Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Opinion: Fear of Geezers Who Hog Resources Overblown

msnbc.msn.com — It's not immoral to want to be immortal...those who fret about a world of immortals also worry that not only will it be stuffy and dull since the young will never get a chance to do anything, but it will also be a world full of the vain and self-centered who think themselves worthy of more and more life ad infinitum.

Bury

petsheep 20 days ago, made popular 20 days ago

219 diggs
digg it

petsheep, on 04/26/2008, -1/+11"We have already doubled our lifespan since the days of the Hittites, Israelites, Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians, all of whom were lucky to make it to 35. Are we already living unnatural, and thus immoral, lifespans?"....it is pretty clear that evolution has no real interest in how long any species lives. The blowfly is here a mere few weeks while some bacteria, sea grass, creosote bushes and fungi live thousands of years." (from the article)
- Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -7/+0The natural evolution of man as a whole, has ***** ALL to do with the atificial manipulation of the aging process for a group of the elite.
  - blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -0/+7Using the fact that at first only some people will be able to afford the anti-aging treatments (the "elite") is like arguing that a cure for a disease that is ravaging the country should not be pursued as not 100% of the population will be able to afford it at first.
    - Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -5/+0WTF?
      Aging isn't a disease, it's the natural order of things. I have nothing against man evolving to immortality as a species, but to manipulate the natural order of an entire species for the benefit for the privilidged few is insanity.
      - blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -0/+6How is it any different from a disease? It is something people get that causes them to lose abilities and eventually kills them. Diseases are natural too, should we stop trying to cure them too? Remember it will only be at first that it is only available to the elite, with time costs will be brought down and with time even the poor will be able get them. Remember just because something is natural doesn't mean it is necessarily good. Below is a good article on the subject.
        http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2008/03/rant- ...
      - HaoTian, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Ignorant response written by someone with a knee-jerk fear reaction. (in case you're wondering why you're being dugg down)
Mootabolife, on 04/26/2008, -3/+10THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Jovensdesciple, on 04/26/2008, -13/+3What next... are you gonna tell me that my fear of liberals is overblown? It's not, I don't want my next president to surrender to France OR Iran.... or Canadia, ***** those flappy headed bastards.
- enclaved, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Wow! You've posted an idiotic comment in nearly every story I've read so far today. To that I say, take it easy, you might be the biggest dumb ass on the planet, but you'll run out of steam going at this pace. Sit back and relax and let your stupidity out in a more controlled manner, what will you have left when its gone?
- sodade, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Oh? You prefer to surrender to Saudi Arabia?
- KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3Can you please keep the murcana psychosis private and not bother other people with it?
- JulyZerg, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3It's called CANADA, retard!
  Man, I hate stupid AMERICAINS!
  - buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1He's an *****
- buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You have a fear of liberals? What a pussy.
datagod, on 04/26/2008, -9/+3What you don't get is that these "geezers" want most of us dead so we don't spoil "their" planet.
- Shadowgamers, on 04/26/2008, -1/+8Damn kids! Get off my planet! *shakes cane with power fist*
  - PeppermintPig, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Like a spooky Gumby episode.
    - Shadowgamers, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Every episode of Gumby is spooky.
      
      No exception.
  - theOster, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1it is true that old people are concerned with kids being on their planet
- KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1What a silly idea. Once geezers have young bodies the young will be laybait, one by one.
averagejoesgym, on 04/26/2008, -5/+6Hey, the author of the article is an old geezer, biased bastard. People can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. However, I used to live in Yuma, Arizona part of my time in the military. We got ALOT of "Snowbirds" during the winter months. I used to have a naive REVERENCE for old people BEFORE I lived inYuma. They were rude, pushy, and they wanted a big part in the politics of Yuma even though they weren't really residences of Yuma (or Arizona for that matter). If anyone has seen the South Park episode where the AARP invades, it is not too far-fetched. Damn....You....Old...People!!!
- PeppermintPig, on 04/26/2008, -5/+3That's the problem, isn't it? Wanting to live longer is fine, but it is not acceptable to use government to your favor at the expense of others, no matter your race/sex/age. AARP uses children in their propaganda, while favoring the perpetuation of a SS system that has proven itself destined to failure. Living longer, in this situation, just means the system will fail sooner and leave all the younger people worse off.
  - KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Yah... but everyone will be old one day and you'll take that rejuvenation treatment too.
    - PeppermintPig, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1If I can afford it, and I want it, I might consider it. I'm not so close minded as to demonize technologies such as this. I imagine most of this life extension technology is going to be less than stellar, just as most other first and second generation technologies are.
      
