Curing aging – feasibility and desirability

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Mortein

We all grew up believing how growing old and dying around the age of 70-80 is unavoidable fact, and that fighting aging would be a futile attempt. But what I discovered is that there is a growing field of research, applying various approaches in order to defeat or postpone aging. After reading some books and watching countless videos I’ve decided to start a discussion on our lovely comic book forum.

If you are not familiar with this field you can use these videos as a starter point of your research :

So after you've watched some or all of these videos answer these 2 questions:

So do you think it is feasible to do something about aging before the end of this century (or ever)?

Do you think that would be desirable?

Why?

List of companies working on defeating aging:

http://www.sens.org/

http://www.humanlongevity.com/

http://www.sierrasci.com/

http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/calico-announcement.html

http://www.calicolabs.com/

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/sinclair/

http://www.ellisonfoundation.org/

http://genopharmix.com/

Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#2  Edited By Bruxae

Unless we find a way to colonize other planets this is just a terrible idea, the world is already severly overpopulated and with diseases becoming curable and even aging potentially being stopped it's just gonna get alot worse for all of us.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
SaintWildcard

22298

Forum Posts

184

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 12

This honestly sounded like a spam title

Avatar image for comicstooge
ComicStooge

22063

Forum Posts

171

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Yeah, I'd be down for that.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Mortein

@bruxae said:

Unless we find a way to colonize other planets this is just a terrible idea, the world is already severly overpopulated and with diseases becoming curable and even aging potentially being stopped it's just gonna get alot worse for all of us.

We'll probably have to wait a few centuries before we can really colonise other planets, but before that happens we can endure by lowering the birth rate and increasing the Earth's carrying capacity with nuclear fusion, electric cars, better ways of producing food, water cleaning technologies etc..

We could make laws by which people will have to choose between reproducing and using rejuvenation technologies, or we could make 1 child per a family law. I think we have enough time to prepare, even the most optimistic prognosis put the emergence of these rejuvenation technologies couple of decades into the future.

Also it is important to put things into prospective and try to compare pros and cons of rejuvenation technologies.

Aging is the causing the most suffering and death in the world, and it is also economically extremely expensive.

Millions are dying each month and hundreds of millions are suffering each day due to aging, and unless we do something about aging, billions of people are certainly going to suffer and die before the end of this century.

Avatar image for robotindisguise
RobotinDisguise

68

Forum Posts

63

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Immortality through cybernetics is the answer.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Mortein
@robotindisguise said:

Immortality through cybernetics is the answer.

"Singularity is near" written by Ray Kurzweil is one of my favorite books, but I just don't believe in timeframes he gave there, I think we'll first have to postpone aging for a century or 2 via biological means in order to reach indefinite lifespan through cybernetics.

,

Avatar image for EvilTyger
Tyger

2926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Within this century? ... hmmm, no.

Should we do it? If it mean the possibility of colonizing Mars, sure. But, considering the massive hurdles, time is but a small one.

Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@mortein said:

@bruxae said:

Unless we find a way to colonize other planets this is just a terrible idea, the world is already severly overpopulated and with diseases becoming curable and even aging potentially being stopped it's just gonna get alot worse for all of us.

We'll probably have to wait a few centuries before we can really colonise other planets, but before that happens we can endure by lowering the birth rate and increasing the Earth's carrying capacity with nuclear fusion, electric cars, better ways of producing food, water cleaning technologies etc..

We could make laws by which people will have to choose between reproducing and using rejuvenation technologies, or we could make 1 child per a family law. I think we have enough time to prepare, even the most optimistic prognosis put the emergence of these rejuvenation technologies couple of decades into the future.

Also it is important to put things into prospective and try to compare pros and cons of rejuvenation technologies.

Aging is the causing the most suffering and death in the world, and it is also economically extremely expensive.

Millions are dying each month and hundreds of millions are suffering each day due to aging, and unless we do something about aging, billions of people are certainly going to suffer and die before the end of this century.

