Extending Lifespans Won't Turn the World Into a Grey Dystopia

Reason reviewers have not been impressed with In Time, a movie opening this weekend in which time is (literally) money and greedy rich people hoard all the life years while working stiffs live (literally, again) paycheck to paycheck.

But would radical life extension actually result in grey, overly-literal dystopia full of extended chase scenes? Over at Slate, author and Singularity University trustee Sonia Arrison says no. Sample rebuttal:

While the film's fun, it falls into a dystopian trap, assuming that greater longevity would create a terrifying society. But it gets almost everything about human life extension wrong….

As breakthrough longevity technologies become available, the rich will certainly be the first to partake; they are the ones who will pay most of the early fixed costs for everything from flat-screen TVs to experimental medical treatments. Eventually, these life-extenders will reach everyone…. 

Even if there is a gap between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor, it likely would not be a case of the rich gaining extra years at the expense of the underprivileged. Instead, the opposite is true: The rich have an incentive to make the technologies accessible to everyone, because that means more customers. Hoarding the technology would offer no advantages and would result in an unstable world.

The whole thing is worth reading.

Or you could watch this excellent Reason.tv video where Arrison explains more about why living to 150 will change everything, and not for the worse:

Also, if you're in the mood to see a movie about people with digital timers embedded in their arms that doesn't totally suck, consider this modest rom com take instead: TiMER.

Comments

[Name Nomad]

Uh oh. Ron Bailey and KMW appear to be starting a turf war over transhumanist articles. One can only hope that the topic is big enough for the both of them.

[Wise Ass]

Neither one has a chance of winning the election.

[Apatheist]

I hear Romney is the frontrunner.

[Pro Libertate]

An honest media, not trying to game the result, would present the candidates with all of the information voters need to know. And ask tough questions. For instance, the godawful president we have now might not be president if the media had said, "WTF? Dude, you're not even ready to be mayor of Chicago." But no, they just insist on trying to pick candidates.

Not a vote has been cast. No one is a frontrunner.

[Groovus Maximus]

Not a vote has been cast. No one is a frontrunner.

This cannot be repeated ad nauseum enough. The only poll that matters is the actual primary.

[Pro Libertate]

Given the way the media focuses on certain candidates, flat-out excludes others, and keeps acting like someone is "winning" before the elections have started. . .we're going to keep getting the LCD candidate.

Candidates should be held to the highest standards of review, not the lowest. And we don't need a fucking filter or lies, spin, or other misdirections.

[Sparky]

Too late. It's already been decided that Herman Cain and Gary Johnson aren't serious candidates, Ron Paul can't win, and Michelle Bachmann is still a serious contender.

[Sparky]

In fact, Fox News told me that Herman Cain can't possibly be in it except for the lulz because he only has 6 people on his campaign staff.

[Pro Libertate]

Paul's a good example of what's wrong. They can't entirely ignore him, given his popularity and fund-raising ability, but they sure can try to minimize him before he even gets started.

If a more mainstream candidate polled as high as he does and had the popularity and money, he'd be getting heavier and better coverage.

[Pro Libertate]

Want to endorse a candidate? Then do so. Want to be in the business of reporting politics? Then do so. Those are two entirely separate matters. If you can't separate them, then don't pretend to have any professional ethics.

[Sparky]

Also important to note, it's unfortunate that "the folks" can't watch anything on television with a critical eye. They just nod and believe everything they're told.

[Pro Libertate]

Yes, well, our collective inability to judge things on our own is a major problem today.

[CE]

If a more mainstream candidate polled as high as he does and had the popularity and money, he'd be getting heavier and better coverage.

We saw that hypothesis confirmed just this week, when Ron Paul raised 2 million dollars in one day and hit 12% in 3 CNN polls in Iowa, NH, and SC and continued to be ignored. Newt Gingrich reported raising 0.8 million in the last month and hit 10% in one national poll, prompting the corporate media to produce a bevy of articles with titles like "Newt's Back!" or "What's Behind the Gingrich Resurgence", etc.

