Thanks to science, our life expectancy has constantly been increasing. Now famed scientist and futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks that we'll be immortal in just two decades.
According to the Telegraph, Kurzweil said that, at the rate of advancement in our understanding with science and technology, we could slow down or even reverse the aging process.
How will this be accomplished? Kurzweil thinks that it'll be nanotechnology.
I think his timeframe is a bit too optimistic, but I wouldn't be surprised if our life expectancy jumped to 150 years in the next few decades. From there, the longer you live, the more technology advances, and the more technology advances, the longer you live past the 150 mark.
Exciting times are upon us, if you exclude the economic situation, that is.
He also predicted the inevitability of Grey Goo, which I used to worry about before I started worrying about Hubbert's Peak. My more current neurosis says "fat chance" to his immortality claim.
Im not sure I want to spend that much time being old. Even if medicine is so good, and you lived to 150, 80-90 of those years would have to be physically limiting. It has to be combined with greater physical training for people who want to live that long.
I don't think it will happen though. I think the still unknown effects of our drastic intake of processed foods will help limit the gains of science.
edit - I think once society gets over its crazy fear of things like HGH and steroids, and actual research can be done, it will lead to more likely advancements.
I don't know.. at least having an option of being biologically immortal.. i would be a very sad man if this progress was few years too late to at least consider the option for my parents..whereas i chose to live forever
On September 29 2009 17:29 Manifesto7 wrote: Im not sure I want to spend that much time being old. Even if medicine is so good, and you lived to 150, 80-90 of those years would have to be physically limiting. It has to be combined with greater physical training for people who want to live that long.
I don't think it will happen though. I think the still unknown effects of our drastic intake of processed foods will help limit the gains of science.
edit - I think once society gets over its crazy fear of things like HGH and steroids, and actual research can be done, it will lead to more likely advancements.
this is true but it said they would be at least slowing (possibly reversing for sometime) the aging process so i think elderly age would be alot later than the current 70s-80s of this decade.
could this reversal of aging also apply to the brain? its no use if people are completely senile for their last 100 years of life or whatever
even if nanotechnology can stop some sort of aging. No one even knows what exactly leads to aging anyway. My professor today was just talking about it can be anything from innate errors in DNA replication to just some other random crap
but i agree that this stuff could def increase life expectancy a ton. honestly i don't even care.. who wants to be old and helpless for 60+ years...
On September 29 2009 17:43 JohnColtrane wrote: could this reversal of aging also apply to the brain? its no use if people are completely senile for their last 100 years of life or whatever
Yes it is. Brain is plastic, and the cells that it is build from are also in constant repair/exchange like any other part.
In theory you don't need to exercise to be physically in good shape, you just need good enough system that repairs your cells, the one we have naturally is inefficient and the problems accumulate with age. We don't even age evenly you can have very diferent biological age of diferent parts of your body. Nanobots could helps to repair those problems.
Given what aging is believed to be; the deterioration of our bodies, I can imagine being biologically immortal being possible. However, when you don't die from a disease, you'll probably find a diffrent way to get killed eventually, such as getting hit by a car or getting shot.
this guy doesn't look like a typical scientist to me. he's more like an entrepreneur and inventor.
This. Guy who doesn't know what his talking about talks about stuff he doesn't know about.
Immortality seems possible and within the realms of human possibility, but his timeframes off. Medicine progress has been slowing down for years, pharma is mainly rehashing the same compounds now, so its going to take a major leap just to lay the foundations that slowing ageing can be built upon.
Saying that i don't really know what im talking about either.
not an entirely preposterous claim, though very optimistic. it's true that the stuff coming out of labs these days is just sick - i feel like i owe it to myself to live long enough to that inevitable breakthrough point after which i'll enjoy considerable benefits. probably sounds a bit silly.
immortality is... well, the concept isn't too bad, since a body with the exception of the sexual organs is essentially just a very intricate system of pipes for sustaining the brain. we'd be pretty set, in a fairly comfortable fashion, i'd imagine - by the time we can replicate/augment the functions of a normal body with machinery, i'm sure we'll have figured out all that stuff with monkeys being hooked to robot arms via their brain and other crazy shit.
and while everybody always just loves to ponder with their bleeding hearts the desirability of a morbid situation where someone literally can never be able to die, how many of you could possibly turn down just 1 extra year of life? assuming an adequate quality of life, of course. 10 years? 20 years? can you imagine how much even the distant possibility of 1 more year means to some of the terminally ill? see, the problem is in the in-betweens, like everything else in our fucking lives.
he is wrong because he doesn't understand how the mind-brain works, no one does so maybe they can keep our bodies living forever, but we are more than our bodies
I find it much easier to believe that the life expectancy will slowly increase than I do that we will suddenly and soon achieve a state of near-immortality. In 20 years we'll probably be lucky to expect 5 more years on average.... and not with tremendously improved quality of life for those 80 somethings and 90s.
Do we want immortality? I think that's a kind of stupid question. Every advance in medical science pushes out average life expectancy forward a little bit. At what age should we say enough is enough and stop doing this? "Immortality" is just the time when medical science improves our life expectancy by more than one year each year. If we could cure cancer or heart decease should we choose not too because it increases our lifespan too much?
This is not about increasing the time we spend as "old". If this becomes true we will not have people getting "old" by 60 and then staying old the rest of their lives. The purpose is to increase the purposeful range of our lives. Pushing back aging, not pushing back death.
I'm not sure Kurzweil's time frame are right. He has made a lot of very accurate predictions in the past. (He predicted which year a computer would first beat a human in chess, how and when the internet would become big and how long it would take to sequence our genome.) I don't see a reason why we wouldn't be able to reverse aging sooner or later even if the concept seems unfamiliar to us.
Remember. We don't need to invent "immortality" all we need is for the rate that our average lifespan increases by to be one year every year and we have effectively outrun aging. That rate has been increasing linearly for a long time now ( i.e. our life expectancy has been increasing exponentially) and I see no reason why it would stop.
Rather interesting. I wouldn't mind a few hundred years life if you don't age either, I'd probably mimic Da Vinci and try to become a master of loads of things.
if you live until 150 then how long do you work until? 125? you can't have it that you work until 65 and then like another 85 years after that in retirement...
