 Living long enough to live forever, ... are a lot of people NOT dying? |
  |
 Apr 8 2006, 09:08 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398  |
Umm... it's one point of Bioindex, not Essence, given that it's Geneware, not cyberware.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 8 2006, 09:18 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
sorry, been playing 4th edition, so it's all the same in my mind. yeah, you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 10 2006, 12:53 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Allowing yourself to die is a heckuva lot different than being forced to die, though. Curing aging isn't immortality, it's just reducing one of the risks that could lead to your death. As well, if YOU have the cure, you should be able to get all your loved ones a cure too (unless they were going to die earlier than you anyway).
1 million is not too much of a debt when you get an additional 60 years to work it off. By the time a person is in his 60s, he should have pretty good earning power. As well, while it seems there's room for only a limited number of treatments (one essence or bioindex), you've got to remember that's the price in ~2060ish. Think how much technology advances every year. In 60 more years the treatments would be absolutely different. Over time, the price of a medical intervention goes down - unless the intervention is drastically improved and then you're getting more value for the same dollar. AIDS medications have gone down in price, heart surgery hasn't (but has gotten a lot more effective) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 10 2006, 03:54 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 18-March 03 Member No.: 4,270 |
Even then I wouldn't want it or take it as the longer one lives the more regrets they gain and frankly do you think you would want 100, 200, or even 500 years of regrets and times you wish you had done something diffrent?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 10 2006, 04:10 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
1. The generic, ass-covering warning on all investment company also applies here. "Performance data reflects past performance and is not indicative of future results." 2) Life Expectancy is an arithmetic mean (average) and therefore you should expect it to lie to you if you ask it the wrong questions. c] Things wears out, and eventually Theseus' ship pulls into port. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 10 2006, 07:21 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Okay, let's extrapolate that logic. Why do you think that you can stand 10 more years of regrets (I'm assuming that you plan on being alive in ten years)? Do you think you'll be able to stand 20 more years? Why do you suspect that in ten more years, you won't be able to stand another ten years?
1. True. But we can reasonably expect that the medical technologies will continue to improve - especially if we take steps to encourage them to improve. In SR, I'm sure that the leonization process will be much more efficient in 60 more years. If they improve fast enough in the real world, the same scenario would apply 2. Yeah, I get that. I don't intend to mislead, but I might be explaining poorly. 3. My atoms and cells and memories change constantly. I'm still 'me'. Theseus's ship may be a philosophical muddle, but you have no trouble determining that your food is 'not you' and your sloughed off skin is 'not you', but that both will be integrated into the 'you' at some point in time. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 10 2006, 07:58 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The simple solution to this is to be an insensitive apethetic jerkoff bastard asshole. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 10 2006, 10:59 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 18-March 03 Member No.: 4,270 |
Who sais I haven't all ready Apathy is nothing more the the lack of showing feelings that and I've stoped worring about other ppl as well and dont consurn my self with there problems. As to regrets the few ppl aquier in there short life time are barable but whould they be so after 200 years of life I tend to think not look at the number of ppl that kill them selfs or others becuse they couldn't handle what has happend in there life up to that point. Even more simply shut out the world or go insane in other ways for the same resions. Besides I still dont see any real advantage to exstending ones life by 60+ years. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 10 2006, 11:26 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Think about it this way. You take up striking and grappling when you're 15 and practice till you're old. Then you get the treatment. You have a lifetime of experience but your body is all youthful again. You spend another lifetime. Do it again. Do it like 3 times so you'll have lived like 400 years or so and still have 3 points of Essence. You'd have such a breadth of experience and refined skill that you could go and kick everyone's ass. Think of how much fun it would be just to be the mischevious 400 year old asskicker of the sprawl. 400 years of hurt contained in one unimposing recycled package. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 11 2006, 03:02 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
it gets worse when you realize it can be graded, probably s half essence now and counts toward bio essence, or even a third kind of essence loss
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 05:21 AM
Post
#36
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Apathy isn't the lack of showing feelings. Apathy is the complete lack of caring. Period. If you don't care then it doesn't matter if your friends die. You might even be the one to kill them yourself for fun and for profit. Some people would love to be marked by the Barkerish monstrosity known as Chantrel's Horror. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 11 2006, 07:36 AM
Post
#37
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Why can we "reasonably" expect that? Because it gets a lot of press? Sorry to dissapoint but a lot of that is because cheating death stories sell, almost as well as sex stories.
