• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hypothetical Question, No Right Answers

Would you have the hypothetical life extending treatment?


  • Total voters
    43

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a fan of science fiction, I find it fascinating how certain authors look at effects different technologies have. One of my favorites, Lois Bujold does this alot with life sciences. I very indirectly got the idea for this question from her looking at life sciences in the future.

Imagine a scenario where a treatment is devised that extends the human lifespan by 250 %. Instead of living to an average of 75ish, the new average is 182ish. It does not make you old for a long time, it slows the rate you age, so now you look and feel young for much longer, then feel middle aged alot longer, and so on.

There is one problem with this treatment. In 50 % of the cases, it will render the person unable to have children. Half of women who undergo this treatment will become barren, half the men will have their sperm count drop to almost nothing. You can still have fun with sex, but their won't be any babies for 50 % of the people. Would you choose to have the treatment? I am further asking if you have children currently, wondering if that effects the results. Assume the treatment needs to be done at a young age()15ish maybe) to fend off the "I would have kids, then have the treatment".
 
Yeah, I'd do it. I'd just adopt, which is likely what I'm going to do anyway, so it wouldn't matter to me.
 
Hell, can I ask for sterile 100% of the time? I'd take that. Better as a packaged deal.
 
I'd still have it, there's always other ways to have kids, adoption, IVF, cloning, kidnapping etc..
 
Good God no. Live in this world 182 years? Why? Hell, 40 was enough for me. And I'm not even unhappy.
 
I would have my gametes frozen for later fertilization, and then undergo the procedure.
 
The one interesting thing I can think of, is if you get the treatment, and your kids don't, that would suck. I wouldn't want to bury a child.
 
No, we had two girls and even though the oldest is deceased, we had her for 19 good years.
 
As a fan of science fiction, I find it fascinating how certain authors look at effects different technologies have. One of my favorites, Lois Bujold does this alot with life sciences. I very indirectly got the idea for this question from her looking at life sciences in the future.

Imagine a scenario where a treatment is devised that extends the human lifespan by 250 %. Instead of living to an average of 75ish, the new average is 182ish. It does not make you old for a long time, it slows the rate you age, so now you look and feel young for much longer, then feel middle aged alot longer, and so on.

There is one problem with this treatment. In 50 % of the cases, it will render the person unable to have children. Half of women who undergo this treatment will become barren, half the men will have their sperm count drop to almost nothing. You can still have fun with sex, but their won't be any babies for 50 % of the people. Would you choose to have the treatment? I am further asking if you have children currently, wondering if that effects the results. Assume the treatment needs to be done at a young age()15ish maybe) to fend off the "I would have kids, then have the treatment".

Other, have my baby batter preserved, then take the treatment.
 
This thread is proof again that no matter how carefully you word the question, some one will still find the loophole. Please try and play along with the premise: treatment = 50 % chance no kids.
 
This thread is proof again that no matter how carefully you word the question, some one will still find the loophole. Please try and play along with the premise: treatment = 50 % chance no kids.

Fine, I'd just have sex twice as much. :lol:
 
This thread is proof again that no matter how carefully you word the question, some one will still find the loophole. Please try and play along with the premise: treatment = 50 % chance no kids.

But your thread states that there are no right answers.
We all fail. :2razz:
 
live longer but without one of the best purposes for living?

no thanks :)
 
This thread is proof again that no matter how carefully you word the question, some one will still find the loophole. Please try and play along with the premise: treatment = 50 % chance no kids.

Well you did throw in the "other."
 
If such 'treatment' was possible over 99% of the world population would go through it.
 
I'm a father of two little ninjas. I wouldn't want to take the treatment because:
  • What if I could get it and they couldn't?
  • What if I got it and my closest friends didn't?
  • What if it somehow screwed up what children I was able to have?
  • Overpopulation's bad enough now...
  • The security of the human race lies in the fact that we don't live forever, that new people pop up on a regular basis and make changes to the paradigm.
In short, Redress, if you're looking for the chief reasons I'd never do it, Orson Scott Card's stories about Capital pretty much sum it up. Even if I wasn't a dad, I still wouldn't do it.
 
Sure. I'm childfree, so I don't care much about that theoretical side effect. I'd hope it would make me sterile, actually. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get fixed? Apparently I'm smart enough to decide to have kids, but not smart enough to decide not to.
 
If such 'treatment' was possible over 99% of the world population would go through it.

No kidding. Especially if the decision needs to be made before the brain is even mature enough to comprehend the consequences. I know that at 15 I would have totally gone for the cool idea of living for close to 2 centuries over the idea of having kids of my own.
 
live longer but without one of the best purposes for living?

no thanks :)

About the time you posted that, my grand-daughter, age 2.5 years, was in my den (yes I know - at this hour!?) yacking and climbing and jabbering, and I thought, my God what a lively little miracle she is! so beautiful. I never would have thought as a teen that I would ever know anything like the love I have experienced in being a father and a grandfather.

I understand why young people, and even old people, might love this idea, and jump at the chance to live twice as long, and at age 15 I might have signed up for it, too, but I'm sure now I would not want to be 50, or 125, and not know what being a father feels like.

And I'm damn sure I don't want to feel middle aged and old for twice the length of time I've already been given.
 
Yup. In a second. Remember, the odds are 50/50 that I could still have children if I wanted, but 100% that I would live longer. I like those odds.
 
About the time you posted that, my grand-daughter, age 2.5 years, was in my den (yes I know - at this hour!?) yacking and climbing and jabbering, and I thought, my God what a lively little miracle she is! so beautiful. I never would have thought as a teen that I would ever know anything like the love I have experienced in being a father and a grandfather.

:D what a fun and beautiful blessing.

and well put. A longer life without kids would be... well nearly a punishment. It's like saying you can eat as much as you want, but only rice cakes.
 
As a fan of science fiction, I find it fascinating how certain authors look at effects different technologies have. One of my favorites, Lois Bujold does this alot with life sciences. I very indirectly got the idea for this question from her looking at life sciences in the future.

Imagine a scenario where a treatment is devised that extends the human lifespan by 250 %. Instead of living to an average of 75ish, the new average is 182ish. It does not make you old for a long time, it slows the rate you age, so now you look and feel young for much longer, then feel middle aged alot longer, and so on.

There is one problem with this treatment. In 50 % of the cases, it will render the person unable to have children. Half of women who undergo this treatment will become barren, half the men will have their sperm count drop to almost nothing. You can still have fun with sex, but their won't be any babies for 50 % of the people. Would you choose to have the treatment? I am further asking if you have children currently, wondering if that effects the results. Assume the treatment needs to be done at a young age()15ish maybe) to fend off the "I would have kids, then have the treatment".

I voted "Yes, and I have no children in real life."

If there's a life extension process it's probably better that it reduces the chances of breeding. After all, with more people living longer they would consume more resources. With more people living longer there will be less need for procreation.

Also, I think more people would volunteer to adopt if they became infertile. Just because I couldn't procreate doesn't mean I couldn't still become a parent.
 
Back
Top Bottom