A thought occurred to me earlier. Would humans be less willing to wage war if our current life expectancies were doubled, or even tripled? What if we lived five times as long as we currently do? It seems like a reasonable thought to me. I would be less willing to risk my life in a war during my late teens (most soldiers are recruited/conscripted during their late teens/early twenties) if I knew I had another 200-300 years of life still left to live. Would generals be so happy to commit to wars of attrition? Surely governments would be much more stable if they were in it for the long term, dealing with terms of office lasting decades or so? Murder would be so much more reviled, because instead of stealing 60 odd years of life, you'd be stealing 300 years of life. I'm not saying that would make it more valuable - but the murderer would be depriving the person of much 'more', in terms of time. Surely, the knowledge that you have so much more time to live would prevent people from so eagerly marching to the front line to be pawns in the greatest of games, war? And yet, history shows this to not be the case. It seems that regardless of medical advances extending our lifespan, people are still willing to go to war. The second world war, the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen, occurred midway through the last century - a time when technology and medicine ensured a much longer life for the people of the time than their ancestors. It seems that as our lives extend, so too does the opportunity to insult your neighbours, leading to conflict. So, I pose to you this question: If the average life expectancy of a human being was three hundred years, instead of a measly 60 or so, would we (as a race) be so eager to risk our lives in warfare? Personally, I think we would. People will do anything if you give them a good enough reason to.