[Gulfstream 650's for all!]

The rich have an incentive to make the technologies accessible to everyone, because that means more customers.

If we repeat this catechism often enough, surely somebody will believe it about something.

[Appalachian Australian]

Well, for $46, plus $25 in tribute to the government, you can fly on a Bombardier CRJ-200 from Buffalo, NY to New York City. The Bombardier CRJ-200 is based on the Challenger business jet. It's basically a stretched and more fuel efficient version.

I would daresay virtually every American could find $46 if they really wanted to act out your "Business jets for all" proposal you used as your name.

BUF-LGA US 3735 11/21 CR2
LGA-BWI US 4151 11/21 DH8
Fare: BUF US X/NYC US BWI 45.58RXAVSA6Y USD 45.58 END ZP BUF LGA XT 3.42US 7.40ZP 5.00AY 9.00XF BUF4.50 LGA4.50

[tarran]

Says the woman who posts on communications technology that surpasses what only the ultra-rich had access to two decades ago.

You're the most pathetic troll ever, Rather. Even Edward/Max/Lefiti/ConcernedObserver ranks higher than you. Your position in the hierarchy of trolls is in the gutter, smelling of feces, urine, Red Rose and staggering around like Kyle's dad in the Major Boobage episode of south park.

[Appalachian Australian]

Nevermind that the example cited (business jets) are available for less than a days' wages at minimum wage.

What an utterly worthless troll. She could of at least come up with an example of something only the rich have, like political influence. Politicians certainly have no interest in making justice accessible to everyone.

But if we repeat the catechism often enough that government protects the poor, surely somebody will believe it about something.

[rather]

If we could only just fart in a jar, we'll all have all the energy we need.

[Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy]

What annoys me about the concept of this movie is this:

MNG and I often argue about primary factors in justice, and Tony and I often argue about primary factors in property.

And when we do that sooner or later I'll do a desert island thought experiment.

"If we're all on a desert island with no property but the clothes on our backs, and I go catch fish, is it unjust for me to demand that you also do some labor to get something to trade me for the fish?"

I naturally conclude that it's perfectly just.

In the example of this movie, the thought experiment isn't even that stark. Since everybody apparently gets some period of extended extra youth with their age frozen at 25, the thought experiment becomes:

"If we're all on a desert island with no property but the clothes on our backs, and I go catch fish, is it unjust for me give everybody a couple of fish, but keep the rest for myself, and demand that people labor if they want more than the couple of free fish they already got?"

And as we saw in the other thread MNG disputes EVEN THIS. Even when everybody gets a little bit of extra youth, that's somehow still not fair, even if they did nothing to contribute to the discovery of eternal youth. And that's really kind of galling, because it demonstrates that no matter how much benefit accrues to people from a technological and industrial society made up of other people making a lot of effort, it's never going to be enough to shut these fuckers up.

[Narcoleptic]

I stopped reading at "MNG and I..."

[Sparky]

But somebody else got MOOOORRRRRREEEEEE!!!!1!!!!!!!1 *whine*

[Sparky]

IOW, some people will never be happy if a person gets even one penny more than somebody else did for the same thing.

[Pro Libertate]

You know, I'm okay with people having more stuff than I do.

[Groovus Maximus]

As am I. It gives me incentive to strive for more and realize limits to my potential. Fluffy post captures every flaw in MNG's and Tony's premises, and is totally congruent to the health care/ObamneyCare debate.

In fact, this movie is a perfect allegory as to why UHC doesn't work and is inherently flawed, a la the-oh-so-vaunted NHS.

[Sparky]

It's obviously because you're a retard with not a shred of common sense. You should be outright pissed that someone else has more than you. What's more, you should immediately quit whatever you're doing because your boss makes more than you.

