This is a simple question that could turn into a very complex and prediction-based answer, but I just wanted to know the opinion of some others. Google's Engineering Director Ray Kurzweil says that it will be possible in the 2030's, and so does futuretimeline.net (Which, admittedly, is mostly predictions). The cause of aging is the shortening of telomeres on the tips of DNA, which occurs over time. Do you think that the lengthening/regrowth of these telomeres could lead to immortality or even just a longer life?
Telomeres aren't necessarily the only cause of aging in humans. And even if telomeres were able to be lengthened, I'm sure that's just a small part of the degradation process that human hearts go through during the span of 70-80 years. I also feel like there would be quite a few ethical concerns within the medical community and the general populus over whether it is humane to let someone live on while their body withers to dust. Unless of course we found out new ways to repair old broken bodies.
I have my doubts on biological/physical immortality. We can likely extend things to several times current lifespans (maybe even 10-20 times), but unless we develop means of swapping out parts things various bits are going to wear out (that still leaves the issue of ethical sourcing of replacement parts).
Overall things look more promising if you focus on trying to emulate neural patterns via technological means (including but not limited to silicon-based tech). Sure, eventual heat death will catch up, but a few hundred trillion years is "close enough" to immortality and at that point there isn't much else happening anyway (as there would be no more stars to make interesting things happen, though black holes still could provide energy gradients to 'live' off of). Supposing you can reliably port a consciousness to new hardware as needed, you could have a form of cognitive immortality (and backups!).
The real upside to ditching biological forms is they are fragile and are very limited in what conditions they can withstand (human bodies can only handle a few G's of acceleration, have issues in low G environments, can only survive in a narrow and relatively rare temperature and pressure ranges, limited atmospheric compositions, sensitivity to ionising radiation, etc.). Far more adaptable options exist if you can build a physical form to spec. Sure machines can break too, but they can be designed for repairs/replacements unlike biological ones. If we are going to ever venture into intergalactic travel, I would almost say it is a must. Certainly required if we plan to try to exist after the Stelliferous era.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
I see the more possibility of importing your personality into a mechanical device. Like the plot of SOMA, our biological bodies are literally impossible to last forever, they'll fail eventually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you match my resolve? If so then you will succeed. - Monty Oum
Yea I had the feeling that no matter how many times we swap out body parts we'll eventually have to deal with failing bodies. If immortality were to be a possibility it will most likely be through the use of machines. I like to be optimistic but human bodies aren't really made to survive thousands of years.
Back to the immortality caused by machines, I wonder if people would even allow it simply for ethical reasons. I'm sure many religious leaders and religious people in general would see it is as against God and not moral. So maybe immortality through the use of machines is possible, but you'd have to get through hordes of people who don't agree with the idea. Some groups and governments might not like the idea, so I doubt the average person would even see immortality as a possibility in their life.
not trying to be a downer or anything like that but once we get people living forever the world is going to become more and more populated as it seems like we already have a massive population which keeps growing and then to have people living forever will be a massive drain on the planet, as we already are draining it dry.
to be honest i don't think living for every will happen, slowing the aging process yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"good night, good luck" -dying light
i think we should all use common sense and logic when we answer and ask a question but always stay open minded
just cause science fails to explain something does not mean its real (afterlife,big foot, ghosts etc..) does not mean its fake try to stay opened mined instead of closed
Larger populations can be sustained, and not wreck things. Current issues of shortages and collateral environmental damage are almost purely political/economic and entirely self-created. Population growth for the developed world is slowing, an in many first world countries immigration is the only reason populations are still going up (and some are even in decline despite it). There is no reason to think that similar trends will not happen as we raise standards of living elsewhere and secure proper healthcare and reliable birth control for all (the number of pregnancies that are unplanned is still shockingly high). Lower population growth rates combined with better techniques to utilize the resources we have should give us enough time to work on expanding out presence to more than just one tiny little mudball.
Really if we didn't die, there is very little reason to reproduce (if the improved forms even had the capability to).
The ethics will be debated, but I'm fairly sure that no decent argument against it will be found. However, yes, it will delay things a bit. Delay or not, I don't expect to see it soon, but it is really only a question of "when." The only "if" isn't a question of eventually capability but rather our survival as a species long enough to make it to then "when."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
not trying to be a downer or anything like that but once we get people living forever the world is going to become more and more populated as it seems like we already have a massive population which keeps growing and then to have people living forever will be a massive drain on the planet, as we already are draining it dry.
to be honest i don't think living for every will happen, slowing the aging process yes.
