This is a subject much on the mind of science fiction. I wonder what some of you think the implications of this are. The pharmaceutical company is talking about a drug in a decade. One that might say... double our life spans. We already enjoy twice the lifespan of the third world, what will we look like to them with 120, 140, 160 yr lifespans?
This is happening faster then predicted, 2025 was the soonest optimistic predictions I had seen, but I guess like the Human Genome Project new tools changed the pace.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. The article was referring specifically to mammarian cells. In other words, when I'm an old fart my boobs won't sag?
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for colonizing space, simply from the standpoint of getting all our eggs out of one basket. But you do realize that, from an overcrowding standpoint, colonizing will not do a thing for the Earth, right?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it wouldn't. Universal overcrowding would not take place for a while, but Earth would be just as overcrowded as it is before the colonization, unless you have free instantaneous transportation to the colony, and terraformed colonies with no infrastructure needing to be built.
Also, Earth's population has doubled in the last thirty years or so. So if you could, say, start instantaneously transporting people to a terraformed Mars with the space, livestock, agriculture, and social structures necessary to receive them, at the rate we're expanding, within thirty years (less, really, since the rate is more or less exponential) you'd have two planets just as overcrowded as Earth is now. If all that impossible stuff were possible.
Without all of that impossible stuff, colonization is a great answer for what happens to humanity if Earth is destroyed, but it does nothing whatsoever for the population pressure of this planet.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't quite figured out how to type sarcasm yet. I know that it would take more than a century to fill up the universe, even with all of those impossible conditions you mentioned.
Here's an excerpt from a lecture given by Albert Bartlett who believes that "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
quote:Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacterium into an empty bottle at eleven in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at twelve noon. There's our case of just ordinary steady growth, it has a doubling time of one minuet, and it's in the finite environment of one bottle. I want to ask you three questions.
Number one; at which time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59,one minuet before 12, because they double in number every minute.
Second Question; if you were an average bacterium in that bottle at what time would you first realise that you were running of space? Well let's just look at the last minute in the bottle. At 12 noon its full, one minute before its half full, 2 minutes before its ¼ full than 1/8th than a 1/16th . Let me ask you, at 5 minutes before 12 when the bottle is only 3% full and is 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realise there's a problem?
Well suppose that at 2 minutes before 12, some of the bacterium realised they were running out of space, so they launch a great search for new bottles. They searched offshore and on the outer continental shelf and the overthrust belt and the Artic, and they find three new bottles. Now that's an incredible discovery, that's three times the total amount of resource they ever new about before, they now have four bottles, before their discovery they had one. Now surely this will give them a sustainable society, wont' it?
You know what the third question is? How long can the growth continue as a result of this magnificent discovery? Well look at the score, at 12 noon, one bottles filled, there are three to go, 12:01 two bottles are filled, there's two to go and at 12:02 all four are filled and that's the end of the line.
posted
I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. On the surface, it sounds like you're being unbelievably consdescending and suggesting I don't understand exponential growth. But then your link and exerpt actually prove my case, which either mean you didn't understand your own link, or you are in fact meaning to agree with me, and it's just not coming across clearly.
posted
Asimov wrote a wonderful short story once about the growth of man amongst the stars. It was done in several various levels, each one involves one protagonist worried that at the current level of exponential population growth, they would overcrowd the planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. The other swears that there is plenty of space. They eventually turn to the uber-computer that runs most of civilization and ask it what will they do when they run out of room. The computer politely lets them know that it is working on the problem.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have always considered myself to be an aging breakthrough. Or was that throughly broke, I forget.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the aspect the worries me. They are not going to give this compound away, the commercial potential is way to high to pass up profits like that.
Which leads me to ask, what will be the cost of 'youth'; $10/yr, $100/yr, $10,000/yr, $100,000/yr, $1,000,000/yr?
AIDS drugs were obscenely high priced, but when you are dying, what choice do you have but to pay?
So, the rich live on, and the poor die out. That sounds good, but when the poor are all gone, who will serve the rich?
