Should government funding go to radical life extension research?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by mmm555, Oct 19, 2012.

0
  1. #1
    Should government funding go to radical life extension research? I think so!
    I'm talking about research by organizations like The SENS Foundation which is headed by biomedical gerontology Aubrey de Grey. He wrote a book called Ending Aging. I recommend it! :)

    What do you think? Should government funding go to radical life extension research?
     
    mmm555, Oct 19, 2012 IP
  2. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,095
    Likes Received:
    103
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #2
    No , because the technology is no feasible for another 50 years. The government should get into population control . They should offer maximum support for your first 3 children then tax the living hell out of you if you have more. Right now the U.S. cannot survive without immigration and that is wrong in so many ways it's not even funny to count.
     
    ApocalypseXL, Oct 20, 2012 IP
  3. mmm555

    mmm555 Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #3
    Yes. If humans would live for about 1,000 years on average, then it would be good if either humans limited their reproduction, or else if humans could become multi-planetary.
     
    mmm555, Oct 28, 2012 IP
  4. ApocalypseXL

    ApocalypseXL Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,095
    Likes Received:
    103
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #4
    It's unlikely that we'll become multi-planetary in the next millennium. The next 200 years will be critical - if we don't play our card right we'll be exterminated.
     
    ApocalypseXL, Oct 29, 2012 IP
  5. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #5
    No. This could be something pursued by private enterprise.
     
    Rebecca, Oct 29, 2012 IP
  6. mmm555

    mmm555 Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #6
    Why is that? Why no? Why not both?

    Should the government fund research into curing any diseases?
     
    mmm555, Oct 30, 2012 IP
  7. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #7
    Financial incentives are there to compensate researchers, pharmaceutical, medical practitioners for treatments and cure of disease. Why do you feel as if it is imperative that government (taxpayers) fund it?
     
    Rebecca, Oct 30, 2012 IP
  8. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #8
    Because Big Pharma isn't profitable enough without taxpayer dollars? ;)
     
    Obamanation, Oct 31, 2012 IP
  9. mmm555

    mmm555 Member

    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #9
    Because the government has in the past funded huge endeavors such as going to the moon or building a nuclear bomb. I think eliminating aging would at least be on par with both of those. The government funds lots of research already, some of which I am neutral or dismayed about. I think ending aging is quite worthwhile.

    I'm not sure how to respond to that. Lololol.
     
    mmm555, Oct 31, 2012 IP
  10. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #10
    Ending aging is worthwhile. So is ending poverty, irritable bowel syndrome, erectile dysfunction, stupidity, hurt feelings, and bad investment decisions. So many worthwhile tasks for the government to undertake.

    Going to the moon and nuclear weapons were scientific projects we pursued in the name of military superiority, something actually in the charter for our federal government. If you can figure out how to assign military value to ending aging, or penis/breast enlargement, and I think you'll have opened up wonderful(horrible) new ways for the government to justify wasting our money.
     
    Obamanation, Oct 31, 2012 IP