I remember reading The Elric Saga when I was a teenager. In one of the books there was a man doomed to live forever. I think it was there that I first realized that living forever might not be such a good thing. For one, the mystery that persons having died and gone on to a possible afterlife will be difficult to overcome at least in the realm of thinking of Christians or other religious believers, I would think. It would be like all of your loved ones knowing the answer to a riddle except for you. Ultimately, I think some people would want to know for sure.
Living to 150 years, I can see that being more possible in the next several decades when more of the components of cellular breakdown and aging have been determined and can be postively or negatively affected to some degree (even to both degrees). Science understands that DNA plays a heavy role in aging. There are even genetic diseases that cause the very reverse to happen...for life to speed up and aging to be accelerated (Hutchinson-Gilford Syndrome). So based on this occurrence and the fact that aging can be accelerated, I also think the corellary can be achieved, that aging can be slowed down.
We already have tissue that is capable of extending lifespan--or even living forever. It's called cancer. I have been reading texts on the molecular basis of cancer and I'm coming to the conclusion that perhaps (perhaps!) it's an attempt by certain parts of the body to try and live forever (continued telomerase activity). However, it is faulty in that it can kill the host if it grows too much, as we all know. Identifying how to increase telomere activity without activating cancer activity will be a major milestone in lifespan in my op, so long as our bodies don't find fault with this process and simply develop a repressor protein and wiping up out for tampering with it.
If the normal life expectancy begins to increase and average 150 or more years at some point, then I think this will be wonderful. However, if it only happens to a few random people then I think it will increase factors of unhappiness in some people. And that in and of itself may play a role in ultimate longevity. So if it happens to only a few I think the human experience remaining the same will lead to depression concomitant with living longer than one's peers. However, if the next generation learned of a way to increase lifespan to 150 years I think the experiential aspect of life would be not much different. Perhaps maturity would slow down as well as responsibility based on age. So then it would be a transfer of time. Animals with shorter lifespans live accordingly. They mature faster and get on with life. As they age they slow down. So to say that animals with shorter lifespans are unhappy is not applicable. We don't think they can reason akin to our questioning of our world. However, both animals and man have the ability to instintually want to survive. Look at the mouse, lives frantically for 1.5 years. Look at the Galapagos Turtle, lives in slow motion for 200 years or more. Who has the better quality of life? Aging takes place and as this happens the quality of their life takes a dip. Aging then death. The rate is the only difference, maybe. So if we can live to be 150 and still be relatively youthful in energy then I'm all for it. But not if the aging process is spread out or prolonged.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
