Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on November 28, 1999 at 11:50:19 {hcnmikA.FkjQkQtcahuY79YAW9JMpc}:
In Reply to: ***Life Forever 100% Certain posted by Cygnus on November 28, 1999 at 09:46:42:
Because 70-80 years is about the limit our society has a pegged useful life span as. That is sufficient time to have raised a family, made contributions to one's community, be a productive member of society, and relax and enjoy one's efforts in retirement. It's simply the way it is, whereas dying at 30 means one hasn't lived a "full life." I know, you can't arbitrarily label a "full life" based on a certain number of years, but I think everyone understands this basic concept.
I personally would rather not live much past sixty. Judging from my family's history of old age, either one gets there without being able to remember anything, or one gets there by means of every drug known to man. No thanks.
I have to disagree with you on this one, Cygnus. There is nothing magical about 70/80 years of life. You are confusing health with longevity. For example, what if you could be healthy and active to age 100? Would you then rather die around 60, or would you rather enjoy those 40 extra years?
My point is that we have gotten used to that 70/80 year business because of how our bodies tend to react after that time. But if the genetic science that is working on health and aging issues comes up with results, wouldn't that change the equation? A person could enjoy a lot more life then.
So instead of thinking in terms of absolute years, think in terms of relative years with regard to health as being the most significant factor.
I do agree with you about not wanting to live when your quality of life dives to near zero.
Seeker