The problem with that is that limiting reproduction is nearly impossible to do, making 1 child per family a law is just a terrible idea since pregnacy is not always easily preventable and it would put terrible strain on people whether it's because they would be happier with more children or something else, people just would not want to go along with it, they -couldn't- always go along with it, let's say someone -does- have a second child, what then? Jail the parents for performing their most basic biological function? Kill the child? Forced abortions? I don't know but none of the options sound very attractive. I do think we should do our best to limit unwanted pregnacies as it is but enforcing it as law is not a good idea. Forcing people to choose would be a pretty terrible idea as well since it's basically telling them to not have more children or die.

People need to die to make room for new, that is the most basic law in nature. One could also argue the philosophical facts of the matter as in is it really right for us to sacrifice future generations and other species for our own selfishness? There's also religious aspects to consider (even though I am myself very anti-religion it would most certainly cause an argument). I am all for curing or atleast helping against painful diseases since nobody should have to suffer for no reason, but death as unattractive as it sounds for oneself is neccessary, at least for the moment.. Assuming the rest of the galaxy or a very large part of it is unoccupied then colonization is the only thing that could possibly make technical immortality a less bad idea.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Mortein

@bruxae said:

The problem with that is that limiting reproduction is nearly impossible to do, making 1 child per family a law is just a terrible idea since pregnacy is not always easily preventable and it would put terrible strain on people whether it's because they would be happier with more children or something else, people just would not want to go along with it, they -couldn't- always go along with it, let's say someone -does- have a second child, what then? Jail the parents for performing their most basic biological function? Kill the child? Forced abortions? I don't know but none of the options sound very attractive. I do think we should do our best to limit unwanted pregnacies as it is but enforcing it as law is not a good idea.

It would be hard, but not impossible. I can't know how exactly we're gonna do it, but perhaps we could make a law which would force those who have more than 1 child to pay higher taxes, and then we could use that money to increase carrying capacity of the Earth. And this would be only temporarily, they'll all be able to have as many kids as they want to as soon as we start colonising other planets. Think about how much more money we would invest into space exploration if this was the case.

. Forcing people to choose would be a pretty terrible idea as well since it's basically telling them to not have more children or die.

Option 1: you will suffer and die from aging regardless of whether you choose to reproduce or not. (this is what we have today)

Option 2: You will not die nor suffer from aging if you choose to postpone reproduction for a couple of centuries at most. (this is what we would have with rejuvenation technologies)

Option 2 is clearly a better option, I really don't see how can we even discuss this.


People need to die to make room for new, that is the most basic law in nature.

Pretty much all of human technology was about defying nature, taking what we have in nature and then "fixing" it to better fit our needs. In fact I would argue that this is a basic law of human nature, and it would be unnatural for us to have something which is obviously bad for us, like ill health of old age, and choose not to fix it.

One could also argue the philosophical facts of the matter as in is it really right for us to sacrifice future generations and other species for our own selfishness?

Lives of people which are living today are more important than lives of hypothetical, possible people which may or may not live in the future. We all live by this rule, even though most of us don't want to admit it.

We can't sacrifice something which never existed and never will exist, it's like saying I sacrificed my son yesterday, because I chose not to have sex and procreate.

There's also religious aspects to consider (even though I am myself very anti-religion it would most certainly cause an argument). I am all for curing or atleast helping against painful diseases since nobody should have to suffer for no reason, but death as unattractive as it sounds for oneself is neccessary, at least for the moment.. Assuming the rest of the galaxy or a very large part of it is unoccupied then colonization is the only thing that could possibly make technical immortality a less bad idea.

Well, if most religious people refuse to use this technologies, then the overpopulation problem would not be nearly as bad.

Also one of the biggest reasons for being religious seems to be a fear of death and a promise of the afterlife. Once people get the option to live indefinitely long, religions will be negatively affected by it.

And I still feel like you failed to put things into prospective, unless we do something about aging billions of people are going to suffer and die before the end of this century, is forcing people to have less children for a century or two really worse than billions suffering and dying?

Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Lives of people which are living today are more important than lives of hypothetical, possible people which may or may not live in the future. We all live by this rule, even though most of us don't want to admit it.

We can't sacrifice something which never existed and never will exist, it's like saying I sacrificed my son yesterday, because I chose not to have sex and procreate.

That sounds a bit shortsighted though, we are not just talking about a potential child but several generations to come. With them comes more then lives they would also bring new ideas and fresh perspectives, can you imagine the stubborness of someone who has lived for hundreds of years? We would grow apathethic and melancholy and eventually loose track of time and be stuck in our old destructive ways with no real purpose, breeding is one of the main goals of any biological life.

Option 1: you will suffer and die from aging regardless of whether you choose to reproduce or not. (this is what we have today)

Option 2: You will not die nor suffer from aging if you choose to postpone reproduction for a couple of centuries at most. (this is what we would have with rejuvenation technologies)

Option 2 is clearly a better option, I really don't see how can we even discuss this.

A couple of centuries doesn't sound like much but considering that we have only had real technology for 200-300 years it's a very long time to hold off on a basic function.

It would be hard, but not impossible. I can't know how exactly we're gonna do it, but perhaps we could make a law which would force those who have more than 1 child to pay higher taxes, and then we could use that money to increase carrying capacity of the Earth. And this would be only temporarily, they'll all be able to have as many kids as they want to as soon as we start colonising other planets. Think about how much more money we would invest into space exploration if this was the case.

It might sound like a good idea on paper and in theory but in the end alot of this comes down to morality, for an example forcing certain people into paying more or be criminalized for such a basic thing as reproduction would alienate certain groups of people for the good of the state, something that several historical events has proven to be a very bad idea, for an example communism - it looks great on paper despite the stigma, so why is the stigma there? Because it just doesn't work in practice.

@mortein Also, sorry for the jumbled reply, im not sure how to write in between quotes and im a bit tired. :)

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Mortein

@bruxae said:

That sounds a bit shortsighted though, we are not just talking about a potential child but several generations to come.

Several potential generations, as potential as the son of mine which I sacrificed yesterday.I understand that these philosophical questions should be further investigated and discussed, but this should not stop us nor slow us down from saving the lives of billions of real, currently existing people.

With them comes more then lives they would also bring new ideas and fresh perspectives, can you imagine the stubborness of someone who has lived for hundreds of years?

New ideas and fresh perspectives could be accomplished by encouraging people to regulary switch their fields of study maybe each hundred years.I can't imagine the stubbornness of someone who has lived for hundreds of years, but can you imagine his experience, wisdom, knowledge?

We would grow apathethic and melancholy and eventually loose track of time and be stuck in our old destructive ways with no real purpose.

I disagree, but I think this is interesting hypothesis. Let's test it :)

A couple of centuries doesn't sound like much but considering that we have only had real technology for 200-300 years it's a very long time to hold off on a basic function.

We will not have to hold it off completely, just lower the birth rates and increase the earth's carrying capacity. Is it going to be hard for some people? Yes probably, but I feel like you keep getting stuck only to problems and fail to see the good sides to all of this.

It might sound like a good idea on paper and in theory but in the end alot of this comes down to morality, for an example forcing certain people into paying more or be criminalized for such a basic thing as reproduction would alienate certain groups of people for the good of the state, something that several historical events has proven to be a very bad idea, for an example communism - it looks great on paper despite the stigma, so why is the stigma there? Because it just doesn't work in practice.

How is it moral to let billions of people suffer and die? That's around hundred thousand people dying each day because of aging, and that's like thirty 9/11s happening each day and I feel like no one gives a shit. And not to mention that those people in a skyscrapers died a fast deaths, while aging brings you death after years, and sometimes even decades of suffering.

I live in ex-Yugoslavia which was a communist country and most people would tell you how life was better during the communism. I don't think we should go back to communism, but I doubt that capitalism will survive the end of this century, at least not in it's current form.

I'm not denying that there would be negative consequences arising from the creation of rejuvenation technologies, all I'm saying is that those negative consequences are incomerably smaller than the benefits we would get.

The fact that we would save billions of people from suffering and death is just one of the benefits. Economic benefits would be enormous since most of the money in healthcare goes on fighting diseases and disabilities of old age, there would be no need for pensions, young people would not have to take care of their parents, since they would be healthy, there would also be less children which would also result in a huge economic benefits, eventually we would get people with hundreds of years of knowledge and experience, we would be compelled to invest a lot into a space exploration, religions would be on a decline, we would have enough time to accomplish all the thing we planned (like to catch all pokemons and properly train them to a lv 100 :) , all the girls would look like they are 20-30 years old, people will start to appreciate their life much more once they stop being so short and filled with diseases, our children won't have to change our diapers etc. And have I mentioned yet that aging kills 100 000 people each day or that hundreds of millions are suffering each day because of it?

It's frustrating that we are likely to be the last generation to live a short life span and, while we could be the first to benefit from these therapies only if the world was united about recognising aging as the worlds biggest problem and pour hundreds of billions of dollars into developing them.

I think that over the thousands of years, due to our powerlessness to do anything about aging, we came to truce with it, we rationalized the suffering and death it causes as something good and we formed our world views, our religions our way of living around the fact that aging is inevitable. And that was a good thing hundreds of years ago, but it's not anymore, it's not now when we have a real chance of defeating aging.

Avatar image for bruxae
Bruxae

18147

Forum Posts

11098

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

@mortein: I am way to drunk right now to give a proper reply so I am gonna keep it short, maybe ill remember to give a better reply tomorrow but maybe not.

I would really -love- to have an endless lifespan (with the option of suicide) for myself, not saying otherwise at all. I do however not believe it would be beneficial on a global scale at least at the state we are currently at, maybe in a couple of centuries when humanity is more ready. Another point I forgot to bring up earlier is that earth's resources are after all finite unfortunally, so while all discoveries are ultimately good discoveries it's also a matter of priorities, I just feel like techical immortality should be held off until we are more ready, because right now we are definetly not, and the resources to globalize it are better spent elsewhere.

Anyway like I said, I am very drunk so I won't write anything indepth, but i'd like to say thanks for letting me voice my opinion whether we agree or not. It is rare that I get to do that these days without people getting upset because I do not agree.

Avatar image for pikachumonster
pikachumonster

3123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Eh, it's not happening in our lifetime anyway.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a162dd41dd64
deactivated-5a162dd41dd64

8662

Forum Posts

2294

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 100

User Lists: 6

Accidentally flagged as spam. Sorry!

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This honestly sounded like a spam title

@squares said:

Accidentally flagged as spam. Sorry!

Why do people think this is a spam thread?

Eh, it's not happening in our lifetime anyway.

Would you like to share reasons why?

Avatar image for saintwildcard
SaintWildcard

22298

Forum Posts

184

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 12

@mortein: Because there are tons of these anti aging creme threads that are made by spam bots.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mortein: Because there are tons of these anti aging creme threads that are made by spam bots.

Well, that sucks.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bruxae said:

@mortein:

I would really -love- to have an endless lifespan (with the option of suicide) for myself, not saying otherwise at all. I do however not believe it would be beneficial on a global scale at least at the state we are currently at, maybe in a couple of centuries when humanity is more ready. Another point I forgot to bring up earlier is that earth's resources are after all finite unfortunally, so while all discoveries are ultimately good discoveries it's also a matter of priorities, I just feel like techical immortality should be held off until we are more ready, because right now we are definetly not, and the resources to globalize it are better spent elsewhere.

I still have a feeling like you are disconnected from the fact that aging is the greatest source of death and suffering in the world.

While resources are finite, we haven't used even 1% of them, in less than a decade we should have first fully operational nuclear fusion power plants which uses hydrogen as a power source, and Sun will keep on shining for billions of years.

We are developing water cleaning technologies, better ways of producing food, etc.

I agree it is a matter of priorities, but if we agree that human death and suffering is the worst thing in the world, then aging is the worst problem in the world, since it causes the most death and suffering.

@bruxae said:

Anyway like I said, I am very drunk so I won't write anything indepth, but i'd like to say thanks for letting me voice my opinion whether we agree or not. It is rare that I get to do that these days without people getting upset because I do not agree.

Hey, I had to be nice to you, since you were the only one willing to discuss this matter.

I also was suppose to go out partying tonight, but I stayed home to reply to these posts. I'm beginning to question my prioritising abilities :D

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I wouldn't want to live to 60 years old. You just become a little kid again and the body just degrades. I don't understand why anyone would want to live forever.

Edit:1. Maybe just maybe by 2090ish, I think singularity would be possible. If I had to take a guess on artificial organs being mass produced and sold to the public, maybe by 2080ish.

2. Would it be desirable? Yeah to some and some others not very much. If humanity ever does get to that point, it would be a very controversial topic. It'd be like abortion. There will probably be anti-groups saying it's not natural and other groups saying it's the future and the future is now.

Is it desirable to me, no. Everything comes to an end, that's life. That's the way I see it.

Avatar image for gojira2014
Gojira2014

2087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Gojira2014

@mortein said:

@bruxae said:

Unless we find a way to colonize other planets this is just a terrible idea, the world is already severly overpopulated and with diseases becoming curable and even aging potentially being stopped it's just gonna get alot worse for all of us.

We'll probably have to wait a few centuries before we can really colonise other planets, but before that happens we can endure by lowering the birth rate and increasing the Earth's carrying capacity with nuclear fusion, electric cars, better ways of producing food, water cleaning technologies etc..

We could make laws by which people will have to choose between reproducing and using rejuvenation technologies, or we could make 1 child per a family law. I think we have enough time to prepare, even the most optimistic prognosis put the emergence of these rejuvenation technologies couple of decades into the future.

Or Space Colonies Gundam/ZoE style.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By Mortein

@silkyballfro94 said:

I wouldn't want to live to 60 years old. You just become a little kid again and the body just degrades. I don't understand why anyone would want to live forever.

You might have misunderstood the topic. We are discussing possible emergence of the rejuvenation technologies which would make us look, feel and function as if we were young adults, regardless of how long ago we were born.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

I wonder what the implications would be on societies where death and disease caused by environment are more prevalent as causes of death rather than old age. And rejuvenation technologies would (presumably) be costly so therefore an option for economically superior groups which then calls into question the ethics of who gets to live longer (and healthier) than other groups.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By Mortein

@hislolita said:

I wonder what the implications would be on societies where death and disease caused by environment are more prevalent as causes of death rather than old age. And rejuvenation technologies would (presumably) be costly so therefore an option for economically superior groups which then calls into question the ethics of who gets to live longer (and healthier) than other groups.

I guess we would invest more of our resources into preventing things such as car crashes.

Regardless of how expensive rejuvenation technologies happen to be, aging itself is still likely to be far more expensive, so it is also likely that governments will pay for treatments, unless they happen to be really ridiculously expensive.

It is also possible that initially the technology will be only available to the rich, but I would assume that price of this technology would drop over time.

But even if we could save only 1% of the richest, would it be unethical to do so?

Let's assume you have on your computer a detailed recipe for a vaccine, which will prevent cancer, alzheimers diesese, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes and hypertension,but the cost of creating such a vaccine would be 1 000 000 dollars per a dose.

You have 2 options, press send and this recipe will be sent to every email that exists, or do nothing.

Either way this recipe will be deleted from your computer in 5 seconds.

What would you do?

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Loading Video...

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

@mortein said:

@hislolita said:

I wonder what the implications would be on societies where death and disease caused by environment are more prevalent as causes of death rather than old age. And rejuvenation technologies would (presumably) be costly so therefore an option for economically superior groups which then calls into question the ethics of who gets to live longer (and healthier) than other groups.

I guess we would invest more of our resources into preventing things such as car crashes.

Regardless of how expensive rejuvenation technologies happen to be, aging itself is still likely to be far more expensive, so it is also likely that governments will pay for treatments, unless they happen to be really ridiculously expensive.

It is also possible that initially the technology will be only available to the rich, but I would assume that price of this technology would drop over time.

But even if we could save only 1% of the richest, would it be unethical to do so?

Let's assume you have on your computer a detailed recipe for a vaccine, which will prevent cancer, alzheimers diesese, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, cataracts, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes and hypertension,but the cost of creating such a vaccine would be 1 000 000 dollars per a dose.