      But that has nothing to do with the fact that AARP, along with a plethora of other lobbying groups, are trying to benefit a specific group of people at the expense of everyone else. They pose as the greater evil in this situation.
farkis, on 04/26/2008, -6/+5Don't worry they'll all die from shock because no one under 25 knows how to work anyways.
- randf, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1dewd, coming up with witticisms on places like digg is, like, pretty damn hard work, dewd....like, peace out and stuff.
Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -5/+0They must be making massive headway in the seach for immorality/ life extension treatments if we are now beginning to get propaganda arguing the 'pros' for it.
I think that we're all pretty much aware that this treatment would be so prohibitively expensive that only the elite would be able to afford it, and then it would be a case of never being able to displace the greedy world puppetmasters, an elite community owning and controling the world forever with out any chance for it to change.
Yes, as the human species evolves NATURALLY we get longer lifespans.. but we live longer as an entire species, the introduction of the manipulation of aging for a certain section of our species has nothing in common with the human race evolving naturally.
It would either lead to a war which would decimate human kind or or a class of overlords.
Don't let the obviously biased propaganda from those who have a vested interest in the creation of an immortal elite, fool you., this is the worst possible road for humanity to go down.
- KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2So I assume the polio shot you got when a baby was unnatural?
arpad, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2What a crock of *****.
It's easy to decide something you're sure you'll never see is morally unacceptable. It's a rather different situation when the prospect of immortality or at least significant life extension, is a realistic choice. We'll see what the half-assed rationalizations are as the technology develops.
- Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -3/+0A realistice choice for whom?
  Are you honestly so naive to think that such treatments would be available to all?
  - KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Are you as naive as presume that an elite wouldnt be LYNCHED if they kept it to themselves?
mal1964, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2Huhuh! I was in the right!
Yes, absolutely in the right!
I certainly was in the right!
You was definitely in the right. that geezer was cruising for a
Bruising!
Yeah!
Why does anyone do anything?
I dont know, I was really drunk at the time!
I was just telling him, he couldnt get into number 2. he was asking
Why he wasnt coming up on freely, after I was yelling and
Screaming and telling him why he wasnt coming up on freely.
It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out
- MrESaulved, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2This is the United States Calling...
  - mal1964, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Click, lol
    - MrESaulved, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1He just keeps hanging up?
kent1146, on 04/26/2008, -5/+2I thought this article was about Republicans.
- sodade, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Oh it will be - just wait until the General Election. It is gonna be all about the young getting ***** by the old.
PeppermintPig, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3If Futurama is any indication, Old people will get out of the way easily, as we can simply place their heads in jars and forget about them.

FTA: "And those who fret about a world of immortals also worry that not only will it be stuffy and dull since the young will never get a chance to do anything, but it will also be a world full of the vain and self-centered who think themselves worthy of more and more life ad infinitum."

The 'stuffy' argument only applies if old people are leeching off of the system, as opposed to creating wealth and jobs... after all, it's going to take a LOT of cash for these people to pay for life extension services (sans the life extending drugs, which are effectively better to take when young anyways).
- PeppermintPig, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Oh no! The elite old people police are burying our posts! Get off the internet, grandpa!
protogenes, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2You will feel very different when you are the "geezers" (and you will be, of that is is no doubt).

It's just the way things are.
- blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Are you talking to the people who are pro-aging (and therefore saying that once death is actually at your doorstep you'll want to avoid it) or the anti-aging people (and therefore saying that we'll get board or something)? If it is the former then I agree. If it is the later then I would like to say that "geezers" who are like me (such as hans moravec) do still wish they could live forever, the reason some do not is because they make up reasons so they don't have to think about it and if it was possible they'd be all over it and I personally would like the opportunity to see if I would get bored (I could just kill myself if I did).
insomniacal, on 04/26/2008, -4/+12If longer life means living perpetually beneath the shadow of baby boomer vanity and entitlement -- I'll stick with the original plan, and die.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/26/2008, -2/+9Greatest generation my ass. It was the generation that came before them which paved the way, and they blew it! And to add insult to injury, they gave us the baby boomers, who have subsequently fallen further, giving us this corrupt system. Great, ***** great going guys!
- blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2As bad as that may be I don't believe it's worse than death. With time we'll outnumber them anyway.
  - Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -3/+4What's the point of outnumbering them if all the resources and our very rights of life are controlled by them, in that case we just become cattle for them, a labour force to perpetuate their way of life. The non engineered will simply become a second class society to be used and exploited.
    Their extended lives will become more valuable than that of the 'throw away mortals.
    Murder will become a two tier punishment system because 'the extended will have more of a life to lose'
    - blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I find that to be extremely unlikely. First I doubt we will get a two tier punishment system for murder as the unextended may very well choose to extend in the future. Secondly you underestimate technological progress. Technological progress will increase the resources available to us so that the baby boomers will not control everything. Finally how will they control our rights to life when we outnumber them and live in a democratic system.
      - Ihatenicks, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Democratic society?
        Go look up the actual meaning of the word then take a look at your newspaper.
        Even accepting your dellusions of democracy, how long do you think it would continue, given that the power base would never change and would outlive it's 'voters'?
        And as for tech advances increasing resources??? The resources are still going to be in the hands of the elite as it'd be them who were financing, controlling and directing and advances that took place.
        You have VERY little actual understanding.. either of the nature of power, human nature or even history.
        
