Harvard Research Team believes that gene mutations could generate immortality:
Early experiments have greatly extended the lifespan of bioengineered worms, enhancing their genetic integrity and giving them resistance to many things that would normally kill them….
While “somatic” cells (the cells that make everything except babies) wither and die, the “germ” cells (sperm and ova for us) make new organisms, which then replicate and make new germ cells, and are effectively immortal…. And the Harvard team have tricked their somatic cousins into acting the same way.
Finally! I will achieve immortality! Okay, maybe not yet:
While the research is applicable to mammalian cells in many ways, the simple fact is that you are your neurons, not your germ cells, and those neural cells are pretty different from the C Elegans model. It’s certainly conceivable that we could adapt neurons the same way (though conceiving isn’t something we’ll want to do when everyone lives eternally), but unless the Einstein and Feynmann of genetics already exist and are the same person, you’re one or two generations too early.
So here’s the obvious question: If you could live to be 500-1,000 years old in good health (you know, like the bible folks did, wink wink), would you want to?
My answer: Hell yes.
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
Francesco Orsenigo: It’s scary. As much as I support total freedom of speech (for example, I don’t like laws against... 
Olaf: I agree, the US has no a president that they should be proud of. One with brains and that gets a lot of respect from the... 
73 Comments
When immortality is a choice, then death is for suckers.
Though in this case the immortality might be for suckers, tricking somatic cells into replicating themselves occurs naturally. Generally it’s known as cancer.
I would like living 500-1000 years as long as society was about good will and all. I wouldn’t want to live in today’s society for that long. If I was wealthy and able to shield myself from the haters I could go for it also. Why would I want to live 500 years having to worry about whether I would have the money to pay my bills. It would also depend if others would be living that long. There are people I know I don’t want living 500 plus years.
If you were poor, you probably wouldn’t be able to afford the treatment.
good point. immortality is only for the wealthy :)
If we were only limited to earth, I wouldn’t want to live that long. If overpopulation isn’t an issue for whatever reason, then yeah…that’d be great.
I agree with this. If overpopulation wasn’t an issue then definately, I’m still waiting on my flying car and my robot butler *^_^*
Overpopulation isn’t an issue.
Some reasons: http://www.sens.org/index.php?pagename=sensf_faq_concerns#c1
I do need to point out that your body actively chooses to grow old and die. Your cells can only replicate a certain number of times before they unwind their own DNA and quietly commit hara-kiri in the corner. The fact that this is so conserved across pretty much all species should tell you that this is something pretty important, and not to be messed about with. If you artificially lose those abilities, the result – like Vastdistances says – is invariably cancer. The more effectively you remove these mechanisms, the more invasive and unpleasant the cancer.
If we ever tried to do this to a vertebrate (nematode worms don’t really form tumours as I recall), I would put money on the result being that you turn into a giant tumour. Plus, you need to think that each of your thousands of different cell types would need to know when and how to maintain themselves appropriately; and you may find that’s radically different for each different cell type. I think the idea that we’re one or two generations away from this is somewhat optimistic.
As for whether we’d want to? God no. I find the idea of eternal life in paradise enshrined by christianity somewhat distasteful. Why the hell would I want to live forever on earth? I can’t imagine anything more repulsive.
Well, if you change your mind you can always suicide, but I would like to live till I’m tired of it. And better: to live young and healthy.
On the other hand, I think 1-2 generations is too optimistic.
P.S.: Thinking about it, would then be suicide morally right, even for religious people?
The most sensible choice a Christian parent can make, in regards to their kids, is to kill them as soon as they’re born.
Err…sorry that doesn’t address your question at all.
What? You are one twisted individual. That is horrific. No one deserves that.
Well, given than, in theory, they will go to heaven and be happy for all the eternity, we should want that for our kids. Have I understanded you, DDM?
Fortunately, animal instincts to reproduce ourselves are still stronger than christianism adoctrination. Or maybe it’s because they don’t have faith enough…
The main reason that I’d want to live longer is to be able to watch my daughter grow up and live her life… and be a part of it… the whole thing. That would rock.
It would also rock to see how things change 100, 200, 500 years from now, but I don’t know that I’d really want to wait around to find out. Heh.
