Immortality & the Soul

[Ethos]

The average life-span of Homosapiens has doubled over time, increasing substantially during the last hundred years in modern societies. Much of this can be attributed to better nutrition and hygene, earlier detection and treatment of disease, and technologies allowing individuals with chronic illness to survive far into life.

Human bodies are physical structures with specific rules of functionality and, as with all living things, rates of decay. The discovery of Telomerase (http://www.telomerase.org/serendipity/) and the ensuing theories of virtual immortality that these enzymes have promoted is a fascinating technological advancement. Without placing too many expectations on science, I believe it is fully logical to expect that medical knowledge will eventuall progress to the point of offering the capability to artificially slow or halt the aging process.

Whether through tampering with the human genome, addressing telomerase in particular, or creating the nanotechnology necessary to regulate and repair cellular tissues on an immediate basis, or therapies concerning free radicals (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004094A-849D-127A-849D83414B7F0000 for an interesting experiment), the human lifespan is likely to explode down the road.

For the sake of argument, let us assume a natural lifetime of 300 years minimum. Leaving aside the social impact of this proposition, what are the spiritual consequences of living this long?

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

I'd like to live forever if it was possible to do it and remain in good physical health. I really enjoy life, and I don't ever really envision running out of things to do. I can't imagine getting to really know another human being that you share things in common with ever getting old either, so I think I could remain happy pretty much forever as long as the rest of the world's population was there doing it with me.

[Ethos]

I'd like to live forever if it was possible to do it and remain in good physical health. I really enjoy life, and I don't ever really envision running out of things to do. I can't imagine getting to really know another human being that you share things in common with ever getting old either, so I think I could remain happy pretty much forever as long as the rest of the world's population was there doing it with me.

Assuming you are a theist, how would you reconcile your faith with the prospect of living for hundreds of years?

Ethos

[Sgt Schultz]

I think it would pose some serious questions to those who believe in an afterlife. I remember reading a book where the ability to transfer one's consciousness/soul into a galactic version of the world wide web was developed. Those who were physically dying would do this to become immortal. Those who were very religious were against the practice because even though the body died the person's soul would not go to heaven or an afterlife. There were constant attacks against these "beings" if you want to call them that so that they would die and go to heaven. I can't remember the title but it was an interesting concept.

[Ethos]

There is also the consequence of immortality on the mind to consider. Suicide would become a valid ethical and legal choice, unless we are willing to dictate a person live for centuries without end. While the body may be mended through medical technology, the mind is a more fragile instrument.

How does religion address new concepts of death that may have been taboo within the context of a 75-100 year lifespan?

Ethos

[prst31]

I don't think it would matter. It would only be longer to be spiritual.
If you live 100, 300, 500 or 1000, you still eventually die. Even if we could stop aging infinitely, odds are the next ice age would choke us off, or the sun will flame out. Plus, the longer one lives (along with the rest of the population), the higher the probablility of being the victim of a terminal accident, and I'd have to think our parasitic/bacterialogical friends would love a host that is available to them for much longer.

[Atticus]

This question reminds me of the Struldbrugs, Swift's never-dieing but always aging characters in Gulliver's Travels. He considered great age a curse:

After this preface, he gave me a particular account of the STRULDBRUGS among them. He said, "they commonly acted like mortals till about thirty years old; after which, by degrees, they grew melancholy and dejected, increasing in both till they came to fourscore. This he learned from their own confession: for otherwise, there not being above two or three of that species born in an age, they were too few to form a general observation by. When they came to fourscore years, which is reckoned the extremity of living in this country, they had not only all the follies and infirmities of other old men, but many more which arose from the dreadful prospect of never dying. They were not only opinionative, peevish, covetous, morose, vain, talkative, but incapable of friendship, and dead to all natural affection, which never descended below their grandchildren. Envy and impotent desires are their prevailing passions. But those objects against which their envy seems principally directed, are the vices of the younger sort and the deaths of the old. By reflecting on the former, they find themselves cut off from all possibility of pleasure; and whenever they see a funeral, they lament and repine that others have gone to a harbour of rest to which they themselves never can hope to arrive. They have no remembrance of anything but what they learned and observed in their youth and middle-age, and even that is very imperfect; and for the truth or particulars of any fact, it is safer to depend on common tradition, than upon their best recollections. The least miserable among them appear to be those who turn to dotage, and entirely lose their memories; these meet with more pity and assistance, because they want many bad qualities which abound in others.http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/jswift/bl-jswift-gull-3-10.htm

If qualities of character are related to your question about spirituality (and I think they are) then the very long lived might find their condition a curse. Even older people today find themselves unhappy because culture and all manner of fun has passed them by. People who work with geriatrics find that they are happiest when they can pretend it's 1947, so they play big band and lounge music, etc.

