guarantee there is any type of afterlife, so living now is really the best we have.
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-04T23:11:05.8334838Z
I would support this. Also check out: http://www.sens.org/ if you want to see a charity that is researching the science which would lead to defeating aging.
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-04T23:20:14.0988005Z
I will touch on the overpopulation concern. As for now, birth rates in developing countries are currently very high, but thankfully they are on the decline, as they modernize, and birth control becomes more readily available, as woman are able to access work. Overall decreases in child mortality does indeed lead to fewer children being born, since mothers do not need to give birth to far more children to make sure enough survive to replace and care for the parents when they grow old. In the future, will be able use resources FAR more efficiently in the future with far less waste, we will find and utilize more alternatives a large number of rare materials. And human population growth is very likely slow down significantly in the future, regardless on whether or not we defeat aging or not. There are technologies which would radically increase the carrying capacity of the world while giving us the ability to clean up the carbon in the air. Hydroponic farming for example which does not use dirt and grown in a greenhouse can boost yields per hecter by a 24 times while reducing water usage by over 80% easily. This concept has been in existance for a while and is growing steadily and picking up pace, growing at 10% annually. Things like Atomic Precise Manufacturer (APM, a bit similar to the Replicator in star trek, except star trek's version seems like a femtotechnology while APM would be a nanoscale one. APM would allow us to create things which would otherwise very energy costly and resourcefully expensive. Growing meat from cells taken from an animal to grow in a cultured dish would significantly reduce the environmental impact of meat and the huge land usage required, the biggest reason for the deforestation in South America is for breeding cattle. We can give them an alternative when "vitro burgers" become possible on a mass scale (15-25 years). There is also energy, such as Fusion, which has made great progress over the years and will become available as a viable energy source within a few decades. Solar power, which could be placed on roof tops and deserts, but also in space. APM once more will enhance solar power through better manufacturing techniques, and the ability to use perhaps more common materials which would replace many rare earth minerals. According to Drexler, APM will find far less use in today's rare earths, and much more use in more common materials such as Carbon. In addition, APM technologies could also be a "carbon scrubber" of the atmosphere, reversing climate change and putting the carbon back in the ground or towards more useful purposes. These are just a few examples on how the carrying capacity could be vastly increased. And of course technology alone cannot solve the issues associated with sustainability. For the world to change, these technologies must be allowed to be distributed throughout the world. Knowledge which could enhance the yields of African farms must spread to boost economic and nutritional access. Today, a good number of farms in Africa are poor yield and could be updated to seriously boost yields even with present day technology and techniques of farming, many of which are inexpensive. Distribution of knowledge and technology, and a better system for managing resources like preparing for potential droughts, conflicts, abuses, etc is just as important as the existence of such tech. It is also a good idea to combat irrational phobia of new technologies like GMO. GMOs can increase a plant's ability to survive droughts better, become even more healthy, and even better yields. Greenpeace really needs to cut the psudoscience they are campaigning on. GMOs like golden rice are not unhealthy and are necessary for the benefit of humanity. It's logical to expect a further decrease in birth rates in the developed areas of the world. Two of some of the big reasons for having children is because children, or at least two of them is so they can look after the aging parents, to replace and continue the family chain. In addition, with concerns of the demographic consequences, I would expect far more people would be willing to wait much longer before deciding to have children, or to decide not to have them at all. And of course policies, if necessary could be put in place to discourage high birth rates. Awareness campaigns as an example, if necessary and down properly does have an impact on how individuals act. Further more, if none of the examples are sufficient, say technological progress for some reason slows down, birth rates are still too high, there is the possibility of trading in fertility via sterilization for life extension therapies which should severely curb birth rates (Though I seriously doubt we will need this system). There was a little thought experiment on Sweden and life extension therapy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426616 I also don't think this experiment took into account people would also delay childbearing in response, but it's an interesting one. The population was not expected to grow very much at all. 22% larger by the more liberal estimate. In the more conservative, the population declined. Personally, I would expect a world in which radical life extension therapies will have a slightly higher population than would otherwise, but nothing beyond what future technologies can't handle as far as carrying capacity. In all seriousness, a good number of countries that will experience depopulation issues like Japan and Germany would benefit from this life extension technology. On a closing note, global population is not going to explode and unlikely to become significantly larger than it would otherwise be without life extension. Many of the technological concepts I touched on above would allow for radically increased carrying capacity of the Earth while giving us the ability to give some land back to nature and heal the climate, and that will all just be the beginning as far as capabilities and concepts are concerned.. We will be amidst an intelligence explosion of innovation from artificial intelligence leading us towards the technological singularity. So much scientific progress will come before that time, and so much more will come during the singularity. Such technological progress would lead to developments which would vastly increase the carrying capacity of this civilization far beyond current capabilities. Far more exotic ideas will become feasible.
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-04T23:25:48.4557438Z
Another interesting poll is whether or not someone would actually want it vs support it. There was a poll done in Australia which found 65% support such research for radical life extension while only 35% would personally want it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890406510000757
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-04T23:45:13.4951866Z
"Overall decreases in child mortality does indeed lead to fewer children being born, since mothers do not need to give birth to far more children to make sure enough survive to replace and care for the parents when they grow old." Well you can disregard that point for now. I will have to recheck that point again. But birth rates in the developing world are declining.
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-05T01:32:07.8492530Z
All in all, my point isn't that we don't have issues related to overpopulation. Issues regarding resource management, high birthrates, climate change, etc. Indeed we should continue to tackle these issues. But we should not use the overpopulation argument to justify mass suffering and death from aging and diseases and to take away other people's right to be free from aging. The solution to the overpopulation issue is to do a combination of reduce birth rates, and to increase the carrying capacity by solving many of the resource management and climate change issues.
EkaterinyaVladinakova says2015-09-12T04:41:02.2686209Z
Well, NGOs with the mission to stabilize the global population like "Population Matters" stated:. On the other hand, children may be a parent’s only form of security in old-age. Where poverty results in a high rate of infant mortality, this is a further incentive for people to have more rather than fewer children. It does make sense, you want to have enough to survive to care for you in old age.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.