It isn't just that. The basic assumption that crappy life expectancy ment shorter lives for the longer living people is off. In truth for example in medevial times once you made it past age 20, barring the black plague or the off chance you ended up on the wrong end of a war, you could generally expect to live well into your 60's and 70's. So while average life expectancy has risen a lot, the upper range and ceiling has raised relatively less dramatically for the vast majority of long lifetime people.
Sure there is the physical reworking, transplants, non-biological implants, etc. that very longterm sustaining could involve. But I was thinking more about the mental aspects, and how memory is going to go. We haven't seen anyone out past about 120 yet, we don't know yet what would happen to the contents of a mind over say a period of 200 years. If I'm relying on outside feedback to bring back in the old memories then how much different is that really than our current stab at immortality; having a kid and telling them a story? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 11 2006, 03:02 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
1. You don't think that medical technologies will advance in the real world or the SR world?
2. That's why I prefer to talk about life expectancy at 50. The length of time a person can expect to live (on average) when they're 50 is going up right now, and has been for quite some time. Progress in medical technology can boost this number. If it ever boosts this number fast enough, a person can expect that his life expectancy is rising faster than he's aging - at that point, a person (on average) can reasonably expect to not die. Ever. 3. Continuation of the individual is still important to most people. While you've forgotten a lot of what happened in grade 1, I'm sure that your present life is still important to you. You'll always be building and losing memories, but there will be a reason to remain 'you'. I'm sure you still think of yourself as 'you', just like you did when you were six. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 03:53 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I expect it to eventually show it's true self again as a bound curve. Then we might break that wall, and all bets are off. I mean ALL of them. Theoretical Immortality of a body will be a footnote in that breakthrough as the bodies that have come before will be obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 04:12 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Ah, you mean like therapies will lead to a maximum bound at (say) 120 years?
That's why I like the MPrize, because they're looking at mice to see if they have a maximum upper bound, or if there are things that can be done to WAY overshoot what we deem to be the maximum. And since mice are so short-lived, we'll know if it's even possible to smoke the upper bound soon enough to benefit us. That's why I'm a fan. I remember reading something like "we don't need a cure for aging, all we need is something that adds 30 years of healthy life - because then we suddenly have 30 more years to find a new way to add 30 years of life." If we can find ways to add 30 years to life FASTER than every 30 years, then we're golden. Of course, it's better if we start sooner than later. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 04:27 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I suspect what the theoretical limit is labeled as will creep a bit over time, as the number of people that have the chance to live to their natural born limit grows we'll have more chances to see instances of people at the very upper end of the bell curve.
But mostly ya, the limit is there because it appears that we are turnly born to die. To change that you have to tinker so deep that the tech advancements to do so successfully are going to lead to much more profound things. Concious evolution. We will be building people, and contiplation should begin on putting a new marker in the sand to denote the transition to a new species'. If old-school "breeding" hasn't already merited it by that point. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 04:59 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 23-August 05 From: The Sky Member No.: 7,597 |
IF your going to make the argument that says that people will eventually live forever then what about all the genetic engeneering thats going on today. Supposidly their going to have the enite human gneome maped within he next ten years. So if thats true what about the genetic engeneering people to live longer or even live in hostile enviroments like under water or in extreme heat and extreme cold maybe even space?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 07:57 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
The genome "map" isn't like a nicely labeled street map of your town. It is closer to a diagram of your town's roads scratched into the top of a pizza, only partially labeled, and the few labels there are are in Sanskit.
