Do you think life extension technology is a good idea? Would you use it if it was available?

I think this is a very complex issue and that there are a lot of ways to look at it.

Yes, if life extension technology were available and I could have confidence that I would have a high quality of life as well as longer life, I would definitely use it.

However...

There are certainly a lot of social issues involved in this. It's not going to happen without being very expensive. It'll widen the already vast social gap our species suffers from, adding a layer of immortal elite on the top. We barely get by dealing with social issues as they are today; we barely know how to deal with our 70, 90 or 120 years now. There will be consequences.

I can't say if it would be a good idea or a bad idea. For me - if it benefits me - it's a good idea. On a more global scale? I can't say.

It would be interesting. I'd like to see how it turns out.

120 years seems like an odd choice for "normal"...

I'm interested in this sort of thing and I think it's good to see people working on it. I assume only a small subset of the population would ever use it, so I don't see much harm in it (even if it totally fudges those people up).

I would consider trying it myself, though I'm not that healthy as it is, so it also seems kind of stupid for me.

Nope, not good for the economy, would put too many more people into the workforce if they could live to 120, population would be too great, nothing but an explosion of all the problems we already have. We need the 'turn-over' that is current to keep the population stable.
And, no, I would NOT want to do this myself. I'd prefer "life shortening" technology for meyself.

I would have concerns about population growth were this technology to become available. Presumably people would still want to have children, yet wouldn't be dying themselves. And I imagine this is something that could only be afforded by the rich - the inevitable consequence of that would be that the poor would get poorer and the exploited would be more so. If there was some way of avoiding all of that, I wouldn't have any kind of moral objection to the technology...And think what extension of life could do for the species! Individuals could take the time to really study their fields, not just specialise in one tiny area but really get to grips with all of it, making the cross-links they wouldn't have otherwise done. The wisdom and knowledge that would not just be recorded, but would be living, would be immense.

As for his method...I'm confused about his plan to remove the gene for telomerase in order to stop cancer cells from surviving. Telomerase lengthens the telomeres and the telomeres are a pretty vital part of the chromosome. They get shorter with ageing, which is why animals cloned from adults (such as Dolly the sheep) often show signs of ageing when they are still relatively young. If you prevent extension of the telomeres then surely that's defeating the point as all cells would age more rapidly, not just the ones given to being cancerous...Unless he can think of a way to only switch off the gene in cancer cells, but I honestly doubt that's possible (or will ever be, until we can genetically modify DNA on a cell by cell basis).

There's certainly a lot of value in his work - he's posing very pertinent problems for people to try and solve, but he isn't going to solve them himself. Some of them may not even be solveable...

You do know how to find the good ones

It sounds expensive...

I love the idea of this and would use it if I could afford it!

Bad idea. This planet is too crowded already. We really don't need extreme old people.

Yeah, the telomere shortening idea seems completely nuts. I've read it over about four times and I think finally understand why it might work but it's way out there. Still, I also think he's right that we've made very little real progress on cancer and nothing we've done is even close to good enough for people who can live hundreds, let alone thousands, of years. It's probably not even good enough to live 150 years. In fact, I heard recently (unconfirmed) that the head of some large cancer research center stated that we hadn't really made any progress in cancer treatment since the 1950's. So de Grey's cure for cancer is radical as all get out but it may be that something that radical is necessary.

As for finding good ones, I'm still looking forward to your paper on Duesberg's epidemiological analysis of AIDS.

I wouldn't use it. I'll go when it's time for me to go.

"Extreme Old People" sounds like a FOX TV show

We have enough of a population problem already.

I should have finished a first draft in 5 or 6 weeks and the final thing is due in about 11 weeks.

No....I have no desire to extend my life....I think I'll get what's coming to me....Life is both fair and unfair.

The way this website explains the issues surrounding over-population reminds me of the way the organisers of Pyramid schemes always maintain that no one will lose out.

I personally think its a bad idea, but if it were available and I had the money, I would definatly take adavantage of it.

My guess is that tens of thousands of 110 year-olds in the prime of their health still collecting social security might be a bit of a drain on the system, and probabbly not such a great idea. That be a hella amount of work to be done to reform social security (again!)

