Thread: Bull? or reality, what do you think

Actual immortality is impossible; at the very most it's going to be limited by the final state of the Universe.

But even if we did have an indefinite lifespan, death would still be possible. Actual immortality would be unbearable. An indefinite existence where you live as long as you want is completely different.

Yeah but this got me thinking
If this all becomes possible what will happen to us all. We would be able to change the color of our eyes, be able to change our phisical features and tone our bodies using these robots.
Imagine a world were everyone is beautiful, everyone can run as fast as usain bolt. Everyone can jump higher than Michael jordan..
Show bizz wouldnt exist anymore because stars would just be as rich as the next guy, kobe bryant and all them would stop playing because people would be better than them, models wont exist because everyone is prettier than they are.
pretty fucked up if you ask me.

So what if everyone is beautiful? Currently it's only available if you win the genetic lottery, the same with being an amazing sprinter or whatever.

But even if everyone had the same physical abilities, that doesn't mean there isn't scope for differentiation; some might have better technique for example.

Originally Posted by Mark75

If you're fine dying at 70-80, that's your deal. Some of us wouldn't mind living longer. Accept it as it comes but there's no reason a human "should" die at around the age we tend to die now.

A world where we get to be what we want, that levels the playing field between who would otherwise be (and presently are (often)) pretentious overpaid dreck. Yeah, what a shame. We'd probably have to start judging people based on the content of their character, too.

Character flaws will be fixed in the next update.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

But even if everyone had the same physical abilities, that doesn't mean there isn't scope for differentiation; some might have better technique for example.

Technique is available in the downloadable software upgrade.




The only deciding factor will be how much money someone has when the technology first becomes available. Successful people will get the technology and will instantly be so much better in every way than people who can't afford it that those who can't initially afford it will never have a chance to catch up. The rich/poor class structure will effectively become an evolutionary dividing point and those of us who don't have the cash will be left behind. Either that or the technology will be distributed freely as a way to control the people's bodies from the inside. In this scenario, we will all essentially become slave robots controlled by whoever controls the programming.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Character flaws will be fixed in the next update.

A society of wise, kind, beautiful, level-headed, disease-free individuals? Horrors! Whatever shall we do?

Why would you want to live for an extra 40 years? To live and be 140 or 150..your going to be old as crap.

Your Viagra will no longer work( if you can even get hard at all anymore), food won't taste as good, you'd probably have the worse case of Alzheimer. Life would just plain suck.

I wouldn't want to be immortal, this life is stressful enough as it is. I'd rather just live the natural way and die and 70 or 80 years old with a bottle of liquor in hand in a rocking chair LOL

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Why would you want to live for an extra 40 years? To live and be 140 or 150..your going to be old as crap.

Your Viagra will no longer work( if you can even get hard at all anymore), food won't taste as good, you'd probably have the worse case of Alzheimer. Life would just plain suck.

I wouldn't want to be immortal, this life is stressful enough as it is. I'd rather just live the natural way and die and 70 or 80 years old with a bottle of liquor in hand in a rocking chair LOL

You really are an idiot, aren't you? We're talking eternal youth here. The nanobots repair the cells in your body at the same rate you could on your own when you were 20 or so. You're not going to look like some old hag; nay, you'll look like you did in your prime.

The fact that we can direct small particles at diseased tissue by no means presages the kind of self-directing, self-replicating nanobots in Blood Music (the godfather of nano-fic), much less the democratization of such a technology if it did appear. Just consider for a moment the complexity of what "repairing cell damage" actually means. How many kinds of cell in your body? How many kinds of damage can they take? How many kinds of harmful and beneficial particles and biotica floating around in you? We're not going to come up with something small enough to navigate our tissues, smart enough to make these distinctions, and versatile enough to address the 'damage' (i.e. natural dissolution of perishable forms) in the next 40 years or the next 400. Sorry to break it to you, but you're still going to die, and probably in the next 40-60 years.

Also, for those who like nanotech in sci fi, if you haven't read Blood Music by Greg Bear, consider yourself illiterate in the genre. Another great but less exposed nano not-exactly-an-apocalypse is Kathleen Ann Goonan's Queen City Jazz. That one is set in kind of a nearer-future version of the world in Miyazaki's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

There really no such thing as a natural way to die. I mean you can get mauled by a bear, and then the natural thing to do is bleed to death. Most people are not for bleeding to death, when you can heal someone.

Natural, is anything normal humans can do.

Originally Posted by Alric

There really no such thing as a natural way to die. I mean you can get mauled by a bear, and then the natural thing to do is bleed to death. Most people are not for bleeding to death, when you can heal someone.

Natural, is anything normal humans can do.

True, every way to die is natural. Failing to do so within 120 years of one's birth is not, nor is it something any of us have to worry about.