On September 29 2009 19:53 phosphorylation wrote: Perhaps the poll should be worded: Is your desired lifespan beyond what would be without intervention?
We already have that though. Without any medical intervention our average lifespans would be half what they are today. The question should be: "Do you want to stop receiving medical treatment if science advances 'too far'?" or "Do you want to be able to decide for yourself when you want to die?"
On September 29 2009 19:08 Mah Buckit! wrote: Christians, muslims and all of that sort had this for hundreds of years already, nothing new to them atleast.
For the rest of us yay!
Life after death =/= immortality.
Edit: Besides, I'd rather not get into Heaven after I die. Imagine spending an eternity without booze, cigarettes, more than 1 sex position etc. etc. Disaster.
On September 29 2009 17:43 JohnColtrane wrote: could this reversal of aging also apply to the brain? its no use if people are completely senile for their last 100 years of life or whatever
Yes it is. Brain is plastic, and the cells that it is build from are also in constant repair/exchange like any other part.
I'm quite sure this isn't correct. We lose neurons everyday, our brain compensates by creating new connections with existing neurons, it doesn't replace them. If a neuron is destroyed, it's gone forever. If it were the case that brain tissue regenerated, we wouldn't have a problem with Parkinson's disease for example.
On September 29 2009 17:43 JohnColtrane wrote: could this reversal of aging also apply to the brain? its no use if people are completely senile for their last 100 years of life or whatever
Yes it is. Brain is plastic, and the cells that it is build from are also in constant repair/exchange like any other part.
I'm quite sure this isn't correct. We lose neurons everyday, our brain compensates by creating new connections with existing neurons, it doesn't replace them. If a neuron is destroyed, it's gone forever. If it were the case that brain tissue regenerated, we wouldn't have a problem with Parkinson's disease for example.
Brain cells are commonly thought to remain in the beginning stage of interphase of cell reproduction for their life, and never divide, and instead develop by forming new synapses with other neurons. However, several research studies since 1998 have shown that some brain cells in adult mammals, including humans, can indeed regenerate.[1][2]
what is so bad about life? you would have all the time in the world to study so much. with a longer timeframe we would be able to understand and connect together much more knowledge and experiences.
perhaps the fear that on a long enough time scale the value of everything and enjoyment of everyday occurances drop to or approach zero. however, I disagree and think that most people live out their lives without having enough time or money to experience a LOT of what the world has to offer - all the different cultures, cuisines, lifestyles etc.
I would travel the world and learn everything I could about all the countries and their history and culture. I would study human history as we know it and try to make the world a better place. I would study all the musical instruments, all the mediums of art.
of course if you desire a shorter life you can always make it so, I really dont see the disadvantage of extending the life of humans except people deciding that longer life is worthless but that is just a self fulfilling prophecy.
On September 29 2009 19:34 SilverSkyLark wrote: Being an immortal would suck though.
You could always commit suicide when you got tired of living.
Yeah but it's a sin though...
who would want to live forever anyway?
Poll: Would you want to live forever? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
the question should be worded "Would you want the option to die when you please?" Still not completely accurate since you still would be run over by a train or blown to smitherens by terrorists but at least more accurate. And to travis; there is absolutely no evidence that the brain would somehow be more than it's parts, it's more of a theory which we can't disprove yet since we don't understand it in it's entirety. My experience tells me that there won't be a ghost in the machine, there has never been one before when we've gotten a more complete picture of how things work.
Immortality is possible. There are at least two known species on Earth which are known to be immortal.
Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan with a life cycle in which it reverts to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of a metazoan capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary stage.[2] It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation.[3] Theoretically, this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal until its nerve center is removed from the rest of the body.[3]
That's the Wikipedia article on the immortal jellyfish. They can reverse their life cycle and return to the polyp state. Hydras (not the scary zerg unit but the micro organism that looks like a tree) are also said to be immortal. They have "regenerative abilities" and undergo aging "slowly, if at all". I think immortality is an interesting idea which might become a reality within our life spans.
On September 29 2009 17:25 VorcePA wrote: News Article
we could slow down or even reverse the aging process.
Way too good. How the hell can the brain get younger? We still don't know how exactly it's working. This guy is full of shit. Anyway, permanent youth with hormones and stuff working properly with a choice of changing your age... Gimme!
On September 29 2009 18:03 dekuschrub wrote: that guys talkin out of his ass.
even if nanotechnology can stop some sort of aging. No one even knows what exactly leads to aging anyway. My professor today was just talking about it can be anything from innate errors in DNA replication to just some other random crap
but i agree that this stuff could def increase life expectancy a ton. honestly i don't even care.. who wants to be old and helpless for 60+ years...
No one knows what led to aging. Most think, as far as i know, that it was to make space for the young. Most people know that telomeres in cells are basically the culprits. And i think its aso agreed that reproduction is basically the trigger in aging. If we all waited until 50 to have kids, maybe in a couple hundred years our life's expectancy would be raised by 20 years.
This news is a "see it once, then forget it existed" kind. Most health news fall under this category unless it's pretty big.
In any case, he's talking about genetic manipulation, which is definitely more than 20 years out, especially on the scale he's talking about.
Now you can probably MAKE an immortal human being by genetically altering the initial cell after the sperm and egg have united, but developed humans are probably out of luck.
Another problem is that immortality might disrupt our normal bodily functions. If cells aren't programmed to die... Then they always exist. If they always exist, then they'll always divide. Problem much? Another problem is that older cells are more prone to becoming cancerous.
One final point. I might sound like an elitist, but if humans become immortal, then we'd not only lose our ability to evolve, but also for the process of natural selection to take place. Weak humans will end up living forever alongside the strong humans, and then you'd get bad genes getting passed on... And then it gets messy.
so basically you are displeased with any universal medical advance. sexual selection operates more strongly on humans now than natural selection, and the time frame over which evolution occurs makes it unlikely you will notice a difference anyway.
to 'disrupt normal bodily functions' is a way to describe the entire field of medical research. here we want to stop the mechanisms that account for aging, and of course that includes cancer. also, immortality of an individual is far different from immortality of all cells in the body; i very much doubt that will be the case. i think the real concern is to keep their ability to divide from deteriorating with age. you are concerning yourself over very trivial things.