I don't think that I'm in a position to judge whether or not this technology is a good idea or a bad idea. I would have to do considerably more research. I certainly think it is possible that some good may come out of it. I also think it is possible for some bad to come out of it.

I'm not interested in prolonging my life beyond what I would consider to be a "natural" or "normal" life span. At least not at this point in my life, anyway. I don't think that 120 years could be called "normal" by any rational person.

I'm curious. In the explanation, you say "...120 years he thinks is normal...". I tried to find that in the article and the closest I could find was:

"I am equally committed to making that age as close to our biologically probable maximum of approximately 120 years as modern biomedicine can achieve, and also to efforts at decreasing and compressing the years of morbidity and disabilities now attendant on extreme old age."

You do know the difference between "maximum" and "normal"?

Uhhh, I meant "normal maximum"? Yeah, that's it.

What I was trying to get at was that the author thought it was normal for humans to live to a maximum of 120 years and he thought that age was a reasonable goal of medicine but living beyond that was not. I added that comment in an attempt to be careful not to portray the guy as some luddite who thought we should do away with medicine altogether and die at an average age of 35. Now that I'm not writing the survey question, I can admit that I do kinda think that so perhaps my wording was affected by my opinions. My interpretation of what he wrote was that he thought the normal lifespan of humans would be around 120 years if we could cure all disease but not stop or reverse aging.

its a great idea!! ill be a test mouse for the stuff anytime, i plan on having my body frozen when i die, with the exception i have the money, so i can be brought back when they figure out how to jump start me

Depends on whether you're able to extend the quality of life while extending the quantity.

I thought it might be something like that. I just found it a little confusing.

Yeah, looks like I could have done better.

I've been thinking more about the idea of "if we could cure all disease but not stop or reverse aging". If de Grey's ideas on biology aren't terribly far wrong, then a lot of what he's proposing is just to cure various diseases that occur mostly in older people. He think this will result in people living longer.

The majority of people who picked an answer here, picked that they think life extension technology is a bad idea. But I wonder if they think a cure for arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) or cancer is also a bad idea. If that leads to people living longer, should we not then work on cures for those diseases?

I suspect that people are picturing one of those sci-fi scenarios where the extremely wealthy add virtual immortality to their arsenal.

A lot of people here have commented on the expected expense. Oddly, de Grey says that he thinks the treatments will be readily available to everyone. I'm a little dubious but in any country with any sort of government retirement system (including Social Security in the US), it would be far, far less expensive to provide almost any level of medical treatment to get old people back to health and youth and back at work, earning money and paying taxes. So maybe he's right.

Oh you mean so they won't be retiring and there will be that much more competition for jobs? I'm seeing wages taking a nose dive like they haven't done since women entered the work force in a big way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Are there really that many retired people? More people working could also mean more people creating jobs. It doesn't have to be bad does it?

this technology that is readily becoming available, is immoral and wrong. the last time humans
messed with genetics (Noahs day Genesis 6:4) God wiped out the entire population except Noah and his family. i think Gods feelings on this is loud and clear. NO

What evidence do you have that the Bible claims messing with genetics was the cause of the flood? Genesis 6:4 doesn't seem to have anything to do with that...

The leading edge of the baby-boomers are pushing 60 real hard. Given current circumstances, there is going to be a lot of people retiring, starting in the next 5 to 10 years and continuing into the 2020s. During that period, an enormous percentage of the developed world's population will be retired. Either way, they are going to be a strain on the economy. Currently, at least it is anticipated and preparations have been made. If those people live longer, whether they are working or not, it could spell economic disaster.

I don't really buy into the "creating jobs" theory of economics.

It seems to me that if there is going to be a lot of older people, better that they're healthy and able to work than not. I think the coming glut of retired people trying to live on the few who are still working shows just how broken are our concepts of both retirement age and how retired people should make their living.

You don't think that people create jobs? Then where do jobs come from?

Bad idea. Do your thing, get off the ride and make room for others.

There is always re-incarnation.

There're over 6.5 billion folks on this planet. HELL NO, it ain't a good idea to make 'em live longer lives. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

More people = More war