|
News Article
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.
|
i really hope this never happens
|
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.
|
Osaka27156 Posts
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 sounds awesome, hope he isnt just talking out of his ass
ill be like almost 40 by then though :C
|
I remember seeing this in a Batman animated series.
|
Is immortality even desirable?
|
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
|
On September 29 2009 17:42 Scorch wrote:
Is immortality even desirable?
it sure is for me
why wouldnt it be for you?
|
|
|
|
|
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...
|
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.
|
On September 29 2009 17:27 benjammin wrote:
i really hope this never happens
this
|
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 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.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
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.
|
On September 29 2009 17:48 JohnColtrane wrote:it sure is for me why wouldnt it be for you?
If you weren't 40 in 20 years you'd understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