[Ethos]

I don't think it would matter. It would only be longer to be spiritual.
If you live 100, 300, 500 or 1000, you still eventually die. Even if we could stop aging infinitely, odds are the next ice age would choke us off, or the sun will flame out. Plus, the longer one lives (along with the rest of the population), the higher the probablility of being the victim of a terminal accident, and I'd have to think our parasitic/bacterialogical friends would love a host that is available to them for much longer.

The Sun's expected lifespan is some 5 billion years, which is likely to far outstrip the human race as it stands today. Assuming the technological advancements necessary to prolong a human life to 500 years or more, I also assume the affects of environmental changes to be negligible. No doubt accidents will be the primary method of death, perhaps contributing to an average span of only 300 years while the full term could in theory last thousands.

In any event, we are assuming (for argument) against these possibilities. In this case, I'm not convinced a longer life would lead to greater spirituality. Since the doctrines of most religions dictate some form of "afterlife" with various related aspirations, it would seem to me a 400 year lifespan (give or take a decade) would require a significant shift in faith. One cannot focus their life's work on the objective of their "eternal soul" within the afterlife if they are not going to die except by accident or suicide.

Ethos

[Ethos]

If qualities of character are related to your question about spirituality (and I think they are) then the very long lived might find their condition a curse. Even older people today find themselves unhappy because culture and all manner of fun has passed them by. People who work with geriatrics find that they are happiest when they can pretend it's 1947, so they play big band and lounge music, etc.

I agree to a point, however I believe a change in cultural experiences concerning "old age" will be inevitable. There comes a point in natural development at which experiences are no longer quite as interactive or fluid. Taste in music (curiously the same is not true of foods) is set at some point in the 20's, and as a person ages, their ability to adopt and adapt to new trends diminishes. Studies have been done which indicate this is a fairly universal trait related to the aging process.

However if we accept the aging process is stopped, then "old" individuals will no longer be biologically restricted to mid-life "hard-wiring" in this way. Getting old may be a curse, but I would suggest this attitude has a great deal to do with the side-effects associated with aging that would no longer apply in the future we are hypothesizing.

Ethos

[Atticus]

However if we accept the aging process is stopped, then "old" individuals will no longer be biologically restricted to mid-life "hard-wiring" in this way. Getting old may be a curse, but I would suggest this attitude has a great deal to do with the side-effects associated with aging that would no longer apply in the future we are hypothesizing.

EthosThe cynic in my wonders if those wonderful therapies you suggest would end up being available to everyone or only the very wealthy. Surely the high value of those therapies would command a high price and the overcrowding that would result would put strains on all markets. Something tells me that, in the end, only a select few would be marked for long life.

Besides, it isn't only living things that wear out, no? Everything is subject to entropy. Our understanding about free radicals aside, surely the process of complex stuff breaking down into simpler stuff would still go on in our bodies despite the best therapies. And while we might delay death until, say age 300, the likelihood that a typical person would live in robust health and then suddenly die seems unlikey. I'm not an expert in either human biology or physics, but that would be my supposition.

Plus, the problem of atavism wouldn't go away, I think. Even in my mid-forties I discover I can't keep up with our culture. I don't have a My Space account. I don't like Ben Stiller movies. I'm a mess! It's like the problem of older men dating younger women--they look incredibly attractive until they open their mouths--then you discover you've nothing to talk about.

[Ethos]

The cynic in my wonders if those wonderful therapies you suggest would end up being available to everyone or only the very wealthy. Surely the high value of those therapies would command a high price and the overcrowding that would result would put strains on all markets. Something tells me that, in the end, only a select few would be marked for long life.

Besides, it isn't only living things that wear out, no? Everything is subject to entropy. Our understanding about free radicals aside, surely the process of complex stuff breaking down into simpler stuff would still go on in our bodies despite the best therapies. And while we might delay death until, say age 300, the likelihood that a typical person would live in robust health and then suddenly die seems unlikey. I'm not an expert in either human biology or physics, but that would be my supposition.

Plus, the problem of atavism wouldn't go away, I think. Even in my mid-forties I discover I can't keep up with our culture. I don't have a My Space account. I don't like Ben Stiller movies. I'm a mess! It's like the problem of older men dating younger women--they look incredibly attractive until they open their mouths--then you discover you've nothing to talk about.

I have no doubt that the first wave of "immortals" (and perhaps fifth and sixth) will be very wealthy. This is something we ignore in this hypothetical for the sake of argument since the context is "how does faith change?" and not "how would society react?".

Living things do wear out, but what I'm talking about is the technological means to rejuvenate human tissue. As long as you have the proper materials and energy content entering a system, entropy is not a concern. Everything - from blood to complex organs - would be regulated through genetic therapy and (as I personally expect) nanotechnology - the ability to repair human cells on the molecular level when they do break down.

As for atavism, if it is truly a function of degrading physiology, and we are able to interrupt that process, I see no reason why atavism would not also be interrupted, or at least altered to the point of being only a minor constraint on a person's ability to adapt.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I have no doubt that the first wave of "immortals" (and perhaps fifth and sixth) will be very wealthy. This is something we ignore in this hypothetical for the sake of argument since the context is "how does faith change?" and not "how would society react?".

Living things do wear out, but what I'm talking about is the technological means to rejuvenate human tissue. As long as you have the proper materials and energy content entering a system, entropy is not a concern. Everything - from blood to complex organs - would be regulated through genetic therapy and (as I personally expect) nanotechnology - the ability to repair human cells on the molecular level when they do break down.

As for atavism, if it is truly a function of degrading physiology, and we are able to interrupt that process, I see no reason why atavism would not also be interrupted, or at least altered to the point of being only a minor constraint on a person's ability to adapt.

EthosVery well then. If you can solve every problem suggested merely by saying "I see no reason" why it would be a problem, the narrow band of possibilities will be only what you yourself have imagined. Not much point in asking the question, it seems.

Perhaps you need to more carefully define what you're asking about. If you mean only that very long life might alter the way a particular kind of spiritual system is seen to operate, then I'll have to go with prst31's response that long life would only delay heaven. But that doesn't account for, say, karmic religions that say the soul is indestructible and accountable for all its actions. In that case, again, the life of a particular body is immaterial, since the soul simply slips off one mortal coil and finds another.

To me, the much bigger question is how a long life would influence the character of a person. In that case, we might consider it a great advantage, since wisdom is acquired with age (surely you won't fault me for that bald assertion?) and in a longer life a wise person would have more time to enjoy the fruits of their understanding gained from previous mistakes--the "if I knew then what I know now" thought we have all had. In a longer life, we could actually put that wish into action.

On the other hand, a person who fails to learn from age will be far worse off:

The acquisitive person acquires, and find again and again it isn't enough, and would have 230 more years to build his bottom line and find himself no happier.

The lecher would have 230 years to trail a string saddened lovers behind him, with seven more generations of uncared-for offspring.

The lazy and useless would have 230 extra years to prove a burden.

Perhaps the question here is whether the life lessons a person cannot manage to learn in 70 years might find their way into mind and soul with more time. Somehow, I doubt it.

[Ethos]

Very well then. If you can solve every problem suggested merely by saying "I see no reason" why it would be a problem, the narrow band of possibilities will be only what you yourself have imagined. Not much point in asking the question, it seems.

I can only proceed on a logical path. If we accept the hypothetical that technology will deliver immortality, and the means of doing so is keeping the body and mind in an artificially young status, then I can only assume the current-day maladies associated with an aged physiology will not be present. Do you see this as an unfair assumption, and if so why?



Perhaps you need to more carefully define what you're asking about. If you mean only that very long life might alter the way a particular kind of spiritual system is seen to operate, then I'll have to go with prst31's response that long life would only delay heaven. But that doesn't account for, say, karmic religions that say the soul is indestructible and accountable for all its actions. In that case, again, the life of a particular body is immaterial, since the soul simply slips off one mortal coil and finds another.


I simply don't believe the circumstances would be that simple. Major religions rely on the concept of life after death and a kind of eternal status for incorporeal consciousness. If the life of an individual becomes 500 years versus 70, then this basic tenant of these faiths become stretched to the point of breaking. If a person is basically incapable of dying naturally, what is the result for a religion that dictates death as a part of its doctrine?

And yes, I will fault you for claiming wisdom is dependent on age, mostly because it is not.

Ethos

[prst31]

In any event, we are assuming (for argument) against these possibilities. In this case, I'm not convinced a longer life would lead to greater spirituality. Since the doctrines of most religions dictate some form of "afterlife" with various related aspirations, it would seem to me a 400 year lifespan (give or take a decade) would require a significant shift in faith. One cannot focus their life's work on the objective of their "eternal soul" within the afterlife if they are not going to die except by accident or suicide.