If this 'compound' comes to be, then this is the ethical dilemma I worry about.
posted
The poor won't die out, they will just not live as long as the rich. A rich American families will just have to change maids several times. Perhaps hiring the daughter of the previous...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously though, the world population is growing but the demographic is not solid, if their is a solid distribution of rights and opportunities for women to not have babies then we might see a growth rate that is negative like America and Europe less immigration. So much so is this the case that many are warning that Caucasians are birth controlling themselves out of history. If there is one thing we need to teach the Middle East it is the joy of the pill...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I didn't mean to insult you. I do agree with you, and my first post was just worded very poorly. The link was just something I found interesting.
Sorry for any offense.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Asimov wrote a wonderful short story once about the growth of man amongst the stars. It was done in several various levels, each one involves one protagonist worried that at the current level of exponential population growth, they would overcrowd the planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. The other swears that there is plenty of space. They eventually turn to the uber-computer that runs most of civilization and ask it what will they do when they run out of room. The computer politely lets them know that it is working on the problem.
That sounds an awful lot like Asimov's "The Last Question," although in that story the problem was trying to find a way to reverse the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps this is the story you are thinking of?
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Here is the aspect the worries me. They are not going to give this compound away, the commercial potential is way to high to pass up profits like that.
Which leads me to ask, what will be the cost of 'youth'; $10/yr, $100/yr, $10,000/yr, $100,000/yr, $1,000,000/yr?
If I remember correctly, patents expire after 20 years. No matter how ridiculously overpriced it starts out, it will come down before too long as long as the manufacturing process isn't too bad.
quote: So, the rich live on, and the poor die out. That sounds good, but when the poor are all gone, who will serve the rich?
The poor people's children? It's not like poor people are going to stop reproducing. Also, if the lives of the rich are extended, it will have a large effect on their children. Without inheritance, a lot of people who would otherwise have been rich just by money passed down will now be much more reliant on their own abilities to make a living. Obviously, the first generation from a really rich person will not be all that likely to be poor, but as you go down further generations people will be pretty much no different for having someone who is really rich in their family tree.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Seriously though, the world population is growing but the demographic is not solid, if their is a solid distribution of rights and opportunities for women to not have babies then we might see a growth rate that is negative like America and Europe less immigration. So much so is this the case that many are warning that Caucasians are birth controlling themselves out of history. If there is one thing we need to teach the Middle East it is the joy of the pill...
Oooo, there you go. If you can't beat 'em, outbreed 'em!
One could argue that the wealth of a nation is directly related to their birthrate. First World nations have lower birthrates than second and third world nations.
So you could argue, that if the caucasians want to win, they shouldn't try to outproduce the competition, they should try to enrich the competition, and keep the status quo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Won't the unequal distribution of wealth get much worse if rich people live longer in ever-greater disproportion.
As more money is tied up in the hands of the wealthy, that means a greater concentration of power and thus a chance that the laws will gradually come to favor the rich, long-lived folks.
Like any fundamental breakthrough, the impact on society is somewhat unforeseeable and the downsides will likely fall disproportionately on those who head into the situation with less money or power to begin with.
Maybe we'll see developed nations having to quell riots among the have-nots. Maybe some nations will convert to communism after bloody revolution.
Or...maybe we'll figure out that life is precious if we have more of it?
This could get really interesting if this compound works.
I'm rather skeptical, btw. This research team has done a lot of work with "magnets" and came up with some kind of magnet based therapy, the acronym for which is MAGIC. The drive for massive commercial success in medical-related research is a forcing function -- it encourages sloppy work in the rush to be first, and sometimes even outright fraud.
What will surprise me is seeing this work replicated. If it works at all, I don't see a reason for it not to work with humans. And, realistically, if it works as described, the potential side-effects are probably no worse than the deleterious effects of the cell aging in the first place -- unless it somehow promotes cancers.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Icarus, I didn't mean to insult you. I do agree with you, and my first post was just worded very poorly. The link was just something I found interesting.
