• 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
No. In an odd way, I found this by accident of research, I discovered I had a similar reaction to it as Leon Kass did (Kass being the head of George W. Bush's Bioethics committee). I think of it as diminished quality of life in comparison with quantity of life. I certainly wouldn't be able to believe I would have a definite answer to the question of how long is long enough, and to what degree am I willing to put up with scientific limitations of consequences, but philosophically, I would not be of mind that extending my life (to that extent or thereabouts) is justification for dramatically reducing the likelihood of producing offspring or going through that lengthy but hopefully rewarding process of raising your own children. To me it would fill emotional, biological, and probably religious needs to have children...so why jeopardize it so severely?

http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/bi/audio/BI_Full_20030321_LeonKass_0x0_40k.mp3
 
Last edited:
our birthrate is already below replacement levels - we only really stay at about even keel because we import so many. a significant enough percentage of the population get's this treatment, we will become Greece and Italy - both of whom are pretty much at this point doomed.
 
No. In an odd way, I found this by accident of research, I discovered I had a similar reaction to it as Leon Kass did (Kass being the head of George W. Bush's Bioethics committee). I think of it as diminished quality of life in comparison with quantity of life.

http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/bi/audio/BI_Full_20030321_LeonKass_0x0_40k.mp3

That's kinda what I'm thinking. There's a joke in some Woody Allen movie that sums it up. Two jewish ladies are having dinner at some restaurant and one of them says, "Ick. The food here is terrible." Her companion replies, "Yes, and such small portions!"

Not that I'm complaining about the food, so to speak, but why do so many choose to stay on 2.5 times longer? Writing that, I wonder what the ideal lifetime length might be to the "yes" voters. 500 years? 1000? When will you have had enough?
 
Good God no. Live in this world 182 years? Why? Hell, 40 was enough for me. And I'm not even unhappy.

My sentiments exactly *I'm 52*. My main reason being the concern for natural resources, etc. Where are we all going to live? What will we eat? Unless we're going to build cities underwater or in space, I can't see us becoming a "long-lived" race.

Edited because even considering the "and no children" bit - what percentage of people would take the magic pill? The rest would all still be having children.
 
Last edited:
That's kinda what I'm thinking. There's a joke in some Woody Allen movie that sums it up. Two jewish ladies are having dinner at some restaurant and one of them says, "Ick. The food here is terrible." Her companion replies, "Yes, and such small portions!"

Not that I'm complaining about the food, so to speak, but why do so many choose to stay on 2.5 times longer? Writing that, I wonder what the ideal lifetime length might be to the "yes" voters. 500 years? 1000? When will you have had enough?

Never enough. Life is too fun, interesting, and there are too many things to try and do to want to leave.
 
My sentiments exactly *I'm 52*. My main reason being the concern for natural resources, etc. Where are we all going to live? What will we eat? Unless we're going to build cities underwater or in space, I can't see us becoming a "long-lived" race.

Edited because even considering the "and no children" bit - what percentage of people would take the magic pill? The rest would all still be having children.

People make resources. I don't buy in to the "only so much to go around" theory. There's plenty of room for more.

The question seems to be pointed more at the idea of procreation vs. extending one's own life, and which is of greater value. As i type the vote is 2 to 1 for longevity. What I'm interested in is, why double-up on life? Why double childhood, adolescence, bungled youth, adulthood into middle age and infirmity? Why extend what we already have, kids or no kids? Is it not rich enough?
 
Never enough. Life is too fun, interesting, and there are too many things to try and do to want to leave.

Does it presume that funds and abilities will make us able to see and do it all?
 
Does it presume that funds and abilities will make us able to see and do it all?

It presumes that whatever happens will be interesting and different. It also presumes that with existence comes innovation.
 
Never enough. Life is too fun, interesting, and there are too many things to try and do to want to leave.

That's a great attitude. Enjoy. I'm thinking I've got 10-12 years left, minimum, and I'm cool with it. It has to end sometime.
 
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.

