So here I am:)
It is just unbelievable what science is working on. And I must admit, that I too, do have my questions about the "why" of searching for immortality or stretch ones life span. As you know I am dealing with psychological topics and a huge part of what my work consists of is why people do get frustrated or are unhappy or discontent.
To relate to this topic my question to you would be: Would you accept a manipulation to your cells and get a Telomerase boost when it is guaranteed that your life will be stretched - let's say by twenty years - when would be the appropriate time for you to let that happen? When you already got old (40, 50, 60 years?) or in your age right now?
I am curious about your answer:)
Hey, happy that i caught your interest :)
What i find amazing is this is that the scientists who made the discovery were probably not looking for a tool that could lead us to immortality at all, but were more likely just studying the biology of lobsters. I think this is what makes the beauty of science.
Interesting question, I think I would not do it considering the risks but even if we suppose this would be safe, I generally don't like the idea of unnecessarily modifying our biology (which is strange for someone doing genetic engineering i guess). Senescence (and death) are not diseases, they are intrinsic parts of our existences and are necessary for us as individuals and as a species. Idealistically, one might say that 20 more years would give us more opportunities to achieve what we want but i don't think this is true.
I think that everyone reaches a point at a certain age where they feel like they are not in touch with societal changes anymore and not many 80-year old today would accept a treatment that would make them live 20 more years.
Lastly I don't think that the frustration of missed opportunities exists beyond death (but religious people might disagree) so maybe i would accept a potential treatment that would allow me to keep my mental faculties and run marathons until the end, but i would not try to change my lifespan :) What's your opinion ? Do you think the kind of treatment you mentioned would reduce some people's frustration ?
:-) Yes, indeed. The findings without purpose are quite interesting. Like it is said with "Penicillin" which was found by accident of leaving around a petri-dish - don't know if that is true, though. Do you know?
The beauty of science I think is when the scientist himself does not have a pre-set mind. Which is said that that is the method to carry one over the edge of prejudice and sticky notions. Not at all easy, I would say.
Thanks for answering the question. I must admit that I was hoping for this kind of reply (totally unscientific:)
I agree on your answer. I don't think it would lower frustration or change how people deal with death and age. If that would be the case, one would be totally fine to die right now and here. When I am not ready for the fact that I am mortal in the now, why should I be ready twenty years ahead?
Yes, an aging body or an already old one does give pain in many areas. My mother died age 86 and I can confirm that she wouldn't have wanted to stretch life. What kept her alive so long no one can really answer but I think one aspect was that she cared for us children and still was actively involved in our lives and those of her sister.
LOL. What you said about missed opportunities actually is a matter of life, not death - the Buddhist religion points that out a lot. Though the teaching is known for rebirth, what they actually are up to is leading a life in the now which should free itself from regret and doubt. I am studying Buddhism for quite a while and am amazed of how little we in the west know in fact about their fascinating philosophy and psychology.
I am happy finding a scientist of your caliber.
The story about Penicillin is absolutely true and it's a good example.
That's what i was pointing about opportunities, they should be a matter of present time, not in dreams of perpetual existence :) Good to see that we agree.
My mother is very interested in Buddhist philosophy and theology so I have been exposed to it a little bit in the past. Very interesting indeed, i think the way Buddhism (or Buddhist authorities) deal with scientific discoveries and changes in the world is a lot healthier than in monotheist religions (but they are so different, it's hard to compare).
I would be very interested in learning more about the cultural/political/historical differences that led two religions (i consider Christianity, Islam and Judaism to share the same system of values) to emerge and develop such different philosophies and relationships to the world.