Death is absolutely necessary to humanity's continued progress and survival. It is not a problem. Immortality, or indefinite life spans, would be a serious problem. Let's say the tiny immortality unicorns do grace us with their presence in 2040. Do you think people will have significantly slowed down making babies? Will we have off-world colonies developed to an extent that a significant number of people will want to move there? Regardless of how nice an off-world colony we have, do you think enough people to make a dent in world population would want to leave earth for good, ever? That's about enough for armageddon right there, and doesn't scratch the surface. Humanity would never survive conquering death.

Couldn't be bothered to read through all the posts so apologies if this has already been said but: it ain't gonna happen.

I'm doing a 'history of AI' course for my computing/philosophy degree at uni. And i think you can draw some interesting parallels. In the 50s experts in the field thought they were twenty years away from having AI that could think and act like a human (essentialy beat the 'turing test'). We're still nowhere near that level of tech even 60 years on.

I think that they going to hit a brick wall in the development of these kinds of machines like they have in AI and in another 50/60 years people will still be waiting around for their immortality producing nanobots

Originally Posted by SilverBells

Couldn't be bothered to read through all the posts so apologies if this has already been said but: it ain't gonna happen.

I'm doing a 'history of AI' course for my computing/philosophy degree at uni. And i think you can draw some interesting parallels. In the 50s experts in the field thought they were twenty years away from having AI that could think and act like a human (essentialy beat the 'turing test'). We're still nowhere near that level of tech even 60 years on.

I think that they going to hit a brick wall in the development of these kinds of machines like they have in AI and in another 50/60 years people will still be waiting around for their immortality producing nanobots

While I do agree we're nowhere near having "immortality producing nanobots", I don't think you can draw the parallel between AI research and nanotechnology.

AI research has conceptual problems, nanotech has technical problems. You can get better at solving technical problems incrementally, but you need a paradigm-shifting idea to solve a conceptual problem.

Laws of physics and chemistry at nano-scale are well understood. Most nanotech solutions for health problems are coming, and will continue to come, from mimicking biological systems. There is also a possibility of making hybrid solutions, like nanoparticle-antibody conjugates.

Simulating intelligence and consciousness is hard because no one knows exactly how to define them or how they work.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

While I do agree we're nowhere near having "immortality producing nanobots", I don't think you can draw the parallel between AI research and nanotechnology.

AI research has conceptual problems, nanotech has technical problems. You can get better at solving technical problems incrementally, but you need a paradigm-shifting idea to solve a conceptual problem.

Laws of physics and chemistry at nano-scale are well understood. Most nanotech solutions for health problems are coming, and will continue to come, from mimicking biological systems. There is also a possibility of making hybrid solutions, like nanoparticle-antibody conjugates.

Simulating intelligence and consciousness is hard because no one knows exactly how to define them or how they work.

Good point. I was thinking about the 'hollywood' concept of nanoparticles as tiny conscious robots. Whereas they're nothing like that. And they're quite often made with biological components

Well if we could live forever, we would advance even faster than we already are, which is very fast. We would have a larger and larger group of scientist and stuff, and people working on the problems. We could overcome any of the other problems as well.

Though come to think about it. A 500 year old politician would suck.

Not to mention, the population explosion and virtual halt of human evolution as we know it... Armageddon, anyone?

Originally Posted by SilverBells

Couldn't be bothered to read through all the posts so apologies if this has already been said but: it ain't gonna happen.

I'm doing a 'history of AI' course for my computing/philosophy degree at uni. And i think you can draw some interesting parallels. In the 50s experts in the field thought they were twenty years away from having AI that could think and act like a human (essentialy beat the 'turing test'). We're still nowhere near that level of tech even 60 years on.

I think that they going to hit a brick wall in the development of these kinds of machines like they have in AI and in another 50/60 years people will still be waiting around for their immortality producing nanobots

However, one thing that is worth bearing in mind is that knowledge (and technology) is growing exponentially. New technology drives more innovation and allows faster research in other areas. More storage and better communication allows better synergy and cooperation. The increase in computing power and space plays a large part here; the gains over the past 20 years are staggering.

Maybe the whole nanobot thing won't work out, or if it does, it might take longer to develop. But you have to remember that what we know of biology demonstrates that self-replication, self-repair, and so on are possible at the kinds of scales we are talking about here; our bodies do it all the time. Let's also not forget about other medical advances.

Sure, sometimes future predictions are completely wrong, though in a lot of cases this is because the predictions were exaggerated too far. If you extrapolate from current technology in a reasonable manner (larger timeframes, more conservative estimates, using more data/fields), then many of the predictions aren't so nonsensical after all.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well if we could live forever, we would advance even faster than we already are, which is very fast. We would have a larger and larger group of scientist and stuff, and people working on the problems. We could overcome any of the other problems as well.