Just thinking of retiring at the age of 65 and having like 100 years (before you lose your brain) to spend in this world without concerns is awesome.
 
It's the "without concerns" bit that has me cautious.
 
Just thinking of retiring at the age of 65 and having like 100 years (before you lose your brain) to spend in this world without concerns is awesome.

It's a matter of proportion. If you live to be 175, will you have earned enough by age 65 to not simply support yourself, but indulge yourself?

Theoretically, you can live that way now - provided you become incredibly wealthy at age 25.
 
our birthrate is already below replacement levels - we only really stay at about even keel because we import so many. a significant enough percentage of the population get's this treatment, we will become Greece and Italy - both of whom are pretty much at this point doomed.

Not true. Warning, this involves math, but.

If every one had the treatment, and using pure random distribution, 1/4 of all couples could have kids(a=fertile, b=infertile, 4 combinations aa, ab, ba, bb, with only aa being able to have kids). However, the distribution would be far from random. At a 250 % lifespan, and a period of time of being able to have children being similarly elongated, and probably at least 1/3 of all couples able to have children, population would probably actually increase at a higher rate.
 
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.

Then the premise is flawed. For the most part, people like to have children. Most would be trying to figure out how to have the treatment and still have kids. I certainly would, and having sperm extracted and frozen before I took the treatment would be a good way to do that.

Assuming that somehow there was absolutely no way to avoid the 50% chance of not having children, I'm not sure what I'd do. The idea of living for 180 years is attractive, but I really want kids.
 
By slowing down ageing you could save enough to retire while you're still 'young'.

I think if people lived that long the whole concept of retirement might change significantly. I certainly wouldn't want to wait a century to retire (most people work around 40 years or so now, *2.5 is a century). Instead, I think you'd have people working for 30-40 years like they do now and saving up enough money to 'retire' for 5-10 years during the prime of their lives, then going back to work some more.
 
Not true. Warning, this involves math, but.

If every one had the treatment, and using pure random distribution, 1/4 of all couples could have kids(a=fertile, b=infertile, 4 combinations aa, ab, ba, bb, with only aa being able to have kids). However, the distribution would be far from random. At a 250 % lifespan, and a period of time of being able to have children being similarly elongated, and probably at least 1/3 of all couples able to have children, population would probably actually increase at a higher rate.

I also suspect that enabling others to have kids (i.e. donating sperm/eggs and surrogate mothers) would become a much bigger business than it is now. After all, most people won't simply stop wanting children even if they're unable to biologically have their own, and so people would just adopt the kids of others.
 
Your body might live to be 180+, but would your soul? Mine feels comfortable with the idea it's only got a two or three more decades to last out.
 
Does it presume that funds and abilities will make us able to see and do it all?

If you live that long, even a minimal monthly investment will make you wealthy after 40 to 50 years.
 
I suppose one could wait until they have had the children then want and then begin the treatments. It might mean you don't get to 182 years, but you can still have some good quality years...

Though, as a runner, I have to note that it would screw up the notion of age groups in racing. As someone who just turned 40 and running as an elite is becoming increasingly untenable for me, I have to count on age group competition now...
 
Well this did not turn out quite how I expected it. That's fine though.
 
I think I understand the point of this thread. It was in the thread title. Being a hypothetical situation where one has to choose a long life but as a result of that choice, their chances of being able to have their own offspring decreases. So would I take that chance even with no other recourse. Absolutely, 100% no. Having my own biological children is very important to me personally. While I support adoption, and under certain circumstances would adopt, I prefer to have my own. Although pregnancy is possibly dangerous and is a huge inconvenience, it's an amazing experience to have life growing inside. To feel the baby move, and know that it's apart of me. That long after I die, apart of me will continue to exist. It's the very reason all of us are here. Biological imperative is simply too strong in me to risk my fertility. In fact, although I have considered permanent sterilization, and it would likely benefit me financially as well as many other aspects, I can't imagine actually going through with it. I guess some people just have less of that biological imperative than I have.

That being said, if possible I would use the preservation methods that are currently available before the procedure. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom