|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2016 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Cell division rates differ by cell type and I do believe the brain itself doesn't do it at all. so just fixing telomere wouldn't help us. Our body would last perhaps forever but the brain will still decay.
There's a lot more to living forever than just telomeres. It's pretty easy to get a cell to divide infinitely - the best known example being cancer cells (see HELA cells, which are detailed in the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which is a pretty good book). On the other hand, a complex organism composed of trillions of cells working together in very very specific ways is much more complicated.
|
On August 17 2016 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Cell division rates differ by cell type and I do believe the brain itself doesn't do it at all. so just fixing telomere wouldn't help us. Our body would last perhaps forever but the brain will still decay. I feel like the brain thing was one of those old "facts" that has changed since we've improved in medical science. Show nested quote +Researchers at Cornell University have demonstrated that cells from an area of the brain essential for learning and memory can regenerate in a laboratory dish. Source (it's Web MD but the research is from Cornell)You're right though that telemeres alone won't fix the mental side but there are promising possibilities on the horizon. That said, I think people live long enough, and I'd rather the US figure out how to make sure innocent kids aren't going to bed hungry in our own (wealthiest in the world) country first. As for "progressives who get things done": Hooray for more fracking! Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:14 JumboJohnson wrote:
It fed my family when I was growing up. Congratulations?
If only she could be believed to support fracking if elected. That would be a hell of a silver lining if Trump loses.
|
On August 17 2016 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2016 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Cell division rates differ by cell type and I do believe the brain itself doesn't do it at all. so just fixing telomere wouldn't help us. Our body would last perhaps forever but the brain will still decay. I feel like the brain thing was one of those old "facts" that has changed since we've improved in medical science. Researchers at Cornell University have demonstrated that cells from an area of the brain essential for learning and memory can regenerate in a laboratory dish. Source (it's Web MD but the research is from Cornell)You're right though that telemeres alone won't fix the mental side but there are promising possibilities on the horizon. That said, I think people live long enough, and I'd rather the US figure out how to make sure innocent kids aren't going to bed hungry in our own (wealthiest in the world) country first. As for "progressives who get things done": https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/765559942145187840Hooray for more fracking! On August 17 2016 04:14 JumboJohnson wrote:
It fed my family when I was growing up. Congratulations? If only she could be believed to support fracking if elected. That would be a hell of a silver lining if Trump loses.
She'll support fracking alright, why wouldn't she? She already tried to convince other parts of the world to frack more.
Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Show
Sleep easy dear Danglars, you'll get your fracking whether it's Trump or Hillary.
|
On August 17 2016 04:14 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:On August 17 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Cell division rates differ by cell type and I do believe the brain itself doesn't do it at all. so just fixing telomere wouldn't help us. Our body would last perhaps forever but the brain will still decay. There's a lot more to living forever than just telomeres. It's pretty easy to get a cell to divide infinitely - the best known example being cancer cells (see HELA cells, which are detailed in the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which is a pretty good book). On the other hand, a complex organism composed of trillions of cells working together in very very specific ways is much more complicated.
Oh certainly, if it were easy we would have done it by now :p
My initial post about telomeres was in response to someone saying that living forever (or atleast very long) was utter fantasy. I certainly would not say we are close by any means but science isn't blindly looking, we have some concept of the factors that determine aging.
|
Norway28876 Posts
I think fracking is likely to be pretty high up on the list over things she's willing to concede in political dealership. I don't have data for this, but it's kinda my impression that people who like fracking like fracking more than people who hate fracking hate it.
|
I see no reason why Clinton wouldn’t support fracking, with reasonable regulations. That industry is very much about blaming anyone but fracking for any problems created by fracking, so they need a heavy hand to keep them from fucking shit up.
