This isn't particularly profound, but it's interesting to see a growing awareness of transhumanism and its implications among the non-technical commentariat. Mona Charen on life extension:

Let's stipulate that for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it (i.e., most Americans), science will make it possible for people — say, your children and mine — to live 200 years.

What would that mean? Let's see, Social Security benefits for 135 years? Medicare for the same period? Prescription nanobots for a century? Assuming that people will remain healthy and working for decades and decades (which is what the futurists predict), would the economy expand due to the continued productivity of well-trained people, or sink under the weight of the extra elderly? (Not all of those doddering around at the age of 140 are going to be on the tennis courts.)

The entire concept of family life would have to change. What would happen to the already high divorce rate if people had to spend the better part of two centuries together? How about military service? Would young men and women who could otherwise expect to live to such astounding ages be willing to risk dying at 20 or 25?

Of course, there's nothing magical about two hundred years. Once we figure out how to do body repair, there's no upper limit on lifespan, barring accidents. And the sociological implications are both staggering and unpredictable.

And the sociological implications are both staggering and unpredictable.

Indeed. Here's another one: One of the driving ambitions in many people's lives is the desire to make a difference to the world before they die. And young folks tend to invent more things than older folks, because young folks don't yet know that what they want to do is impossible. If lifespan gets longer while reproductive rate drops, so there are more old people and fewer young people, what happens to ambition and invention?

I don't think anything happens. 'Young' just gets redefined. If I live to be 200, then 60 is the new 25.

Bob

"And young folks tend to invent more things than older folks, because young folks don't yet know that what they want to do is impossible."

Is this true? Maybe young folks invent more things than older folks because their Neurons and Synapses are being generated with greater multiplicity and efficiency. In fact certain types of antidepres sants are hypothesized do just that.

Life extension or therapies that do this should just linearly (or better) increase the span of time over which one is inventive...so you could be inventive to the age of 100 plus and decay quickly (hopefully) thereafter. That wouldn't leave a preponderance of dimwitted old geysers looking for their keys.

The article quoted makes a faulty supposition that someone at 140 would be doddering around. he whole article seems to say that we may live to 200, but we'll still be working on infirm at 70...as in 130 years of Depends. With greater life expectancy would come greater quality of life as well. When I grew up, 70 was OLD. Now my dad is 70, and he's fine. Granted, a lot has to do with perception, but still...I think the 130 yr olds will be mentoring the 30-40 year olds and the scientific community will be reaping the benefits.

The solution I've long proposed: when true "eternal youth" comes along (be it nanobots, gengineering, whatever), make it available only off-world, and make returning to Earth punishable by death (preferably a very nasty death).

Live as long as you like. Just not *here.* That would force the expansion of civilization from the severely limited Earth to the effectively infinite universe.

make returning to Earth punishable by death

Kinda draconian, don't you think? No visa or other exception? This approach seems like it would isolate the two groups and prevent any cross-cultural fertilization.

The article quoted makes a faulty supposition that someone at 140 would be doddering around. he whole article seems to say that we may live to 200, but we'll still be working on infirm at 70...as in 130 years of Depends.

She makes no such assumption. It is but one of the possibilities she is listing. (Although I would not even include it among possibilities.)

Ilya says: She makes no such assumption.

Hmmm
Not all of those doddering around at the age of 140 are going to be on the tennis courts.

That pretty much spells out the assumption that 140 will be doddering age. Maybe not all doddering on the tennis court, but doddering elsewhere.

make returning to Earth punishable by death

Sounds like a Ben Bova novel, The Kinsman Trilogy.

The solution I've long proposed: when true "eternal youth" comes along (be it nanobots, gengineering, whatever), make it available only off-world, and make returning to Earth punishable by death (preferably a very nasty death).

What makes you so sure that this newly genetically engineered subclass won't decide to turn their creators into glass?

Mac : When I grew up, 70 was OLD

Dude! You grew up? ;-)

We have an account that at least claims to come from a time when lifespans were much longer, that being Genesis. It doesn't read like living a long time is a really big deal--so and so had these chidren when he was X years old, then lived another 732 years, and died. Although I'd presume there were a lot fewer people on earth at the time, if you accept the account to begin with. Interestingly to me, Genesis doesn't make much over the short lifespans (only 130!) of some people compared to others (more than 700). I know that in the account of Abraham (which I think most people would consider more trustworthy than the pre-flood account), Genesis mentions how Abraham got to meet Joseph's children. He died, according to Genesis at 175 ("at a good old age" in the NIV). Maybe the best thing is that we could get to know and spend time with our great-great-great grandchildren. Or would we just keep having our own kids?

A 200 year lifespan would also redefine schooling. Not that I could stand to be in school any longer by the time I graduated at 21, but there wouldn't be the "I'm going to be too old to have a life when I get done with school" mentality that keeps some people from pursuing graudate degrees.

I know that, for myself, if I knew right now that I had a lifespan of 200 years, I would probably spend the next 10-15 years of my life getting a few grad degrees. Who knows what kind of school loans a person could rack up if the "typical" age to enter the professional workforce was 40 instead of 22?

I also find it odd that, for all of the advancements proposed in Star Trek, there still seems to be a terran/human lifespan of

It also opens up totally new approaches to managing your life. What if I decided to be a doctor to age 60, and then go back to school and become an engineer? Or decide I'll spend the next 60 years as a concert pianist? When you have the equivalent of several lifespans, you could literally live them as several lives, starting from scratch when you got bored with your current one.

Bob

CJ says: Dude! You grew up? ;-)

No, it was an analogy only. SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Yes, he is my brother, I can say that to him. ;P