Sep 11 2012: I've heard a lot of people discuss the idea of boredom as a reason not to live indefinitely. Seems to me that boredom, like any other mental state, has a physiological counterpart. In other words, boredom exists as a state or spectrum of states in the brain. It should, therefore, be treatable. And it's a big universe out there. Boredom seems unlikely to me.
Sep 11 2012: My thoughts exactly. I suppose if physicists ever figure out some sort of viable time travel, the idea of resurrecting the dead will become a hot topic for this very reason -- but that's an entirely different and far more speculative topic with its own issues. Thanks for taking the time out to answer my question. :)
Sep 11 2012: Mr. Duncan - I've come into this conversation very late, so forgive me if this has already been covered or rendered irrelevant by something else you've said. My question is this: Considering that dealing with loss of loved ones is often a lifelong process even under current life expectancies, what do you think the psychological effects of loss will be for those who live long enough to live indefinitely? For instance, imagine that a loved one dies only a month, a day, an hour before some radical life extension breakthrough is announced. For those who have lost loved ones and suddenly find themselves with the very real possibility of an indefinite lifespan, won't some sort of "survivor's guilt" come into play, but on a mass societal level? If so, how will this be addressed? If not, why not?
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Discussing "The Science of Radical Life Extension" with TED Books author David Ewing Duncan
A reply on Conversation: Discussing "The Science of Radical Life Extension" with TED Books author David Ewing Duncan
A comment on Conversation: Discussing "The Science of Radical Life Extension" with TED Books author David Ewing Duncan