Playing God, or just playing doctor?

It is now understood within the realms of biological sciences and medicine that aging of humans is “caused” (or perhaps more accurately…”triggered”) by a single gene within us all…it's "in our DNA".

Resident within every one of us today… and what science and medicine will soon confront and address, we pretty much know and understand how to “switch it off”. Genetic therapies employ similar tactics (with hopeful enhancements in the near future), just to “tell” or “reprogram” targeted genes in or DNA laden chromosomes to either “Do”, or “do not” execute certain functions as evolved…

If medical science soon discovers how to switch the “aging” gene to the “off” setting… permanently… then what?

We ain’t talking about immortality here. Just not aging…ever again.

Only the cessation of any further aging processes…no matter at what age the patient is “cured” in preventing continued aging. You get the “cure” ay 50, you just stay at 50. You get the “cure” at 23, you remain at age 23…as long as you live.

Just curious, and only asking within the here and now, for your considered input upon what you may see as the moral, societal, and even generational implications could arise from such a medical “cure”, being available to any that could either afford such, or have medical insurance to cover the expense of a one-time genetic treatment.

The philosophical ruminations upon concepts of human immortality (can not die, ever) will remain as legend in myth and science fiction/fantasy tales in books and movies… but, the idea of simply eliminating human aging as a part of the human condition is approaching sheer likelihood, not wishful thinking or fantasy in fiction.

So, in light of this prospectively imminent “medical cure”…

You are invited here to lend your thoughts now upon a more certain reality in days future but not far away…


Before you answer, lets’ be sure to establish what “curing” aging would NOT present nor prevent:
Any person “cured” of aging would not be protected from accident, injury, assault, communicable disease, or the common cold. Exterior or natural environmental factors would still retain their own deleterious effects. Excessive drinking (alcohol), smoking, extreme sports/activities, obesity, physical inactivity, etc… would still exact similar outcomes regarding personalized longevity and quality of life measures.

Cumulative effects would be lessened if aging processes were halted, but only slow or forestall eventual maladies and illness just the same.

So, the questions are presented…

“Is there any religious or theological argument you care to offer that would cause you to either favor or rebel against such a “cure”? If so, please cite dogmatic or textural support for your position…pro or con.

“Is there any philosophical argument you care to offer for or against such a “Cure”?

What societal effects … either locally and/or globally do you foresee as most immediate ramifications, good or ill, of such a “cure”?
Would such a “cure” perhaps alter or solidify/strengthen your own preconceptions as to “the meaning” or “purpose” in life/existence?

If such a “cure” was only made available to those with diseases directly attributable or accelerated by aging processes (like arthritis, MS, or Alzheimer's), would you accept/condone that as a good remedy option as a “cureable/treatable”disease, or would you argue that such a “cure” should be made available to any that sought, or could afford such?

Whom should be excluded from such an available cure? Prisoners serving a life sentence? Judges? Elected politicians? Business CEO’s? Professional athletes? Movie stars?

Anyone out there you believe should be forced/compelled to accept the “cure”. for the good of humanity?

Is there any reason to reject/hate/disfavor someone that is 250 yeas old, but has the physical nature and wits of a 30 year old?

How might such a “cure” effect our own perceived obligations towards “the elderly”, or concepts of workplace retirement, or mandated/imposed terms of service in any environment?

Just to be clear… I don’t know the answers either. I invite opinions and feedback upon the inevitable and inescapable that will be confronted by or peers and successors alike, much sooner than later

Again, your input is invited and welcomed.

That's a fairly long introduction to essentially ask what people to answer a bunch of questions about how people feel about stopping human aging. I find your attempt at a 'scientific' introduction lacking (especially since I didn't see the word 'telomere' once in your post), but I do accept your hypothetical scenario and questions.

Personally I would be interested in a scenario where we could choose to halt our aging process. There would be a lot of societal changes: you could no longer take a person's appearance at face value in order to determine wisdom or venerability. People with careers that depend on looks would benefit the most, such as actors and models.
I'm being brief here, but other potential effects would be an increased demand for euthanasia and a worse population problem than we currently have.
A lot of the questions you've asked can be answered (or postulated) fairly logically. Only with regard questions like "would the world be better or worse" would the answer really vary from person to person.

Also, in the future you should probably answer with your own inputs to your questions rather than just ask them.

This is a huge questions of ethics and the political rammification.

Do people want to me immortal? Can people afford to be immortal? I can only imagine to the cost that would be associated with a procedure to make one not age. But there will be a divide between those who want to be a natural human and those who are no longer considered human because they do not age.

This is just like the question of becoming a robot vs remaining a human. It can and usually will lead to war.