If one could expect such an effect in the fantasy world where lifespan becomes indefinite for much or all of the population, it wouldn't take place for minimum 20-30 years. The equally likely scenario is that it would become even more difficult for new blood to gain entry to research fields and the old guard will keep existing theories entrenched far longer, stagnating progress. The arrival of new generations and clearing away of old ones is vital to the persistence of civilization.

someone has been watching a little too much sci-fi tv and playing too many video games

Good points tao. While I also think that we are far from achieving immortality, if it is even possible, I think we are close to medical advances that will allow us to live 20 years longer...The average lifespan being 90-95. I mean, one day, probably not to far ahead they will be able to give you something that would clean out and repair your arteries, remove blockages, improve lung function...I would imagine cardiovascular solutions would be among the first to be developed as it one of the leading causes of death in the world.

I would expect at best continued incremental improvements in life expectancy with no large jumps.

Interesting snag from Wiki, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Spoiler for .:

Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth
Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 39 (to age 54)[7][8]
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age[9] 18
Bronze age, Sweden[10] 40-60
Classical Greece[11] 20-30
Classical Rome[12] 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America[13] 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate[14] 35+
The average lifespans of the elite class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East[15][16] and 69–75 in Islamic Spain.[17]
Medieval Britain[18][19] 20-30
Early 20th Century[20][21] 30-40 Current approx 65

Life expectancy has been all over the place throughout history, and the nation with the the most advanced medical technologies (the USA) has nowhere near the highest life expectancy, and in fact the most advanced Western cultures in any given era seem to lag behind their Eastern peers. So, the whole premise that advancing medical technologies are the primary cause and predictor of increased life expectancy may be flawed.

Obviously we are fairly far from living forever. However if you find technology to increase your life by 20 years, you have 20 years to find a way to increase your life 20 more years, which gives you 20 years to find a way to live 20 more years, and so on. Since technology in a lot of areas continues to become more and more advance exponentially, the speed you gain new medical technologies should at some point out pace aging.

Its just a question of, when that point is, and will humans eventually hit a wall where they can no longer advance. I personally don't think there is a limit on how much we can do. Its just a matter of gaining more knowledge before we can do it.

I was thinking about this the other day though. Why do people believe in immortality in afterlives, but think physical immortality is stupid? If you think you will learn everything in the physical world and so you don't want to live forever, doesn't the same apply to heaven? Won't you eventually get bored of heaven?

Originally Posted by Alric

Obviously we are fairly far from living forever. However if you find technology to increase your life by 20 years, you have 20 years to find a way to increase your life 20 more years, which gives you 20 years to find a way to live 20 more years, and so on. Since technology in a lot of areas continues to become more and more advance exponentially, the speed you gain new medical technologies should at some point out pace aging.

Its just a question of, when that point is, and will humans eventually hit a wall where they can no longer advance. I personally don't think there is a limit on how much we can do. Its just a matter of gaining more knowledge before we can do it.

I was thinking about this the other day though. Why do people believe in immortality in afterlives, but think physical immortality is stupid? If you think you will learn everything in the physical world and so you don't want to live forever, doesn't the same apply to heaven? Won't you eventually get bored of heaven?

Where's the evidence to suggest any such leaps in life expectancy?

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...unit=Y&tlen=47

Life expectancy has been rising at a fairly steady average of .2 years each year since 1968, for a grand total of 7.8 years gained. Since 1990, the rate is .16. Since 2000, .14. How far has medical science come in the last fifty years? Yet not once in that time have we seen the kind of jump you're suggesting.

But technology and biology are still pretty much a dichotomy, so the exponential growth of technology hasn't really affected lifespan yet. If that dichotomy is ever breached then things could change significantly.

And besides, you're not really thinking in biological timescales. The average human lifespan was less than half of ours for hundreds of thousands of years. The last couple of hundred years are miniscule in comparison.

That is why I said if. We don't currently use any of that sort of technology. Lets just use the nanotechnology for example. We are getting better and better at it, but they are still not currently used on anyone.

If it's never good enough to use in that way, well then nothing will happen. If however it is, and they can increase your life by repairing damage, you can reasonably expect that future advances will come quickly and that performance should improve quickly as well.

I'm tired of hearing about transhumanism. Blah, look for the mfoundation commercials on t.v., everyone is searching for the fountain of youth.

http://mfoundation.org/ Methuselah Foundation

Edit: I took a look at this guys wiki page, I can't tell which kind of crazy he is.

You know, I want to do die. Yeah, I might want like a robotic heart or lung, but not a lot of tiny robots in my freaking bloodstream. And, they would all be the number one cause of a zombie invasion. I mean, they could control us when we're dead, and they'd transfer to people through biting, since tey could go into the spit glands too...so no f*cking way. Wow, did I just type that?