You have 2 options, press send and this recipe will be sent to every email that exists, or do nothing.

Either way this recipe will be deleted from your computer in 5 seconds.

What would you do?

Without hesitation, I would send it to every email in existence (and take a screen shot of said email for myself). If there was a way to attain immortality without risk of getting biologically older (as in, the body remains in its physical peak), I would think it wonderful. Psychologically, there would be issues like guilt along the lines of thinking you don't deserve it compared to others who have died before you but I think that could be dealt with, easily.

My only concern is not just the rich who could afford this new technology, but the real possibility of them hoarding it to themselves and in essence, keeping their progeny alive. Then, should there be overcrowding, a type of cleansing to make room for only their surviving DNA. Because you can live forever and not get older, it doesn't mean you do. You can still be murdered or blown to bits, right? Or evaporated by some biological new bomb. Then it would be a situation where there would be not enough people alive to procreate successfully (something like you need 200 plus to be biologically diverse enough to continue the human race) and it can be conceivable many cultures will be wiped out.

So many possibilities! I am already thinking of cloning and such (even storage of DNA to offset my scenario above) to prevent annihilation, haha.

Brilliant idea and fun to think about. For me, I would work towards making that one million dollars, no hesitation.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Without hesitation, I would send it to every email in existence (and take a screen shot of said email for myself). If there was a way to attain immortality without risk of getting biologically older (as in, the body remains in its physical peak), I would think it wonderful. Psychologically, there would be issues like guilt along the lines of thinking you don't deserve it compared to others who have died before you but I think that could be dealt with, easily.

My only concern is not just the rich who could afford this new technology, but the real possibility of them hoarding it to themselves and in essence, keeping their progeny alive. Then, should there be overcrowding, a type of cleansing to make room for only their surviving DNA. Because you can live forever and not get older, it doesn't mean you do. You can still be murdered or blown to bits, right? Or evaporated by some biological new bomb. Then it would be a situation where there would be not enough people alive to procreate successfully (something like you need 200 plus to be biologically diverse enough to continue the human race) and it can be conceivable many cultures will be wiped out.

So many possibilities! I am already thinking of cloning and such (even storage of DNA to offset my scenario above) to prevent annihilation, haha.

Brilliant idea and fun to think about. For me, I would work towards making that one million dollars, no hesitation.

It's true, there are countless possibilities, some utopian and some dystopian. There are countless benefits and problems that could arrive from the creation of rejuvenation technologies, and we should start discussing how to counter those possible problems, but we should not let this distract us from a fact that we have a pretty big (read the biggest) problem today, naimly countless people dying and suffering from aging.

Avatar image for The_Deathstroker
The_Deathstroker

8074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

IMMORTALITY

#5000posts

Avatar image for thitiki
Thitiki

4503

Forum Posts

1535

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

We all have to die. I'm 16 and I'd love to be 165+ but have the body of a much younger person. I know that won't happen though.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@thitiki said:

I know that won't happen though.

How can you know that?

Avatar image for matteopg
MatteoPG

1950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mortein said:
@robotindisguise said:

Immortality through cybernetics is the answer.

"Singularity is near" written by Ray Kurzweil is one of my favorite books, but I just don't believe in timeframes he gave there, I think we'll first have to postpone aging for a century or 2 via biological means in order to reach indefinite lifespan through cybernetics.

The concept of singularity in that book is completely out of whack. That man knows nothing of complex behaviours in systems!

Back to the "science". The problem is people thinking that ageing is a disease and that it is due to mostly biological processes, which is not. It's more linked to physical laws than biologically regulated processes.

Delaying agein would create a constant need for some sort of process that would avoid damage and enthropy on a molecular level. It should prevent damage by consumption, oxidation and also it should be able to somehow avoid defects of DNA transcription and translation due to thermodynamic oscillations.

This would go against any kind of physics as we understand it now. With such a technology, we would be first be able to achieve literal miracles.

So there is stuff that can allow us to age a little slower by acting on the big stuff, but "curing ageing" would go against the laws of thermodynamics.