On September 29 2009 20:53 29 fps wrote: immortality means that you'll just keep aging and become more and more frail.
when they find a way to keep your youth (20-30s level of physique) for an extra 5-10 years, then more people will be interested
Who are you to decide what Kurzweil means when he says immortality? If you had listened to what he has to say you would know that this field of research isn't interested in extending life if it doesn't mean hindering complications and slowing down aging.
On September 29 2009 20:08 pyrogenetix wrote:perhaps the fear that on a long enough time scale the value of everything and enjoyment of everyday occurances drop to or approach zero. however, I disagree and think that most people live out their lives without having enough time or money to experience a LOT of what the world has to offer - all the different cultures, cuisines, lifestyles etc.
You are making a wrong assumption, nothing is objectively interesting or uninteresting, people can find doing the same task interesting constantly, and some clinically depressed can't find anything to be interesting. That is a matter of how your brain ''perceive '' things there is no objective limitation to it. That is one of the things that would also have to be regulated.
On September 29 2009 18:59 travis wrote: he is wrong because he doesn't understand how the mind-brain works, no one does so maybe they can keep our bodies living forever, but we are more than our bodies
We have allot of data to see how brain influences the "mind" (I don't believe that it is a separate thing but that is just a semantics since nobody can define mind in any meaningful way). We have studies of people that had damaged they brain, and we are getting better understanding on more precise brain work with PET scans. We also know that substances influence the "mind", and that it is physical so where is that "more", and what it is? Also on what basis you assume the imitations of physical objects?
On September 29 2009 18:52 intrigue wrote: and while everybody always just loves to ponder with their bleeding hearts the desirability of a morbid situation where someone literally can never be able to die, how many of you could possibly turn down just 1 extra year of life? assuming an adequate quality of life, of course. 10 years? 20 years? can you imagine how much even the distant possibility of 1 more year means to some of the terminally ill? see, the problem is in the in-betweens, like everything else in our fucking lives.
This is pretty much why I never want to see this happen. When presented the option, I'm sure everyone will pick immortality over death (even myself I'll admit), however the logistics of sustaining a race of immortals just seems...impossible. Also, it's not even just problems with overpopulation (since I doubt the technology will progress fast enough to be available to the common man that quickly) but...well, I just don't see any advantages at all for this, except the obvious one of people not dieing naturally.
On September 29 2009 18:03 dekuschrub wrote: that guys talkin out of his ass.
even if nanotechnology can stop some sort of aging. No one even knows what exactly leads to aging anyway. My professor today was just talking about it can be anything from innate errors in DNA replication to just some other random crap
Actually this is wrong, aging is a combination of 2 things, oxidisation of the cells when oxygen is burnt in our muscles, and the fact that genes can only be replicated in the body a set amount of time, once you reach your limit, you start to go downhill.
On September 29 2009 18:03 dekuschrub wrote: that guys talkin out of his ass.
even if nanotechnology can stop some sort of aging. No one even knows what exactly leads to aging anyway. My professor today was just talking about it can be anything from innate errors in DNA replication to just some other random crap
Actually this is wrong, aging is a combination of 2 things, oxidisation of the cells when oxygen is burnt in our muscles, and the fact that genes can only be replicated in the body a set amount of time, once you reach your limit, you start to go downhill.
what the hell are you talking about
There are multiple theories of how aging works exactly.
One of the ones that has been proven to be at least partially true is the shortening of telomeres. It is known that people with rapid aging diseases (i.e. get old at 10) have shorter telomeres than most humans. The cutting of the telomeres per replication eventually leads to something called the Hayflick limit, where the cell has reached senesence and can no longer divide. HOWEVER: Cells with telomerase, an enzyme, do not have this limit. Human stem cells, for instance, have telomerase. Hydras also have telomerase. Thus, their cells can theoretically replicate however. They are developing telomerase related therapies for aging: the only problem with telomerase is that it is also one of the "triggers" for cancerous growth. So by reactivating telomerase in human cells, you're jacking up the chance for cancer.
Another theory of aging is free-radical theory, which states that atoms with an extra electron cause damage to cells, as well as oxygen based molecules with an extra lone electron. It's not really known how it works too much because of conflicting stories, but it has been shown that reducing free radicals increases lifespan. For instance, there was this guy who was able to exten mice's lifespans by 20% on average by replacing part of their water content with heavy water (D2O), which in turn helps to prevent free radical damage as D2O is much more stable than H2O.
Reproductive theory has been mentioned before, where reproductive hormones cause aging because they are trying to overcompensate for what is lost over time. I"m not too familiar with this one but it's also a valid theory.
There's lots of other ones but I'm too lazy to list them all.
What has been seemingly ignored by most people is that most of these therapies don't make you just be 150: it actually slows down your aging. So by the time you're "80" you'd have the body of a 45 or so year old, etc., allowing for people to a) delay the onset of having children b) remain productive for longer periods of time.
I'm sure that it's fairly obvious that as ecology shows the carrying capacity is reached, there's a slight overshoot followed by stabilization, so does economics drives down the incentives for having children sooner. In addition, as countries get more developed, the average birth rate goes down, so I'm fairly certain we won't see any massive bursts in population as much as we did before.
And imho the guy is a bit of a nutjob, but that's just me.
The esieast way to allow all people on earth to live forever is to kill all people on earth. The ones that are left will have eternal life (0 people, but that doesn't matter).
I haven't heard of such great breakthroughs in nanotechnology yet that I would consider his statement seriously. First get a cure for Aids (that works on more than 1% of humanity), then you can try the more complex stuff. The HI virus is a tiny, simple thing. If you can't even beat that one you can't dream of fixing our cells.
Anyways, if I could live forever, I certainly would want to do that as a biologically 20-30 year old. Being immune to illnesses would be desireable too. Oh now that I think of it, if my vague idea about how to achieve eternal life is the same as this "scientist's", then eternal life would also mean immunity to cancer and probably a bunch of viral diseases.
All I'm going to say is that the world as a whole won't manage to get carbon emissions below 1970 levels in 20 years, much less end world poverty. Immortality for the rich and powerful will just complicate things.
Its entirely possible for human beings to live up to 200 years with the help of specialized nanotech to fight the radicals, but its almost asinine to assume it is possible without keeping your self in shape, eating right, and basically taking care of your body in all areas possible.
But this spawns far greater problems.