/MNG

[Pro Libertate]

It's the dark envy that drives much of the left. I have the light side envy, where I would like to have stuff I can't afford, but I understand that not everyone can have everything. And, of course, there are huge trade-offs. Great wealth usually takes lots of work, luck, and, often, a level of ruthlessness that I don't have and don't want to have. Most avenues to power have that latter characteristic, though, thankfully, not all.

[Sparky]

Are you trying to say that if someone came to you with a $100 million idea and you had to do all the work but only got to keep $1 million while the person who had the idea kept $99 million you wouldn't tell that person to cram their job up their ass? You're such a stupid sucker with no common sense at all.

/MNG

OK, that's enough. I don't know how someone could keep this kind of thinking up all day long.

[Clich? Bandit]

I tell my 2 year old "you dont always get what you want" and she gets it. Sometimes however she resorts to extortion and demostrates Coase very well..."If I give you this will you be quiet?"

[Jesus Christ]

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them $100 for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

"'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.

"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received $100. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received $100. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn't you agree to work for $100? 1Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 1Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

$100 is about equivalent to a days' wages for 11 hours at federal minimum wage, including FICA.

[robc]

IIRC, MNG said the early workers got screwed. This was in a discussion sometime before I finally incifed him.

[Jesus Christ]

"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

"'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

A mina was about $10,000.

[Sparky]

Cool story bro!

[robc]

If you are going to update the money, should also update the rest, so make it "Mexicans" and "outside Lowes".

[robc]

And vineyard should probably be "tobacco field", at least around my parts.

[The Message]

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a Californian suburban dweller who went out early in the morning to Home Depot to find Mexicans to do his yard work. He agreed to pay them $100 for the day and sent them into his back yard.

"About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing near the hot dog stand doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my yard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

"'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.

"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the suburbanite said to his wife, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received $100. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received $100. When they received it, they began to grumble against the Californian. 'These who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'I am not being unfair to you, amigo. Didn't you agree to work for $100? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

[robc]

Amigo was a nice tough.

Mad props given.

[cthorm]

In all seriousness, so did I.

[Audrey the Liberal]

That's the problem with trying to make "equal" the barometer for "just".

[THE END OF GROWTH]

You might have heard the news: we're at the end of growth. Growth of the economy, of consumption, of wealth. That this would happen isn't news to those who've followed the writings of Meadows, Heinberg, and many others. What's different now is that the end of growth may have actually arrived.

On Friday we learned that after only two years of expansion (mid 2009 - mid 2011), the U.S. economy is re-entering recession:

Early last week, ECRI notified clients that the U.S. economy is indeed tipping into a new recession. And there's nothing that policy makers can do to head it off.
ECRI's recession call isn't based on just one or two leading indexes, but on dozens of specialized leading indexes, including the U.S. Long Leading Index, which was the first to turn down ? before the Arab Spring and Japanese earthquake ? to be followed by downturns in the Weekly Leading Index and other shorter-leading indexes. In fact, the most reliable forward-looking indicators are now collectively behaving as they did on the cusp of full-blown recessions, not "soft landings."

Why is this happening so soon? What's the bigger context here?

We're not just entering a new recession - we're at the end of growth as we've known it.

We have passed or are near many of the peaks in natural resources, both by drawing down non-renewable resources and by hyperexploiting renewable ones.

For example, here are some points we've passed and haven't looked back (approximate dates):

1979: Peak per-capita gross energy production
1986: Peak grain per capita
1989-1995: Peak wild fish catch
1990: Peak net energy production
2000: Peak fresh water availability
2005: Peak conventional oil production
2011-14: Peak all-liquids (conventional+unconventional oil) production
It's possible to overshoot a resource base - civilizations have done it time and again - but only temporarily. The list above is a small subset of what we've depleted or are depleting, and many of the critical ones - oil, for instance - have no real substitutes. Even if there were substitutes, we would have to have started a crash program 20 years ago to transition without economic impacts. But it's too late for that.

What's the consequence of these constraints?

