Seriously thoughtful If simple life extension technology existed, how long would you want to live?

[SteveEisenberg]

Whatever the answer may be, it has to fit in with the secret to (relative) happiness, as described here:

A family went to a priest [sometimes, in this parable, a Zen master] and asked for a blessing written on a scroll. When they returned to pick it up, the priest had written “Grandfather dies. Father dies. Son dies. Grandson dies.” The family was pretty ticked, since apparently they were expecting one of those happy handmade signs you see on Pinterest and Etsy. The priest offered to reorder the blessing in a way to better suit the family, but he thought his original was a pretty good deal. If things happened in the sequence he had written, the family would avoid the worst grief life has to offer.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Would I have to keep working all those extra years?

It depends on whether you are a saver or a spender. And, if a saver, it depends on what investment strategies you follow.

P.S. This is not to say you should save money so you don't have to work. No work, while at the peak of your powers, seems to me unsatisfying, whether for ten years or a thousand. (Now, I count being a homemaker, and job retraining/education to try something new, as work.)

[crich70]

I wonder if the average person could maintain interest in the world if they had an extended lifespan. I mean even in a normal span of say 100 yrs things can change so much. When John Rockerfeller was born for example we had yet to see the invention of the airplane, and by the time he passed away we'd reached the moon. Could you psychologically adapt to a world that would no doubt have changed in ways we can't even imagine today and still be able to find your way around? I'd think a person would feel very lost just trying to do the most basic things. I mean say someone born shortly after the telephone was to be transported to our present. Would they be able to figure out how to work a cell phone? Understand what traffic lights are? Be able to figure out how to turn a computer on (much less be able to search for information)? I expect such a person would be totally lost in our modern world. And most of us find it harder the older we get to adapt to new things.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by crich70

I wonder if the average person could maintain interest in the world if they had an extended lifespan. I mean even in a normal span of say 100 yrs things can change so much. When John Rockerfeller was born for example we had yet to see the invention of the airplane, and by the time he passed away we'd reached the moon. Could you psychologically adapt to a world that would no doubt have changed in ways we can't even imagine today and still be able to find your way around? I'd think a person would feel very lost just trying to do the most basic things. I mean say someone born shortly after the telephone was to be transported to our present. Would they be able to figure out how to work a cell phone? Understand what traffic lights are? Be able to figure out how to turn a computer on (much less be able to search for information)? I expect such a person would be totally lost in our modern world. And most of us find it harder the older we get to adapt to new things.

It's one thing to be transported to another time, and another to live until it arrives. The world was quite a bit different in my childhood too (no computers, no internet, the constant fear of a nuclear war and so on). Older people find it hard to adapt because their brain also gets older and more inflexible. I imagine if one lived for hundreds of years while not aging biologically, they'd be able to adapt. Whether they'd want to or not, that's a whole other kettle of fish. It's perfectly possible they would not.

My 80-year-old father could use a smartphone and an Android tablet quite well before he died. So theoretically at least the ability to adapt is there. My mom, however, never learned to use any smart gadgets, including a computer. She just had no interest in such things, not because she was less intelligent than my dad was.

[Deskisamess]

My 80-year-old father could use a smartphone and an Android tablet quite well before he died. So theoretically at least the ability to adapt is there. My mom, however, never learned to use any smart gadgets, including a computer. She just had no interest in such things, not because she was less intelligent than my dad was.

Yes...my MIL, who passed away in July at 91, used a smart phone, (it was a struggle sometimes) and back 7-8 years ago, learned to use a computer enough so she could video chat with her sister in another state. The sister was in her 90's at the time. My MIL even managed to have a Facebook account so she could see pictures of the many grandkids, great-and great great grandkids.

My mom, who will be 91 next month, has little interest in tech stuff. She has a basic flip phone, to carry with her when she is out running errands. She lives on her own, and still drives. You'd never know she was almost 91 if you saw her. She is a bit frustrated by the multiple remote thing for her tv and cable box. But she did learn how to use the record feature for the dvr. (The cable box controls the tv perfectly, she just needs to not mess with the tv remote at all)

My mom is much more educated than my MIL was, and has been a reader her entire life. She just had zero interest in learning about the internet etc. My MIL was more motivated, especially at first so she could see and talk to her sister, who lived so far away. As her health worsened, the computer kept her world large.

[bookyboy]

delete

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by bookyboy

I have to be honest - I'm glad this sort of thing doesn't exist (yet).

One of the key abilities for society to change and evolve is that "people die".

When you see how inflexible and "against change" huge swaths of old people become -- and they end up with all the money and political power -- it becomes clear that our societal evolution would slow to an absolute crawl if people started living a lot longer.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Not all change is for the better.

[bookyboy]

Delete

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by bookyboy

I have to be honest - I'm glad this sort of thing doesn't exist (yet).

And I honestly don't want to die. Even more, I don't want my children and grandchildren to die.

Originally Posted by bookyboy

One of the key abilities for society to change and evolve is that "people die".

When you see how inflexible and "against change" huge swaths of old people become . . .

I think the original idea of the thread is that you don't get biologically elderly (see #4).

In your favor: Many today lock themselves into a POV or ideology or scientific paradigm well before their life is half over. The OP idea will give us more humans like that.

On the other hand: The worldwide decline in birth rates, now under way, will probably result in a big human population decline before this medical advance occurs. This means that the human population will already be heavily skewed towards the elderly coming into the medical revolution. The new eternal 40 year olds would then make our average psychological age younger.

I'm thinking that:

a. There's likely to one day, long after I'm dead, be a medical advance putting us in just the situation this thread proposes.

b. The effects on humanity are impossible to know in advance. Maybe suicide will be more socially acceptable. Or maybe, because parents will have to live with their sorrow for a much longer amount of time, suicide prevention measures (like accident prevention measures) will become extremely effective. This will, I'm guessing, be accompanied by an anti-suicide ethic making the OP survey into an absurdity.

[bookyboy]

Sorry I said anything.

I’m out

[Victoria]

I really enjoy my life, but I don’t think I’d extend it beyond a full lifespan. To every thing there is a time and a season…..I don’t want to outlive the people I hold dear. The Earth’s resources are limited. And I suspect that even coffee & chocolate could get boring after a while.

[hildea]

I'm reminded of one of Elisabeth Moon's science fiction series, in a world where life extension has been available to the rich for about fifty years or so. One of the consequences is that opportunities for advancement have dried up -- in business, politics, the military: The ones on top stay on top. This leads to unrest, and military aggression to create more expansion room. An interesting take!

I wonder if life extension would make more people take the environmental crisis more seriously. If you know you'll live long enough to see even more severe results of global warming and ecocide, would you be more willing to act to keep it in check?

[pdurrant]

I'm too late to vote, but I'm certainly in the As Long As Possible category.

I'm not sure I understand the "Not for me. I prefer Nature's way" crowd.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm not sure I understand the "Not for me. I prefer Nature's way" crowd.

That's easy. They have very small TBR piles.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

That's easy. They have very small TBR piles.