Why do you think we're hunting for habitable worlds?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you match my resolve? If so then you will succeed. - Monty Oum
This is a simple question that could turn into a very complex and prediction-based answer, but I just wanted to know the opinion of some others. Google's Engineering Director Ray Kurzweil says that it will be possible in the 2030's, and so does futuretimeline.net (Which, admittedly, is mostly predictions). The cause of aging is the shortening of telomeres on the tips of DNA, which occurs over time. Do you think that the lengthening/regrowth of these telomeres could lead to immortality or even just a longer life?
Telomeres aren't necessarily the only cause of aging in humans. And even if telomeres were able to be lengthened, I'm sure that's just a small part of the degradation process that human hearts go through during the span of 70-80 years. I also feel like there would be quite a few ethical concerns within the medical community and the general populus over whether it is humane to let someone live on while their body withers to dust. Unless of course we found out new ways to repair old broken bodies.
I have my doubts on biological/physical immortality. We can likely extend things to several times current lifespans (maybe even 10-20 times), but unless we develop means of swapping out parts things various bits are going to wear out (that still leaves the issue of ethical sourcing of replacement parts).
Overall things look more promising if you focus on trying to emulate neural patterns via technological means (including but not limited to silicon-based tech). Sure, eventual heat death will catch up, but a few hundred trillion years is "close enough" to immortality and at that point there isn't much else happening anyway (as there would be no more stars to make interesting things happen, though black holes still could provide energy gradients to 'live' off of). Supposing you can reliably port a consciousness to new hardware as needed, you could have a form of cognitive immortality (and backups!).
The real upside to ditching biological forms is they are fragile and are very limited in what conditions they can withstand (human bodies can only handle a few G's of acceleration, have issues in low G environments, can only survive in a narrow and relatively rare temperature and pressure ranges, limited atmospheric compositions, sensitivity to ionising radiation, etc.). Far more adaptable options exist if you can build a physical form to spec. Sure machines can break too, but they can be designed for repairs/replacements unlike biological ones. If we are going to ever venture into intergalactic travel, I would almost say it is a must. Certainly required if we plan to try to exist after the Stelliferous era.
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
I see the more possibility of importing your personality into a mechanical device. Like the plot of SOMA, our biological bodies are literally impossible to last forever, they'll fail eventually.
Yea I had the feeling that no matter how many times we swap out body parts we'll eventually have to deal with failing bodies. If immortality were to be a possibility it will most likely be through the use of machines. I like to be optimistic but human bodies aren't really made to survive thousands of years.
Back to the immortality caused by machines, I wonder if people would even allow it simply for ethical reasons. I'm sure many religious leaders and religious people in general would see it is as against God and not moral. So maybe immortality through the use of machines is possible, but you'd have to get through hordes of people who don't agree with the idea. Some groups and governments might not like the idea, so I doubt the average person would even see immortality as a possibility in their life.
not trying to be a downer or anything like that but once we get people living forever the world is going to become more and more populated as it seems like we already have a massive population which keeps growing and then to have people living forever will be a massive drain on the planet, as we already are draining it dry.
to be honest i don't think living for every will happen, slowing the aging process yes.
"good night, good luck" -dying light
i think we should all use common sense and logic when we answer and ask a question but always stay open minded
just cause science fails to explain something does not mean its real (afterlife,big foot, ghosts etc..) does not mean its fake try to stay opened mined instead of closed
Larger populations can be sustained, and not wreck things. Current issues of shortages and collateral environmental damage are almost purely political/economic and entirely self-created. Population growth for the developed world is slowing, an in many first world countries immigration is the only reason populations are still going up (and some are even in decline despite it). There is no reason to think that similar trends will not happen as we raise standards of living elsewhere and secure proper healthcare and reliable birth control for all (the number of pregnancies that are unplanned is still shockingly high). Lower population growth rates combined with better techniques to utilize the resources we have should give us enough time to work on expanding out presence to more than just one tiny little mudball.
Really if we didn't die, there is very little reason to reproduce (if the improved forms even had the capability to).
The ethics will be debated, but I'm fairly sure that no decent argument against it will be found. However, yes, it will delay things a bit. Delay or not, I don't expect to see it soon, but it is really only a question of "when." The only "if" isn't a question of eventually capability but rather our survival as a species long enough to make it to then "when."
UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
Why do you think we're hunting for habitable worlds?
When discussing immortality and technology I always refer to this video.
- C.C.