Would you want to live beyond 120 years?- Page 2

[wexy]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 10:11am

Exactly what I was going to tell her, Bluemoon/ Fifty is this week and I don't plan on checking out too soon. Especially when I see the obits in my age range.

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 10:37am

It all depends on whether we'd age normally or slower. If we didn't become elderly until we were in our 100s, 110s as opposed to 80s-90s then why not?

[jasonf]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 11:06am

As long as it's a life worth living, I say go as long as you can. I mean, you have forever to be dead...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 1:19pm

Shades of Lestat

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 1:21pm

Moony already is 120.

[theatrebabe]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 1:45pm

Like most people said. If I aged slower and I was in good health, I wouldn't mind it.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:11pm

When I think about my answer to this question I don't really think about health and aging, I think about the people I love. If they are all gone would it really be worth it? I mean if friends and family were still alive I would want to keep living as long as I could, but if 90% of my loved ones were gone I think that life would just be sad.

It also depends what the nation and world are like though. If I had not reached my major goals in life I would want to keep livinh until I did, even if all my loved ones were gone.

[duroc]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:18pm

I agree, but I think the future holds a lot of promise for increased longevity. I remember when I was younger I went on a tour of some lab at Rutgers. They were working on reversing, or halting the aging process altogether. I know the mechanism is complicated, but I think our age is predetermined (to a degree) by the length of the telemeres on our cells. They control how many times, and how quickly a cell will divide. Theoretically, if that could be control, our organs would never wear out. We could then only die from disease or injury.

You know, thinking about. It's interesting, but plants - like grass, at least - don't really die of age. There are trees in California hundreds of years old, and vinard trees in Greece thousands of years old.

In 100 years we will have a much better understanding of how our cells divide, and why we age. We'll probably be using Star Trek type technology, like dermal regerators, completely functional artificial limbs. I even read an article last week on mice recieving their sight back after a series of injections of nanoparticles. The link is as follows: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jan/gee20060315035312.htm

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:37pm

Shut up, Rath. And I mean that with great affection.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:41pm

*giggles*

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 2:48pm

A week ago today my great great aunt (or something like that) passed away. She was 100 years old. Up until 4 or 5 days before she passed, she was very healthy and active. She was as sharp as a knife and very sassy too. If I could live like that at that age Id love to live beyond 100.

[BrianWilsonFan]

Posted: 3/19/06 at 3:56pm

God no, to live that long would take some major physiological tweaking from a very young age and that technology is aeons away no matter what the boffins say, they can't cure cancer effectively yet...

I'd take eighty good years and move on to the next incarnation...