One of the things that always struck me as being not quite right about Star Trek was how people seemed to live not much longer than they do today. Sure, I remember Dr. McCoy appearing on the pilot for Next Gen as a 137 year old coot. But I sorta wondered why, with all the wondrous medical advances we saw on Trek - and especially later, as Next Gen got going - that the aging process still seemed the same as today's. People obviously could live longer, as we saw with McCoy, and could be kept in relatively good health, but, as in the case of McCoy, they would still seem to be as old as they were. That is, McCoy looked 137 years old.

It'd be more realistic to see advances in medicine that are in line with the advances in other sciences. I mean, really, much scifi, especially on TV, assume man has learned how to master gravity, which strikes me as more difficult than finding a way to retard the aging process and extend the potential of the human lifespan.

Some scifi does take this into account. Larry Niven's "Ringworld" has Louis Wu as a protagonist, and he's celebrating his 200th birthday just as the book begins. Kim Stanley Robinson has some of his characters develop longevity treatments in his "Mars" trilogy. The setting of David Weber's "Honor Harrington" series includes the fact that there are "prolong" treatments that extend the potential human lifespan into centuries.

An interesting element of Weber's books is that "prolong" isn't universally available, mostly due to how relatively slow interstellar trade can be, but is also held as a "reward" in unscrupulous star nations. While Weber concentrates on the space battles, he does touch on how Honor, in her 50s/early 60s by the time of the most recent book but physically maybe in her late 20s/early 30s, watches as people her age begin to show their age. These are people from planets which only recently established interstellar trade with the more advanced space nations. The "prolong" treatments have to be given to children, so already-grown characters are shit out of luck, although their kids will live for hundreds of years. It's an interesting element to a series known more for concentrating on exploding starships.

Anyway, I think a scifi RPG setting would do well to deal with something like this. I like the way Weber deals with it, so I'm going to use it as the model for how my scifi campaign setting deals with it.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions?

You could also exagerate some real world stuff and have both shorter and longer lived people.  IIRC, Russia's life expectancy has fallen in the last 20 years.  Along those lines, parts of the world, or ill-planned colonies might have so much pollution that people's lungs give out by the time they're 40.  Or the quality of nutrients could be so poor that average height is back down to 5'3" or so in those areas.  

Couple that with country-sized gated communities where people regularly live to over 100.  You would approach a divergence of species.

There's a quote that I love:

"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
-Susan Ertz

Quote from: ColonelHardissonAny thoughts, comments, suggestions?

I like this theme of age a lot. My thoughts are more on the lines of the possible conflicts that would arise out of a situation you describe.

The movie Logans Run comes to mind - killing of individuals above the age of 30 - although I may be mixing up my movies again. I'm not suggesting this as a possible conflict but I am suggesting that perhaps age becomes a source of tension between those who have prolonged life and those that do not.

I'm also thinking generational ships/space travel. Again no real concrete ideas, just stuff that seems to float about beneath the surface when reading your post.

What about how wars are fought? Do they use individuals who age normally because they are expendable? Is "treatment" limited and therefore controlled?
Is it a one shot kind of deal or must recepients have life long doses of the stuff?

Also if the age battle can be fought and "won" ,there must be some serious treatment for diseases and injury. I mean some real heavy duty stuff. How will this affect the way how wars are carried out and population control?

Damn, didn't mean to ramble ...but I must say interesting subject matter

Regards,
David R

In Weber's "Honorverse" books, it's a source of class struggle in some star nations, and pretty much defines what star nations are "first world" and "third world."

Robinson explores the same theme in his Mars books. There are reports of rioting on Earth by those who haven't gotten the longevity treatments, and there are political movements to make the treatments universally available to everyone. The issue of overpopulation is touched upon, but it's basically just one element of hundreds in Robinson's trilogy.

Niven never really goes into it. My assumption is that the human population is pretty steady, plateauing at a certain point on older planetary settlements like Earth.

Weber's and Niven's handling of it is a bit less troubling, since the issue of overpopulation just isn't there, really. Interstellar travel and what seems to be either a lot of inhabitable worlds or very good terraforming (or both, actually) makes it relatively easy for living room to be found. Population growth seems to be under control. All of this is about a 1000 years into the future for both settings (maybe less than that for Niven) by the way, while Robinson's "Mars" series is set at the middle and end of this century and into the next.

Interesting. I would think that one of the problems of a population that goes on for a long time would be the question of resources. How would they manage to sustain themselves for such a long period?