“Some people live more in 20 years, than others do in 80.” (David Tennant as Doctor Who in The Lazarus Effect)
It is the fleetness of life that makes living so valuable. Humans are the only animals, that we know of, that are painfully aware of their own mortality. We understand that we will die. Thus the reason for folks wanting to find ways to cheat death, or hold it off for extended periods of time. But to what end?
What is the point it living 500-1000? Think of your life now, work, school, idiots, fundies, wars, swine flu, corruption, government strife, stress. Do you really want to contend with that for possibly more than 500 years? Not me. That would be hell.
Just because humans might someday live longer, does not make them better. Our life spans have been extended through science already. We now have the ability to stave off death for a good deal of time. Medical interventions can continue a persons life when they probably should have died. But what is the quality of that life and the world around it? We as a species have not grown wiser as we have grown older.
No, I’ll take my 71.3 years, pack as much living into it as possible and hope I die in my bed, in my sleep, and at peace.
Why 71 over 15 years? The same reason I’d like 500 over 71 years.
Of course it would be optional. People who wanted to die early would have the choice. Those of us who want to continue living, would also have the choice. Everyone wins!
Not when we run out of space, not to mention arable land and potable water.
Frankly I think that the most likely consequence of this technology would be horrible and unending resource wars, unless it is coupled with either an extreme rationalization of society (forced sterilization of those who choose to get the procedure, disqualification of those who already have children, limits on consumption and perhaps even the amount of wealth that one person was allowed to posses at any one time) or cheap space travel to places that could actually support human life, or something else equally radical.
Oh don’t be such a pessimist — with old age (hopefully) will come wisdom, and with technology will come solutions. Already “1st world” nations have severely reduced their birth rate, and our food growth rates have multiplied. I think we’ll figure it out.
…And if not, then we’re screwed, and there’s not much we can do about it. :)
Wouldn’t the wars be sporadic rather than unending? A big long war would go far in fighting overpopulation.
Sorry, by unending I meant that an end to any specific war would only be a brief respite before the next one became necessary, but that wasn’t very clear.
I think that that new technologies have, historically speaking, created almost as many problems as solutions; without technology hitler would have been just another bloodthirsty tribal chieftain, and people like the columbine shooters would have been hard pressed to kill only one or two people instead of the 12 that they did kill. Global warming is the direct result of the use of technology.
Now I don’t think that technology is bad, actually as a committed video gamer (not to mention a person who enjoys medical care, cheap abundant food, etc, etc) I love the stuff; but it also isn’t a panacea, and unless it is adopted in a responsible way bad things will happen.
You wrote “Already “1st world” nations have severely reduced their birth rate, and our food growth rates have multiplied. I think we’ll figure it out.”
But the problem isn’t simply ‘reducing’ birth rates–that will only buy time in a world without death by old age. We would need to achieve zero population growth, (and do it much more quickly than we would have to otherwise) because so long as our resources are < ∞, competition for those resources will get nasty. I think that that will only happen faster if there is no such thing as peaceful death from old age.
Im feeling Daniel on this one. If you could live and be in good health for 98 percent of those 500 years. If you could continue learning new things. For example Etta James even at the age of seventy plus is still singing At last and bringing the house down. Could you imagine her at 350 singing it would be great. Could you imagine eric clapton playing the blues at 350 how much more sicker would that CAT be on guitar.
I would want to live that long, but I would want to do it as the proverbial “fly on the wall.” Just to observe how societies change. What would happen when America wasn’t America anymore? What will happen to things like the Vatican/Al Aqsa Mosque (Dennett’s history museum hypothesis?)? That sort of stuff. Will we (everyone) come up with a new form of government? etc. I don’t know how I would pay to live, because I surely would not want to work for that long, but I wouldn’t mind being a few hundred years old.
A good investment plan would have you self-sustainable by 50-70 and only having to work if you wanted and on what you wanted.
Why can’t I shrug off the Advocatus Diaboli written all over your comments?!
Besides, the financial system you now know would be null and void at the time immortality is discovered…
To answer your question: No, I would not partake in any treatment that was meant to expand my lifespan way beyond the biologically reasonable. I am already “blessed” with a life expectancy of twice as much as would be necessary for me to fulfill my biological function (i.e. reproduction and child care). Of course I sometimes think of all the cool things I’ll never live to witness. And then I ponder on all the things that all the generations before me never had the change to witness. And I saw that it was good–the way it was.
