Should science be working to prolong people's lives?

Post Reply New Topic

With what about 7 billion people, should medicine and science be in the business of trying to prolong life and maximize lifespan? Should the medical means of prolonging life be open only to those who can afford or who possess skills seen as beneficial to society?

Should we have an expiration date? If you knew that you were going to be put down say when you were 55, would you go about living your life differently?

Sorry Moog, that is probably too many questions.

To summarize, do you think medical science should be in the business of keeping everyone alive, or do you think only the strongest and most fit should?

Logan's Run?

In Time, I am not sure. There was a sci-fi book about it that I vaguely remember reading years ago. That is going to bug me now.

Well, I would be okay with science making the quality of life better morseso than adding length of life.

very vague and circumstancial questions,

if we start utilizing space over population is much less of an issue,

as for an expiration date on people?
nah that would literally only bring more suffering when the accumulated knowledge and experiences cant be tilized anymore.

medical science should be in the buisness of helping people that want help, nothing more, they are not there to ensure that everyone reaches a hundred and they are not there to judge who needs help and who doesnt.

also shouldnt this be in ppr?

For the most part, I think the majority of people do the most relevant things they're going to do in life between ages 20 and 40 - this is where creativity and liquid intelligence are at their maximum. Between 40 and 60, many tend to act all self-important/distinguished about what they did between 20 and 40. After 60, you're just old. On one level, I think it's cool that many in today's society get to enjoy their golden years, but for the most part, there is little benefit to society in extending the average life expectancy to unprecendented levels. It's a drain on resources. Life's most important work is done by the young.

moved from Adult Autism Discussion to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

I already worked that solution out a long time ago.

Your lifespan is determined by a couple of things.

1. Genetics - of course.
With poor genetics you have to come to expect such things as cancer, heart disease, mental illness, and other maladies are always against you.

2. Your weight.
Skinny people lives longer then fat people.
Your heart has to work harder when you are obese.
You have more surface area on your body - hence you are more prone to cancer and other problems.

3. Your age - when you start to take care of yourself.

4. Your health - smoking, non smoker, drinker, non drinker, a person that exercises isn't always the most healthy people even though their body's might be in great shape. I had a gym coach and a football coach that both died around the age of 47 Yrs old and each was in great shape.

5. Your mental health.
A positive mental attitude is the key to longevity.
If you have ever noticed - once your life mate dies - its usually just a matter of time before you pass also.
Most people I have seen who were in love only lasted 3 - 5 years after the other person died.

My maternal grandfather died when he was just 88 years old.
He was sick since he was about 60 and he prayed every day that god would take him and he outlived many other people who were in much better health.
There is no way else to explain it except that he only weighed 97 lbs / 5'4, and he drank beer and Sam Thompson Rye whiskey, later Jim Beam Rye and Mountain Dew or Blackberry brandy.
He ate Pringles potato chips and Snack Pack Pudding and Reases Peanut Butter Cups.

He ate Very little red meat or bread.

My paternal grandmother was 98 years old when she died.
She refused to eat any fat and she starved herself to death and she only weighed about 110 lbs and was 5'8
She refused to drink alcohol and she drank tea and ate pork chops and vegetables.
She would still be alive today - except she didn't want to live and she had a stroke and refused to be fed and crawled into bed and died.
Even though she didn't eat - she still lived another 10 days past the stroke. I think her body was so used to no nourishment that it didn't miss it when she refused to eat and her heart just kept beating.

My paternal grandfather died when he was 69 years old.
He was picking potato's in my Uncle the school teachers garden and it was hot outside - 98* and he drove the wheel barrow across the yard 60 yards and walked into the basement and collapsed into a chair and died.
He was 5'7 and weighed 280 Lbs.

All the medicine in the world will not keep a fat person alive and all the medicine in the world will not keep a skinny person alive if they do not want to live!

Me personally - I have been disabled for 14 years now and I have gained 110 lbs in that period of time.
I have suffered from two back injuries, smoke inhalation, a closed head injury and hearing loss and a problem with my esophagus while working the past 25 years.
Its no shame that once I couldn't work 10 or 12 hours a day that I would gain weight..

This computer - which gives me the ability to converse with the outside world and my ham radio equipment is all that keeps me alive.

I used to watch television 16 hours a day...
That was no good!

It is a tough question because it always sounds like "Should we just let people die"?

Science should be working to extend the life span IMO.

Why the hell not? The planets already doomed and we have too many people (and if we don't know, countries like India will make sure we do in the future with help from the Catholics and Mormons) so why not let people live longer?

because I am harsh and lack empathy and hold anarcho-primitavist views, I dont think people should have any interventions with science and medicine, there are too many people and too much money wasted on medicines which just lead to weakening of the population.

I think people need to take responsibility for their own health by eating well and exercising and people wont do that while they can get medicines for life style related diseases.

For other disease/conditions not caused by lifestyle I also think they should not be treated as then they are passed on and lead to more people in the population having those conditions.

I do recognize that what i am saying is very harsh and controversial.

I am now in the sticky position in my own life of needing a C-section or dying, if i dont have a section I will die with the placental condition I have. This makes me very distressed as i dont believe in intervention and think that if someone is in my position they should die, its the right thing. If I lived a hundred years ago, i would be about to die over the next few weeks, my baby would die too and i would not pass this condition on. But obviously I dont want to die and i dont want my baby to die so i shall have the c-section, but i feel very bad about it and feel like I should not live, I feel like Im cheating death and cheating my time to go, and ruining things for people of the future.

Not mine.

If I could remain a randy stud well past the age of 300, then I'm all for it!

Science and technology have lengthened people's live 40 percent since the end of the 19th century.

ruveyn

If science is going to continue lengthening life spans, then we also are going to need to regulate the global birth rate accordingly, as well as adjusting to more environmentally friendly ways of living(ie Using Public Transit, Not Eating so Much Meat, Etc). 10 billion can destroy the planet faster than 7 billion, and 7 billion is probably way too many people already.