As for the desirability of the whole thing... I don't know. Could be generally good, but overcrowding would be an issue.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17190

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't ever wanna die, make me immortal naow!!!!!

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

@mortein said:

@hislolita said:

Without hesitation, I would send it to every email in existence (and take a screen shot of said email for myself). If there was a way to attain immortality without risk of getting biologically older (as in, the body remains in its physical peak), I would think it wonderful. Psychologically, there would be issues like guilt along the lines of thinking you don't deserve it compared to others who have died before you but I think that could be dealt with, easily.

My only concern is not just the rich who could afford this new technology, but the real possibility of them hoarding it to themselves and in essence, keeping their progeny alive. Then, should there be overcrowding, a type of cleansing to make room for only their surviving DNA. Because you can live forever and not get older, it doesn't mean you do. You can still be murdered or blown to bits, right? Or evaporated by some biological new bomb. Then it would be a situation where there would be not enough people alive to procreate successfully (something like you need 200 plus to be biologically diverse enough to continue the human race) and it can be conceivable many cultures will be wiped out.

So many possibilities! I am already thinking of cloning and such (even storage of DNA to offset my scenario above) to prevent annihilation, haha.

Brilliant idea and fun to think about. For me, I would work towards making that one million dollars, no hesitation.

It's true, there are countless possibilities, some utopian and some dystopian. There are countless benefits and problems that could arrive from the creation of rejuvenation technologies, and we should start discussing how to counter those possible problems, but we should not let this distract us from a fact that we have a pretty big (read the biggest) problem today, naimly countless people dying and suffering from aging.

Society views ageing as a matter of course (mostly). The idea of seeing it as a scourge affecting all of humanity is too large a concept. The physical cues are somewhat important as well. While this requires a level of prejudice, there is something to be said when having an older appearing person be in a position of leadership as compared to a younger.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Mortein

@matteopg said:

The concept of singularity in that book is completely out of whack. That man knows nothing of complex behaviours in systems!

I guess he knew enough to fool me into thinking how he knows what he's talking about. Even though I didn't agree with his conclusions it was still an awesome book.

Back to the "science". The problem is people thinking that ageing is a disease and that it is due to mostly biological processes, which is not. It's more linked to physical laws than biologically regulated processes.

Delaying agein would create a constant need for some sort of process that would avoid damage and enthropy on a molecular level. It should prevent damage by consumption, oxidation and also it should be able to somehow avoid defects of DNA transcription and translation due to thermodynamic oscillations.

This would go against any kind of physics as we understand it now. With such a technology, we would be first be able to achieve literal miracles.

So there is stuff that can allow us to age a little slower by acting on the big stuff, but "curing ageing" would go against the laws of thermodynamics.

The idea proposed by dr. Aubrey De Grey is not to mess with our metabolism or genetics, but rather to periodically repair the damage caused by aging to our body before it reaches pathology. He argues that our body is setup to tolerate certain amount of damage, which he places into 7 categories, and for each category proposes an approach which could be able to fix said damage.

The future which he envisioned is the one in wich we repair the damage caused to our bodies every few decades, and so in a way we would export the entropy out of our bodies .

He also argues that this approach will actually be easier to accomplish than significantly slowing down the rate at which we age. Well, I guess he can explain these things better than I can, so I urge you to watch some of his video or read some of his papers.


As for the desirability of the whole thing... I don't know. Could be generally good, but overcrowding would be an issue.

Overcrowding is hard, but not unsolvable problem.

Overcrowding could result in government controlling the natality and more investments into space exploration, much more.

Avatar image for lucifer_morningstar1
Lucifer_Morningstar1

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

i dont get it, is it possible or not?

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

i dont get it, is it possible or not?

It might be in the future, for further information check the links and the videos provided in the opening post.

Avatar image for lucifer_morningstar1
Lucifer_Morningstar1

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mortein: Yeah i was only able to watch one, and thats only half of it............simply put, i dont get it: mind providing me a rough summary?

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
buttersdaman000

23713

Forum Posts

60

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By buttersdaman000

@thitiki said:

We all have to die. I'm 16 and I'd love to be 165+ but have the body of a much younger person. I know that won't happen though.