Also, if resources are limited - this could happen for a variety of reasons...war, hostile enviroments on planets etc how would this effect the way how people who exist for a long time are governed?

Could a mandatory age be set, when no matter what,you are forced to "retire"? How do people plans their lives when they know when they are going to die? Or maybe it's by lottery. Books/films have explored this subject but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

Also the question of cultural norms. Imagine the shifting perspectives all happening within the individual during his/her own life. That's got to affect the way how these future societies function.

Like I said, interesting context to set your campaign in.

Regards,
David R

Given that populations in many Western countries will be declining in the near future (due to childbirth rates below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1), it does not seem unreasonable to assume that a society in which humans enjoy longer lives would also be a society with very few children, and thus sustainable.

Humans in Ian M. Banks 'Culture' novels live for centuries, and modify themselves as they like.  (Resources are not a problem thanks to uber-technology.)  Those novels are really great for many reasons, not the least of which is their portrayal of what people would be like if all their needs were easily met by technology.  And I love the mega-intelligent starships and sentient Dyson spheres and 'ringworlds'!

Richard Morgan puts forward a pretty gritty version of the future in his novels, but one in which people 'record' themselves on fortified computer disks stored in their spinal cords.  If they're rich enough, they can be implanted their disks into a new body (eventually multiple bodies) and live a very long time.  Space travel is accomplished by 'beaming' a person's data to another star system.

I agree that longevity -- or perhaps even the transformation of what we think it is to be 'us' and to be 'alive' (e.g. computer simulations of our brains, records of our memories, etc.) -- is a topic that needs to be addressed more generally by SF.

The idea that people can travel FTL but not use cloning to replace aging body parts seems silly.

I think the level of tech is the most important factor here. This includes the availability and distribution of whatever process that increases the life span of humans in this futuristic setting.

I do not think I'm wandering off the reservation to draw some parallels between the world as it is now and this future setting when I say that if some humans are cut off from this life prolonging process/tech for whatever reasons, problems such as overpopulation and a host of other social /power issues(which happens now-with regards to medical tech for example) may occur due to a varity of reasons all which would make an intriguing setting to "adventure" in.

Again the above would depend on the level of tech and it's availability. There could be for instance an oligarchy of near immortal humans controlling the destiny of the many.

Akrasia points out some terrific examples of how near immortality can manifest within this (or any other) setting. Again what is important here is the level of tech and it's availability all which determine (in my opinion) the tone of the setting and more importantly the possible sources of tension.

Regards,
David R

To exagerate something we see a bit of now, what happens when people first start living a long time in terms of how things are structured?  (Before adaptations are made.) How about people who retired at 65 and then lived to a 150?   That's rough on social security and you will also have people who are alive but who have used up all their retirement money that was set to last only until they're 90.  Are 100 year olds going to have to go back to the workplace?  Can you imagine running into your great grandfather beind the counter at McDonalds?  

It might exacerbate class issues.  The standard worker model will result in people living on a subsistence retirement for decades or more.  Meanwhile, the rich will be able to keep getting richer without death distributing their wealth.  How would the economy fare with a few people in Bill Gates' league living to 200 and having close to a trillion in wealth?

If 40 year olds are out of touch with teen culture, imagine 140 year olds.  Generation gaps would get more severe when there are more generations still alive.

What if max age is altered quite a bit but age for fertility (especially for women) is altered only slightly?  You might be able to plan a hundred year career, but if you want kids, you have to do it while relatively young.

One effect of living longer might be a sense of complacency. There is no rush to accomplish something before you're 30 or 50 or whatever. You can do it later, heck you're going to live to be 1000, right. I could see a general stagnation. Combine that with a decline of children/young people and the effect will increase.

I could also foresee a group of people giving up the treatments in order to live a shorter life to avoid these effects.

Quote from: Berger KingI could also foresee a group of people giving up the treatments in order to live a shorter life to avoid these effects.

Similar tech might also allow some to live more intensely instead of longer - the equivalent to the capacity to being constantly on 5 cups of coffee for 20 years.

Quote from: Berger KingI could also foresee a group of people giving up the treatments in order to live a shorter life to avoid these effects.

Not me, bub!  


This problem is most pronounced in the Traveller universe.  I'd argue that the aging tables in old Traveller actually have worse aging effects than we see at *our* tech level, much less in the super-far-future.  In my unfortunately short-lived Traveller game, I had the character's lifespan depend on the tech level of their homeworld.  It was an exponential curve, though I think I should have probably increased the slope -- I think I "only" had a max lifespan around 350 for TL 15.

