Gearspins.

Feb 06, 2010 03:47

Hypothetical.
A solution is found for telomere replication errors, effectively doubling your lifespan. you'll now live to about 160, all aging effects halved, as we know them now.

How would you change your approach to how you live your life, what would you start doing/ doing differently once the treatment was given and took hold.

Leave a comment

Comments 25

9thmoon February 6 2010, 15:15:33 UTC
I'd work a lot harder, to make a lot more money, to be able to enjoy a much longer retirement. I'd also get busy popping out babies, if I knew I was going to be around to raise them.

Reply

nder February 7 2010, 20:09:49 UTC
why the focus on babies, if you've alot longer to be able to have and raise them? if you had say 15 more viable years now, you'd have 30 after the treatment. You could wait another decade and still be able to raise a twenty year old before you'd go nonviable.

Reply

9thmoon February 7 2010, 20:14:49 UTC
I don't have fifteen viable years! I don't even have five. In fact, I'm already well past prime baby-making age.

Reply

nder February 7 2010, 20:23:50 UTC
man I wish all my organs came with specific expiration dates like yours :P

Reply


souptime February 6 2010, 20:12:16 UTC
I don't know.

Reply


photosexual February 6 2010, 21:43:11 UTC
Dude! 20 years old, phyiscally in a 40 year old body? And at 40, being only a quarter of my new life span?! WOOHOO! I'd put to use everything I knew now that I didn't know then and begin some money investment schemes, lose my shyness and figure out how social retardation is elminated, and eat and move around even more different than I do now. Plus, I could plan my artistic progressions by the decade! HA!

Reply

nder February 7 2010, 20:05:57 UTC
well you wouldn't roll back. you'd be you now, just with a longer life. the damage already done can't be reversed, just further damage mitigated :)
(yes I'm taking some liberties with the math, due to varying ages of people, yay hypotheticals)

Reply

photosexual February 7 2010, 20:28:42 UTC
Ah, I misunderstood. Still, if I could keep where I am now, and progress forward for another 100 years, give or take, I'd still get away with a lot of what I mentioned, because I have time to do things differently than the certainty of a much shorter lifespan and deteriorating health in that time.

Reply


mistdragon February 7 2010, 02:34:30 UTC
Probably still die at 40 :P

Reply


oropher_777 February 7 2010, 15:25:29 UTC
I don't know that I would do much of anything differently. I'm also not convinced I'd take advantage of the treatment. I'm not that attached to this world that I'd want to spend another 120 years here.

Reply

nder February 7 2010, 20:10:44 UTC
but there's so much to do and see. and you can always OD on sleeping pills or something when you get bored of it all :P

Reply

oropher_777 February 8 2010, 00:53:45 UTC
Ah yes, suicide by boredom ... Well, I suppose if I could be guaranteed a healthy longer life, and the income to spend, I wouldn't mind seeing the rest of the world. I still haven't made it to New Zealand ...

Reply

nder February 8 2010, 19:08:26 UTC
no guarantee, it's just like now- it doesn't offset month long shake and oreo binges. Just reduces the rapidity with which you age.

Auckland or Christchurch first?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up