While I don't think you'll live to be 165+, I do think it'll be possible to maintain a younger mans body well into your old age in the near future. Even now, with proper diet, fitness, lifestyle, and medicine people can be in excellent shape well into their 50's or early 60's. Take this guy for example:

No Caption Provided

With the continuously increasing advancements in medicine, I think our physical primes are likely to expand if you take the time to maintain it. I personally plan on looking like the man above well past my 90's, at least, if possible. I'm trying to see the next century lol

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By Mortein

@lucifer_morningstar1 said:

@mortein: Yeah i was only able to watch one, and thats only half of it............simply put, i dont get it: mind providing me a rough summary?

Summary:

There are various people and organisations applying various approaches in order to develop rejuvenation technologies.

First on the list is dr. Aubrey De Grey who has a plan to develop technologies which will be used periodically to fix the molecular and cellular damage caused by aging to our body, before the damage reaches the pathology. He puts all the damage into 7 categories and proposes a solutions for each of them. He and his team have started a SENS foundation, where they are working on developing these therapies. Currently their budget is around 4 million dollars per a year, and they predict, that if it remains the same, they'll be able to develop technologies for robust mouse rejuvenation in less than 20 years. However they also concluded that with a budget of 100 million per a year, they could do this in less than 10 years. After that I assume it will be a decade or two before they or someone else develop those same technologies for humans.

Second guy is Dr. David Sinclair, he's looking for molecules that can be used to postpone the ill health of old age, and allow us to be healthy and functional 100+ year old. He seems to the closest to actually do something since he has already started human trials for some of his products.

Third video is about Google, who also entered the race by starting the firm called Calico. Not much is known about Calico yet, they're the new kids in the block.

And so on, I'm too tired to continue.

Avatar image for lucifer_morningstar1
Lucifer_Morningstar1

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mortein: So its actually going to happen, removal of old age.................its fascinating how far we've come

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By Mortein

@lucifer_morningstar1 said:

@mortein: So its actually going to happen, removal of old age.................its fascinating how far we've come

No one can see the future, but it seems like there is a chance it might happen, or at least it could happen if the world wasn't so uninterested, pessimistic and often against rejuvenation technologies.

Avatar image for lucifer_morningstar1
Lucifer_Morningstar1

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mortein: Theres a saying: the world is afraid of what it doesnt understand

Avatar image for human_rocket
HumanRocket

11233

Forum Posts

3996

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

My greatness will reign forever even once my body is destroyed by time, people will know of my existence.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

My greatness will reign forever even once my body is destroyed by time, people will know of my existence.

So you claim you'll exist forever as a memmory inside other people's heads?

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By Mortein

There is one more thing that needs to be addressed, and that is aging population. By the year 2050 more than 1,5 billion people will be over the 65 years of age, and in most of the developed world the number of aged people will be larger than the number of working people, who will have to work to feed not only the elderly, but also a lot of disabled people and all the kids. Today's health care systems are attacking diseases and disabilities of old age as if they are infectious diseases, meaning they are not attacking the source of these diseases, which is aging, but in a way they are only attacking the symptoms, which only expands peoples lifespan, but not really their healthspan. We never lived as long as we do today, but also we never spend such a big percentage of our life in ill health.

Loading Video...

We could save the world from the social and economic collapse which would come due to the aging populations by creating another baby boom, but I doubt our planet could survive another baby boom.

However, this problem could be solved if we develop rejuvenation technologies.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@mortein: ok, I take it as you want me to bump the thread by giving me a link so there you go.

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By Mortein

@mandarinestro said:

@mortein: ok, I take it as you want me to bump the thread by giving me a link so there you go.

God bless you.

Now I can share some relatively old news

The field is advancing, they've just made some serious progress regarding telomeres

http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=2052

Loading Video...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/scientists-reverse-ageing-process-in-mice/5865714

http://recode.net/2014/09/03/google-backed-calico-to-launch-1-5-billion-aging-research-center/

Extended lifespan in flies, by eliminating the damaged the damaged cells from the body.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115134624.htm

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4748594/understanding-calico-larry-page-google-ventures-and-the-quest-for