Ask Lemmy

Probably 65, as 45 was my vampire age, and I have enjoyed the time since that age. I am not sure I'd like to go back to fertility though. Think about it, say you take it at 40, menarche around 15 and menopause around 55, that's periods for 60 years instead of 40 years, and twenty extra years you might get pregnant.

I've had some time to think on this, I still say probably 65. I waffled for awhile because I would like to have the build I had before the last 2 children, but keep the kids, the ten pound wonder blew out my abs and skin which happily bounced completely back several times did not make a complete recovery with the last. But the 3 additional years I spent nursing them provides additional protection vs. breast cancer, don't think I'd want to give up their half of that. And I have literally felt better and healthier in the years after 40, so rather have more of those.

I'd take it at 25, breeze through school while amassing knowledge in my fresh brain, then I will become god emporia

Is give it to my wife when we were 50 :)

It depends whether I can somehow go back to the body of a 20 year old but keep my current 40 year old brain. I'm not going to pretend the majority of my improvements in patience, empathy, humility, work ethic and dgaf-ness are me consciously maturing instead of improvements in brain chemistry.

Anywhere from 20 - 45 to repeat the best years for physical activity. Assumes that it goes back to the physical shape I was in at the time.

I would even hope to make better long term choices, but probably wouldn't.

Exactly at 20 so I become a fresh zygote and die on the spot.

47

"de-ages" I assume means genetically? You don't get to go back in time.

Today then.

As late as possible.

On the other hand, right now.

The day I turn 40 probably

I would take it at 60.

I'd have to have taken it back at 37 to go back to a point where my body wasn't broken, and I'm trying to decide if the prospect of being able to stand without pain is worth being a teenager again...

Lots of people are treating this like you would go back in time and get a do over, rather than being de-aged.

I'm assuming that de-aging would roll back any age related aches and pains, but not affect my memory, other than possibly making it better. It would give me more energy, so I'd be overweight and young instead of overweight and old :D

I'd take it at around my late 30s to early 40s to get back to my late teens to early 20s. My body was fully developed, so I wouldn't have to go through puberty or have too many teenage hormones, and I'd have enough energy to get in shape again.

If it de-aged me by putting me back into my body from the time, then it would be when I was 42. 22 was when I was in the best shape of my life, and before I picked up a few long lasting injuries. I found out in my early 30s that I've got a chronic illness too, and it hit me hard.

I'd get the doctors and dentist to work on the health issues that I didn't know about when I was young, and stop them from becoming serious, and generally get healthier.

Most importantly, I'd take my kid out and do all the things that we haven't been able to do together :)

My man, those "pills" are coming and they won't be unique usage (like some Genie provides them).

But they wont be as blunt either, it will be rejuvenation of your retina, kidneys, liver, skin (that doesn't mean you'll look younger), back muscles, heart, etcetera.

If you have cancer type 352 and we got a "pill" to treat it (a treatment, with a high probability to fix it) will you take it and extend your life by 20 years?

We're in a biotech revolution, not in a Santa Claus situation.

1. That way you can go back with your current knowledge and do it better the next time around.

There are a surprising number of people here under the impression that they knew anything by the age of 20.

45 for sure.

Take it when I'm 18 and I will have never been born