Poetry Forum

Full Version: Aging
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
the times newspaper where this source comes from is an upper class broadsheet. i'm surprised it can't spell aging Hysterical

that aside. the article bring up somewhat of a dilemma.
if the age gene is discovered and manipulated in order to give us an extra 100 or so years, would it be a good or bad thing.?;

Scientists are hoping to gain new insights into the mysteries of ageing by sequencing the genome of a 17-year-old girl who has the body and behaviour of a tiny toddler.

source;

wunderkind

hmm, pretty interesting. but i don't think i like the idea of longer lifetimes. let's say people age slower, so they live longer. if the birth rate and death rate remain as they are now, there will be more people living in the world, competing for limited space and resources. from that perspective, the consequences would not be too good.
yes,i agree,
If it was in a 30 year old body,maybe,but to be stuck for 30 years in a 80 year old one doesn't sound too attractive to me
i would gladly do the work i'm doing now for a long time to come but not in a 75 year old body

mrmod

I don't think we should meddle with such things as genes in this case. If for cancer, yeah sure. But aren't we becoming a bit greedy? Adding to the luxuries we already have, we would live much longer? Not to mention pension and healthcare costs.

Let nature take its course. If we live longer it will be a long evolution period and we will be able to adapt to it. Humans shouldn't play "God".
it's a bit late to let nature take it's course,i would have been dead several times if it wasn't for anti biotics.i say,let them have a go at it and let's see what happens,i for one would like for people to try to adapt to nature instead of the other way around.let's have humans who can absorb energy from the sun,live under water or in space,have wings,etc.

mrmod

I suppose, but messing with the genes can be a risky business. Antibiotics/Pills are just the use of Nature and Chemistry... Relatively risk-less.

As we know it though, whenever our DNA has been changed it normally leads to cancer (think of radiation as an example). To change it for something like cancer it would be worth risking it. But just to live longer (while there is people starving) is a bit too greedy. And risky , too.
(05-11-2010, 08:31 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]it's a bit late to let nature take it's course,i would have been dead several times if it wasn't for anti biotics.i say,let them have a go at it and let's see what happens,i for one would like for people to try to adapt to nature instead of the other way around.let's have humans who can absorb energy from the sun,live under water or in space,have wings,etc.
i'd much prefer the living in space or under water scenario and i love the idea of wings as well. the sun absorption i'd also love though underwater you'd starve Smile

if these were possible i'd say yes to life expectancy being extended. as it is we have very little space for the people who are already on the planet. so i'd have to say, it isn't something i'd go for.
i my opinion,that's the aproach,instead of going to mars and build domes and such to support human life,one could look into the possibileties to alter humans and adapt them to different environments
(05-12-2010, 02:01 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]i my opinion,that's the aproach,instead of going to mars and build domes and such to support human life,one could look into the possibileties to alter humans and adapt them to different environments
maybe thats what we need in order to explore the seas and space. to adapt to live in extremes, gill the ability to breath carbon monoxide