*whew* I thought maybe I was misinterpreting you. I'm glad I asked instead of activating Flame Mode. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish they would test the effects of deuterium-containing water ("heavy water"), where the hydrogen atom has one neutron with the proton in the nucleus, on aging and rejuvenation of cells. Researchers could try various percentages of heavy water vs. regular water. Maybe the real secret of the "water of life" is simply its deuterium content.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wish they would test the effects of deuterium-containing water ("heavy water"), where the hydrogen atom has one neutron with the proton in the nucleus, on aging and rejuvenation of cells. Researchers could try various percentages of heavy water vs. regular water. Maybe the real secret of the "water of life" is simply its deuterium content.
Someone's been listening to Coast to Coast AM Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The wealthier people will now live longer lives. This Elongated Life Faction will not only have financial benefits of this system, but also educational benefits as they will have longer to study, think, build. Their areas of the world will always be the leaders in technology, science, and what they at least believe, is culture.
They will also be greatly more environmentally active, since if you are going to be around for another century, having a world around for that long becomes an important goal.
THe poorer peoples of the world will fight against this lopsided advantage. They will become more militant, violent, ruthless. They will force their own women into being mere breeding mares to overwhelm the Elongated Life Factions with their numbers.
Demanding a more communal redistribution of wealth, via violence, is historically been called Red Communism. We'll call these fast breeding violent people the Organization of Red Communists.
So we have the tree loving, long lived E.L.F. in constant war against the violence loving O.R.C.
Just throw in a Dragon or too and we are set.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a book once, that when the logevity treatments really kicked in some bright renegade geneticists released a plague that caused sterility by making women unable to carry children to term,, then they offered a technology of artificial womb, ectogenesis. Thus putting reproduction totally in the hands of those with the technical tools. It was a kind of a ruthless final solution thing...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What is Flame Mode like?
I call people names, like "Xenophobe."
You called me a monkey who threw his fesces.
True story .
Why am I proud of this??
Oh and the Asimov story was "The Last Question," I just read it a few weeks ago for the first time, it's quite depressing actually, because once Asimov as written about the future of the future future, there is little left to say in the matter. He actually constructs scenarios in which people discuss the population pressure within their own large galactic cluster. Hmmm.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I can see the future now.
The wealthier people will now live longer lives. This Elongated Life Faction will not only have financial benefits of this system, but also educational benefits as they will have longer to study, think, build. Their areas of the world will always be the leaders in technology, science, and what they at least believe, is culture.
They will also be greatly more environmentally active, since if you are going to be around for another century, having a world around for that long becomes an important goal.
THe poorer peoples of the world will fight against this lopsided advantage. They will become more militant, violent, ruthless. They will force their own women into being mere breeding mares to overwhelm the Elongated Life Factions with their numbers.
Demanding a more communal redistribution of wealth, via violence, is historically been called Red Communism. We'll call these fast breeding violent people the Organization of Red Communists.
So we have the tree loving, long lived E.L.F. in constant war against the violence loving O.R.C.
Just throw in a Dragon or too and we are set.
How bad would the impact of this REALLY be though? I mean sure, if the entire world could live into their 140's, that almost doubles the lifespan of the world (it DOES, in many places), which would theoretically double our population.
But look at the nations who would be able to afford something like this. It'll start off expensive sure, but people will find a way to pay it. The real problem that I'd see here, if you want to call it a problem, is the end of inheritance for everyone below the rich. People will sell whatever they have to but the aging drugs, and when they finally do kick the bucket, their kids will get nothing from them. Just a side effect I guess I'd call it.
Anyway, the nations who can afford it are the wealthy. The wealthy nations have low birthrates, therefore, once the population grows to suit it, meaning, once we accomodate the extra 60 years of life for these people (and put up with an extra three generations worth if people) the population will level off again.
If we're going to start playing with our lifespans, we need to be better stewards of the planet, and we need to do more to enrich our neighbors, so our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren, who thanks to these drugs we may very well actually meet, have a nice place to be born into.
If you want a scary scenario:
Imagine, everyone lives into their 140's. If every 20 years, a new generation of kids come about, that means seven generations of one family will all be alive at the same time. If they are anything like my Catholic Grandparents, that's seven kids per person in the family, over seven generations, if everyone has seven kids, and they all stay alive, by the seventh generation, the family has 137,257, included therein is the guy who started at all.