        And stop throwing around phrases like 'baby boomers' it's irrelevent and has nothing to do with anything.
      - blast_flame, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Again the powerbase would not outlive the voters for long as the technology will quickly become available to the poor.
        You have VERY little understanding of economics. When a new resource technology gets introduced it helps the elite but with time it also helps everyone else. This is one of the reasons why the average person in a western country doesn't live like a medieval peasant. Yes people will try to gain as much wealth as possible but the wonderful thing about a (somewhat) capitalist system is that they help everybody else while they are doing so.
        Finally I only used the phase "baby boomers" because it was mentioned by the originator of this comment thread, insomniacal.
    - KhanneaNL, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1What's telling you the way you describe things isn't already the case?
- KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1"Opens the exit door for you."
ohmahgawd, on 04/26/2008, -6/+6Baby boomers suck. The world is going to be a better place when they all croak.
marx2k, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Tuesday night, drug giant GlaxoSmithKline announced it was buying Sirtris Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Mass., for $720 million in cash. Sirtris has generated a lot of hype because it is developing anti-aging drugs, some of which are based on resveratrol, a chemical in red wine.
The company's business plan was based on developing drugs based on enzymes called sirtuins, which are involved in aging. These medicines, it is hoped, could mimic the life-prolonging effects of a calorie-restricted diet. Sirtris Pharmaceuticals first drug is a treatment for diabetes.

From another article:
The lead drug candidate, SRT501, could come to market as soon as five to seven years from now, Westphal said. He will be staying after the acquisition to continue working with the group.

SRT501 mimics resveratrol, which has been linked to longevity, Sirtris scientists said. The Sirtris molecule is 1,000 times more potent than resveratrol, and could lead to solutions for diseases of aging including cancer and diabetes, according to an article published in the journal Nature.

``Sirtris's core scientific platform is based on enzymes that show interesting results in terms of lifespan extension,'' said Bret Holley, an analyst for Oppenheimer & Co., in a telephone interview.

SRT501 is being evaluated as a diabetes treatment in the second of three phases of human tests needed for regulatory approval, Holley said. Data from the study is expected later this year, he said.

``Virtually any disease of aging may well be a way to apply this technology,'' Westphal said. ``This is a very hot field. We're a little company several years ahead of anyone else in the field and so that's a wonderful thing for a large pharmaceutical company to want to access.''
jbenson2, on 04/26/2008, -4/+5Europe and Japan are dying because their populations are aging and shrinking. With European birth rates so low, it creates a tremendous tax burden on the young.

Under those circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an attractive option. That's why euthanasia is becoming so popular in most European countries.

Europeans have a real talent for living. They don't want to work very hard. The average European worker gets 400 more hours of vacation time per year than Americans. They don't want to work and they don't want to make any of the changes needed to revive their economies.

The summer after 9/11, France lost 15,000 people in a heat wave. In August, the country basically shuts down when everyone goes on vacation.

That year, a severe heat wave struck and 15,000 elderly people living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their children didn't even leave the beaches to come back and take care of the bodies. Institutions had to scramble to find enough refrigeration units to hold the bodies until people came to claim them. This loss of life was five times bigger than 9/11 in America, yet it didn't trigger any change in French society.
- KhanneaNL, on 04/26/2008, -1/+3You are rambling nonsense.
- blast_flame, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2You should read the article. It isn't about people being old for longer, it's about people being younger longer and therefore working longer.
  - prometheanspark, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Indeed, having 5 or 6 generations alive at any given time would dramatically reduce population booms and busts as have affected much of western civilization. This would also make for many more workers per social dependent (children/retirees) because folks would work generally until they die in an accident or one of the few diseases that isn't solved, or a new disease, ect.
    - KhanneaNL, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2Imagine the sex if everyone had young bodies in their twenties.
      The future would be one giant Second Life
galeninjapan, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1There is only one answer, Carousal.