There's a simple cycle that everyone should step back and observe, because we're going to be stuck in it for at least the rest of this decade if not the next one as well:

A recession occurs (2007-2008)
Demand falls due to the recession (2008-2009)
Oil/gasoline prices fall (2008-2009)
A recovery begins (2009)
The recovery self-sustains for a short period of time (2009-2010)
Oil prices rise due to increased demand (2010-2011)
The recovery falters due to increased oil costs (2010-2011)
A new recession begins (2011)
When oil prices hit $90/barrel last December, those watching oil prices were worried this would cause a new recession. In a diary in May I predicted we'd see a recession within 12 months due to the persistent high oil prices we'd seen from December through May. (My prediction was nothing special - many others who were tracking oil prices came to a similar conclusion.)

How does this lead to the end of economic growth?

As the foundation of oil upon which we've built our industrial system crumbles, we will face direct economic impacts. Hirsch, whose 2005 study for the Department of Energy on the peaking of world oil production is still the gold standard, conducted further studies to try to understand how oil connects to GDP. He concluded that there's a 1-to-1 relationship: for every 1% oil production declines, world GDP declines 1%.

How much does he expect world oil production to decline? Here's what he says:

Best Case Scenario: Maximum world oil production is followed by a period of relatively flat production (a plateau) before the onset of a decline rate of 2?5% per year.

This indicates that in the best case scenario we should expect a yearly 2-5% decline in world GDP, which is roughly equivalent to having a recession nearly yearly (though it's unlikely to be that steady).

The trend break happened in 2005, when global oil production stopped increasing. We've been on a plateau of sorts since then. While the graph above is technically about oil, it maps directly to the economy: we've been on an economic plateau since then.

This recently revised chart from Calculated Risk shows that the latest GDP numbers indicate that we're still below 2007-level economic activity once you adjust for inflation:

Now that we're entering a new recession, that GDP is going to head down again before we even made it past the previous peak GDP. That is, we've hit the end of economic growth in quantitative terms.

Going forward, as I mentioned in previous diaries, it's unlikely that this will result in a constant, smooth decline. Now that oil production is flat and soon to be declining, what happens? We hit our head on the oil ceiling, a recession ensues, and as we begin to recover, we quickly find ourselves hitting our heads on the oil ceiling because production is declining. This has two consequences:

After a recession, the recovery that ensues will only be a partial recovery - that is, the economy won't recover to a better state than it was in before the recession
Recessions are likely to be more frequent (maybe on the order of every 3 years)
The right priorities and the wrong priorities.

A good rule of thumb is that when there is consensus on an issue in Washington (or Wall Street), it's probably wrong. And there is consensus among the mainstream left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives that growth is good and should be our objective. What all of the above is indicating is that growth isn't possible any more. Doesn't matter if it's "smart growth" or "dumb growth" or growth for the benefit of corporations or growth for the benefit of the 99%. We've reached the long-forecasted Limits to Growth.

What can be done?

To be honest, I don't expect that much can be done top-down or bottom-up. The institutions we have, and the forms of activism we have, don't work well to address problems like this. The best approach may be individuals and communities first coming to grips with this situation, and then taking action to become more resilient.

I'm not going to suggest a rescue remedy that will solve the problems above, because there isn't one.

Rather, the point is that this isn't the end of the world and we can live fulfilling lives with less- something we all know, but sometimes forget to implement.

Here are some things (far from comprehensive) that each of us can do to prepare for this new, harder era both by reducing our costs and by reducing our community's dependence upon the oil economy:

Pick up a copy of The Complete Tightwad Gazette (and similar books) from your local library and start cutting costs.
Weatherize your home or apartment.
Stop purchasing consumables and disposables.
Eat only organic, local produce.
Stop eating meat/eggs/dairy not from farms that are local, grassfed, and organic.
Use public transportation and travel by train.
Grow, prepare, and preserve and can your own food.
Use only truly renewable energy sources.
Withdraw from the money economy as much as possible.
Few people have taken all of these steps today - I sure haven't - but I'm working on them slowly and think that there's the possibility of a simpler and fulfilling life ahead if we're willing to adapt to our new circumstances.