Sidenote: I personally knew two people, one which undoubtedly became weary of life and committed suicide, the other one who is at least assumed to have done the same. There are day when I understand what they must have felt, watching your loved ones wither away…
There are ways to stay financially stable/self-sustaining, it can be done now and it will be done in the future. Of course things will change, but a good plan doesn’t put everything in one place!
And I totally understand not wanting to live that long. No one would be forced to do it. I just want it to be available for those of us who love life and want all that we can get.
To me your line of thought seems a bit strange. On the one hand you dismiss eternal life for several reasons we all discussed at length before (and maybe some personal ones), yet at the same time you say it would be totally okay for you to extend your lifespan five or ten times. Of course there is a difference between “ten times as long” and “eternity”, but the basic issue remains: The more days you have at hand, the less each particular one means…
But this is not a matter of true or false. I respect your position (and the one of those similar to yours), and to a certain degree I understand it. But eventually I, for myself, have to say no to eternity, and no to extremely prolonged lifespans.
Would I want to?
Without doubt, yes.
I’d like to live from 500 to a thousand years…but I think I’d get pretty bored sometime after about 150. I mean, given the ways in which we mature and grow, living that long would only work if childhood was a lot longer than from fifteen to eighteen years; if our lifespan was 500 years, middle age would have to be at 250–not 40. And longer lives would mean more usage of healthcare, more consumption of natural resources…it would probably be a disaster ecologically. (The Star Trek episode “The Mark of Gideon” is stuck in my head; on the planet Gideon, people had expanded their lifespans to virtual immortality. The result: overcrowding and no privacy)
I think the idea of living 500-1000 years sounds pretty awesome. But… I think I agree with the whole over crowding, use of natural resources etc etc arguements. Thinking about it completely on the surface, living that long would be fun because we would get to see how much society changes…I mean, think of all the changes just in the last two hundred years!
But would it though? Probably the changes would go much slower – people won’t have to run against time, after all, do things before they’re old and die.
“So here’s the obvious question: If you could live to be 500-1,000 years old in good health (you know, like the bible folks did), would you want to?”
Of Course.
Things always get better.
Giving consideration to both yours and Roger’s responses, Abraham had Isaac when he was 950 years old. So we’d have to have a longer middle-aged span. However, Mary “became pregnant” and was pledged to marry Joseph when she was only 14. So we’d have to re-vamp our age system so that adolescence lasted quite a bit longer. But really, who wants to live with their parents until they’re 100? Or wait to drive until 140 or drink until age 175?
No silly, Abraham was 100 yrs old when Isaac was “birthed”. Isaac represents the son of spiritual promise, not earthly or adamic but spiritual in nature. The first man (our physical,natural identities arenot our true identities) but our second, spiritual re-birthed man (Isaac) is our true identity. This is why Christ said we must be born a second time, an inward re-birth. How old will you be when the “real” you is finally born-again?
Well, it may not be so great after all…look at the cautionary tale of the movie “Zardoz”, for example.
er…not the cautionary tale of “what not to do once you’ve made successful movie like Deliverance”, mind you, but the cautionary tale of “what happens if you really could live forever?”…and I’m not just talking about the quirky fashions…
Yes please, I’d like to live for several centuries.
On the other hand, I hate the thought of a Mugabe, a Kim Jung Il, a Charles Taylor, or for that matter a Bill Gates living to be 500 years old.
A world where the rich and powerful (who else?) have access to longevity on this scale will be a stagnant world where economics and policy are controlled by filthy-rich, old conservatives, who will be clinging to power on a planet that is quickly running out of living space, water, energy, and other essential resources. A world where innovation and improvement slow to a crawl because people generally embrace the same (often bad) ideas and principles throughout their lives.
We need to solve problems such as energy production, sustainable food production, pollution, poverty, overpopulation, and decent governance first – except it doesn’t work that way, of course. As such, it’s probably a good thing for the world as a whole that radical longevity is beyond the horizon for now.
Correction: “policy” -> “politics”
“the simple fact is that you are your neurons, not your germ cells”
Queue the creationist poster from whoisyourcreator, “Are you going to let a scientist make a Neuron out of You?”
I’ve got a pretty in-depth essay on this topic available here: http://www.synchronium.net/2008/11/18/living-forever-is-it-really-worth-it/
My fiance has just finished a degree in Medical Scienc and did this as part of an ethics module. It sparked some pretty intense debates amongst us. Obviously I’m biased but I would highly recommend giving it a read!