Renew! Renew! Renew!
yixiazi, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Why does nobody seem to think about the logistics of living longer? We have enough mouths to feed on this planet. It would take only a few generations of people living such lengthy lives to totally strip the planet of all resources, and eat every other living thing. Our medical system and resources are already inadequate for everyone.
HaloZero, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Why are there like 3 articles by MSNBC on the front page right now?
syncr, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Geezerz need excitement
If their lives dont provide them this they incite violence
Common sense simple common sense
adamk0310, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Buried for the suggestion that evolution has anything "in mind for us."
mrmudgeon, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Longevity is a complicated issue. The perspective of demographics can shed some light on this issue. First of all, it is hardly new. Life spans have been expanding rapidly in the US since the anti-bellum period after the civil war. In 1900, the average lifespan of Americans was 47. Today, it is 80-100 depending on who you ask and how old you are.

This represents a practical increase of 80-100% depending on which number you believe for today. The medical technology we are talking about now as “life extension” is really an evolution of what has gone on before. Life spans will get steadily longer such that folks born 50 years from now can probably expect to live 200 years.

In countries where this has happened, birth rates have fallen, sometime quite a lot. The population of the earth is way less influenced by life span than most folks think. In countries where life span has increased the most, population has increased the least. In the US and EU (areas with very high life spans), all of our increase in population has come from immigration. Without immigration, both countries would be the same population now as they were in 1980, but with a much grayer (and whiter) demographic.

As life spans increase, so does the length of work. Most folks work longer as life span increases. 100 years of data back up this point as a solid one. We have more PHDs and other highly trained people now because they will work longer because of longer life. This makes the investment in education easier for both the student and society to make. Second careers are now possible as there is enough life to make such a thing workable. I believe recent increases in life spans and life span expectations have had a large affect on the number of people going to college. It has also increased the number of people who have 7 or more years of academic training.

Many of the folks writing seem to think that old age is mostly infirm living. This is not supported by evidence. While dementia is a slightly bigger problem, most other health problems occur late in life. They just get pushed back to later in years as our life spans increase. My mom is 80 and she retired from being an executive at an alcohol treatment center. She retired 5 years ago. Peter Drucker (a famous business consultant and writer) worked until 88. While these examples are unusual, they are shared by many people. These are people with decades of experience and much to contribute.

Someone mentioned that anti-aging treatment would be expensive and therefore only for the rich. This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology develops. It is first expensive and then cheap. Some anti-aging treatments will no doubt be expensive when they appear, but then will become cheap enough that the middle class gets them and then poor. This has been the case in medicine for decades. Nothing in the current economic data suggests that this will change. As our society overall gets richer, this curve will slope more quickly. The rich will fund the development of technologies that then get cheap enough for everyone else to use. The market opportunities will always cause this process to happen unless the government interferes.

This brings up some negative social consequences which will have to be dealt with in some way. Progress in this area is slowly and inexorably speeding up. This is creating a split where richer countries (and richer people within those countries) life spans are increasing faster than the life spans of folks in less well-off circumstances. There is no easy answer here as attempting to socialize everything will interrupt the process of developing technologies or simply send them off shore. China seems to be somewhat more fearless in this area and we in the West run a real risk of seeding the most important technology of the next 100 years to China.

Many of the youglings posting here have not yet faced mortality. Your attitudes will change when it is you starting to look at death.
bincoder, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I wish the youngins would get off my ass as well as the asses of my peers about things like smoking, driving fast, drinking and driving, going around without seatbelts, using ladders that have no 'caution you might fall' stickers, etc as mandated by the semi-neo-soviet-democratic government the (younger) peeps seem to put so much faith in. You would be simply amazed at how the death rate can climb, along with the standard of living when a thing called 'freedom' is The rule of the land, not longevity at any cost.
olenick, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Visit Boynton Beach or Boca Raton, FL. The fear of old people -- those who lived through the greatest economic boom in world history and left the country deep in hock, falling apart, and with inadequate education and healthcare (except for themselves) -- soaking up enormous resources is both unsettling and very real.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Opinion: Fear of Geezers Who Hog Resources Overblown

Login or register to add a comment