Until next time...

Update:

I thought I should add that if you had to read one book that gets into the future we're looking at, it's Bill McKibben's Eaarth. He might be the only popular journalist today who squarely addresses the economic and ecological limits we face, and does so in easy to understand language. If you have time for another book, I recommend checking out Richard Heinberg's new book The End of Growth which goes into more depth on a number of these topics.

Original:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....mic-Growth

[Spoonman.]

Fuck you.

[Appalachian Australian]

You forgot Peak Whale Oil and you conveniently left off Peak Uranium and Peak Plutonium.

[Old Mexican]

Rather also forgot peak Hindu widows.

[WTF]

Rather is working on Peak Stupid.

[goneGalt]

And there's nothing that policy makers can do...

Well, at least they got THAT right.

[Pope Jimbo]

When did she get out?

[rather]

Oh, I forgot Peak Fart in a Jar.

[robc]

great wall of text posted in at least 2 threads.

Any chance of immediate and permanent banhammer?

[Groovus Maximus]

Seconded. Reason, a swift wall o'text excision, stat!

[Appalachian Australian]

You know, this advice is identical to what crazy conservatives who believes we were being taken over by a New World Order? and that the government would enslave us all said to do, except that this guy isn't telling us to arm ourselves to the teeth.

I endured much locally-grown and canned-at-home food in the 90s, people attempting to set up barter systems, and people "withdrawing from the money system" and stockpiling metals. It was as stupid then as it is now.

The anti-growth crowd is getting tiring. They don't seem to realise that people DIE and stop consuming resources after 70 years. In fact, they contribute valuable humus to the soil.

[Sparky]

You mean you actually read all that? I'm impressed by your bravery.

[Appalachian Australian]

My eyes can spot "organic", "local", "can", and "stop eating meat and eggs" very quickly.

[Sparky]

That's a pretty neat super power.

[Appalachian Australian]

It comes from spending too much time around ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals, both of whom are convinced we're being poisoned by factory made eggs and spend most of their productive hours canning.

[Sparky]

My condolences.

[Old Mexican]

Please don't feed the disgusting troll.

[Audrey the Liberal]

Dailykos: Just because you don't know the first goddamned thing about a subject, doesn't mean you can't write a lengthy article about it.

[THE END OF GROWTH]

Good point, Peak Plutonium and Peak Uranium mean THE END of nuclear power. Capitalism is over.

[Apatheist]

Hey man, if you want to do all those things you suggested, noone here is going to stop you. Whatever floats your boat. Just leave us alone if we draw different conclusions than you do.

[Agammamon]

No, no, no, if everyone else isn't doing hit how is he going to know that he's right?

[Thorium]

I don't know why everyone forgets me, I'm just as prevalent as freaking lead and I can make nuclear power too.

[Trespassers W]

We're just ignoring you because you RUIN EVERY HALLOWEEN PARTY.

[Matrix]

Now if we could only have peak human stupidity...

[Old Mexican]

In Time, a movie opening this weekend in which time is (literally) money and greedy rich people hoard all the life years while working stiffs live (literally, again) paycheck to paycheck.

Another Hollywood stinkeroo written by economics ignoramuses?

Say it ain't so, Shoeless! Say it ain't so!

[Appalachian Australian]

There was a time in history (which I'm sure White Indian wants us to go back to) when an average lifespan of 25 was the norm.

In other news, the drummers will not stop drumming. I can't imagine how awful it must be to live next to that noise.

[The Vampire Lestat]

Hoarding the technology would offer no advantages

Nonsense. Immortality for a select few would allow the emergence of a permanent ruling class who are able to accumulate wealth and influence over the span of several normal lifetimes.