EthosI don't know about their "working" on their eternal soul. To them, the soul just is eternal. It doesn't require working on, but living does. For me, I consider that act (of living) an art.

We pick our canvas, colors, brushes, and try our darndest to create a masterpiece. I guess what I meant to say was that even if our painting turns out to be a finger painting, or a paint by numbers, I think spiritual people would enjoy having more time to paint.

[MikeD4o7]

Assuming you are a theist, how would you reconcile your faith with the prospect of living for hundreds of years?

Ethos

I'm not a theist, but I don't necessarily think there would be a problem with people reconciling their faith with a lifespan that lasted around 500 years, as long as death was still a part of every life eventually. Afterall, the easy way to look at it is that what's 500 years in comparison with eternity? That being said, if we could obtain TRUE immortality through scientific means without aging, then I think religions would shift even more to maybe like a "building heaven on earth" kind of mentality.

[Atticus]

I can only proceed on a logical path. If we accept the hypothetical that technology will deliver immortality, and the means of doing so is keeping the body and mind in an artificially young status, then I can only assume the current-day maladies associated with an aged physiology will not be present. Do you see this as an unfair assumption, and if so why?Because the tendency to stick in one place is does not occur only in old age. When one is still vital the tendency to be most comfortable with those experiences already imprinted on the brain already exhibits itself. The plasticity of neural pathways is reduced greatly well before the time when geriatric disease begins.
I simply don't believe the circumstances would be that simple. Major religions rely on the concept of life after death and a kind of eternal status for incorporeal consciousness. If the life of an individual becomes 500 years versus 70, then this basic tenant of these faiths become stretched to the point of breaking. If a person is basically incapable of dying naturally, what is the result for a religion that dictates death as a part of its doctrine?"Incapable of dying?" That's not exactly what your hypothetical suggests. And I think you've overlooked my suggestion that karmic religion would not change. In fact, the notion of "redeath" and the pain associated with it is one of the primary motivating factors in Hinduism and other similar religions. Even in Christianity, the idea that temporal life is just a misery to be endured humbly, looking forward only to the life bey ond--"memento mori"--is less a feature of present-day Christianity than of the medieval sort. Christians, post-Renaissance, revel in the well-lived life.
And yes, I will fault you for claiming wisdom is dependent on age, mostly because it is not.Well then I'll ask you for an explanation of your rationale, because to me wisdom is acquired by making mistakes and learning from them, or else reading or hearing about someone else's mistakes. Do you believe that wisdom is in-born? Do wise people spring forth, like the Goddess of Wisdom, fully formed?

[Rusia]

Major religions rely on the concept of life after death and a kind of eternal status for incorporeal consciousness.
Yes, I agree. This is the only concept all religions rely on. And that's the only reason why they all are still influential now in the era of space, computers and nanotechnology. Because people are just afraid to die.
When people become immortal (it should happen by the end of 21 century), the absolute majority of people will finally admit what religions really are - just funny fairy tales for younger children.

[Sidgaf]

great, 500 years sounds great unless you are living in the slums of Calcutta.

You do understand some believe linear time and space is meaningless outside of ones body. It is God who said I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And when one dies one join with the Alpha and Omega.

If you are a star trek DS9 fan think of this whole thing as an episode from the Prophet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajoran_Prophets

[Ethos]

Because the tendency to stick in one place is does not occur only in old age. When one is still vital the tendency to be most comfortable with those experiences already imprinted on the brain already exhibits itself. The plasticity of neural pathways is reduced greatly well before the time when geriatric disease begins.


The point is that the plasticity you are referring to will not be reduced as it does today. I would expect then that the psychological affects would be altered to some degree.



"Incapable of dying?" That's not exactly what your hypothetical suggests. And I think you've overlooked my suggestion that karmic religion would not change. In fact, the notion of "redeath" and the pain associated with it is one of the primary motivating factors in Hinduism and other similar religions. Even in Christianity, the idea that temporal life is just a misery to be endured humbly, looking forward only to the life bey ond--"memento mori"--is less a feature of present-day Christianity than of the medieval sort. Christians, post-Renaissance, revel in the well-lived life.

