Weblog Wannabe

Quacks on Who Wants to Live Forever?

There’s got to be some kind of break-even point when it comes to longevity. At some point, you’re probably spending more time working to extend your life than the actual time by which you’re extending it. Plus, if you care about how much you’re actually going to enjoy life, I’m sure you reach that point much sooner.

My friend Jake was talking about living forever just on Saturday. He’s deadly serious though. He has a business plan for providing the service.

I don’t agree about break-even, by the way, Brennan. If there’s one kind of clock-spring running down, then yes, having it run down slower might well increase costs at the margin. But if you could keep rewinding, I think the cost/benefit becomes totally different. Not only more time, but obviously more enjoyment per time period also. Having the fitness and energy and attractiveness of someone in their twenties every decade for, say, twelve decades, sounds a comprehensively better deal to me than anything the natural-ageing-is-mellower crew have to offer.

Why would anyone want to live forever. I think it would be awfully boring and lonely.

Noble thought Troy, but isn’t living for a short time, most of which you’re old, ugly, tired, unwell and poor, a lot more boring and lonely than what I suggested?

I hate to go against the conventional wisdom, but all the people I’ve seen who reckon being young for decades would be dull are young. I’ve never met anyone who’s no longer young who wouldn’t like it back.

You’re probably young, aren’t you Troy? If twenty years from now, when you’re no longer young, someone offers you a way to be young [for real] and you turn it down, I’ll be very very impressed!

{This discussion is closed. Thanks to all who participated.}