(Yes, Traveller has the anagathic treatments, but they're just silly.  Fine for space opera, but not even realistic.  Which is part of why I wasn't good at running Traveller -- I kept analizing things too much.)

I think society would adapt to increases in lifespan, unless something happened to drastically increase it suddenly.  That's where the chaos would come in.

Quote from: David RInteresting. I would think that one of the problems of a population that goes on for a long time would be the question of resources. How would they manage to sustain themselves for such a long period?

Also, if resources are limited - this could happen for a variety of reasons...war, hostile enviroments on planets etc how would this effect the way how people who exist for a long time are governed?

Could a mandatory age be set, when no matter what,you are forced to "retire"? How do people plans their lives when they know when they are going to die? Or maybe it's by lottery. Books/films have explored this subject but nothing comes to mind at the moment.

Also the question of cultural norms. Imagine the shifting perspectives all happening within the individual during his/her own life. That's got to affect the way how these future societies function.

Like I said, interesting context to set your campaign in.

Regards,
David R

A lot of this depends on just how big the setting is. If it encompasses a large volume of space, then I'd imagine resources wouldn't be much of a problem. This assumes a high level of technological development and corresponding slow-down in the population growth, as well as relatively easy transportation between planets and star systems.

If the setting assumes that there was a period of expansion and then a "Dark Ages" where star systems were isolated, then a wide variety of cultures could develop. A subsequent "Renaissance" where commerce was re-established might reveal planets where the population is out of hand as trade routes are re-established. This is along the lines of Traveller's "Imperium" and Weber's "Honorverse." Heavily populated planets might have to figure out how to get their populations under control before "prolong" is given. This would be especially true of isolated planets with no outside help or contact.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's "The Mote In God's Eye" (and BEWARE SPOILERS FOR THAT BOOK IN THIS PARAGRAPH) presented the Moties, an alien race that had been unable to develop interstellar travel. Coupled with this was the fact that the Moties had to breed or die, so their population would explode until they had horrendous wars, including nuclear, which reduced the population down to viable levels, but also set the civilization back to the stone age. This became a pattern which went on for millennia, until humans arrived with insterstellar drives. The Moties were desperate to expand outward, and this set up the main conflict of the book. Something like this might occur with overpopulated planets that are desperate to relieve their population problems which are contacted by some interstellar government with both interstellar travel capability and longevity treatments. You might see the inhabitants of such a planet be very warlike and not very patient, and go to war to achieve what they can't get by negotiation (assuming the interstellar power drags its feet in trying to help fix the problem).

Quote from: Berger KingI could also foresee a group of people giving up the treatments in order to live a shorter life to avoid these effects.

I just don't see that happening. I mean, really, would you? Would anyone you know? I think anyone sane would choose to live longer if they had the chance. It's easier to say one would choose to live a shorter life to avoid boredom when one is young, but as one gets older, one begins to really appreciate one's time alive.

What follows is a bit of a spoiler for Robinson's "Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars" trilogy - in one case, a character decides to forego the longevity treatments. But it's made clear that she is mentally disturbed.

There might be a cult of people who would do such a thing for philosophical reasons, but, y'know, I doubt that such a movement would last very long, or at the least, it would never become a very large group.

Quote from: CyberzombieThis problem is most pronounced in the Traveller universe.  I'd argue that the aging tables in old Traveller actually have worse aging effects than we see at *our* tech level, much less in the super-far-future.  In my unfortunately short-lived Traveller game, I had the character's lifespan depend on the tech level of their homeworld.  It was an exponential curve, though I think I should have probably increased the slope -- I think I "only" had a max lifespan around 350 for TL 15.

(Yes, Traveller has the anagathic treatments, but they're just silly.  Fine for space opera, but not even realistic.  Which is part of why I wasn't good at running Traveller -- I kept analizing things too much.)

Traveller is one of the specific settings I had in mind when I posted this thread. It made, and makes, no sense to me that in several thousand years human lifespans would still only be about what they are now. I love Traveller's setting in a number of ways, but it sure didn't seem like some aspects of technology were thought about at any length (like medical science and computer technology).

As I touched upon above, the anagathic treatments would be more or less available depending on how isolated a given star system is. But even so, I'd imagine that lifespans in general throughout the Imperium would be greater than they are now by at least several decades, if not centuries, with what by then would be relatively cheap and easily administered treatments. The expensive anagathic treatments would be better used in the setting as a "quick fix," for someone from an isolated world.