Incapable of dying naturally. Accidents will still claim a life, but you will not be able to simply pass on. I'm not sure you fully understand the idea of surviving for hundreds of years and what kind of impact this has on the psyche. As Rusia has mentioned (although perhaps not entirely accurately), fear of death is one aspect of religiosity. It is comforting to know you will not only vanish at death, but your consciousness (soul) lives on (in eternal bliss no less).

And I did not overlook karmic religion, in this I agree with you. However I admit I'm looking more toward Christianity (since this is the majority of the posters).



Well then I'll ask you for an explanation of your rationale, because to me wisdom is acquired by making mistakes and learning from them, or else reading or hearing about someone else's mistakes. Do you believe that wisdom is in-born? Do wise people spring forth, like the Goddess of Wisdom, fully formed?

Certainly not. Wisdom is gained through experience, not age. I have met teenagers who have been through more "life" in their short span of years than individuals three times older. Assuming someone to be wise because they are in their later years is faulty, and certainly you would agree that while plenty of people make mistakes, not everyone learns from them.

Ethos

[serenity]

Another problem with what is so often a simple assumption--that wisdom comes with age--is that it is not uncommon for a certain calcification of ideas and beliefs to occur as a person gets older. "This I believe, and that's that."

Or "I'm too old to change now."

[heel31ok]

since adam lived more than 900 years and many in that time we would just be trying to get back to where God had us in the first place.

[DrWho]

The average life-span of Homosapiens has doubled over time, increasing substantially during the last hundred years in modern societies. Much of this can be attributed to better nutrition and hygene, earlier detection and treatment of disease, and technologies allowing individuals with chronic illness to survive far into life.

Human bodies are physical structures with specific rules of functionality and, as with all living things, rates of decay. The discovery of Telomerase (http://www.telomerase.org/serendipity/) and the ensuing theories of virtual immortality that these enzymes have promoted is a fascinating technological advancement. Without placing too many expectations on science, I believe it is fully logical to expect that medical knowledge will eventuall progress to the point of offering the capability to artificially slow or halt the aging process.

Whether through tampering with the human genome, addressing telomerase in particular, or creating the nanotechnology necessary to regulate and repair cellular tissues on an immediate basis, or therapies concerning free radicals (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004094A-849D-127A-849D83414B7F0000 for an interesting experiment), the human lifespan is likely to explode down the road.

For the sake of argument, let us assume a natural lifetime of 300 years minimum. Leaving aside the social impact of this proposition, what are the spiritual consequences of living this long?

Ethos

The average lifespan has done more than doubled. The rare fossils we find indicate that people lived very short lives - maybe 30 or 40 years. Today it is not uncommon for people to live to be over 100. Even though all the people who don't take care of themselves really bring the average down.

When Adam and Eve "walked with God" they were sustained and renewed as needed. Even after the fall Adam lived to be over 900 years old. A lot of people lived to be very old in the ante-deluvian period. Do you think we could restore the atmosphere to what it was back then?

After the fall God said that Adam must not be allowed to eat from the Tree of Life as he would live forever (in his spiritually dead condition). The Bible continually tells us that we are effected by our flesh. We all know that our emotions direct our actions much more than we would like them to. Is death a part of the cleansing before the resurrection?

Anyway God set the upper limit of our lifespans to be about 120 - which is exactly what we see. Even if we overcome this part of the curse we might still not live forever without access to the Tree of Life. Access to this tree represents another obstacle. God seemed to have no great objection to a long life just an endless life.

So what would the spiritual consequences be of a long life? Would more people have an opportunity to accept salvation or if they haven't accepted it by the time they have lived their life as it is presently ordained could it be that they never would? For those who have been given salvation they would live a long time waiting for the hope of heaven but with the same job to do that they have now.

To get back to here and now: I have discussed the possibility of living to be 120 with my doctor and he tells me that if I keep up what I am doing there is no reason to think that I will not live that long. Maybe in another 80 years my doctor will tell extend that estimate. For now I am making the most of it. God is great.

[Dangerrmouse]

... I have discussed the possibility of living to be 120 with my doctor and he tells me that if I keep up what I am doing there is no reason to think that I will not live that long.

He's humouring you.;)

[DrWho]

He's humouring you.;)


According to a group of scientists from the Oxford University, the human lifespan is not only increasing but this increase is accelerating. They believe that in relatively short time people will regularly live up to 120 years old.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Economic-and-Social-Benefits-of-Longer-Life-Spans-19946.shtml

[Dangerrmouse]

Think about it, if his "prognosis" is wrong, you are not going to be in a position to complain.

