Best selection of premium Joomla 1.6 templates

Life is Good and Death is Bad




Why Death is Bad and Living is Good
 
 
 
Let's explore the myth that we as a species should only accept a lifespan of between 70 to 120 years. The most common questions about extending life organically are displayed below in Q & A format.
 
1. Will longer lifespans threaten Medicare, Social Security and Pensions?
 
Over the long term they will unless changes are made. Human lifespans have gradually been rising for most of this century. Average American lifespans have increased by 29 years since the year 1900. Since that time Governments and the medical industry have adjusted to it without any major burdens.
 
It is a fact that today's elderly make up the vast reasons for doctor's visits. If we as a society don't find ways to treat the illness aging causes, we will have a large portion of old and frail people. The solution to this is to avoid doctor's offices filled with the elderly and instead keep them youthful, knowledgeable and productive.
 
This makes sense to solving the aging crisis. People that live longer would also be more productive to society. Without the burden of age related illnesses the economy and healthcare would benefit tremendously. This gives sound reason to the myth that it is immoral to suppress life extending technology, based on protecting  the status quo.
 
As a person ages, they acquire more knowledge, experience, wisdom and skills
 
 2: Is aging a prerequisite to life?
 
Some ocean species which were around before the great flood such as rockfishes, lobsters, some tortoises and some trees and plants do not appear to age. This could mean that after the great flood earth’s climate and magnetic field were altered in such a way it reduced the lifespan of land animals including man.
 
 3. Who would want to live forever?
 
People leading healthy fulfilling lives want more of it. Those welcoming death are victims of the gradual aging process whose lives become unbearable toward the end of their life. The goal of longevity scientists is to reverse those gradual side effects of aging. If anyone enjoys a fulfilling lifestyle, why would they ever want it to end?
 
 4. Won't life extension increase population and tax our planet's resources?
 
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, people with their own depopulation agenda have screamed doom and gloom about limited resources. In fact sine their deaths, the exact opposite has occurred. Population has increased by 740% and the standard of living has soared. This is because as life expands and grows, the brainpower needed to solve overpopulation and crowding automatically presents itself.
 
In fact if immigration is factored out, industrialized countries are experiencing population declines. There also exist vast open regions such as Africa, Australia and Antarctica, once made uninhabitable due to climate are now made suitable for living through new technologies and climate change.  The cost of rearing a cow and slaughtering it was a huge drain on local resources. In a few years we will be able to make a hamburger at 1\10th the cost of rearing a cow, all made possible by growing beef in the lab.
 
As the population continues to expand, more people born with the abilities to develop better technologies for more plentiful and cheaper food, pure air and clean water, clean abundant energy and affordable housing will present their solutions to science. People with the abilities to solve these problems are the result of an ever expanding population.  As technology continues to grow it not only extends lives, but makes it more livable for growing populations.
 
When depopulationists tell people that they should die so they can 'make room' for more people, it is like trying to drain the ocean of its minerals.  The minerals in the ocean exist to support life and it is natures purpose to grow.  History is starting to show this line of thought is narrow minded and purely selfish thinking on behalf of some people.  Some people fail to see the long term benefits of extending lifespan for the human population.
 
 5. Some of my friends have religious beliefs that a long life is selfish and against gods divine universal plan.
 
It was god’s plan before the flood for people to live hundreds of years. Your friends have a choice to live or die. If they chose to ignore life extension technologies, why would you let them drag you along?  As life goes on we meet new people who become new friends, and a few of these become close friends. How many new friends could be made in several more lifetimes? People get over emotionally draining situations and discover new ones afterward a period of turmoil. Emotional loss and Heartbreak always heal. As your newfound recovery proceeds you will discover lots of interesting new people in this world who would love to know you.
 
 6. Modern technology is the only way to extend life.
 
It is a fact, back in biblical times, the average lifespan was 700 years. If we can combine diet, changes to our genes that contribute to longevity and health along with the same atmospheric and mesio-magnetic conditions that existed before the great flood and generate these conditions in regions where population centers are, we will have suitable conditions to extend lifespans.
 
 7. Why haven't universities or the medical establishment declared a Manhattan style project on aging?
 
Aging gradually sneaks up on us.  Because aging is not treated as a disease, the time factor between research and results gradually ignores the real discoveries. Take carnosine for example, before resveratrol, it was the number 1 longevity supplement. When resveratrol came on the market it overlooked the power of carnosine and studies are now showing excess resveratrol causes cancer and only works best when taken with the right diet.
 