That's not a family. That's an army. Imagine they all go off into their own little areas of the unsettled wilderness of America and they form their own towns. Oh the kids will go off to school somewhere else, and they'll bring back wives and husbands, but it will always be family first. They'll be their own voting bloc in an election, send their own representative to Congress to send the pork back to their family. Of course they aren't the only family there. All of the big families are supported in Congress, along with the other, smaller families who've melded together for the sake of survival. We're going back to feudal times.
Now, for the people who believe in birth control and more manageable numbers, if eveyrone kept having two kids, then minus spouses (same for the number above, adding spouses will DOUBLE it), you get 127 living members of a family.
That's still a powerful family. For the seventh generation kid in that family, that's a LOT of grandparents, aunts, and uncles to call upon for resources when you want to go to school, buy a house, get a car loan, etc.
If anything, the wealthy would do everything they possibly could to ensure that NO ONE other than the elites got their hands on it, but that'd never work. It's a democracy, and the poor here outnumber the strong. And it also isn't pre-Revolution Russia, the elite can't keep the poor down when they want something like that. They'll bully Congress, and they'll get it, and you'll see whole American Dynasties and Houses rise and fall.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The poor, ignorant, short-lived masses will be at such a great disadvantage that they will not be able to mount a successful revolution. They will be too easy for the wealthy, educated, long-lived elite to kill off. In fact, the latter could just leave earth. What would most probably result is a new form of feudalism, where the poor serfs attach themselves loyally to their local lord in exchange for handouts, such as an occasional partial rejuvenation. They would gladly form militias to protect their lord from attack by the unassimilated poor, ignorant masses.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Won't ever get to that Ron. Not the first part anyway.
Before the rich get to the point where they feel they'll need to kill off the masses, or to where they want to leave, the masses, or at least a portion of them, will get themselves access to the aging drugs, and will become nouveux riche themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor doesn't mean weak, at least as long as Hillary doesn't get our guns and she will never get them all... Also remember that law enforcement and military personnel are not 'rich' and they are not robots.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Living a long time will certainly have an effect on all aspects of our lives. With my luck, I would end up fat and middle aged for a hundred years ( as opposed to young and beautiful - wait a minute, I never looked that way!!)
One factor does come into play, and that is the willingness of people to raise kids. If your wife only wants two, that is that, unless you dump her. This means that those people groups that tend to have large families will eventually dominate societies that have other groups that tend towards small families. In the US this means social conservatives - Mormons and Catholics and others like them. In other countries this means Muslims. Poor old Europe will really look different eventually.
Add longevity to this, and if it includes stretching the child rearing years and you might get a quickening and magnification of the effect I described.
It sounds like a book, doesn't it? Posts: 13 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Poor doesn't mean weak, at least as long as Hillary doesn't get our guns and she will never get them all... Also remember that law enforcement and military personnel are not 'rich' and they are not robots.
The amusing part of that, is Hillary is one of the most hawkish Dems in the Senate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Perhaps, but where does she stand on gun control? I think that was GS's angle.
She's a fan of "responsible gun control." License handgun sales, pro-assault rifle ban, and keeping guns away from children and violent convicts.
I've never heard her advocate going house to house to collect weapons from people. Unless Sax was being sarcastic [/feigned shock]
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several information theorists have plotted the longevity and information growth curves and predicted that some of the people alive today will live long enough to be able to live indefinitely.
It is a very well thought out correlation but it seems to cause an eye rolling reaction in most people.
I do not find it to be unlikely, I certainly no longer fear death, but I would not sneeze at endless youth and vigor. I think the social implications are going to split the first and third world even worse then we are split now.
With all the pressure in place to find alternatives to fossil fuel in a few decades we may see an end to oil money supporting countries that are overshot beyond their carrying capacity, we may see a sharp decline in longevity except in the West where it will spike.
How will those with no hope in the brief now except in the long hereafter feel about those who never expect to face Judgment at all?
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
