This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you think humans will become immortal due to medical and technological leaps?

Scroll to see replies

RyanT

Doesn't he just look after a fruit fly experiment?

I'd rather pay attention to the biomedical researchers that are actually inventing the cybernetics rather then a speculator?

Not saying he doesn't have a place as an advocate but he certainly isn't the focus of the movement. He reminds me of Kevin Warwick. Quick to hoot his horn, but when you ask him what he has actually done it'll get a bit quiet.

He used to run Cambridge Universities fruit fly database which is what got him interested in the science of ageing, don't let his appearances fool you though he's actually a very clever and well read man on the subject. Due to his contributions to gerontology and his book (The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging) he was awarded a PhD by Cambridge in 2000. And he now runs the SENS Foundation.

Reply 41

derf1

Definitely not. If it was possible it would still be a bad, bad idea... would people stay at a fit and healthy age and age in proportion of how they usually do and just exist for a longer period of time or would they continue to be the physical age of 90 for 100s of years, being a massive financial burden to a state? A state where the majority of people are unable to work and stay alive, being supported by the fit minority wouldn't work

Reply 42

HumanNature1992

No i dont think so, especially when the environment gets too spoiled to maintain us as a race..

Reply 43

Phalanges

No. With every one advancement that saves a life there are at least ten which can end one.

Reply 44

HumanNature1992

G8D

Shut up.

Reply 45

AnonymousPenguin

RyanT

Why a small power source? We can just run the power through them. We do this with blood carrying nutrients anyway.

Reduce size for transistors to one atom or two? You do know how big cells are don't you? We're replacing cells, not atoms. I don't see why we can't use molecular scale computing to produce the output required. It's not impossible or too big to be solved - we've already got an answer staring at us in the face - the current system! As a bare minimum you can just copy it but get rid of any elements that will cause ageing. Big deal?

Well the problem is that we'd need a considerable amount of processing power to analyze a neuron and then replicate that. Such an amount of processing power using current binary processors requires a fair amount of transistors. If they're not impossibly tiny, then we can't have smart nano-robots.

More realistically we'd have to find a way to keep telomeres from shortening and the closest thing we have to that are stem cells, but we've hardly made sufficient progress to be anywhere near using stem-cells for lots of organs.

Reply 46

Mc'Lovin

Seeing as many of you believe that we can become immortal. Do you think we can ever bring back the dead?

Reply 47

sadder

It depends what one counts as oneself. Me now and me when I am 40 are probably different people. Me now and me at 500 would almost certainly be strangers - would I recognize or share any character traits with something I was many current generations away from. Would having mechanical bodies change our nature, e.g. a lack of naturally produced hormones hitting our head? Surely a 500 year life would lead to a different psych, a different morality, a different everything?

We may identify as being human in an immortal future, but I propose that an 'immortal man' would certainly not seem human to us now.

Reply 48

AnonymousPenguin

Mc'Lovin

Seeing as many of you believe that we can become immortal. Do you think we can ever bring back the dead?

Most certainly not. Decay starts pretty quickly and recovering a person would be impossible.

We might be able to make a clone in the future, but it wouldn't have the same memories. Even then, there wouldn't be enough viable DNA from the people who are dead right now (except in rare cases or for an enormous cost).

Reply 49

Maxy-Q.O.S

RyanT

We already do. Did you mean to say that the rate at which we add years on will exceed 1 with relation to the progression of time?

Naw I didn't mean to say that but that is a better way of putting it!! You are the daddy!! :wink:

Reply 50

sadder

I also assume that if people lived forever, or indefinately, the world would be a different place. If we could live for 500 years, maintained in machines, we could explore space and other galaxies first hand. If we can make machines make our brain feel 'x' or 'y' feeling with machines we won't need so many natural resources.

Relative immortality is probably the only thing that would mean economic equilibrium, or even no economics all together. Immortality and some form of communism go hand in hand.

Reply 51

Chibelta

RyanT

Imagine walking around stunning natural landscapes in South America and walk to the edge of the waterfall knowing you cannot die. It will enrich our experiences beyond our wildest imaginations. Also I would argue that any technology sufficiently advanced enough to keep us alive indefinitely is also advanced enough for us to choose our own deaths.

Wait, I'm pretty sure we would get bored after millions of years of diving off Niagra Falls - and it would hurt!!

But think, really, the world would go insane eventually. A couple of hundred years would be ok, I agree, because at least we would get a chance to do everything and have enough, but people would lose their minds.
We couldn't cope, as mere human beings, with the capacity of living "forever".

RyanT

No more people dying unnecessarily, but only when they wish their experience of this world to end.

The choice to end your life is not just "OK I've had enough now, see you peeps." This decision would be abused and eventually dominated by the state or whatever.

RyanT

We control the population. Everyone who becomes immortal must be sterilized (most likely, would be beyond being contained to a human body anyway) and then the population of mortals can also be controlled. Never heard of the one child policy? :rolleyes:

Yes, I have, but still eventually even with one child each, we would run out of land and eventually Universe if we never ever died!

The purpose of any life, is to breed and continue the race. We would be existing and feeding, but would not breeding? What purpose would we have other than to "dive off Niagra Falls"??

RyanT

I agree, but nobody ruled out having a healthy immortality did they?

I meant if we weren't immortal but with just long old-age lives. Our bodies would be frail but our minds not.

Reply 52

War

No. Anyone that says yes is actually amazingly retarded.

Reply 53

Aeolus

I hope so. :daydreaming:

Reply 54

samzurai

na if there truly is a god there will be always impossible barriers to overcome!

Reply 55

Aeolus

War

No. Anyone that says yes is actually amazingly retarded.

I bet your ignorant predecessors were saying the same thing about flying and walking on the moon. :giggle:

Reply 56

Aeolus

Chibelta

You assume we would be staying on Earth? :lolwut:

Reply 57

Madjackismad

Phalanges

No. With every one advancement that saves a life there are at least ten which can end one.

Nice to see you as a mod. :awesome:

Anyway, yes, I believe immortality is quite possible many many years down the line. Possibly by the end of this century.

Reply 58

Remarqable M

No, i hope not. Living forever is imposssible, even if you rejuvinate your organs the brain is still intact and will rapidly degrade over the years.

Reply 59

Chibelta

Aeolus

You assume we would be staying on Earth? :lolwut:

Well no, not initially, but what difference would it be being on a different planet?? The temperature, atmosphere and pressure etc would be different, but we would be still doing the same things?