Absolutely I would want to live longer. But the thing that bugs me most about mortality is that I don’t get to choose when to go. To answer another old philosophical question, yes, I would absolutely want to know the date of my death, and make sure all my vacations happen before then, and all my bills happen after then.
“So here’s the obvious question: If you could live to be 500-1,000 years old in good health (you know, like the bible folks did), would you want to?”
I can’t imagining anyone wanting to have less options on how to live their life?
Except for fundies, they only seem to care about dying.
I have no idea, really. I’ve never given much thought to it.
As someone else mentioned, I think it would be pretty cool to meet and know my grandkids, great grandkids, etc.
I also wonder, if we were able to do this, what would the state of my body be at 400 years old? Would aging from 300-400 be the equivalent of aging from 30-40 (I realize the numbers are disproportionate, just simple to use)?
It’s kind of weird, but the very first question I had was this: If we ever do live to be 500 years old, will that long life help alleviate the collective fear of death?
Death isn’t anything to be fearful of, It’s the dying part that frightens me.
Curiosity is the primary reason I would want to live forever. I don’t believe in any sort of afterlife, so I don’t think i will see what happens to the earth after I die, and I really really really want to know.
> My answer: Hell yes.
My question: Why?
I mean, the default condition is to be happy sometimes and sad sometimes, healthy sometimes and sick sometimes, alive for a while and then dead. Why mess with that?
Stuart
Correction: it’s the only condition you’ve ever known by experience, not by any means the only _possible_ condition. After you’ve also experienced a life with no sadness or sickness at all, I’ll be more than happy (:P) to hear what you have to say about it. But until then, the simple fact is that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about (and, sadly, you don’t even seem to be open to finding out.)
My answer is yes as well. As long as I can read the news, I want to be alive.
I once wrote a story about this woman who was immortal – not only that, she was impossible to kill. At first it was awesome and she didn’t age. Eventually she became worldwide dictator, since, well, she didn’t fear assassinations and she had more than enough time to plan and set things apace. She had a few children she learned not to care about (as they, well, died) and eventually became a sociopath – she couldn’t care much about the world, in the end, as she’d seen everything and done everything she could. Because of her personality (she wasn’t a very nice person to begin with) worldwide growth was stinted and things stagnated under her eternal rule.
In the end she wondered if she’d live to see the Earth be swallowed by the sun – and moreover, if she’d survive that as well.
OTOH, living 500-1000 years? Yes plz.
Siberia-your ‘woman’ has below average intelligence and caught in a situation she can not handle well so goes psychotic. She is the excellent example of a small narrow mind in a broad open field. Think of the largest library ever. choose 1 book don’t read it but go and do what it is about. Done? go to the next. Go do that. There is no way anyone could ’see and do everything’ in 1000 yrs. She is small minded-bored-and unimaginative.
With long life, some engineering and the ‘moon sized’ ship is pointed at a direction and many of us would be GONE!!! With plenty to see and do.
Actually, she was the opposite – she was pretty intelligent, but she also had sociopathic tendencies from the get-go. She’d never been stable in the first place, hence world domination and what not.
I’m not talking 1000 years – I’m talking well over into millions of years of age. As I said, she’s truly immortal – she can’t die. Ever. Nor be killed. Ever. I suppose after such a long existence (remember, not a thousand, millions – that would easily extent into billions), you just lose track of everything – why bother? It’ll be just the same old, same old. Things tend to blur together. The new civilization’s no different from the last. The new philosopher doesn’t make any more sense than the last one, not really. The new religion isn’t any better or worse than the last. The new book isn’t more insightful or interesting than a billion others you’ve read, it doesn’t really offer anything new. The new technology is intriguing, but loses its allure after awhile. Sure it’s different, but after a thousand million repetitions – well, you get bored. Why form attachments if everyone else (remember, she’s the only immortal) will die anyway? Why care? We’re not talking übermensch here. We’re talking ordinary people. No matter how creative or curious you are, I’d guess boredom would come some day. It just loses its meaning.
Would there really be plenty to see and do? Sure, in a thousand years, maybe – forever? Really, forever?
I’d love to live for a couple millenia, but I don’t think I’d last for millions of years, or billions… at least, not as the only person to live that long. Maybe with equally immortal company…
“I suppose after such a long existence (remember, not a thousand, millions – that would easily extent into billions), you just lose track of everything – why bother?”
