Comments on: Live longer, die suddenly – the double-edged sword of longevity drugs

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:33:22 +0000

Oh, staying ahead of the curve, yes. That’s your ticket.

I’m familiar with this one — my son (now has kidney disease. I figure if we can keep him alive for 20 years, he’s got a shot at a full and healthy life — which is why I make sure stem-cell-friendly politicians get elected.

Hate Republicans? Why do you ask?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:25:34 +0000

I for one could go for this. Though it’s nice to have a bit of time to put things in order, but by the time I’m a hundred, I’d like to think my organizational skills would be better.

By: Dagon

Dagon — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:27:52 +0000

Ah dont worry. Either we die, me my average death would at this time be somewhere between 2035 and 2050, given the average lifespan I can expect *by then*. That means I’d have to suffer through the next decades aging *somewhat* and then something should be invented, say, before 2030 that extends my average life expentancy by what, two decades? So by 2040 my life expectancy would have grown to 2065?

That’s a fair expectation, and most people reading this score better. If there ever was a time in history where you had a fair shot at living a LOT longer than anyone ever before you, it’s now. In fact, we live *precisely* on that moment in history Everything Looks Set To Change. If we survive it, who knows what’ll happen?

Normally we would have death to look forward too. The deal I get, even if only statistical and by no means a guarantee, is vastly better than any human, including emperors, were offered in the past.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:22:04 +0000

There’s a horror story in there, screaming to get out…