Ok, maybe not the best analogy. I'm pretty sure i remember at least one boardmember that deals with this area professionally. Perhaps they could give a better description. EDIT:Plus living in space, if you mean a vacuum, is just far flung crazy talk. You are dealing there with materials limits too. First you would have to design a body structure and metabolism that could survive a vacuum before you could try encode that design. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 11:49 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 18-March 03 Member No.: 4,270 |
Another point to all this if we do ever get this advance what of the over all human population? I if no one dies then do we stop haveing offspring or contune to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 11 2006, 11:58 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
THURSDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2006, 03:38 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 847 |
El_Machinae, what about population growth? If you increase the average lifespan significantly, but do nothing to decrease the birth rate we're screwed. Even looking at what VITAS did to the population in Shadowrun what you are proposing will cripple the planet and eventually deplete it of resources.
The answer of 'well by the time it's a problem we'll have an answer' seems both short sighted and irresponsible. What if we don't? What if colonizing space isn't a reality if and when the technology you are talking about comes to pass? I live in Southern California and I've seen how things have changed in the last twenty years. Things are getting more and more crowded, and that problem is getting worse instead of better. Technology to extend lifespan only makes that whole problem infinitely worse. Just my two nuyen =) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2006, 03:54 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
At this point the overpopulation problem is quite simple really. The Tabernacle will not allow any of the chosen immortals to have sexual intercourse. The brutals will continue to reproduce but thei're numbers will be kept in check using genocide.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 12 2006, 05:49 PM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Population growth nowadays is already a problem, regardless of the death rate. Our civilization can handle a certain growth rate, but the technologies that increase sustainability will only grow so quickly (they will grow more quickly if people make an effort to increase them). I'm quite sure we're above the 'survivable' growth rate right now. Which means that birthrates will have to come down, regardless. Here's a question for you, though. Suppose there was an anti-aging treatment - how many children would you have? Would you take any steps to make the world more sustainable, long term? Would you take steps to reduce the growth rate? Why assume that everyone who would get the treatment wouldn't have the same logic process you do? If you never age, all that you need to do to 'balance' the growth rate is to not have as many children, only have children when you know the species can afford them (which is tied to when you can afford them). What's the 'resource competition' difference between you being around in 200 years or your offspring being around in 200 years? Not much. The population growth rate needs to come down. In first world countries, we have tied wealth directly to not reproducing, and so increasing this trend in the world will have a similar effect. The alternative is advocating genocide of older people, and that's not morally acceptable. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 12 2006, 07:01 PM
Post
#49
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I'd have as many as I could pop out (wives permitting). Then I'd teach them how to eat other peoples' children. Eventually I'll have my perfect army of cannibalistic nezumis!
Only when I'm old. Otherwise it's fine. Truthfully, the problem isn't keeping down the birth date, it's either keeping down the population GROWTH rate, decreasing the resource USE rate or increasing the efficiency of resource GATHERING. So some simple solutions: 1) Higher infant mortality rate among children other than mine 2) Stop wasting resources like we're all stupid, wasteful Americans. Kill people who buy SUVs and eat them first. Stuff more people into apartments instead of huge town houses and stop buying random trash all the time. 3) Continue advancing technology so our agricultural and power production yields continue to grow at a rate higher than our consumption (this has been going on for the last hundred years or so. We've outgrown our 1950's agricultural production yields without increasing our exports or farmland, for instance.) These problems are really quite simple to solve once you just stop and think about them a little. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 12 2006, 07:02 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115 |
Usually it is the poor people are the victims of genocide before old people. The population will level out, nature has its ways, disease, famine, wars. (well war is really human "nature") Even if people live to be really old, they have a limited procreation cycle. The number of people will strike a balance. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th April 2026 - 06:32 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.