As previously pointed out, you’re being unimaginative. In billions of years, humans would have sufficient time to improve themselves (technologically, biologically, whatever) so that they don’t lose track of anything. Think “electronic memory banks” for one thing.
As for “why bother”: why do you bother now? It’s all going to end in a few decades anyway. Why don’t you just kill yourself right now and get it over with? Is it perhaps because you have this strange notion that being alive is somehow better than not being alive? And why would that change on the exact day you turn 80? Or 120. Or 1200.
“It’ll be just the same old, same old.”
Christ. Please don’t become a futurist, your imagination is seriously limited. How can it be the “same old” when you’ve got humans learning and experiencing more than anyone ever has in “a lifetime”? Have you ever met anyone who wrote a book or a movie script after being alive for 3000 years and did you find it boring? And what of self-modification? What happens after humans enhance themselves and turn themselves into something totally unrecognizable to those of us alive today? Do you honestly think you can predict what would happen on such immeasurable timescales? Jeez…
“I don’t think I’d last for millions of years, or billions… at least, not as the only person to live that long. Maybe with equally immortal company…”
D’oh, we weren’t talking about the kind of dystopic nightmare of a future that many SciFi writers routinely feel the need to punish us with because of their own fear of the future. Everyone would have access to the therapies/technology/whatever.
I don’t want to live eternal, I want to reincarnate as soon as possible into a beautifull butterfly before they go extinct.
I’d want to and if I ever got sick of life, then I’d just shoot myself. You still wouldn’t be able to regenerate your brain.
All your wildest dreams come true, that what the gospel (good news) is except that you just don’t know it yet. You have misconceptions about God, His character, heaven, etc and so decide for yourself (w/o false info) that you dont want it/Him. But what you fail to comprehend is that there is only One Life in the entire universe and we are merely individual members of it, the illusion of separateness being just that, an illusion. We are eternal beings, you just cant see the eternal aspect of man(kind) with the naked eye, just like you cant see the quantum world with the naked eye, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Think fairy tales, we’re just living now in between the once upon a time and the happily ever after.
All your wildest dreams come true…
Do you have any explanation as to what the purpose of our material, mortal lives is? Why do we have to go through it, when it doesn’t matter in the end? Why is God forcing us to live a mortal life?
TRJ-
What a question-thx. Reminds me of a great line in the movie The Matrix when Morpheus tells Neo “the matrix (this worlds system, illusion) cant tell you who you really are”. How true, we only find our true identity in Christ. In the 60’s and 70’s a common quest was to “find yourSelf”. Identity is man(kinds) core issue and has been ever since the darkness fell (in sin/death/separation) when we lost our true sense of Paternity, spiritual origins. This is what Christ does, restores the first, the lost identity.
I believe the old mystic (Jacob Boehme 1575-1624) best answers your question about why this mortal life “not to identify ourselves with the limited shadow, but to attain the knowledge of our celestial self is the object of this terrestrial life”.
Recently I saw Ephesians 4:23&24 again it reads “and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and “put on the new man” which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness”.
We think we are a certain person with a given identity, but its not true, its an illusion. This is why our hearts long for, even know there is more to the story. So to answer your question, the discovery of our true spiritual identity is the purpose for this mortal journey. Then things begin come into focus. All the best TRJ.
Honestly, JC, I just think you are swapping one illusion for another.
Personal identity is a complicated subject:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/#5
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-ethics/
LRA-Why are you so inclined to “hear” and reference Plato, a mere man and not the words of Christ “call no man on EARTH your Father”??
Personal identity only seems complicated because we are moving from dark to light in our understanding. Once we “break thru” things get a lot brighter. EX: I am not John C from 1100 Main St TX USA, etc…I am who God says I am, He is the only trustworthy Source, etc. If only we would bend our ears His way, would hear what the Spirit says. This world tells us one thing, but He is not of “this world” and truthfully neither are we but we THINK we are so…as a man thinketh in his heart (deepest part of his being) so is he. When we line up our thinking with His words then light breaks forth in our inner man, then we begin to really “see”. All the best.
Christ doesn’t say anything profound if you don’t buy into his premise of the existence of God. So why not consider the words of actual philosophers, like Plato, who have pondered existence at a deeper level than Jesus ever did?