 8. Won't extreme life extension technologies only be for the rich?
 
History has shown that any new technology is always expensive, especially if it has not been in the marketplace long enough to prove itself.  Since the year 2000 industrialized society has been undergoing a 50% annual deflation factor or less for many new technologies. Over the years this trend has been growing. The manufacturing of new technologies is becoming automated, allowing them to be more affordable and faster at a faster pace.  Once a technology has progressed through its second stage, (expensive and rare) it becomes available to many more people and it tends to have proven itself.
By the third stage they they're almost free. The current rate of time from unaffordable to inexpensive is an average of 8 to 10 years. As the pace of technology quickens, this will change to the following:
 
Ten years from now - five years.
 
Twenty years from now - two years.
 
9. Won't people grow bored if they live a long time?
 
The World Bank reports that poverty in Asia has been cut in half just over the last 10 years alone. Part of this is largely due to information technologies. At the current rate of progress, it will be slashed 90% or more during the next decade. And this is not only isolated to Asia, but the trend is also spreading worldwide.  
 
A longer lifespan will afford us the opportunity to spend quality time our children's great, great grandchildren. New knowledge acquired through education will allow us to go back to school to studying something we really love.  Haven't you already noticed the range of topics in education has kept pace with lengthening lifespan?
 
Anyone with an open-ended future would never have time to be bored. Most people who are board are lazy or want to exploit others because they fail to see life as a growing and learning experience.
 
 10. Doesn’t the bible state it is against the will of God's divine plan to  alter nature?
 
 Was it God’s intention to create mankind with a mind able to enjoy the richness and fulfilling experiences of life, and then frustrate him with a short lifespan? Over the years breakthroughs in aging have given man the ability to successfully extend lifespan. Why would God have given us these tools without wanting us to use them? Wouldn't God take pleasure in seeing us choose life? Would this not than be a sin for us to suppress life-extending technologies?

If humanity decided to just follow natures will, we wouldn't have all the medical miracles we take for granted today. Laser surgery, antibiotics, organ transplants, just to name a few all came from seeking solutions to where nature wanted to follow its course of entropy (nature follows the law of ever creating destruction)
 
Just remember, it was Mother Nature who spawned polio, smallpox, leprosy, the black plague, cancer and more. For intelligent beings that want to responsibly evolve, indefinite life becomes part of the natural order of further progress.
 
11. Wouldn't stopping the process of aging extend the years of being frail and sickly?
 
Research has shown that people spend more on hospital bills during the last year of their lives compared to what they spent on hospital visits the rest of their years combined. Nobody wants to spend years in a boring, meaningless nursing home. Age reversal is all about transforming the elderly into a youthful state of health and well being. Resetting the biological clock, while the chronological clock is ticking, is key to solving the aging process.
 
12: Shouldn't we use our resources more wisely, instead of just finding a cure for old age?
 
As covered earlier, as a population expands, there will always be people born along with that expansion that can solve overpopulation, more electrical energy etc, now just think how we could double the pace of finding solutions to mankind's problems by extending the lifespan of our oldest people.
 
Knowledgeable human beings are the ultimate resource. Elderly people are the most knowledgeable people we will always have. If they chose to continue to remain productive, their knowledge and resources can be effectively channeled into solving numerous problems once deemed impossible. Problems such as worldwide hunger, energy shortages, overpopulation, access to good education and the diffusing of conflicts, both local and international.
 
Estimates show that our earth can accommodate approximately 12 billion people before becoming overburdened. People with knowledge, brains and resources can expand on existing technologies such as  mile high buildings (Frank Lloyd Wright designed one in 1956 that could have housed all of downtown Chicago), seabed farming, mining asteroids, clean energy-saving technologies and more. Not to mention  the coming technologies still to be explored such as nanotechnology and genome engineering.
 
13. We as a species can’t even find the cure to common cancers, how do we expect to solve the riddle of aging?
 
The riddle of aging may not be as complex as it seems. For example there is some evidence to suggest humans could once produce their own vitamins C, like many animals do today. Thousands of years ago this gene that produced vitamin C suddenly turned itself off and nobody knows why.  If we can figure out a way to turn this gene back on it would be a tremendous leap forward in age reversal genetics.
 
As a result of technology,  biological problems that once took years to solve, now take just 45 minutes or less with the aid of a computer. Today we already know how to lengthen lifespans up to twenty years in humans using low-tech lifestyle modifications. Recent giant computational and technological leaps continue to give us the tools to make reversing the process of aging a reality. These information and technology tools will continue to grow in speed with the exponential growth of the human population as a whole.

So in conclusion, delaying life contributes to a delay in human progress.


If we examine the 1968 bestseller “The Population Bomb”, written by Mr. Paul Ehrlich, who stated the imminent breakdown of the world’s ability to feed itself. The original edition of The Population Bomb began with this statement: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.


Paul Ehrlich stated at a speech at British Institute For Biology on September 1971 "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."  





 Thank You for visiting our site and reading our articles and new update. If this information has helped you or someone you know, please consider contributing to this site. Your contribution will ensure the continued publishing of unique and quality articles at no cost to all of our visitors and regular readers.