Facebook PixelHow logical is it to extend a person's life span?
Brainstorming
Tour
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
ChallengesChallenges
IdeasIdeas
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Challenge

How logical is it to extend a person's life span?

Image credit: https://unsplash.com/photos/lLxWLqehKZY

Loading...
Nitish
Nitish Jan 25, 2021
Please leave the feedback on this challenge
Necessity

Is the problem still unsolved?

Conciseness

Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Bitcoin
Who gets the Bounty *
Distribution
The prime objective of every species is to reproduce and make progenies similar to its own. Of course, On a larger scale, they evolve and become better in terms of survivability and reproducebility. However, reproduction capability is not a static phenomenon and varies accordingly throughout an individuals' lifespan. Nowadays, a substantial proportion of scientific establishment is searching for molecules that could enhance an individuals' life span. But, do the solutions for longevity we are searching for has anything to link with the reproducibility Or we are just focusing on manipulating the processes of ageing. With a growing population of sterile individuals or many of us who do not want to have children, enhancing life expectancy in old is how much rational. We have seen a large population in Japan having a prolonged life span compared to worlds' everage, but they apparently have a meagre fertility rate. I also agree that there might have myriad other ways for this, but it is also true that fertility drastically decreases with increasing age . Therefore, in my opinion, increasing the life span of a sterile individual does not sound promising for the existence of our species. What do the brainstormers think about this?

[1]https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/age-and-fertility

longevityaging
1
Creative contributions

Saving the individuals, not the species

Loading...
Povilas S
Povilas S Jan 26, 2021
The survival of our species is not endangered until reproduction is not endangered. Now the population is steadily increasing and the problems we are facing or might face in the future are more related to overpopulation than underpopulation. Only increasing the lifespan of the individuals (without making older ones more fertile) would already greatly add up to overpopulation, not to talk about increasing it indefinitely. If we would then additionally make all the individuals indefinitely fertile this would be a population boom. And we would need to colonize other planets quickly.

I see it more as saving the individuals rather than the species.
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 years ago
Hi Nitish 🙂
I just wanted to reach out and say that I really appreciate your contributions. I wrote this article today and would like you to take a look https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9nfzkev-gbfhYPPi5ZvFofx8rfps-aYo6ZrVaOzC7E/edit

Please let me know your thoughts
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni4 years ago
Hi Nitish Sharma , I find your question important. What your session asks is counter-arguments against extreme lifespan extension. However, we already have a similar session https://brainstorming.com/sessions/what-are-some-valid-objections-(and-their-counterarguments)-to-extreme-human-lifespan-extension/47. Could you add your views as either comments or suggestions there?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Nitish
Nitish3 years ago
Shubhankar Kulkarni definitely sir.
Please leave the feedback on this idea