What if . . .?

What if medical science invented an anti-aging drug that was able to slow the aging process so that you could live to, say, 1,000. By slowing the aging process, a lot of illnesses associated with old age — like Alzheimer’s disease — would be delayed, too. But other diseases and illnesses would still exist, so there is no guarantee that you would live to 1,000, just as there is no guarantee today that you will live to 100. Indeed, the only thing the anti-aging drug would affect is the aging process as we know it today.

By taking the drug, you would still have to work for a living, and would have to push back your retirement date, to say, 950.

But taking the drug would be voluntary. You could decline, and live a “normal” lifetime as we know it now, 3 score and 10, plus whatever you manage to squeak out after that.

The question: Would you take the anti-aging drug? Or would you decline? Explain why in either case.


7 thoughts on “What if . . .?

  1. The quantity of life is not important, the quality is.

    If you can be around those you love without fear of cancer and all the other “old age diseases” that blight us, then why not live to be 1000?

    However, I think the reason so many die of cancer these days is that we aren’t killed off by something else before cancer gets us.

    Both my paternal grandparents died of cancer, my grandmother at 84 and my grandfather at 91. Neither complained that it wasn’t fair.

    In the days before antibiotics, the gall bladder infection I had at the age of 35 might have done for me. Since then I try and make the most of every day I have. Some days I am more successful than others.

    None of us wants to answer the question “is there life after death?” We’d all rather continue with the certainly of life before death.

    If our sons and daughters, and their descendants, can have children as we have done, and carry on with their families and enjoy longevity with us, too, I can’t see why anyone would refuse. Obviously there will be tragedies, when parents see their children (or their descendants further down the line) die before them, but that happens now with folk living what is currently deemed a reasonable lifespan. We cope now, if we have to. We would cope with extended lifespans, if we had to.

    If we are fit to work, then why shouldn’t we? If we are not fit to work, or to at least enjoy all that is going on around us, then I can’t see the attraction.

    I hope that this hypothetical longevity is also available in the nations like Chad that have what we, today, in the rich Western nations, would consider a pitifully short average life expectancy of something around 40 years.


  2. Quality wins over quantity every time. Life has it’s moments but stuck at my present age is not an inviting prospect…

    The general quality of life has changed drastically during my lifetime, then again it started in a bombed out post war city! Not sure that world trends offer an inviting world for the future so I have to vote to go with this life and hope there is not too much pain to come…


  3. If I could afford to continue as I have and have help around the house and yard, I might take the medicine, but I don’t think I’d want to live past 100 with any of the ailments I now have. I would definitely need a help-mate such as I’ve got now or the money to hire out repairs and such.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s