• 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. My children are too important to me, and I just cannot see hanging around for that damned long unless life in the future is a hell of a lot more fun that it currently is, and medical advances have wiped out chronic debilitating disease that would make that extra century even more agonizing. There is a point where people just get tired, you know?
 
I have children and would still go for it. There is more to living than just having kids or having your kids outlive you. Life in itself is the adventure. Personally I would love it if they found a way to make it to where you could live to be 500, hell 1000+.
 
MistressNomad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aha! I was smart enough to be indecisive long enough that I've had no kids yet and probably never will. I like that term 'childfree.'
 
tryreading said:
Aha! I was smart enough to be indecisive long enough that I've had no kids yet and probably never will. I like that term 'childfree.'
Click to expand...

End result is the same, as I'm an empty-nester. :)
 
evanescence said:
For the people who live for adventure:

Do you really believe that your life would be more adventurous if you had more time? And is your life adventurous right now?
Click to expand...

All depends on what you mean by "adventurous". For me learning is adventurous enough. (don't get me wrong, lots of other things are too...just knowledge is the most important among them all..imo) And no matter how old you are, there is still always something more to learn.
 
DiAnna said:
No. My children are too important to me, and I just cannot see hanging around for that damned long unless life in the future is a hell of a lot more fun that it currently is, and medical advances have wiped out chronic debilitating disease that would make that extra century even more agonizing. There is a point where people just get tired, you know?
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully Dr. K has taken the treatment too, his prison time is up, and he is free to help you solve this fatigue issue.
 
Kal'Stang said:
All depends on what you mean by "adventurous". For me learning is adventurous enough. (don't get me wrong, lots of other things are too...just knowledge is the most important among them all..imo) And no matter how old you are, there is still always something more to learn.
Click to expand...

I guess I was thinking along the lines of skydiving or para sailing. :) While I like those things, children are more important. Annoying, but important.

I see your point. I guess I just haven't be able to make learning the reason why I get up in the morning.
 
Redress said:
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".
Click to expand...

I would do it. Then, at 150 or 160, the next generation drug will surely have been perfected, the one that de-ages you back to 20, and allows another life span of maybe 700 years or so, and I'll do that one too. Good times.
 
tryreading said:
I would do it. Then, at 150 or 160, the next generation drug will surely have been perfected, the one that de-ages you back to 20, and allows another life span of maybe 700 years or so, and I'll do that one too. Good times.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm a big Heinlein fan and longevity was one of his major themes.

According to him, based on biotech at the time, those under the age of 40 in the year 2000 stand a very good chance of being able to leapfrog their way to immortality. Riding each life extension to the development of the next.

I could totally watch a thousand years of sunsets, and raise a hundred adopted kids!

It would make having pets even harder though.
 
I'm a big proponent of the quest for immortality, but if I'm being honest with myself I don't even want to live to see tomorrow. The thought of living another thousand days fills me with dread, much less a thousand more years.
 
Redress said:
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".
Click to expand...

You can have kids at as far as I know as young as 12 and younger in rarer cases so it would not fend off the "I would have kids, then have the treatment comment".


I would have my sperm frozen and then do the treatment. If frozen sperm failed then there is cloning and adoption if I really wanted kids bad enough.
 
Being young for a long time, and being middle aged for a long time (mentioned in the OP) obviously leads to the unmentioned: being old and miserable for a long time.

I'll pass thank you.
 
I didn't realize so many of you don't have children.
 
While the 50% infertility rate would probably slow population growth, extending life by 100+years would surely strain resources, at least initially. Couple that with the fact that I really don't have a desire to live 180 years and I'm not interested. For those of you living into the 2100s, have fun!
 
Nope. I have children, I have no interest in living a longer life. Children or no children wouldn't change the answer.
 
Cephus said:
Nope. I have children, I have no interest in living a longer life. Children or no children wouldn't change the answer.
Click to expand...

I don't get this.

If you could have a much longer life, and let's say with perfect health, and a guarantee you wouldn't outlive your children, then would you want a longer life?
 
American said:
I didn't realize so many of you don't have children.
Click to expand...

Its because of what they do to a person. The poll results show that folks with no kids are more likely to want a longer life, and, more telling, those with kids are significantly less likely. The little buggers are death on a person. I'm agin 'em.
 
tryreading said:
I don't get this.

If you could have a much longer life, and let's say with perfect health, and a guarantee you wouldn't outlive your children, then would you want a longer life?
Click to expand...

Nope. Zero interest. Death is a natural part of life. I'm not afraid of dying.
 
tryreading said:
I don't get this.

If you could have a much longer life, and let's say with perfect health, and a guarantee you wouldn't outlive your children, then would you want a longer life?
Click to expand...

There are times now, aged 48, when I think, "God, when will this all be over?" Not often and not for long, but the thought occurs. Even if my body could make it to 182, I'm pretty sure my soul couldn't.
 
Why would I want to ruin a 180+ year life by having children anyway ;)
 
Redress said:
-- 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".
Click to expand...

At the age of 15, I probably would have taken the treatment, I remember feeling invincible at that age and that I could do anything, try anything and it wouldn't affect me. Now at 48, I wouldn't take the risk and not have my kids.

The scenario is a bit like the old classic "would you still have married an ex-wife and risk not having the kids you do have" - the answer is always "yes," because some things in life are simply priceless.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

At the age of 15, I would have considered the possibility of not having children (50/50) to be trivial compared to having my lifespan and youth doubled. I would have taken it at 15.

Now I'm 45 and have a kid. Even if I didn't have one, and still had the possibility of taking the treatment knowing what I know now (and I LOVE being a Dad).... I'd probably still consider 50/50 an acceptible risk for the return.

I find life fascinating and would like to hang around awhile and see what happens next. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom