Maybe science can increase our life span, but creating something "Immortal" is just impossible.
Scientist claims immortality in 20 years or so - Page 8
Forum Index > Closed |
Achromic
773 Posts
Maybe science can increase our life span, but creating something "Immortal" is just impossible. | ||
![]()
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
| ||
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
The main issue with immortality of course is the dangers of overpopulation. The planet is already full as it is, and getting rid of death by aging would cause both an economic and environmental nightmare. Several countries with large lifespans are already having problems trying to pay for the large elderly population. Imagine how bad it will be when the entire population is living past 100. As scary as death is, it's necessary for our overall survival. | ||
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
| ||
Bub
United States3518 Posts
| ||
Bowdz
United States202 Posts
Thanks to science, our life expectancy has constantly been increasing. Now famed scientist and futurist Ray Kurzweil I stopped reading there. Ray Kurzweil is a loon and should not be taken seriously. | ||
arcology
United States92 Posts
| ||
Freyr
United States500 Posts
On September 30 2009 07:12 Ryoo wrote: I personally don't believe in this 'Immortality' . Maybe science can increase our life span, but creating something "Immortal" is just impossible. Talk of immortality generally refers to biological immortality, where the goal is to negate all detrimental affects of the aging process (accumulation of waste and damage and such). It is not to be confused with invincibility - if you get hit by a train you'll still die and so forth. Obviously complete immortality seems (as of right now) impossible because eventually all of the subatomic particles in the universe will decay. On September 30 2009 07:14 Chill wrote: I remember a claim ten years ago that diabetes would be cured in two years and hiv in five. What the fuck science? Get on it. I think the problem is likely to be funding and organization rather than the science itself, unfortunately. | ||
Swarmy
Canada70 Posts
| ||
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On September 30 2009 07:19 Spawkuring wrote: Immortality is possible, but certainly not within our lifetime. A lifespan extension is probably much more likely. The main issue with immortality of course is the dangers of overpopulation. The planet is already full as it is, and getting rid of death by aging would cause both an economic and environmental nightmare. Several countries with large lifespans are already having problems trying to pay for the large elderly population. Imagine how bad it will be when the entire population is living past 100. As scary as death is, it's necessary for our overall survival. If the population is healthy and old, that isn't a problem.... no one gets to retire until they are 100... or 200 or 650, or ever if you Never age. (you can take breaks from work, but you have to use up your own savings, not the taxpayers) depending on the case. Overpopulation is another issue.... but as long as people have less than 2 kids that problem solves itself as well. Assuming an immortal population where everyone only has one kid (between themselves and a spouse once they reach the age of 40) assume the entire population is 8 billion at the age of 40 # in billions, different generations listed 8+4 kids=12 total 8+4+2 kids=14 total 8+4+2+1 kid=15 total 8+4+2+1+0.5 kids=15.5 total ....... never reaching 16 You would end up with have a very large population, but it would stabilize, not grow indefinitely.... and this could be a problem if he was somehow right and a cheap, take it one-time "never age" pill came out within the next 20 or even 50 years. But chances are significant imporvements in our ability to use the resources we have would improve first. If you did get the cheap-one-time-no-aging-past-30 pill say tomorrow.... well scarce resources would mean that people would still die from starvation, thirst or fighting over those resources... in the same areas of the world that they do right now. Other areas might encourage limits to reproduction so that the population would stabilize. Most wouldn't need to, most of the developed world has a problem with Declining population [this is a problem because their old members aren't economically productive anyore]. | ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
Anyway, the basic premise here isn't "immortality" it's an indefinite life expectancy... This is due to the fact that the increases that occur in our Life Expectancy are accelerating, and according to Kurzweil in about 20 years our life expectancy will be increasing faster than the rate at which we age. Edit after reading 1/2 the thread: The majority of the posts in this thread don't seem to have knowledge of Kurzweil's work... While, I think the OP makes this thread perhaps not the best place to start if you were interested. Kurzweil's entire basis for that comment is based off of his futirist work on the Technological Singularity. Of Course if the Technological Singularity were to occur, Indefinite Lifespan would be one of the first things we'd "receive". I think that the Technological Singularity deserves it's own thread, as it's a much greater scope than this OP would allow. This premise by Kurzweil does tightly fall under his "Law of Accelerating Change" and I believe it and the Singlularity are entirely possible -on a long enough time line-... Whether or not we want these changes, or if Kurzweil's time predictions are accurate (he has an amazing track record) is a whole different matter. However, I'd just recommend checking out the wiki's of Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey De Grey (a researcher who believes aging can be reverse engineered) if you were interested in this sort of thing... | ||
Monstah-_-
249 Posts
On September 30 2009 07:28 Bowdz wrote: I stopped reading there. Ray Kurzweil is a loon and should not be taken seriously. I agree, he sounds like a stupid nut-case. On September 30 2009 07:53 Swarmy wrote: Twenty year? This guy is bat-shit insane. Agreed. | ||
keV.
