EPTWill Science Unlock Immortality Before We Die? - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
xwoGworwaTsx
United States984 Posts
| ||
|
Emporium
England162 Posts
How long would it take to say get subject A to live, before they are known as Immortal. Or after that how long would it take before enough of a test was done, so that it wouold be safe to give to the population, these things aren't like tests that can be done at the moment bu only through a whole lifetime going and then SUBJECT A is deemed immortal. So everyone suggesting it could be done theoretically in our lifetime, is correct, but in practicality, no it won't happne for a very long time. Unless how science is tested changes radically. And before people suggest that that wouldn't be needed because you would be able to see at a cellular level the regeneration, that can already happen now in terms of technology. The issue would still be, will the cells keep regenerating, or will they just stop after a period, only through trials and re-trials would you know(Which would take lifetimes). SO the above would still have to happen. And secondly, whatever the cellular constuct is, how do we know it will work for all? It could be the only 5percent of the population could have it, all this talk of the rich and the poor is pretty much redundant, as at a cellular level, that would be where it is decided, not at a monetary one. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 05:27 Emporium wrote: Hmm, I think the actual question will be, when will we kno we have created a technology that can give immortality. ha! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On April 02 2013 05:27 Emporium wrote: Hmm, I think the actual question will be, when will we kno we have created a technology that can give immortality. How long would it take to say get subject A to live, before they are known as Immortal. Or after that how long would it take before enough of a test was done, so that it wouold be safe to give to the population, these things aren't like tests that can be done at the moment bu only through a whole lifetime going and then SUBJECT A is deemed immortal. So everyone suggesting it could be done theoretically in our lifetime, is correct, but in practicality, no it won't happne for a very long time. Unless how science is tested changes radically. And before people suggest that that wouldn't be needed because you would be able to see at a cellular level the regeneration, that can already happen now in terms of technology. The issue would still be, will the cells keep regenerating, or will they just stop after a period, only through trials and re-trials would you know(Which would take lifetimes). SO the above would still have to happen. And secondly, whatever the cellular constuct is, how do we know it will work for all? It could be the only 5percent of the population could have it, all this talk of the rich and the poor is pretty much redundant, as at a cellular level, that would be where it is decided, not at a monetary one. Well, the breakthrough I would imagine would be one where the problems with aging are fixed in small increments over time, so it wouldn't be necessary to test for immortality, because you would never really get there, you would just increase the maximum life span of humans faster than that lifespan runs out. Either that, or some miraculous fix which allows regeneration similarly to Turritopsis nutricula, and that shows that it wouldn't really be a problem on the cellular level. We are all humans, just like all Turritopsis nutricula are Turritopsis nutricula, it works for all of them as a species, so hopefully if such a solution was found, it would also work for the whole species. | ||
|
mythandier
United States828 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I don't think science will be our Savior from death. Diseases, parasites, and the rest combined with an unperfect human body will continue to limit average lifespan to below a hundred years. The closest we'll get is someone aged in a permanent comatose state with most bodily functions on machines having his/her lifespan extended a few years. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On April 02 2013 05:48 Danglars wrote: And this science is supposed to be different than religion? We see a slow progression in average lifespan, some progress on disease (though new ones evolve, and it remains expensive), and then we leap to immortality. I'd wager the blind faith here is that science will never be corrupted (politics, media), will always be questioned and confirmed, and the righteousness of millions dedicated enough to the pursuit of knowledge to purify the faith of others. I don't think science will be our Savior from death. Diseases, parasites, and the rest combined with an unperfect human body will continue to limit average lifespan to below a hundred years. The closest we'll get is someone aged in a permanent comatose state with most bodily functions on machines having his/her lifespan extended a few years. A valid belief. However, people 500 years ago would probably have the same belief, and would call you a liar if you told them we would have an average life expectancy of >80 years nowadays. Now, 30 years higher life expectancy might not be considered a massive jump over 500 years, but at the same time, technology is progressing faster and faster and has for quite some time. Some people believe there's a cap to this development, others do not. Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 05:55 Tobberoth wrote: Still, comparing it to religion might be taking it a bit far. walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion... grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it edit: you can't use this "in the past, people would have been surprised at how things have changed, so now things are also going to keep changing." what's going to REALLY surprise US is when things STOP changing. that would be the analogy here. "in the past, people used to think that they lived in a state of perpetual change. then it turned out that some things never change. surprise!" | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 02 2013 06:12 sam!zdat wrote: walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion... grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it Yes. I am suggesting some introspection for the posters here. Step back and consider what you accuse every religion on the planet of doing. Now, look at what you're typing now, in this thread. Maybe your superiority over the blind faith masses isn't quite as stark as it would seem. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 02 2013 06:18 Danglars wrote: Yes. I am suggesting some introspection for the posters here. Step back and consider what you accuse every religion on the planet of doing. Now, look at what you're typing now, in this thread. Maybe your superiority over the blind faith masses isn't quite as stark as it would seem. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.esdproducts.biz/ESD_Grounding/Garment_Table/Lab_Coat/Labcoat.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.mckaychurchgoods.com/3643.jpg) User was warned for this post (edit: spoilered image) | ||
|
KING CHARLIE :D
United States447 Posts
On April 01 2013 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: Yes...someone did already mention it. :p At any rate, was an interesting watch until the whole "bring back the dead" bit, which was interesting and a bit weird. Wow, i'm an idiot lol. I type out comments all the time and don't send them because I think i'm not contributing much, and then change my mind. Hopefully science comes up with a way to fix stupidity, or else i'm fucked. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On April 02 2013 06:12 sam!zdat wrote: walks like a religion, talks like a religion, promises immortality like a religion... grand narratives are grand narratives, my friend, no bones about it edit: you can't use this "in the past, people would have been surprised at how things have changed, so now things are also going to keep changing." what's going to REALLY surprise US is when things STOP changing. that would be the analogy here. "in the past, people used to think that they lived in a state of perpetual change. then it turned out that some things never change. surprise!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhDUuEWgMcA [Offtopic] Just stop with your nonsense. Science never "promised" immortality. The OP is just speculating if the current medical advancements will eventually lead to immortality. Besides, science has constantly evolved over the past 2000 years, continuously redefining our expectations of it, and expanding its own boundaries. If it weren't for science and its rapid progress, you wouldn't even be posting on this forum sitting in a corner of your house. Can you say the same about any religion? Has there been any evolution or any new knowledge about Christianity, Islam or any other major faith in 2000 years? The only thing religion promotes is blind hatred for people of other faiths (and non-conformists) and close minded faith in an unknown, intangible entity. Science is provable and tangible. It does not demand blind faith in vaguely defined constructs. Religion is the exact opposite. [/Offtopic] Now stop derailing this thread, and discuss the contents of the OP instead of using TL as your personal propaganda platform. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Quakecomm
United States344 Posts
| ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On April 02 2013 06:37 sam!zdat wrote: ^what vitriol. I'm sorry I insulted your religion I'm sorry you can't offer a coherent, well reasoned argument in defense of your own strongly-held beliefs. | ||
|
HoMM
Estonia636 Posts
On March 31 2013 13:56 ElvisWayCool wrote: Make everyone immortal, then make them sterile, then kill 1/3 of population. Problem solved? Just had to point out this brilliant gem, well played sir. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
The question of immortality/enlongated life is pretty interesting though. However, kind of redundant to pursue that aim when: 1. Resources are so badly distributed to our existing global population as it is. 2. Creating a sub-section of society who won't die out as easily will exacerbate the issues of the first point. If this technology ever advances, it's hardly the poor who will get to use it. For fuck's sake we live in a world where many of the poorest aren't afforded basic medical care, it's obscene to be advocating some kind of ageless world when we haven't fixed those glaring problems yet. These are of course issues of political and economic systems at work, and interesting research can go ahead into other 'trivial' matters independent of that. I for one do find it lifts my mood to hear of the world's most brilliant scientific minds solving such intractable issues, but let's fix the world for the little guys first huh? | ||
|
Griffins
United States98 Posts
Anyway, immortality is unachievable in absolute terms because not even the universe is immortal. Whether you believe in heat-death or the big crunch, it will all end someday. Our galaxy will collide with Andromeda in some billion years, tossing us someplace uninhabitable. That's if our sun doesn't melt us before then. Put things in a cosmic scale and living 'forever' becomes a silly notion. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On April 02 2013 03:01 TSORG wrote: dying of old age is a multitude of deceases, including cancer. the freak thing about modern day age is that people seem to get cancer at a younger age (and it may actually be that we only notice this more often because of more people and better technology to spot it). otherwise people been getting cancer since the dawn of time. there are chromosomes which shorten over time and when they reach a certain point something that works as a sort of deathswitch flips on and the cells die. some cells regenerate, but the problem is that other cells, the most important cells do not seem to regenerate (aka braincells). Well, I'd consider biological immortality achieved if we can stop our genes from failing to copy some parts every time they reproduce. This would also get rid of "old age cancer" and stuff like that. | ||
| ||