1 - Initially only the very wealthy will have acess to such a tech which might spawn another class warfare, where you have super human rich guys that can afford all kinds of medical treatment, brain-computer interfacing for faster learning, etc...
2 - People would start getting so old that there would be less of a need to retire and younger people would have a harder time finding jobs.
3 - Altho old age might not be a cause of death anymore im certain that there is a limit to artificial celular regeneration, and you probably cant go far above the 200 year mark even with futuristic non existing tech because by then it would have wasted all your celular reproductive potential and impeding massive celular degeneration would be like trying to keep the sun from rising.
Now, I would certainly like to live some 150-200 years, id be able to accomplish great things, pilot some space ship, and maybe who knows meet aliens sometime along the way, If I can do all that then what else is there ?
With such a long life spans, and nanotech being able to build amazing complex structures, there would be far less jobs avaible, and what would people do ? We might start becoming very spiritual, having such a vast time to think about wth does being alive really means.
On September 29 2009 22:23 DeSu wrote: can you play BW when you're 150? No? I hope I die at 70. :D
I think you are entirely missing the point here.
Extremelly well done phisical conditioning, a perfect diet + nanotech dialisis could make you as healthy as a perfectly healthy 50 year old man (and If you know any you know they could play starcraft, their generation is just no bothering with it at all) at the age of 150.
Therefore yes, you could be a progammer for like 100 years, and from the way things are going, its very possible that games are so easy mechanically to play by then with virtual reality interfaces and the not, that it would certainly be well worth it to be living at that time even if you are an old man to play such games ...
Damn now I do want to live a lot ... forever is too much tho.
there are also other possible kinds of "living forever" that tech progress may soon give us. well perhaps not in 20 years, but seems inevitable to me eventually.
increasingly more powerful computers, brain-computer interfaces, ai research and nanotechnology might allow us to precisely measure and emulate single neuron activity for all the neurons in a brain at once. this could mean "mind upload" into mechanical replacements of the brain and/or the rest of our body for continued interaction with the physical world, or even an existence in a purely virtual world. this also brings very interesting possibilities like copying minds - for backup purposes, for increased productivity, or just because we can. as computers get faster and faster, it also brings the possibility to get our minds work faster than real-time, but at the same time with the possible infinite expansion of the "human" population, it might also be the case that we will never have enough computing power... if multiple minds are emulated on a single computer or network, computing power for one's own mind might turn out to be a resource that we work for or compete against each other for and trade with instead of money... who knows. there's some even crazier ideas like developing some kind of collective consciousness or whatnot.
yeah, i'm a dreamer. i'm stopping now before people figure out where i live and round me up in a nuthouse.
I think two decades is way too soon for us to achieve biological immortality.
I would imagine a few hundred years, probably longer than that, and that's assuming we have sufficient resources on Earth to continue doing the research that we are doing now.
One thing that a lot of people overlook, is that scientific research is always limited by the amount of resources available to do the research.
Whoever discovers the gene of immortality of actually how to live 150-200 years should be killed asap imo. Today there are already TOO many people on the Earth and it's just gets more and more even without prolonged life. Green revolution or not, millions of people are starving at the moment too and the pension system..well let's just not talk about it.
On September 29 2009 23:10 Kyo Yuy wrote: I think two decades is way too soon for us to achieve biological immortality.
I would imagine a few hundred years, probably longer than that, and that's assuming we have sufficient resources on Earth to continue doing the research that we are doing now.
One thing that a lot of people overlook, is that scientific research is always limited by the amount of resources available to do the research.
Another thing people overlook is the rate at which information technology advances. Humans in general have a hard time understanding the concept of exponential growth. Even if they do understand it in theory it is still very unintuitive for us. We tend to think of things in a linear manner.
We look at the technological advances that have happened during the last 30 years and project that the same amount will happen in the next thirty when in fact following the same exponential rate, many thousands of times more could happen in the next 30 years.
Not adding much to a pretty reasonable conversation going on here (though I have to say I do fall in the, practically speaking, if available to everyone on a large scale, "living forever" would have some major planetary implications ecologically... And, if not available to everyone, than internationally it could also get pretty politically "interesting"-- see the current state of who is and isn't a nuclear power, but magnify the animosity times a 1000).
All that doom and gloom out of the way, it does make a great science fiction plot (Kurzweil's contributed a few of these-- and don't get me wrong, I love thinking about this stuff)... But seriously folks, how has no one brought this up yet:
On September 29 2009 19:53 phosphorylation wrote: Perhaps the poll should be worded: Is your desired lifespan beyond what would be without intervention?
Wouldn't everyone have answered yes, then? Unless everyone has a DNR.
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote: Is immortality even desirable?
yeah
you can definitely hit olympic rank on iccup at that rate
not really, because if everyone was immortal, it would be relative. I suppose you could argue some sort of absolute plateau effect, in which case, why would people play?
On September 30 2009 00:30 Jonoman92 wrote: If people live to be 150 will they still take social security at 65? It'd mess up the system.
Well I assume if they are using nanobots to completely counteract senescence then there would be no reason to offer social security at 65 a your body would still be physically 'young'. If it just kept us alive for longer while the repair/aging equilibrium was reached at a physically 'old' age I'm not sure it would even be worth taking up the offer.
For me at least being physically old for 90 years is no thx.
Personally, I would love to live forever; sure my apm may have dropped abit, when I'm 150, but there's just so many builds and ways to play the game that I haven't tryed yet.
On September 29 2009 19:08 Mah Buckit! wrote: Christians, muslims and all of that sort had this for hundreds of years already, nothing new to them atleast.
For the rest of us yay!
Life after death =/= immortality.
Edit: Besides, I'd rather not get into Heaven after I die. Imagine spending an eternity without booze, cigarettes, more than 1 sex position etc. etc. Disaster.
Edit2: Yes, I'm a sinner and I like it.
To me continuing existence is the same as immortality. Maybe not in the same form but nonetheless. If you are paralyzed are you alive in different way than you would be otherwise?
The rest of us however will never have been when we die that is we didn´t exist, we do not exist and we will not exist. Unless we of course obtain some sort of immortality, which would be nice.
To be honest, I think it would be more beneficial for us if we discovered how to always stay young rather then live forever. What does longer life help you if you do not have the physical strength to enjoy most things in it.