|
On August 17 2016 03:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2016 01:53 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then. But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything. This is a pretty arbitrary claim. You are making the claim that we will never understand certain things because they're complicated and we don't currently understand them. That has in no way stopped us before. The last 200 years of progress in the medical field alone i absolutely astounding and dwarfs the progress from the previous 10,000 years. Yes but the things we don't yet understand are the most complex. So it is possible there are things we will never conquer. Economics being another one. Why are there so many disagreements on economic policy? It's a very unsettled matter. Human society is too complex. Again, you don't really have an argument here. "We won't understand it because we don't understand it" doesn't rest on any real logical assumptions. It's just a fear of the unknown. Theoretically, there may be some things that we will never understand, but it's also just as likely that we will understand those things eventually. There's no evidence that anything out there (that is capable of being empirically observed and tested) is too complicated for society to ever understand. Show nested quote +Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Immortality is a lot more complex than just keeping telomerase going, but yes, that's the basis of it. It shows us that the science of aging (or not aging) is definitely something that is measurable and that we can probably manipulate within the next 100 years.
By your logic the whole discussion is a non-argument, which could be the case. Each of us is making a prediction about the future, with each of our predictions apparently being equally likely. Unless you're not actually saying we CAN know everything, you're just saying my statement has no evidence.
And obviously, my argument is not saying the only reason we can't know everything is because we don't now.
|
On August 17 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:
I see no reason why Clinton wouldn’t support fracking, with reasonable regulations. That industry is very much about blaming anyone but fracking for any problems created by fracking, so they need a heavy hand to keep them from fucking shit up.
Those reasonable regulations are the problem. its not like there isn't a big lobby behind it to buy whatever outcome they want.
(unless public opinion is big enough to dissuade politicians from going against it).
|
On August 17 2016 04:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 03:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2016 01:53 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then. But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything. This is a pretty arbitrary claim. You are making the claim that we will never understand certain things because they're complicated and we don't currently understand them. That has in no way stopped us before. The last 200 years of progress in the medical field alone i absolutely astounding and dwarfs the progress from the previous 10,000 years. Yes but the things we don't yet understand are the most complex. So it is possible there are things we will never conquer. Economics being another one. Why are there so many disagreements on economic policy? It's a very unsettled matter. Human society is too complex. Again, you don't really have an argument here. "We won't understand it because we don't understand it" doesn't rest on any real logical assumptions. It's just a fear of the unknown. Theoretically, there may be some things that we will never understand, but it's also just as likely that we will understand those things eventually. There's no evidence that anything out there (that is capable of being empirically observed and tested) is too complicated for society to ever understand. Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Immortality is a lot more complex than just keeping telomerase going, but yes, that's the basis of it. It shows us that the science of aging (or not aging) is definitely something that is measurable and that we can probably manipulate within the next 100 years. By your logic the whole discussion is a non-argument, which could be the case. Each of us is making a prediction about the future, with each of our predictions apparently being equally likely. Unless you're not actually saying we CAN know everything, you're just saying my statement has no evidence.
So far humanity has solved pretty much any scientific problem put in front of it, given time. There is no reason to believe this problem will be any different. The only question is how long it will take.
|
United States44253 Posts
It's no worse than most of the other ways we get oil. Oil sands are hopelessly inefficient and deep sea drilling has had catastrophic failures recently. Oh, and writing a blank check to Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela etc hasn't exactly been great policy either. Although Norway is okay, apart from their dragonlike tendency to hoard all those $ instead of buying American goods with them like good little capitalists.
If fracking is still profitable after forcing the companies to pay for the externalities then by all means go for it.
|
On August 17 2016 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:33 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 03:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2016 01:53 Doodsmack wrote:On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then. But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything. This is a pretty arbitrary claim. You are making the claim that we will never understand certain things because they're complicated and we don't currently understand them. That has in no way stopped us before. The last 200 years of progress in the medical field alone i absolutely astounding and dwarfs the progress from the previous 10,000 years. Yes but the things we don't yet understand are the most complex. So it is possible there are things we will never conquer. Economics being another one. Why are there so many disagreements on economic policy? It's a very unsettled matter. Human society is too complex. Again, you don't really have an argument here. "We won't understand it because we don't understand it" doesn't rest on any real logical assumptions. It's just a fear of the unknown. Theoretically, there may be some things that we will never understand, but it's also just as likely that we will understand those things eventually. There's no evidence that anything out there (that is capable of being empirically observed and tested) is too complicated for society to ever understand. Just wanted to say on why people want to have kids, a lot of people don't but have them anyway.