[Trespassers W]

Step 1: Achieve immortality.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Enjoy vast wealth and influence!

[Matrix]

This is the problem with most conspiracy theories about a one world government or total takeover. What's the point if you spend most of your life trying to achieve it, yet you don't really get to reap the benefits of it? Now, if you had technology that would enable you to extend your life for hundreds of years or even indefinitely, then there might be a motivation to create some one world government that you control.

[sarcasmic]

The point of a one world government is to bring everyone under the same authority, not necessarily to be that authority.

[Matrix]

Why wouldn't someone with a thirst for power want to be that authority?

[sarcasmic]

I'm not saying that they wouldn't. But there are plenty who would work towards a one world government even if they knew it would not happen in their lifetime, simply because they are authority worshipers and want to see everyone forced to abide by the same set of rules and get permission from the same authority before doing anything.

[B. Springsteen]

poor man wanna be rich
rich man wanna be king
and a king ain't satisfied
'til he rules everything

Empire secures a place for its creators in history. That is motivation enough.

[sarcasmic]

If you can't live for a thousand years, at least you can be talked about for a thousand years.

[Macedonia Alex]

A thousand years. Ha! Piker!

Paris Hilton eat your heart out.

[sarcasmic]

Extending Lifespans Won't Turn the World Into a Grey Dystopia

But could it turn the world into a gay dystopia where everyone is named Tony?

[Spiny Norman]

Katherine: Your TiMER link goes to some admin page that wants a password. Do I need to be one of the genetic elite to access it?

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

Reason: you're third party spam filter has gone full retard.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation (sens.org). He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the Sens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

I recently attended a talk given by Dr. Aubrey de Grey from theSens Foundation. He said he believes that we have about a 50% chance of finding a way in the next 25 years to extend middle age for 30 years, i.e. when you are chronologically 60 you will be biologically 30. At that point we should be able to refine and improve the techniques in time to keep extending the healthy life years. Now if you are 80 when you first start receiving these treatments, your body may be too far gone to fully heal but you could still live to 150. If you are 60, however, your body could heal enough to allow you to live to at least 1000. So, as a 31 one year old, it sucks to be in every generation before mine.

[mr simple]

sens.org

The spam filter wouldn't let me post the link in the first comment.

[mr simple]

for some reason sens . org gets blocked as spam.

[mr simple]

For some reason sens[DOT]org gets blocked as spam.

[sarcasmic]

May you live long enough to die of cancer.

[Pope Jimbo]

Close

[Pope Jimbo]

Argh!

Close

[Pope Jimbo]

Mr. S did this "so-called genius" explain how Social Security was going to work in those circumstances?

Cuz you know that there would be no way to ever raise the retirement age from 65 to 650 or so.

[Denise]

The human will live longer.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I have been interested in and excited about this topic for several decades, now, and am in one way pleased to see the accelerated development that Arrison describes in her book. On the other hand, in the ReasonTV video clip, she only obliquely touches on what is the most frightening aspect of medical research for me: The growing ability to, as she says, "hack" the genome. What happens when it is possible for a malefactor to tailor a deadly virus to your specific DNA, creating the magic, unstoppable "bullet" with YOUR name on it? This day is coming, which is one of the reasons that I so strongly oppose routine collection, decoding, and archiving of DNA or related information by government. Of course, it won't be only (our) government that uses this information to "inspire" people to behave as told. Corporations, extortionists, radical eugenicists, those with personal animosities and grudges, religious extremists, vigilantes, etc., would all be tempted to exert control of or exact revenge against individuals or groups, by means of "DNA hacking."

Laws won't stop the abuse of DNA engineering, by governments or others, any more than they have prevented elective wars or torture, or have taken firearms out of the hands of criminals. I would be more enthusiastic about the positive prospects for Arrison's brave new world, if she or others would also document substantial progress in finding practical, technological ways to prevent, counteract, or at least mitigate the inevitable misuse of DNA engineering technology. Does she?