On September 30 2009 00:40 Tom Phoenix wrote: To be honest, I think it would be more beneficial for us if we discovered how to always stay young rather then live forever. What does longer life help you if you do not have the physical strength to enjoy most things in it.
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote: Is immortality even desirable?
yeah
you can definitely hit olympic rank on iccup at that rate
not really, because if everyone was immortal, it would be relative. I suppose you could argue some sort of absolute plateau effect, in which case, why would people play?
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote: Is immortality even desirable?
it sure is for me
why wouldnt it be for you?
It is hard to say whether you would want it or not when you are still young.. I know some people that never want to die though so there is definately a market for it. Think about what this means for research as well. All of those really old professors and doctors that know ridiculous amounts of information could live much longer! I think this is great!
Btw, even if they figure out how to achieve immortality none of you are likely to be rich or powerful enough get it. That honor is gonna be reserved for the most important of the human species, like Miley Cyrus or Kanye.
Edit: Can you guys imagine how annoying it would be if Kanye was immortal? God that would suck.
On September 29 2009 18:03 dekuschrub wrote: that guys talkin out of his ass.
even if nanotechnology can stop some sort of aging. No one even knows what exactly leads to aging anyway. My professor today was just talking about it can be anything from innate errors in DNA replication to just some other random crap
but i agree that this stuff could def increase life expectancy a ton. honestly i don't even care.. who wants to be old and helpless for 60+ years...
You don't understand.
Increasing life expectancy by reducing aging (slowed and more error-prone cell reduplication, that's all it is) would not only prolong your life, it would prolong your healthiness. Stronger immune system, increased plasticity of the brain, correctly regenerating body cells in general != helpless for 60 years.
The myth that immortality sucks is just spread around by people who are ALREADY immortal, so that they can monopolize all the immortality in the world.
And within the next two decades, it's time to fight back.
It is definitely possible. As far as we know everything in the body is replaceable except for the brain. One of the things you mentally have to learn in the medical field is that bodies are really machines. Everything in the body can be mimicked with a machine.
Once thats out of the way the only thing we're really missing is sensations, which I dont think is that far off technology wise (within the next 50 years at the most).
I personally wouldnt mind being a robot if I still had feelings/emotions/sensations. Thats just me though, I know most people are probably different. Basically I would say it is very possible, humans are inventive little buggers.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to live forever. It's cool if everyone else does, I guess, but I just don't get wanting to be immortal. Things would get way too boring; we'd be a civilization of Bret Farve's, never knowing when we ought to retire...
Hell yeah immortality is desirable, if I could have any kind of "supernatural" ability that would be it. I could travel the world, learn all of the arts and cultures, and take my time with everything.
We might complete a workable method of gene therapy in 20 years and boost levels of a number of anti-aging compounds, but without body-wide genetic replenishment and epi-genetic 'reformating' of a certain type, we can't really wind the clock back. Additionally, there's the issue of immunological complications coming along with any genetic therapy, which add a rather obtuse obstacle for us.
Generally speaking, the more pro-'immortality' genetics we insert into a cell, the more likely it is that it will develop into cancer, which kills. When we've removed 'aging' genes in mice, they died very early with multiple, massive tumors dotting all of their organs.
So what's the magic bullet here? We can barely develop effective defenses against pandemic level viruses, yet he believes we can conquer varied, time dependant genetics which we have near zero epigenetic information on?
Fuck that the world already has enough people. This should only be used for like genius' or someone who can actually make good of immortality. Imagine if anyone could buy it. We would have the same stupid actors, musicians, and supreme court justices living forever.
Guy has been reading Battle Angel Alita, where they achieve immortality in flesh bodies by using something called Methuselatech, which I believe was based on nanomachines.
Edit: And I wanna be immortal so I can slack off and read comicbooks for a couple decades without getting stressed out. After that I'm gonna study, curiosity is the human condition.
On September 30 2009 03:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why would anyone want to be immortal, I mean sure I want to see other planets and all sorts of crazy shit, but people have to die.
eh, if the aging process were made null and void and we were able to colonize off-earth, i'd be interested for sure.
I do believe people have a tendency to hide in the soon-to-be-wonderful world of nanotechnology when it comes to this sort of thing. DNA proofreading nanomachines, telomere-restoring processes, artificial catalases and general protein/lipid upkeep nanobots could be hypothetical possibilities to counter aging, but should be met with extreme skepticism. Especially from a futurist/transhumanist.
That being said, I hope we finally do overpopulate earth so we can get off this rock
On September 30 2009 03:53 Atk wrote: I do not want this happen, mostly because of the political problems that would arise from it, scary, scary thought.
From that analogy, you could say you dont want nothing to be done.
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote: Is immortality even desirable?
yeah
you can definitely hit olympic rank on iccup at that rate
not really, because if everyone was immortal, it would be relative. I suppose you could argue some sort of absolute plateau effect, in which case, why would people play?
Well, while immortality sounds pretty awesome, I would not mind it, there are a whole heap of problems to consider.
For one, we might over-populate, resources might dwindle down faster, how are we gonna feed more people? Who can say you can't have so and so kinds in a democratic system (China has tho but they are communist)
The thing is, aging might be there for a reason along with disease and what not.
Maybe it's just natures way to keep us in control and from destroying the entire eco system. Remember, whenever you have an over-abundant amount of x a certain y will be depleted. Same thing when an unknown animal gets introduced to a different eco-system it will totally mess it up.
Short Version: We age, die from disease or natural phenomenon because that is how nature wants it to keep us in check along with the eco-system..
At least that is what my thought about this was....
On September 30 2009 03:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Were also forgetting the religious zealots that will try and prevent such a thing.
Also Humanity has to leave Earth anyways in order to survive.
Is there any reason for this or do you just mean in the super long term? Because while all our eggs are in one basket mass extinctions don't happen too often. We'll likely to get a fairly decent lifespan for a species.
On September 30 2009 03:16 L wrote: He is, sadly, completely wrong.
We might complete a workable method of gene therapy in 20 years and boost levels of a number of anti-aging compounds, but without body-wide genetic replenishment and epi-genetic 'reformating' of a certain type, we can't really wind the clock back. Additionally, there's the issue of immunological complications coming along with any genetic therapy, which add a rather obtuse obstacle for us.
Generally speaking, the more pro-'immortality' genetics we insert into a cell, the more likely it is that it will develop into cancer, which kills. When we've removed 'aging' genes in mice, they died very early with multiple, massive tumors dotting all of their organs.