[Lumpen Prole]

Science Daily — People who live to 100 or more are known to have just as many—and sometimes even more—harmful gene variants compared with younger people. Now, scientists at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University have discovered the secret behind this paradox: favorable “longevity” genes that protect very old people from the bad genes’ harmful effects. The novel method used by the researchers could lead to new drugs to protect against age-related diseases.

“We hypothesized that people living to 100 and beyond must be buffered by genes that interact with disease-causing genes to negate their effects,” says Dr. Aviv Bergman, a professor in the departments of pathology and neuroscience at Einstein and senior author of the study, which appears in the August 31 issue of PLoS Computational Biology.

To test this hypothesis, Dr. Bergman and his colleagues examined individuals enrolled in Einstein’s Longevity Genes Project, initiated in 1998 to investigate longevity genes in a selected population: Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews. They are descended from a founder group of just 30,000 or so people. So they are relatively genetically homogenous, which simplifies the challenge of associating traits (in this case, age-related diseases and longevity) with the genes that determine them.

Participating in the study were 305 Ashkenazi Jews more than 95 years old and a control group of 408 unrelated Ashkenazi Jews. (Centenarians are so rare in human populations—only one in 10,000 people live to be 100—that “longevity” genes probably wouldn’t turn up in a typical control group. Longevity runs in families, so 430 children of centenarians were added to the control group to increase the number of favorable genes.)

All participants were grouped into cohorts representing each decade of lifespan from the 50’s on up. Using DNA samples, the researchers determined the prevalence in each cohort of 66 genetic markers present in 36 genes associated with aging.

As expected, some disease-related gene variants were as prevalent or even more prevalent in the oldest cohorts of Ashkenazi Jews than in the younger ones. And as Dr. Bergman had predicted, genes associated with longevity also became more common in each succeeding cohort. “These results indicate that the frequency of deleterious genotypes may increase among people who live to extremely old ages because their protective genes allow these disease-related genes to accumulate,” says Dr. Bergman.

The Einstein researchers were able to construct a network of gene interactions that contributes to the understanding of longevity. In particular, they found that the favorable variant of the gene CETP acts to buffer the harmful effects of the disease-causing gene Lp(a).

If future research finds that a single longevity gene buffers against several disease-causing genes, then drugs that mimic the action of the longevity gene could help protect against cardiovascular disease and other age-related diseases.

“This study shows that our approach, which was inspired by a theoretical model, can reveal underlying mechanisms that explain seemingly paradoxical observations in a complex trait such as aging,” says Dr. Bergman. “So we’re hopeful that this method could also help uncover the mechanisms—the gene interactions—responsible for other complex biological traits such as cancer and diabetes.”

Meanwhile, the Einstein researchers are greatly expanding their longevity research: From the 66 genetic markers examined in this study, they are now using a high-throughput technology that allows them to assay one million genetic markers throughout the human genome. The goal is to find additional genetic networks that are involved in the process of aging.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824134825.htm

[Cedars]

The average life-span of Homosapiens has doubled over time, increasing substantially during the last hundred years in modern societies. Much of this can be attributed to better nutrition and hygene, earlier detection and treatment of disease, and technologies allowing individuals with chronic illness to survive far into life.

Human bodies are physical structures with specific rules of functionality and, as with all living things, rates of decay. The discovery of Telomerase (http://www.telomerase.org/serendipity/) and the ensuing theories of virtual immortality that these enzymes have promoted is a fascinating technological advancement. Without placing too many expectations on science, I believe it is fully logical to expect that medical knowledge will eventuall progress to the point of offering the capability to artificially slow or halt the aging process.

Whether through tampering with the human genome, addressing telomerase in particular, or creating the nanotechnology necessary to regulate and repair cellular tissues on an immediate basis, or therapies concerning free radicals (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004094A-849D-127A-849D83414B7F0000 for an interesting experiment), the human lifespan is likely to explode down the road.

For the sake of argument, let us assume a natural lifetime of 300 years minimum. Leaving aside the social impact of this proposition, what are the spiritual consequences of living this long?

Ethos
The spiritual consequences would be much the same, I imagine. In a longer life span, a person could grow more sinful, more holy, or remain on the fence. St. Paul says we should work out our salvation in fear and trembling ("Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12) because faith is not a one-time affirmation; it is a lifetime endeavor. Faith is a lifelong battle between good and evil. It is tested every day. It is not enough to simply believe (even the devil believes), but our faith must be shown in the good fruit of our actions (or works), or that faith is dead (it did not bear good fruit).

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt. 5:16

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt. 16:27