Teen moms have a rate of ~75% unintended pregnancies, 20-24 about 50% and over that about 25% of people are reproducing on accident.
That's several million people that weren't even intended to be in this generation. Also I'd agree with Drone's point on bad ideas dying with the people who clung to them. As for immortality, isn't it just a matter of getting our telomere's to not wear out? If we fix that the rest of keeping the body alive happens on it's own iirc. Of course I don't think we know how long an organ or whatever will last given consistent DNA replication. Immortality is a lot more complex than just keeping telomerase going, but yes, that's the basis of it. It shows us that the science of aging (or not aging) is definitely something that is measurable and that we can probably manipulate within the next 100 years. By your logic the whole discussion is a non-argument, which could be the case. Each of us is making a prediction about the future, with each of our predictions apparently being equally likely. Unless you're not actually saying we CAN know everything, you're just saying my statement has no evidence. So far humanity has solved pretty much any scientific problem put in front of it, given time. There is no reason to believe this problem will be any different. The only question is how long it will take.
There is reason to believe this problem will be different if it is more complex than those in the past.
|
On August 17 2016 04:41 Doodsmack wrote:
There is reason to believe this problem will be different if it is more complex than those in the past.
Every scientific problem has been more complex than the problems that came before it.
You've basically decided on some arbitrary upper limit on how complex of a problem humans can solve without any real argument for why you feel the upper limit is there when there's no such indication such an upper limit exists.
Again, the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate. These people don't even have to be alive at the same time since all work you've done can be recorded for the next generation to use. So as long as humans continue existing and continue to record their scientific work, they can solve problems of arbitrarily-high complexity given enough generations of scientists successively tackling the problem.
|
On August 17 2016 04:48 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:41 Doodsmack wrote:
There is reason to believe this problem will be different if it is more complex than those in the past. Every scientific problem has been more complex than the problems that came before it. You've basically decided on some arbitrary upper limit on how complex of a problem humans can solve without any real argument for why you feel the upper limit is there when there's no such indication such an upper limit exists (and again, the ability for an arbitrarily large number of people to collaborate on solving a problem by tackling individually-manageable problems. Again, the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate. These people don't even have to be alive at the same time since all work you've done can be recorded for the next generation to use. So as long as humans continue existing and continue to record their scientific work, they can solve problems of arbitrarily-high complexity given enough generations of scientists successively tackling the problem.
Eliminating the concept of death is an issue that goes beyond science into the ethical and cultural. Death is part of the human experience and ability legal or ethical idea how to deal with someone who will never die of natural causes.
The same problem would arise if we could download, fabricate or erase human memories. These are concepts that go beyond science.
|
On August 17 2016 04:54 Plansix wrote:
Eliminating the concept of death is an issue that goes beyond science into the ethical and cultural. Death is part of the human experience and ability legal or ethical idea how to deal with someone who will never die of natural causes.
The same problem would arise if we could download, fabricate or erase human memories. These are concepts that go beyond science.
Sure, I agree with that, but that's not related to what Doodsmack has been arguing. His original statement wasn't even directed specifically at our discussion of immortality, but generalizing the idea that "there are problems too complex for humans to ever understand".
|
"the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate"
This is just you making a declaration, like me. And by the way, there are scientific problems that have not been solved. Why does cancer have a million different treatments for every different type of cancer? And different types are treated differently? And results with any given individual are unpredictable? Because the human body is ridiculously complex. How close are we to understanding consciousness?
|
On August 17 2016 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:30 Plansix wrote:
I see no reason why Clinton wouldn’t support fracking, with reasonable regulations. That industry is very much about blaming anyone but fracking for any problems created by fracking, so they need a heavy hand to keep them from fucking shit up. Those reasonable regulations are the problem. its not like there isn't a big lobby behind it to buy whatever outcome they want. (unless public opinion is big enough to dissuade politicians from going against it).