So what's the magic bullet here? We can barely develop effective defenses against pandemic level viruses, yet he believes we can conquer varied, time dependant genetics which we have near zero epigenetic information on?
LOL TO YOU, MY GOOD SIR.
QFT.
This is a very scientific perspective, and one that everyone should read. The major point is, if we can't even cure MUCH simpler problems, how could you possibly expect to solve such a complex and unknown system?
This "scientist" sounds like the kind of guy who'll say anything to get his name in the paper.
What does this all spell out for our future? According to Kurzweil's theory the Law of Accelerating Returns: "So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."
this guy doesn't look like a typical scientist to me. he's more like an entrepreneur and inventor.
This. Guy who doesn't know what his talking about talks about stuff he doesn't know about.
Immortality seems possible and within the realms of human possibility, but his timeframes off. Medicine progress has been slowing down for years, pharma is mainly rehashing the same compounds now, so its going to take a major leap just to lay the foundations that slowing ageing can be built upon.
Saying that i don't really know what im talking about either.
Since when is somebody who has eleven Honorary Doctorates in Science not a scientist?
Most of you people are rather ignorant, he is overly optimistic about overcoming problems, but you can't compare one technology to the other. That is like compering progress of telephones to predict that you will never be able to send video over the internet.
What you will do fax 30 pages per minute? Internet video stream will never work.
Also on what basis you decide what problem is harder to solve then the other? How changes in one part of DNA influence rest of it is very complex problem, and it don't look like we are anywhere near to solve it, there is to much details to check, nanobots are much simpler considering how much we need to know for them to work.
"Generally speaking, the more pro-'immortality' genetics we insert into a cell, the more likely it is that it will develop into cancer, which kills. When we've removed 'aging' genes in mice, they died very early with multiple, massive tumors dotting all of their organs."
Nice simplification, cancer is overgrown of cell how that problem translate to nanobot technology? Completely irrelevant to what he was talking about.
Look what I had done I had called those things pro-immortality so nanobots can't work becouse they are also pro-immortality - very scientific.
"So what's the magic bullet here? We can barely develop effective defenses against pandemic level viruses, yet he believes we can conquer varied, time dependant genetics which we have near zero epigenetic information on?"
No it is about repairing the cells of your body. DNA can cause cancer or any other disease but that could be fixed by nanobots. We need to know what body does not where it is in DNA for this technology to work, much easier, and realistically viable. It will probably still not be immorality but rather long lengthening of being young.
Easiest way to archive "immortality" (in the sense of keeping yourself with good physical condition) will probably be connected with ditching biological bodies completely.
There is 1000 and 1 reason to humans dying, and over the development of medicine some fade while others become apparent. There's a limit on the amount of divisions a cell can make (each division cuts off a piece of the DNA in a normal cell during DNA replication) that is a natural death sentence for all highly developed organisms and that, true, can be overcome (in fact, cancer cells don't have such limits and are, in a sense, immortal). However, another death cause is mutation. Every time we catch a virus, every time a cell divides in our body there's a chance of slight change in DNA. Such slight changes and errors accumulate over the years, leading to major disfunctions in elder ages. That kind of process is highly stochastic, reversing it looks much like going against the second law of thermodynamics because in it's essence it's very akin to dissipation. Going against that would be a problem.
Oh and the model where the whole lot of our organs (excluding genitals) is just a supplementation for our brain is not really a modern view on things. It might satiate the church or people who seriously believe in crap like "human is the king of species bla bla bla".
In reality the whole lot of our organs including our brain is a supplementary system for our genitals.
The reason why our body starts breaking after some age because at that point we have already reached the reproductive period and there's no real biological reason to go on. The genes inherited are those who let you survive until you are able to and then seduce a female and bounce them (your genes) down a generation. Genes that prolong life after the reproductive period are not a factor in natural selection and therefore have little chance to spread.
I don't know all that much about nanotechnology, but I am a junior working towards a Mechanical Engineering degree, and what little I've had to research into nanotechnology makes me wonder about the legitimacy of his arguments. Right now, the cutting-edge nanotechnology is very, very limited. It's just too unstable in most environments to be useful, especially in the complex environment of the human body. I researched a bit into carbon nanotubes last semester, one of the forefront materials in nanotechnology due to it's high tensile strength, and they are HIGHLY toxic to the human body.
I'm skeptical as to how the improvements in materials science over the next twenty years will solve problems like this.
On September 30 2009 06:03 BluzMan wrote: Genes that prolong life after the reproductive period are not a factor in natural selection and therefore have little chance to spread.
If you are still able to reproduce when you are 90 years old your gene may have chance to spread And if we live longer and longer ... oh wait ...
Anyway i think my main problem with immortality is that human brain is so imperfect that i would be sad to be like the "nameless one" from Planescape Torment. Losing your memories, changing your own personality over time is kinda scary.
Nice simplification, cancer is overgrown of cell how that problem translate to nanobot technology? Completely irrelevant to what he was talking about.
Its not a simplifcation. We've amplified levels of DMSO as well as levels of anti-apoptosis, anti-senescence proteins and the CELLS GET CANCER.
Or rather, the rate of cancer creating mutations which are sustained in the viable cell pool increases because signals which would have previously led to apoptosis and senescence are now drowned out.
I could give you 9000 words on different biochemical pathways and different proto-oncogenes and p53 and ras proteins and different mutation defects and their effects on developing malignant cancers, but its rather out of the scope of a post on a video-game site.
No it is about repairing the cells of your body. DNA can cause cancer or any other disease but that could be fixed by nanobots.
See, this is the problem; Sure, in 60-100 years, it could, but we don't even know WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. Even if we DID know, we'd need to develop a way that wouldn't kill you by sepsis. What's more, like i said, its not just DNA, its DNA modifications; modifications of more than simple copying errors in the DNA itself (which, by the way, we still don't know how to fix without causing cancer. we've tried. a lot). Its modification of the structure of the DNA itself, packing areas that need to be packed, unpacking areas that need to be copied and such. Moreover, there's an entire new set of nucleosome epigenetic coding that changes from person to person, sex to sex, time to time and organ to organ. So now only are you going to need to 'teach' nanobots how to repair proto-oncogenic mutations, but you're going to have to have them repair structural issues in order to have the proper expression patterns of these proper proteins. Lastly, these changes need to evade your immune response, which is difficult because new protein forms trigger an immune response.