I didn’t reference Plato here, I referenced the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that just happens to have plato in its url (perhaps in hommage?)
You are also referencing a mere man (or many mere men) when you reference the bible…
To clarify– you are who the bible says you are because God has never *said* anything to you. God doesn’t speak.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is mankinds problem, we oppose God, say things contrary to what He says like “God doesnt speak”.
It all starts (our journey back home to Love) by agreeing with God, opposing the Truth (Himself) is only self-defeating.
But how can I agree with someone who doesn’t speak to me? If God would just start talking, then I’d start agreeing. It really is very simple.
To God: if you’re out there, I’m listening…
And here I sit ten minutes later, and still nothing. Nothing to add to the years of nothing I’ve already experienced, even as a Christian… nothing.
So, how can I oppose something so totally inert as God?
So why do we have to “discover our true spiritual identity” when such a thing would be self-evident if God did not force us to be mortal? What is the value of obstructing us from our spiritual existence?
TRJ-
Has God “forced us to be mortal” as you say? To identify with our human ancestry/lineage or are we the ones who are rather content, satisfied in our own mortality, humanity, encrusted in flesh/self? And how and why should we pay the price for our first ancestors “sin” as it were that keeps us blinded to the truth of our identities, our parentage? The creature being “subject to vanity” as it were.
Or why the hide and seek game w/God (if there be one)? I am reminded of the ancient saying “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the glory of kings to search it out” Prov 25:2.
Perhaps there is something beautiful, something wonderful in the discovery itself, the “unearthing” of our true Selves that, if God were to deny us of would be a breach of His very character? Seems to me that the “setting foot on” the Light path is the first, liberating step that, ironically leads us backwards in time toward home, home being Fathers great heart.
Or maybe hidden in the discovery process itself is the unveiling?? Maybe that’s the “way” so to speak? Anyway, children know this ancient way, this path back “home”. In this (childlikeness) Jesus gives us our first clue saying (paraphrased) if you want to find your way back home you must become as a little child once again. Out of the mouth of babes…
Darn, why did He have to speak in parables?
So we are on a great character-forming journey leading us ultimately to eternal spiritual existence together with God. But God refuses to make himself known to many who earnestly seek him and seek the way to get to this state. Even though he could genuinely help those people (as well as everybody else on the planet), he prefers to dwell in isolation from us. Verily, he works in mysterious ways.
Hmm…
I would love to live a bit longer than our natural life span at the moment. The saying “life’s too short” feels rather valid.
though 500-1000 years? nah..
I wouldn’t mind 150-200.. but after that.. I think i’ll be too afraid to be bored. I kinda like my mortality. It makes things exciting and interesting :)
That is a fascinating thought. I wonder what would be the effect of such a treatment on the brain. I recall a seminar at University where the professor talked about the fact that the brain becomes less flexible as we age. Rigid thinking in old age therefore in part has biological reasons as well. If that remains so, living 500 years could be hell on earth.
Geez–My wife says I’m forgetful enough as it is. Imagine how much more I could forget if I lived another few hundred years!
But yes, on the assumption of fair health, I’d live as long as possible. Who doesn’t want to see what the world–the only one we know–holds? We’re pretty much trapped on this globe for the next century at least, so why not watch and see whether we break out of this planet later on?
If you asked pretty much anyone from the past couple of hundred years (people with a genuine concept of a future and a wider world) what do you think they’d say to that proposition?
Siberia…I missed the ‘cannot die and lives forever’ part…..Reminds me of the Asimov story about why god only lets very intelligent people into the ‘afterlife’…god is so bored with living thru eternity that he’s hopeing one of the smart guys will finally figure out a way to kill god. It is one of his short stories.
Heinlein’s ‘Time Enough for Love’ deals with the same question as Lazaus wants to die and everyone tries to figure out how to ignite his ‘joy of life’.
I’d still like to find out if i’d get bored if I lived long and young. There are a lot of thoughtfull responses here to the question.
Some things never get old – love, children, the feel of the sun on your face, and the taste of a good bacon cheeseburger and beer. So hell yes, I’d gladly take another 500 years. I’d probably rather have 500 years of good health than 1000 more years of old age, for that matter.
Plus, for even normal things to get boring, you have to have perfect memory.. but eventually you’d hit your limit, and then you’d have the joy of rediscovering hobbies, books, fields of science, etc.