15 replies to this topic

[BrandonFlorida]

I've been searching literature on the subject of longevity for many years, and a question occurred to me which I have never heard anything about. If drugs were developed to slow the processes which give rise to aging, perhaps oxidation, glycation, accumulation of waste, dna replication errors, etc., would it be likely to extend the age at which a woman has menopause, or would a separate solution be required for that? Perhaps someone who knows more about the science of this than I do could venture an opinion. Thanks.

[Luna]

I am pretty sure it will, even today you hear of rare cases of adult fertile women.

[John Schloendorn]

There is some educated speculation that loss of certain hormones may be in part due to loss of the cells making them. So if one can figure you how to put either the cells or the hormones back in safely, that could be rather good for you. On the other hand, there's also increased levels of other hormones, such as inflammation (Conboy-like things). Those are probably made in response to lots of different broken things in the body, so if you fix all the broken things, the inflammation might go away. In sum I suppose, the answer is definitely maybe..

[erzebet]

i don't think that would be possible because each woman before birth has a fixed number of ovules which are destroyed mainly at birth and then at puberty about 400 000 remain. menopause appears when the last ovule was released. the only possibility would be to freeze some ovules which is impossible now. yet freezing some would not prolong the date of menopause installing.

[Natascha]

Bleh, menstruation! If in fact we obtain the tech to extend a woman's fertility, I'm sure there will also be tech to have kids without having to have periods!

[JediMasterLucia]

Bleh, menstruation! If in fact we obtain the tech to extend a woman's fertility, I'm sure there will also be tech to have kids without having to have periods!

I agree with this, I hate those periods.

[.fonclea.]

Bleh, menstruation! If in fact we obtain the tech to extend a woman's fertility, I'm sure there will also be tech to have kids without having to have periods!

I agree with this, I hate those periods.

With an contraceptive implant, sometimes period stops.... so once you have you child, up!

Edited by .fonclea., 03 January 2009 - 07:22 PM.

[Infernity]

You forget though that offsprings of humans are a result of a disability to survive limitlessly, and offsprings are the closest thing to survival of yourself. Once we have no limits, not only there is not a good reson to have children, it is also problematic considering over-population. It is more reasonable to avoid the life if a potential creature, that is not even aware of that and has nothing to lose yet, than to limit an already living being, that has everything to lose.

I know it is not related, but it might solve the problem indirectly.

-Inf.

Edited by Joseph, 04 January 2009 - 02:30 AM.

[JohnDoe1234]

You forget though that offsprings of humans are a result of a disability to survive limitlessly, and offsprings are the closest thing to survival of yourself. Once we have no limits, not only there is not a good reson to have children, it is also problematic considering over-population. It is more reasonable to avoid the life if a potential creature, that is not even aware of that and has nothing to lose yet, than to limit an already living being, that has everything to lose.

Spot on, this will definitely be the solution to the over population problem... reproduction will eventually lose its biological and social imperatives! It's only a matter of time.

[Infernity]

You forget though that offsprings of humans are a result of a disability to survive limitlessly, and offsprings are the closest thing to survival of yourself. Once we have no limits, not only there is not a good reson to have children, it is also problematic considering over-population. It is more reasonable to avoid the life if a potential creature, that is not even aware of that and has nothing to lose yet, than to limit an already living being, that has everything to lose.

Spot on, this will definitely be the solution to the over population problem... reproduction will eventually lose its biological and social imperatives! It's only a matter of time.

Ah I see you didn't do an actual edit ^^ I was afraid you might have changed my post.

However, the change will have to be logically and consciously done, it should take thousands of years and more to change that need, unless unnaturally done.

[platypus]

You forget though that offsprings of humans are a result of a disability to survive limitlessly, and offsprings are the closest thing to survival of yourself. Once we have no limits, not only there is not a good reson to have children, it is also problematic considering over-population.

Well, overpopulation is surely a big problem but at a philosophical level having kids makes even more sense if one has a long lifespan. Imagine how big a tribe of your descendants you would have in 2000 years if you started now? (Ok this works better in the Lazarus Long - universe where there's room to colonise the galaxy). Also, if you could stay youthful for hundreds or thousands of years the effort of raising a family or two would be minimal - you could again enjoy your youth and freedom after only ~20 years.

[platypus]

Spot on, this will definitely be the solution to the over population problem... reproduction will eventually lose its biological and social imperatives! It's only a matter of time.

Those imperatives are hard-coded, how are you going to change them? By selectively breeding people who don't desire to have kids??

[waldemar]

Social changes. High taxes for people who have a child. Very high taxes for the second one. Free contraceptives. The disadvantage of this is that rich people would have more "rights" than the poor.

The brutal "solution" would be mandatory sterilization for both parents after the first child. But I don't want to think about where this would be going......

Perhaps we could really colonize Mars, the asteroids, Jovian moons, etc. Then the restrictions apply only to Earth - on the colonies children would be welcome.

The third way is probably the only good one.

[lucy robert]

please tell me if there are such type of technology.I also hate period.I think every woman hate this.

[cyborgdreamer]

Delaying menopause might be bad for longevity because you'd be exposed to more estrogen. Excess estrogen increases your likelihood of developing breast or ovarian cancer.

You forget though that offsprings of humans are a result of a disability to survive limitlessly, and offsprings are the closest thing to survival of yourself. Once we have no limits, not only there is not a good reson to have children, it is also problematic considering over-population. It is more reasonable to avoid the life if a potential creature, that is not even aware of that and has nothing to lose yet, than to limit an already living being, that has everything to lose.

I know it is not related, but it might solve the problem indirectly.

-Inf.

I don't know if people would stop wanting to have children if they had unlimited lifespans. Personally, (if there were enough resources to support new people) I would be more likely to reproduce if neither I nor my child would have a restricted lifespan. It might be nice to share an eternal life with a child or two but I can't imagine spending a huge chunk of an already finite life raising a child who will ultimately die. Of course, I'm obviously not representative of the general popolation.

[Luna]

I am with cyborgdreamer about children.
but I think it is actually beneficial to keep our hormones.
They have a lot of health benefits and skin maintaince which we need to stay young looking and healthy.

Estrogen is a normal hormone in every woman.. you have breast, you have breast cancer risk.. hopefully we can avoid it! but I am not going to be like some woman who cut their breasts to avoid cancer..