So no, its not a 20 year project.
Genes that prolong life after the reproductive period are not a factor in natural selection and therefore have little chance to spread.
On September 30 2009 06:03 BluzMan wrote: Oh and the model where the whole lot of our organs (excluding genitals) is just a supplementation for our brain is not really a modern view on things. It might satiate the church or people who seriously believe in crap like "human is the king of species bla bla bla".
In reality the whole lot of our organs including our brain is a supplementary system for our genitals..
You are missing the point, from perspective of genes anty-conception is bad, but that don't mean that it is bad from your perspective. Reason on why something had develop =/= that thing, anty-conception among many other things proves that. I don't care on why I had evolutionary develop in one way or any other(beyond curiosity), just what that practically means for me my perspective as an agent. Evolutionary reasons influence me in multiple ways but they are not exactly my reasons to do something. Evolution can make me like/dislike various things but I do them because of that not becouse I care about what will happen to some of my DNA variation. Vast majority of things that I do don't help my genes in any way. I am well aware of that, and from my perspective I don't care about that.
On September 30 2009 06:03 BluzMan wrote: Oh and the model where the whole lot of our organs (excluding genitals) is just a supplementation for our brain is not really a modern view on things. It might satiate the church or people who seriously believe in crap like "human is the king of species bla bla bla".
In reality the whole lot of our organs including our brain is a supplementary system for our genitals..
You are missing the point, from perspective of genes anty-conception is bad, but that don't mean that it is bad from your perspective. Reason on why something had develop =/= that thing, anty-conception among many other things proves that. I don't care on why I had evolutionary develop in one way or any other(beyond curiosity), just what that practically means for me my perspective as an agent. Evolutionary reasons influence me in multiple ways but they are not exactly my reasons to do something. Evolution can make me like/dislike various things but I do them because of that not becouse I care about what will happen to some of my DNA variation. Vast majority of things that I do don't help my genes in any way. I am well aware of that, and from my perspective I don't care about that.
That's because you (as a conscience) are just a parasite on the body and brain thoroughly developed by your genome. From a evolutionary standpoint our bodies are just carriers for our genes and that cannot be denied. The opinion that brain is somehow superior to body is a deep misunderstanding of how and why it functions. While it's very romantic, it's far from truth. Our brain is just a tool that our genitals need to find food and fight off tigers with sticks and stones, and it's other functions like art and other forms of reflectivity are just a nice byproduct of it's immense computational capacity. We are a very fun species in a sense that we are the only in which the brain (namely, conscience) tries to take over the control from the genes and disrupt it's own function but seeing how genes are responsible for it's own creation it is natural to coin that kind of relationship as parasitism.
Thanks to science, our life expectancy has constantly been increasing. Now famed scientist and futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks that we'll be immortal in just two decades.
According to the Telegraph, Kurzweil said that, at the rate of advancement in our understanding with science and technology, we could slow down or even reverse the aging process.
How will this be accomplished? Kurzweil thinks that it'll be nanotechnology.
I think his timeframe is a bit too optimistic, but I wouldn't be surprised if our life expectancy jumped to 150 years in the next few decades. From there, the longer you live, the more technology advances, and the more technology advances, the longer you live past the 150 mark.
Exciting times are upon us, if you exclude the economic situation, that is.
also of note is that when anyone does research, they need to spend the first 40 years of their life studying and getting phd and doing research grunt work.
that means that with the life limit at the 80 years that it is right now, each person only spends 50% of their time actively advancing science.
but when life expectancy increases, each year added is a full year added to the time a person can advance science. as a matter of fact, each year added is more valuable than previous years, because the older a person gets, the more they understand, and the better research they can do.
so in a way, there is a positive feedback loop that creates a sort of exponential growth.
if we go 500 years without a global disaster, almost certainly
Posters above are right, this is Way too complicated for a simple 20 year fix. (the ideas of transferring consciousness to another system or transferring the brain to an artificial body are similarly thick with complications)
Also the idea is not to continue living in a continuously aging body (that would be even harder than stopping aging)... it is to stop aging and all internal types of diseases (which means it would Definitely be a good thing for the individuals involved [except those life in prison sentences]).
Finally an Honorary Doctorate means Squat... Kermit the Frog has honorary doctorates.
For that matter even an earned PhD in science doesn't make you a scientist. That requires a particular manner of coming up with your ideas. He is certainly smart, but he is pushing his personal vision.
On September 30 2009 06:49 BluzMan wrote: That's because you (as a conscience) are just a parasite on the body and brain thoroughly developed by your genome.
I don't care since genome has no feelings. I am parasite on my mug also, it don't even have free weekends, and no extra benefits from being used at night.
On September 30 2009 06:49 BluzMan wrote: From a evolutionary standpoint our bodies are just carriers for our genes and that cannot be denied.
So? Evolution just describe how physical forces made self replicating code "grow".
On September 30 2009 06:49 BluzMan wrote: The opinion that brain is somehow superior to body is a deep misunderstanding of how and why it functions.
No it is just not confusing irrelevant things. In what way it is supposed to be superior or inferior? That depends on perspective.
It is more important in the sense that it can feel, and care what it happening to it. I don't see a reason to protect anything that don't have such qualities.
On September 30 2009 06:49 BluzMan wrote:While it's very romantic, it's far from truth. Our brain is just a tool that our genitals need to find food and fight off tigers with sticks and stones, and it's other functions like art and other forms of reflectivity are just a nice byproduct of it's immense computational capacity.
So? How is that my concern?
On September 30 2009 06:49 BluzMan wrote:We are a very fun species in a sense that we are the only in which the brain (namely, conscience) tries to take over the control from the genes and disrupt it's own function but seeing how genes are responsible for it's own creation it is natural to coin that kind of relationship as parasitism.
We would also not exist if there were no gravity so we should lie on the ground. DNA have no feelings I see no reasons why I should feel any obligations to it.
There is nothing wrong in being parasite on something that don't feel anything, or to use computer like it were your slave. I am also parasite on vegetables, and I don't see a reason on why that is bad (they even try to poison me with they own defenses, it is becouse those had survived I don't take it personally either).
