Antonios, your vehemence astounds me.

My position falls between Fractelle's and Bugsy's.
An extension of another five decades would be nice, but on the very strict proviso that good health extends for a significant portion of that, particularly mental acuity.

Consider the extensions we've made to lives. Often the brain doesn't last the distance but the body does, albeit in a diminished manner.
That's worse than death. Better dead than with nothing but a few marbles in the attic who drains resources, and more importantly the emotions of family members.

Eternity would be hell on earth. There's no doubt.

Everything of worth is defined by its opposite, this is the essence of relativity.

Darkness exists because of light.

Up exists because of down.

Beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, because ugliness lurks there too.

We take joy in things, because we can experience sadness.

And finally... life is significant, only because of death.

Everything grows stale with enough time. Consider this - what if you ate the same food every meal?

Wouldn't your love for that food die?

And, after a thousand years and you've tried every food a thousand times, what then? After every experience is jaded, nothing is new, you can't experience the joy of having children and watching them grow up... what then?

Life would be no different, and the notion that humanity would become a hollow husk horrifies me. I'd rather see the world destroyed by a comet, than preside over the death of death.

Sustainability's important. Regardless of technology the laws of conservation are immutable - as mentioned, people consist of resources.
Even if we could recycle 100% of our waste, organic or otherwise, (which will never happen reality isn't like that) there's still the question of what bodies are made of.

We'd need to stop reproducing.

As for the future, someone asked, what if Einstein and Newton were still alive today?

... What if they'd never been born, because the system didn't allow it?

New minds for new times. To refuse to make way for them is the worst kind of selfishness.

"New minds for new times. To refuse to make way for them is the worst kind of selfishness."

Exactly.

How self important are humans that they believe their lives are worth more than the planet which sustains them.

Maybe we shouldn't bother researching cures to disease at all. After all, they are natural and make more room for new people all the time.

Give me a break.

Bugsy

No one has suggested not finding cures for disease - you are sounding very petulant.

What you are supporting is nothing more than the human as virus - smothering the planet to the exclusion of all other life forms.

Ageing is a disease. It is a consequence of evolutionary trade-off of oxidative respiration, not a sacred balancer that must be preserved for the good of the planet.

People who are likely to have longer and healthier lives and maybe even a longer reproductive life (more than the 20-25 years or so they have now) I believe are more likely to have children based on choice, rather than a biological imperative. 'New people' won't be prevented from being born, as death by any number of other means will be still around. But it will give people time to make choices and ensure family security. It will change the nature of our society entirely.

Fractelle, you seem to have such a low opinion of your own species that you would describe them as a 'virus'. Surely changing the nature of our society would be a good thing for you then?

Longer lifespans would mean longer-term thinking, wouldn't it? After all, aren't you more likely to plan for a future that you are going to live in?

Easytimes “Col mate you have a lot to learn about how science is progressing.”

I might but it would be more helpful for us all if you actually addressed that comment to the area of my posting which you consider remiss.

One of the bits which science has not yet resolved is cell duplication and the breakdown of true duplicates, versus degrading duplicates and since we are mostly a collection of duplicating and renewed cells, most of a limited life, I figure until “faithful” and "flawless" duplication of cells is achieved, you are merely extending our endurance of our progressively decrepitating husks.

Anyone arguing the sustainability issue is inexorably entwined with human population numbers is absolutely right and has my vote.

At 6.76 billion (est as current) (and not the 9 billion which I heard dingbat Bob Brown, gay senator from Tassie say this morning on the radio … well when was accuracy ever an issue for the greens?), we are well above “sustainable” numbers.

Bugsy “Ageing is a disease.”

No it is not… it is part of the natural process of renewal…. A disease is something which disrupts the natural process. To be honest, the search for things which extend life beyond the limits of its potential natural duration would be a disease just as surely as cancer.