Harvard Scientists May Bring Immortality

[Empire of Cats]

It's just, for me, part of what makes life so interesting is knowing you only have so much time. It's what you do with it that matters, at least for me.

How does being forced to ignore things you're interested in because there's not enough time for it make life more interesting? It's just frustrating. If what you do matters, then surely being able to do more of it is preferable?

and while immortality would extend your life, once you've done everything, then what?

If you're bored of living, suicide would still be possible. It's not like you'd be invincible. Although you'd probably die in an accident or to some act of violence a long while before getting even close to that point.

You mean, being forced to work instead of pursue your dreams? I can relate. And you're right on the second count, too. I didn't think that through.

And no, I am in no way bored of living, thank goodness.

[Gim]

Immortal Stalin time.

Stalin's already dead. It's about making the currently-living people immortal.

[Novus America]

Immortal Stalin time.

Stalin's already dead. It's about making the currently-living people immortal.

Except this only extends your life a bit, does not make you immortal at all.

[Gim]

Stalin's already dead. It's about making the currently-living people immortal.

Except this only extends your life a bit, does not make you immortal at all.

We will become immortal! I say! Immortal!

[United Minorities for Self-Defense]

Scientists Can Reverse DNA Aging in Mice

After several years of research, Harvard scientists announce that using a chemical known as NAD+ reversed the aging process in lab mice.

Dr. David Sinclair, from Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues reveal their new findings in the latest issue of Science. They focused on an intriguing compound with anti-aging properties called NAD+, short for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. It's been known that younger mice had more of it than older mice and back in 2013, the researchers found that when they boosted the NAD+ levels in older mice, they looked, biologically, like much younger animals.

In the latest paper, the scientists revealed new details on how NAD+ works to keep cells young. Sinclair put drops of NAD+ into the water of a group of mice, and within a couple of hours, their NAD+ levels started to rise. Within the first week, the scientists saw obvious age reversal in muscle and improvements in DNA repair. “We can’t tell the difference between the tissues from an old mouse that is two years old versus a young mouse that is three to four months old," Sinclair says.

Immortality appears to be mere years away if the human research pans out.

What social effects can we see come about from an effectively immortal population? Political effects? Religious? Do you think that governments could enforce population controls akin to what China has done to prevent a population explosion?

I think you will see that only rich people have it. It will be priced so high, that you will have to die because you don't have it. Think about it. Only the 1% of American population will be able to afford. Only poor people will die.
As far as religion goes, there going 6to have to come out with new claims. If one can live a lot longer with the NAD plus, then it stands to reason that not everyone can get it. It must be priced high enough that only a miniscule number of people get there hands on it. The basis of pricing will not be ethics or morality, but cold hard cash.
People who have sold there soul to the Almighty Dollar and worship money will get it than people that worship god. This is because Capitalism, that evil devil, will take precedence over anything else. Money Worshippers will bow before there Green God and will prosper. Those who bow before an Invisible God will not and they will die.
Of course, we need to talk about a lot of these things earlier so we are not caught when we find they bring unpleasant changes. For every benefit there surely is a minus. For instance, they could make it so your D.N.A replicates a lot longer. However, to do that will produce cancer at an accelerated rate. Is it worth it ? Do you want a higher chance of cancer.
We will also HAVE to populate other planets. I foresee a future time when mining companies are mining other planets and giving 10% of there income to low-income people. They may not though. And if they do so , we'll have to do certain things they won't enjoy. Money only has meaning if you have some and can spend it how you see fit. The Green God must be dethroned and Capitalism must be destroyed. Socialism is the way !

[United Minorities for Self-Defense]

I'm not sure what to think. I guess it's good to see that science is capable of many things. But what's the point of living forever?

Watching every single show on Netflix you never had the time to watch.

In all seriousness, I voiced my loud opinion on this earlier, I really dislike the idea of transhumanism.

You are right. I don't like transhumanism. The point is, we haven't even debated yet if it is ethical or not. Yes, it's exciting, but without the necessary arguments to whether it is ethical or not, we will make tons of mistakes.
Therefore, I suggest we begin the ethical arguments here. To aid that process, who wishes to argue in favor of transhumanism and who against it ?

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Political effects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Assuming access to immortality is distributed in an egalitarian manner, of course.

But let's not be absurd. Imagine the levels of dystopian hell society can reach once the ruling class has control over selective access to immortality. What could possibly not go wrong?

