| Augen said: I could see living longer and healthier being a benefit, but infinite life span could retard human development in some ways. To me, the old dying out is often how the zeitgeist changes in a culture. Most people I know above 50 are deeply entrenched in their beliefs and struggle to understand new ways of thinking. It is an interesting question how much immortality or even living to 500 would change the way we perceive ourselves. If anyone has dealt with the generation gap of say a grand parent who comes across as racist or xenophobic, just imagine how odd it would be to talk to ancestors 10 generations removed one way or the other. I would say not sure humanity is ready for such an advancement yet given our often short sighted views. Maybe others are more optimistic and think if you had to actually worry about 2200 you would live differently and utilize resources and spending habits accordingly. |
That depends how biological immortality would work. You assume the mind still ages, but it is also possible that the mind renews itself with the rest of the body, staying open minded and adaptable instead of getting stuck in your ways. Wouldn't it be great if you could retain that early learning capability, soak up a new language like children can.
It will have an effect on human development. No need to have children before the age of 35, offset by a need to think more long term instead of it will last my time.
There will be plenty problems ofcourse. What about life sentences in prison. Wars nobody gets over anymore. Would life become more valuable or less. And an ever growing population. But surely there are better ways to deal with that than relying on people to die.