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.
The only reason I would live that long is if my physical state as well as my mind is still in great condition. Still being able to do physical activities as well as REMEMBER things. I don't want to end up like my grandpa who started forgetting things like some of his relatives and where he lives himself..... =/
I'm thinking the main problem is keeping the brain from aging without altering it. The other body parts just need to be fully functioning, small differences wouldn't matter as long as they weren't defects.
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.
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].
eh, I haven't read the thread, but I've read just about everything one can find on The Singularity... I think it's really interesting...
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...
On September 30 2009 07:53 Swarmy wrote: Twenty year? This guy is bat-shit insane.
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
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.
Of course immortality is desirable, it's the foundation for every major religion in existence. As humans, we fear the unknown (death) and will invent anything to avoid it.
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.
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.
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?
this is another example of what a religion science has become... now they're promising immortality like every other major religion for the last 2000 years or so... And people are such sheep they don't even realize how they're being toyed with...
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?
Which is all the more reason to hope that death-from-age never goes away. Sure, you might extend the life of everyone to 200, 300, or even 500, but you encounter a barrage of problems due to overpopulation. Malnutrition, epidemics spreading faster, etc. etc. It's almost guaranteed to bring in worse health problems than death from age.
dude, I'm still waiting for my flying car to get here. Immortality? they'll probably figure it out right after all of us are dead. Wouldn't that be ironic?
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.
HIV is a virus and they're really difficult to cure. And the symptom of HIV is a fucked immune system which in turn is v difficult to treat because you could get all sorts of shit to finish you off.
Immortality? And where would the newborn be sent when Earth is over populated? Korhal? Aiur? Thats why mankinds evolution needs to go hand-in-hand with all the sciences.
And the HIV virus and its treatment lies only in genetic engineering. Nothing else, as i have spoken with lead graduating students @ biochemistry/medicine and people who have undergone various HIV scientific conventions.
On September 30 2009 03:53 Atk wrote: I do not want this happen, mostly because of the political problems that would arise from it, scary, scary thought.
From that analogy, you could say you dont want nothing to be done.
What?
I'll give you an example: Dictators, with enough constraints could possess power indefinitely, and I would imagine, in a very likely scenario, people will do all sorts of things to prevent lower classes/groups from having this capacity to live forever.
And think of all the desperate people who would do anything for immortality, the religious meltdowns (could be good in the long run admittedly), competition, the causal relationships are endless.
And why do you expound that I want "nothing to be done?" how does that infer it? Cause I don't want immortality, means I don't have the motivation to strive for betterment?
I hate the idea of living forever, all things come to an end, the temporal state builds value to me. But that's just me. And I'm tired, PM me later, your view strikes me curious. (Or anyone who replies to this, I cannot cater enough a good enough response in my fatigue.)
There is nothing wrong in being parasite on something that don't feel anything, or to use computer like it were your slave. I am also parasite on vegetables, and I don't see a reason on why that is bad (they even try to poison me with they own defenses, it is becouse those had survived I don't take it personally either).
No no, I never said you should feel bad about that. There's a lot other things to feel bad over, this is not really a concern. What I'm saying that there can be different mindsets for a person making genetical research and in this science the humanitarian "cogito ergo sum"-like mindset is not exactly fruitful.
Funny that you talked about about emotion. Since your emotion is mostly regulated by the DNA expressing different kinds of proteins it's somewhat unclear whether it's you feeling emotion or your DNA.
But nevertheless, no animal dreams about immortality. They fear immediate death as a part of the survival instinct, but they don't exactly think immortality. Immortality is stricltly reserved for us with out highly-developed conscience because it's an example of conscience and genes coming into conflict - while you might want to live forever, your DNA wants you to die. The reproductive period must be short, otherwise it will trigger inbreeding (a dominant male should not stay dominant long enough for it to be able to breed with it's own progeny) and hinder genetical progress (you should not compete with your own children otherwise it makes the supposedly better combined DNA of you and a good female stall, because no matter how good the genes you will always triumph due to experience). Long life is not of the best factors in natural selection, since the longer the life, the more selection is being affected by learned knowledge which doesn't pass to the next generations. There's another effect for ages - when there's an established reproductive age for a population of animals, genes that prolong life after that won't be inherited. You've made and raised children, nature doesn't care what you do after that. Seeing how females have a physiological reproductive age cap, there's no point for nature to increase their lifespan further. The DNA, in fact, wants you to die so badly that it even introduced a death mechanism into itself - the telomere tails. With every division a DNA loses a telomere on both of it's ends. If there's no more, the resulting DNA is broken. Therefore, there's a limit on the number of divisions a cell containing this DNA will make. The thing is, while this mechanism is common in nearly all organisms on Earth, there's an easy solution - the telomerase expressing gene which we even have. It repairs and restores the telomeres so that a cell can divide infinitely. This gene is functioning in the human organism when it's an embryo. Later in development this gene is turned off and you start your journey towards death. Our genome has free access to this fix but it doesn't use it. It was evolutionary better for us to have limited lifespans.
On September 30 2009 08:10 Motiva wrote: eh, I haven't read the thread, but I've read just about everything one can find on The Singularity... I think it's really interesting...
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...
I agree with everything you say. We already had two threads about the technological singularity though... even if that was two and three years ago
On September 30 2009 09:49 strongwind wrote: dude, I'm still waiting for my flying car to get here.
That's more impractical than it is impossible. Consider the number of car crashes that happen in a year. Now can you imagine if people had flying cars, and got drunk all the time, and then had crashes up in the sky?
It would definitely cut down on the Earth's population quite rapidly. There're just too many safety issues to deal with, when it comes to flying cars.
Before this is made possible, it has to be made relatively safe for people, such that not every single crash will end up in death (as would happen with most plane collisions I would imagine).
I can't believe you talk seriously about some statement like this. I mean, it's just a statement!! Nothing more. When I saw the thread title I thought about some scientific method discovered that could lead to something, but it turns out it's just - well. This thread should be closed.
On September 30 2009 22:57 arbiter_md wrote: I can't believe you talk seriously about some statement like this. I mean, it's just a statement!! Nothing more. When I saw the thread title I thought about some scientific method discovered that could lead to something, but it turns out it's just - well. This thread should be closed.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2009/02/03/470zombie_wideweb__470x325,0.jpg)