United States3214 Posts
| ||
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On September 30 2009 08:10 Monstah-_- wrote: I would hate to see this.. I don't want to live past 90.. I agree, he sounds like a stupid nut-case. Agreed. lol. I thought so at first, but then I read 2 of his books. There is more merit to his claims than might appear. However, If you've read a book by him, and still feel that way, We simply have a difference of opinion on the possible future of technology. ![]() Forgive me if this seems trollish ![]() Totally bat-shit insane, and a stupid nut-case, clearly + Show Spoiler + Kurzweil has been called the successor and "rightful heir to Thomas Edison", and was also referred to by Forbes as "the ultimate thinking machine"[13][14][15]. Kurzweil has received these awards, among others: * First place in the 1965 International Science Fair[4] for inventing the classical music synthesizing computer. * The 1978 Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. The award is given annually to one "outstanding young computer professional" and is accompanied by a $35,000 prize.[16] Ray Kurzweil won it for his invention of the Kurzweil Reading Machine.[17] * The 1990 "Engineer of the Year" award from Design News.[18] * The 1994 Dickson Prize in Science. One is awarded every year by Carnegie Mellon University to individuals who have "notably advanced the field of science." Both a medal and a $50,000 prize are presented to winners.[19] * The 1998 "Inventor of the Year" award from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[20] * The 1999 National Medal of Technology.[21] This is the highest award the President of the United States can bestow upon individuals and groups for pioneering new technologies, and the President dispenses the award at his discretion.[22] Bill Clinton presented Ray Kurzweil with the National Medal of Technology during a White House ceremony in recognition of Kurzweil's development of computer-based technologies to help the disabled. * The 2000 Telluride Tech Festival Award of Technology.[23] Two other individuals also received the same honor that year. The award is presented yearly to people who "exemplify the life, times and standard of contribution of Tesla, Westinghouse and Nunn." * The 2001 Lemelson-MIT Prize for a lifetime of developing technologies to help the disabled and to enrich the arts.[24] Only one is meted out each year to highly successful, mid-career inventors. A $500,000 award accompanies the prize.[25] * Kurzweil was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002 for inventing the Kurzweil Reading Machine.[26] The organization "honors the women and men responsible for the great technological advances that make human, social and economic progress possible."[27] Fifteen other people were inducted into the Hall of Fame the same year.[28] * The Arthur C. Clarke Lifetime Achievement Award on April 20, 2009 for lifetime achievement as an inventor and futurist in computer-based technologies.[29] * Ray Kurzweil has also been given 16 honorary degrees from different universities, listed below. Type of degree College Year awarded Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters[30] Hofstra University 1982 Honorary Doctorate of Music[30] Berklee College of Music 1987 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Northeastern University 1988 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1988 Honorary Doctorate of Engineering[30] Merrimack College 1989 Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters[30] Misericordia University 1989 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] New Jersey Institute of Technology 1990 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Queens College, City University of New York 1991 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Dominican College 1993 Honorary Doctorate in Science and Humanities[30] Michigan State University 2000 Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters[30][31] Landmark College 2002 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2005 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] DePaul University 2006 Honorary Doctorate of Science[30] Bloomfield College 2007 Honorary Doctorate of Science[32] McGill University 2008 Honorary Doctorate of Science[33] Clarkson University 2009 This is, of course, leaving all of his inventions,books, and actual degrees out, I however, feel you get the point. Personally, I think he's simply ambitious, and has a really epic vision of the future. Zeal != Insane imo ![]() | ||
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On September 30 2009 07:14 Chill wrote: I remember a claim ten years ago that diabetes would be cured in two years and hiv in five. What the fuck science? Get on it. Too much money in treating the symptoms rather than disease. | ||
Xusneb
Canada612 Posts
We are not even close to understanding the brain, neurodegenerative diseases plague the best scientists of modern medicine, and we still have no idea if consciousness is tangible, let alone transferrable. Even if we were able to upload our brains, I believe we, as individuals, would still be in this brain and would still die with this body. Immortality doesn't even make sense to me. Won't the Earth explode one day? The sun? Won't matter as we know it eventually degenerate (a cold death)? Then what? You're dead again. I'm all for a few extra years but these futurists really oversell their stories. | ||
StRyKeR
United States1739 Posts
| ||
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
On September 30 2009 09:17 StRyKeR wrote: The world is full enough as it is. If people didn't die, the world would suffer from overpopulation. We would have laws limiting the number of babies (just like in China) and we might restrict having babies altogether all because of some 200-year olds who don't want to die. but... won't people start to die off due to over-population? | ||
king_tyris
7 Posts
| ||
| ||