And I think hiring someone who makes the statement "there's not a single case where fracking has created an environmental problem" shows where she's actually going to line up on the issue despite the rhetoric.
|
On August 17 2016 04:55 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:54 Plansix wrote:
Eliminating the concept of death is an issue that goes beyond science into the ethical and cultural. Death is part of the human experience and ability legal or ethical idea how to deal with someone who will never die of natural causes.
The same problem would arise if we could download, fabricate or erase human memories. These are concepts that go beyond science.
Sure, I agree with that, but that's not related to what Doodsmack has been arguing. His original statement wasn't even directed specifically at our discussion of immortality, but generalizing the idea that "there are problems too complex for humans to ever understand".
His original statement says “this problem will be to complex.” I think he is specifically talking about advances that prolong life beyond a normal life span.
|
i am not sure why we are focussing so much on biological aging, when it is quite conceivable that we will solve immortality first by brain computer interfacing technology
|
On August 17 2016 04:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:48 TheYango wrote:On August 17 2016 04:41 Doodsmack wrote:
There is reason to believe this problem will be different if it is more complex than those in the past. Every scientific problem has been more complex than the problems that came before it. You've basically decided on some arbitrary upper limit on how complex of a problem humans can solve without any real argument for why you feel the upper limit is there when there's no such indication such an upper limit exists (and again, the ability for an arbitrarily large number of people to collaborate on solving a problem by tackling individually-manageable problems. Again, the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate. These people don't even have to be alive at the same time since all work you've done can be recorded for the next generation to use. So as long as humans continue existing and continue to record their scientific work, they can solve problems of arbitrarily-high complexity given enough generations of scientists successively tackling the problem. Eliminating the concept of death is an issue that goes beyond science into the ethical and cultural. Death is part of the human experience and ability legal or ethical idea how to deal with someone who will never die of natural causes. The same problem would arise if we could download, fabricate or erase human memories. These are concepts that go beyond science.
we already some about how to fabricate human memories, and can do so to a limited degree. There's some good studies and experiments that show how to do it. we also can do limited approximate erasure (with serious side effects of course).
|
There was an article about using “younger blood” to counter act some signs of aging. And that billionaire and free speech lover-as-long-as-its-not-against-him Peter Thiel was all about that young blood.
And it seems more viable than computer based brains right now.
On August 17 2016 05:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:54 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2016 04:48 TheYango wrote:On August 17 2016 04:41 Doodsmack wrote:
There is reason to believe this problem will be different if it is more complex than those in the past. Every scientific problem has been more complex than the problems that came before it. You've basically decided on some arbitrary upper limit on how complex of a problem humans can solve without any real argument for why you feel the upper limit is there when there's no such indication such an upper limit exists (and again, the ability for an arbitrarily large number of people to collaborate on solving a problem by tackling individually-manageable problems. Again, the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate. These people don't even have to be alive at the same time since all work you've done can be recorded for the next generation to use. So as long as humans continue existing and continue to record their scientific work, they can solve problems of arbitrarily-high complexity given enough generations of scientists successively tackling the problem. Eliminating the concept of death is an issue that goes beyond science into the ethical and cultural. Death is part of the human experience and ability legal or ethical idea how to deal with someone who will never die of natural causes. The same problem would arise if we could download, fabricate or erase human memories. These are concepts that go beyond science. we already some about how to fabricate human memories, and can do so to a limited degree. There's some good studies and experiments that show how to do it. we also can do limited approximate erasure (with serious side effects of course).
Yeah, we are super fucked. I look forward to the cyberpunk dystopia we are charge towards at an alarming rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
