I’m often annoyed by the straw-man argument/complex question (and aren’t all complex questions a form of straw man?) that opponents of life extension toss out: “Why do you want to live forever”?
It’s not about living forever — it’s about living as long as you want to live. Robin Hanson has the same problem.
I can’t say now that I won’t be tired of life in a hundred years or so, but give me a chance to find out. I do suffer from ennui occasionally as I get older, but I think that most of it comes from not feeling as physically good as I did when I was younger, and not having the financial resources to do all the things I’d like to do. Fix those problems, and I might in fact be willing to at least take a trip to Mars, if not a one-way one.
I have a couple of hundred lifetimes worth of technologies I would like to develop. What bothers me about death is that I will never get the opportunity to do so.
My question for them is always “Why do you want to die?”
Another good one is “What business is it of yours how long I choose to live?”
My question for them is always “Why do you want to die?”
Corollaries are “What is the optimal life span?” “Why?”
“Do you think you might change your mind when you’re dying?” Most people, even old people still have a will to live.
“To what degree do you think that old people who want to die do so because they’ve ‘lived too long,’ versus they’re miserable being old people?”
Of course, a lot of this nonsense comes from the notion that indefinite life means indefinite life as an old (i.e., infirm, in pain, lacking memories, etc.) person.
I think the fundamental driver is psychological, that is, the phenomenon of sour grapes, claiming that something you want, but can’t have, must not have been good in the first place. It resolves the mental conflict of wanting but not having. And the hypothesis explains why opponents are so willing to distort what’s being proposed, converting into a form that will be unpalatable to themselves and hence, can be dismissed as sour grapes.
This may be another case where scifi has molded perceptions for a detriment. “Living forever” or “a really long time” is usually presented as one person, alone, watching those they care for grow old and die. Assuming some sort of ‘rising tide’ of age increase, this wouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve thought about a “Lazarus Long” lifestyle, and it definitely has an appeal. Conversely, my wife thinks I’m nuts to consider it, even IF it became possible.
I want to live forever.
Its not so much about living “forever” as its about living an open-ended life. Its really about breaking free from the constraints of the conventional life cycle to live an open-ended life as a “young adult”. This is what radical life extension means to me.
What kurt9 said — forever young.
I would turn this issue around — who but a total pessimist is looking forward to death?
I’m not looking forward to death, but I don’t think medicine is going to advance anywhere near fast enough to outrace aging, at least for me.
When you think about your chances, remember this is the kind of topic that is ripe for wishful thinking.
I am personally looking forward to a resurrection as provided by the Savior, Jesus Christ. I don’t mind living to just 85 or so in mortality, but I do hope that medical advances keep chugging ahead as fast as possible. I’d prefer to be in the best health I can up until I die.
Run, Logan, Run!
Before she died at the age of 94, my grandma said to me, “It is no fun getting old. I have so much to do, but my body just wouldn’t let me do it anymore.” Tom D: She was a very religious person and knew she would be going to heaven, but she was in no hurry. “Martin is a patient man and will still be there when I’m done.” she would say about my grandfather, who died when she was in her late 60’s. I’m thinking she could have easily lived to 1000 without missing a beat if there was a way to repair her body. Everyone dies even if you live a million years eventually there will be an end.