Won't you participate in my experiment please?

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2

what do you mean by meant?
are people obviously supposed to get cancer ?

I think that death is a natural part of existence. To my knowledge nothing living (and perhaps nonliving) stays in one form forever.

we are meant to die.
death is a natural part of existence.
is there a contradiction between these two ideas? i don't see any.

I'm sort of on the fence with this.
I've got SO many things I want to do, places to go, things to see. Way more than I will probably ever get to do in my lifetime. So I think I'd live long enough just to finish all those things. Then I'd resume my mortality heh.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

In time, this could be moved into a more appropriate section..

for not let's commence ..
I have exclusive rights to a brand new treatment, not out on the market yet.. **** that FDA but I digress
in it a group of erudite scientists have decoded the keys of life using our own genetics, they have found a way to eliminate natural apopotosis and a new gene configured only synthetically and injected via a vector which would eleminate all cellular aging. There is a booster dose a 'rejuvenation serum' that will need to be administered every 10 yrs to maintain life and can only be given through your health care professional.

There is a list of questionnaire that needs to be filled out, and then acceptance is based on criteria, you understand of course this injections can't be given to everybody but to a select few.. and in a nutshell it would mean IMMORTALITY...
MY question is of course would you sign up?
Would you choose to live on this earth forever and why?

thank you

hola,

no... my life does not belong to me. God has secured a birth and a death for me and He has uses for me beyond just this world. we should not fear His plans... that is why taking a bite from the tree of life is forbidden.

que Dios te bendiga

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2

well death itself serves a couple purposes. It allows other creatures to survive. (meat eaters, bacteria, carrion eaters ect...)
It keeps populations in check.
It greater allows for improvement in species through the ellimnation of poorer develped forms. (of course if nothign died i guess this wouldnt matter).

will quote Br. woodrow on this, with his permission

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Death is not an evolutionary advantage. Micro organisms do not face any natural death and yet near immortality poses no biological disadvantage to them. There is no biological advantage in death. If life were an undirected evolutionary event, the biological end would be immortal creatures with reproduction limited by population size. asexual reproduction would be the end result with reproduction occurring only in response to the environment's ability to support it

And agree fully with it... I don't think death has any advantage from an evolutionary stand point!


on a separate, I don't believe a great many would stop going for a 'booster' and decide to die once they have made a conscious decision that they want to live and experience-- When boredom sets in, in every day life, one changes activities, recoups and starts anew... can one ever stop learning? I really doubt it... Also the experiment design was made so that it would be the equivalent of a 'fountain of youth' not mere living with the usual cellular degneration...
by the way in real life there is such a gene entitled the 'fountain of youth' it is a proto-oncogene called RET and it is associated with the development of various types of cancer not rejuvenation, though it works in complete opposition of the tp53 which causes apoptosis (natural cell death) cell arrest.. one is the gas and the other is the break so to speak, having one expressed or the other not expressed in both events leads to cancer not life anew..
this has been an over simplification but I enjoyed it, a thank you to all participants..
cheers

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

It makes room.

LOL

it is rather a redundant practice!

since you all are immortal through re-incarnation! are you not continuously being reborn in different bodies?

wa salam

format_quote Originally Posted by jd7

PurestAmbrosia, I vote for option #2.

great choice...

A couple of options I think might have proven interesting:

If you have an older spouse would you want them to take the treatment till you aged enough to catch up?

Me personally? If I am attracted to an older individual enough to have them as a life partner, chances are it isn't/wasn't because of their looks... If you love someone you'll find them beautiful under any condition, would the age factor average into the equation? for me personally no. If you are going to live X number of yrs, you'll acquire the wisdom whether or not the yrs ravage your face so, why take a chance and have something along the way rob you of your mortality-- fact is we aren't guranteed tomorrow to be guarantted twenty, thirty yrs from now...

