I'm sitting here half-listening to a television documentary that supposes we humans could potentially live for 500 years with appropriate genetic discoveries and proper body maintenance. It's becoming an increasingly surmountable engineering problem.
What the heck would that be like? Seriously, this isn't the old "immortality" question, because we all agree that would be torture. Assuming you wouldn't be a bed-ridden stroke-prone diabetic, would you want to live for 500 years? You know, Cocoon style.
(Wilford Brimley hasn't aged since 1985)
If it was an option, I think I'd give it a go, but I can only imagine how drastically things would change if many made the same choice.
I think it's safe to say religions would freak-out, but I wonder how much so? I mean there are people in the Bible who lived longer than 500 years. "After Lamech had Noah he lived 595 years having sons and daughters. He lived to age 777 and then he died." I'd look at it like a true modern miracle.
I don't know if I'll ever see this in my lifetime. I'm not too upset about it.
UPDATE:
Scientific American posts feature article: Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity Genes.
The only way I would get on board with something like this would be if there was a special lane on the highway for them.
How would the aging process work? Would we be decrepit old geezers from our 60s on? Or would 284 be the new 30?
I am not on board. I would have nothing to do. The only way I'd want to live to 500 is if I could still retire at 65 and golf every day. Even then, I'm sure I'd get sick of golf. I'm pretty sure I'd be ready to go around 80 anyway, so why delay the inevitable?
Also, could you imagine the family trees???
Our family Christmas party would be ridiculous. The house is already packed and that's with three generations. Great great great great grandpa Nick would probably fall asleep in the best chair 5 minutes into the first quarter of the Eagles game...nah, I couldn't handle that.
I'm assuming that "284 would be the new 30." I don't think anyone would want to be in a nursing home for 400 years. And I think people would likely not have huge families either. If you were still fertile later into life, why would you want to be tied down for 400+ years? You could spend your first century trotting the globe looking for that perfect person to share the next 400 years with! Ha! Sounds like Highlander.
People don't think that way though. Trust me, in my line of work, people don't plan on having families..."they just happen..." Because sometimes you just can't resist inpregnating a toothless crackhead. So while you and I may wait for Ms. Perfect to start a wonderful life together, Harry and Wanda are going to have 4 kids by the time they are 30 regardless (unless 30 equates to 6, but you get the picture).
This leads me to another point and probably another topic. BIRTH CONTROL. My solution, all men must get a vasectomy at age 12, freeze some samples and then you must pass a test in order to have a child. Certain folks aren't able to parent and they should not be allowed to. Think about it, you need to pass a test in order to drive, but anyone can produce life whenever the mood hits them. Call me Communist if you want, but we need to stop the problem at the source...nads. I'm sure the money used on the operation would be much cheapier than all the hospital bills of unwanted children, crack addicted infants and premature babies.
I understand your job puts you on the front lines there. So I won't call you a communist. I think you're more of a fascist. Fascist.
Wait... You guys are talking about being able to do this WITHOUT having to suck other people's blood?
Lovingly crafted by orangecoat with some rights reserved, and a promise not to spam you.
Back to top
Cookie, we're gonna need a bigger cake.