I might go off topic Here, But isnt this similar to the story of Deus EX: Human Revolution.

Or am i wrong?

As mentioned already, it will have a lot of impact on the society. Many things will have to be redefined as most of the system we have now rests on the assumption that people do age.

To me, it's fine and beneficial as long as people have complete freedom in taking the cure, assisted suicide is legalized, and many other things that we have to rework to prevent the abuse of such a "cure".

As to whether I will take it or not, I probably will, with the likelihood greatly improved with the possibility and freedom to turn the genes on again and on the ease of finding aid to suicide.

Oh, and yes, we need to be easier on killing drones disguised as people too. Or else overpopulation will become a real serious problem very soon following the availability of the cure.

The whole premise is pointless as what you propose is bullshit: if you switch off telomeres, you also rob the body of the mechanism that keeps cancer in check. Cells have a life expectancy and a programmed "death" for a good reason, namely that's how your body ensures that they're decommissioned *before* genetic defects could make it spin out of control.

Even machines show "age". Most materials, even ones meant to last generations, wear down. Cells will die, it's just a matter of when.

Sure, we could keep ourselves appearing young with a "fresh coat of paint" or cosmetic surgery, but a person's original body will never be able to support them for infinity. Sure, you could replace parts, but in the end you'd be adding to a compromised "framework".

I feel like you don't understand what causes aging and therefore everything in your OP loses credit. Telomeres are these cool little things at the ends of chromosomes that keep things together and are consumed during division. Over time these caps are replenished, but gradually get shorter and duplication starts to get messy. Here's where you get your effects of aging from. Information gets lost or wrongly copied due to the shortening of the caps keeping chromatid fibers together.

Step up your game, bro. This is SD. Do some research into what you're about to make a topic about and post some literature to back up your claims.

daayyyummm....

op...u need some ice for those burns?

[size=14]And this is a classic example of why you shouldn't post in SD without a proper insight into the subject of which you are posting. Although it is interesting to think what life would be like if no one aged.[/h]

Yeah, no that's not it, its more of a question of mechanization of the human body to attain immortality in Deus Ex.

A closer but still imperfect example would be in Gunnm: Last Order, where the process of Mathuzalation have enabled rendreing people immortal, chaning forever the social value of life and death. But thats off topic.

If we did discover a treatment that stopped aging, it would probably soon become a mandatory "check in", like a vaccinne. Because it would eliminate some risks for diseases, keep a erson at the peek of their strenght for years and years with no side effect, etc.
The sociel implications would be a little strange at first, but I'm sure there'll be as much good as bad coming out from it: less discrimanation but also the formation of groups against this treatment and proning "natural order".

the problem i see with having a process to alter one's genetics is essentially the plot of Gattaca

although descrimination based on Genetics would likely be outlawed, that doesn't mean it still won't happen. why hire a spokesman who will eventually grow old when you can hire one that never will grow old? also what about the people who already are old? they would feel robbed of the opportunity of a lifetime.

also, this

1- I'm pretty sure the whole thing, even if it was possible, would be damn expensive.

2- It would have horrible repercussion on the economy and it's evolution. Retirement would not be affected too fast because it would take time for the process to reach to mass, but old and rich people that already govern the economy would be able to do so for an even longer time.

3- what the heck would you do for 300 years alive anyway ? Wait for the playstation 111 ? Life doesn't have that much to offer, and life without death is like reading a book up to the last page then stop and do it again. Just face it, it's come to an end bro.

hmmm..
i think if IT IS true
there's only important people who got it
because if money can buy things like that, earth would be full of people
since there will be more born that death
earth will full
war will broke out everywhere for territories
and then the formula for "stopped aging" will lost from the war <~ this is additional

:p

Hmm thoughtful suggestion maybe this should've turned into a would you prefer Immortality versus Long-life.

The process of doing such would be pretty much impossible, per the reason Grenouille stated. Even if their was a "cure", one would have to change every single strand of DNA to counter-act such a thing (In the way I'm understanding it currently). Even if you do change the DNA there are an infinite number of other ways the body destroys itself.

However, I suppose you would want one to approach it purely theoretically? Would everyone on the planet attain immorbidity, society would adapt to the changes of the people; parts of modern governmental structures of today couldn't have been realized let alone function in olden times, nor would many old ones work well today. Would we all be immorbid I'm sure population problems would be settled through some sort of mass executions; we wouldn't die on our own, but no matter how you look at it, overpopulation makes everyone suffer, and there is only one way to deal with immorbidity.

From a sociological standpoint, from my understanding, I'm sure some people would revolt against the idea; the fact that you can even ask the question "Is this morally right" means there has to be someone who would say that it is.

That's all I choose to say on the subject.