[Maichuko]

Immortal Stalin time.

Stalin's already dead. It's about making the currently-living people immortal.

Immortal Kim Jong Un.

[Pavelania]

I don't like this at all. Not only is this playing God, but why on earth would I want to live more than 100 years?

[Wallenburg]

I don't like this at all. Not only is this playing God, but why on earth would I want to live more than 100 years?

It is not playing God to maintain your health. And most people would love to live at least a couple more decades with strong, healthy bodies. Maybe not an entire century, but I see no downside to a greater life expectancy.

[Minzerland II]

Sounds like a legitimately aweful prospect.

[New haven america]

Sounds like a legitimately wonderful idea.

[Minzerland II]

I mean, agree to disagree, I suppose.

[Gim]

Stalin's already dead. It's about making the currently-living people immortal.

Immortal Kim Jong Un.

Oh, no. Uh-oh.

[Aromanticism]

I like the idea of biological immortality, but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to see it happen.

[Gim]

I like the idea of biological immortality, but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to see it happen.

There will be overpopulation.

[Aromanticism]

I like the idea of biological immortality, but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to see it happen.

There will be overpopulation.

Hence why I'm not entirely sold on putting the concept into action.

[Conscentia]

I like the idea of biological immortality, but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to see it happen.

There will be overpopulation.

Not if birth rates fall when the death rate falls. (There will still be a death rate - biological immortality isn't invincibility. Accidents, suicides, diseases, and murders will ensure people keep dying.)

It's also likely access to any technology that could provide biological immortality would not be widespread anyway.

[Wallenburg]

I like the idea of biological immortality, but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to see it happen.

There will be overpopulation.

That's what has always been said about technological advances that extend life expectancy. Hasn't happened.

[Gim]

There will be overpopulation.

That's what has always been said about technological advances that extend life expectancy. Hasn't happened.

Funerals will shut down.

[Aromanticism]

There will be overpopulation.

Not if birth rates fall when the death rate falls. (There will still be a death rate - biological immortality isn't invincibility. Accidents, suicides, diseases, and murders will ensure people keep dying.)

It's also likely access to any technology that could provide biological immortality would not be widespread anyway.

Fair enough, but why would the birth rate fall at exactly the same times as the death rate?

[Conscentia]

Not if birth rates fall when the death rate falls. (There will still be a death rate - biological immortality isn't invincibility. Accidents, suicides, diseases, and murders will ensure people keep dying.)
It's also likely access to any technology that could provide biological immortality would not be widespread anyway.

Fair enough, but why would the birth rate fall at exactly the same times as the death rate?

As population density increases competition increases, driving parents to have children later and invest more in fewer children rather than invest little in many children. It's a well documented trend one can see in developed economies around the world.

If that's not enough, it's likely appropriate public policy would be implemented compensate.

[Gim]

There will be overpopulation.

Not if birth rates fall when the death rate falls. (There will still be a death rate - biological immortality isn't invincibility. Accidents, suicides, diseases, and murders will ensure people keep dying.)

It's also likely access to any technology that could provide biological immortality would not be widespread anyway.

It's a hypothesis measured by an asymptote.

[Wallenburg]

Not if birth rates fall when the death rate falls. (There will still be a death rate - biological immortality isn't invincibility. Accidents, suicides, diseases, and murders will ensure people keep dying.)

It's also likely access to any technology that could provide biological immortality would not be widespread anyway.

Fair enough, but why would the birth rate fall at exactly the same times as the death rate?

I'm not sure why it would fall at exactly the same rate as the death rate. Luckily, we don't have to speculate.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson- ... rowth.aspx

The birth rate is already converging with the death rate, especially in developed nations, lowering quickly as the death rate largely stagnates.

[Salandriagado]

Fair enough, but why would the birth rate fall at exactly the same times as the death rate?

I'm not sure why it would fall at exactly the same rate as the death rate. Luckily, we don't have to speculate.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson- ... rowth.aspx

The birth rate is already converging with the death rate, especially in developed nations, lowering quickly as the death rate largely stagnates.

Unfortunately, the birth rate tends to drop on a fairly significant delay after death rates ("this will make you not die for longer" is easier to sell to people than major cultural changes like having less children). That delay is pretty much entirely responsible for the explosion in the global population over the last couple of centuries.