If you had a 25 year-old son or daughter with an illness that comes on in the 30’s or 40’s, such as scalar derma, an awful illness, or an illness such as cystic fibrosis another awful illness, would you advise them to take the treatment of it allowed them to avoid the illness?

many ppl with various ailments would jump all over this (if it were trut).. health is one of the greatest greatest gifts we have and never notice until a mal-function sets in, or are constantly in the mill of having a loved one suffer a debilitating chronic illness...
I think in fact regardless of the hypothetical of this thread, that, that is what scientests should be working toward, alleviating suffering and disease not chasing after asinine dreams, like cloning humans or a 'fountain of youth' they won't find it, and the first is a mere waste of resources that should be better channeled to areas present and needed today!

Wondering how option #2 is morally any different than any other preventive medical treatment we already use today is?

No medical treatment we have today can stop cell death, aging --natural or otherwise....I just fashioned it, in such a way that might to the reader appear plausible... we will not be able to bring to a halt the natural causes of aging, loss of lens accomdation, increase in chest ap diameter, loss of kidney function, slight emphysematous state in the lungs, weakness in bowels, slight hearing loss.. it is going to set in by a certain age whether or not we do stuff to help it.. the way we are good to our bodies or abusive merely makes the difference between normal physiological aging or pathological disease due to abuse.. can't stop death...

Death is truth like life is.. this was just to probe people's thoughts on life, mortality, different planes, different meadows, different reasons for being, but it remains largely in part a fiction that I made up..

thank you for your reply

cheers

format_quote Originally Posted by jd7

PurestAmbrosia, I vote for option #2.

A couple of options I think might have proven interesting:

If you have an older spouse would you want them to take the treatment till you aged enough to catch up?

I think that would be a poor choice. In the marriages with a vast age difference, that age difference is one of the things that cause the marriage to work. For a successful marriage it is good to have similarities, but the differences are also a large part of what makes that particular couple successful at marriage. eliminate the differences and you risk destroying what caused it to work to begin with.

If you had a 25 year-old son or daughter with an illness that comes on in the 30’s or 40’s, such as scalar derma, an awful illness, or an illness such as cystic fibrosis another awful illness, would you advise them to take the treatment of it allowed them to avoid the illness?

this is difficult. my parental desires would be to go ahead and try it. But, at the same time, perhaps we are cheating the person by only prolonging them for a much worse fate. It is sort of like I was a kid. a lot of the diseases that are now eliminated where common and often fatal. The so called "Child hood diseases Mumps, Measles and chicken pox where usually just a 2 week nusience for kids, but it resulted in life long immunity. Those three diseases while minor for children were often fatal for adults. Parents of my generation would deliberatly expose children to them, for the benefit of immunity later. So, that was similar, sometimes a hardship can be a blessing because of what it prevents in the future. Here were the hypothisis is that the immortal people would be disease free. But, disease is not the only sickness that destroys us. What good would be given extra long life or immortality if the end result is going to be hellfire?

Wondering how option #2 is morally any different than any other preventive medical treatment we already use today is?

Just a question of degree. preventive medicine that prevents needless disease in a normal life span vs a lifespan for in excess of what should be expected. Interesting question and opening the door for for debate of ethical rights.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2

so how do you tell what is allowed and not? do you take medicine? things that increase your life and make you better? Do you get sick and say.. well its gods plan. Lets see what happens?

hola,

the Bible

Jesus specifically commanded us to heal the sick... that's why i became a nurse and hope to go back to medical school when my kids are grown. what the OP is asking about is a cure for 'death,' changing the fundamental nature of life from 'mortal' to 'immortal,' which is expressly forbidden in the bible.

que Dios te bendiga

format_quote Originally Posted by crayon

I'm sort of on the fence with this.
I've got SO many things I want to do, places to go, things to see. Way more than I will probably ever get to do in my lifetime. So I think I'd live long enough just to finish all those things. Then I'd resume my mortality heh.

it is a tradeoff... to become truly immortal means you will have all the time you need (and then some) to explore every inch of this world... and others should you desire. you can investigate everything, but at the expense that you would never be able to leave it. while your friends and family would move on to the next, and begin that adventure, exploring there... you would remain behind, in your little prison only getting to explore the four walls around you. with all the time in the world those walls can become small very quickly...

i think it's wonderful that God has provided us with a world where our reach will always exceed our grasp