Tech Based Youthful Immortality

[Dave1001]

perhaps I should have said "maintain" the body - in other words, maintain the position of each atom, or molecule, in the body, in relation to other molecules. I'm not sure how this would affect the "mind" - would memories become fixed? Perhaps a different system would be used for the brain.

Hopefully all the processing and memory aids that are available for computers will be available for our brains in the not too distant future (extra memory, processing power, etc.).

 

[Lonewulf]

Besides, I don't see why we need that level of nano-maintenance to functionally eliminate mortality. Just like I don't see why would need to "upload ourselves to computers".

While I see your point, it depends on if we can upload ourselves faster than we can develop technology to make our cells stable enough. And even if we don't... it would be cool, IMO, to be a computer program! I could run simulation software and live my dreams all the time (kinda like the "game" Second Life, only for real, and ideally without the moronic user base)...

I just hope no one accidentally deletes me as a computer virus.

 

[Dave1001]

While I see your point, it depends on if we can upload ourselves faster than we can develop technology to make our cells stable enough. And even if we don't... it would be cool, IMO, to be a computer program! I could run simulation software and live my dreams all the time (kinda like the "game" Second Life, only for real, and ideally without the moronic user base)...

I just hope no one accidentally deletes me as a computer virus.

That's what I think this is really about: technology fetishism. It's been around for the "uploading" approach to immortality for at least a decade (I would debate computer scientists at my college about the need for it to solve mortality) and now that nanotechnology is a hot science, I'm not surprised that some may be fetishizing being able to alter our bodies one atom at a time in order to solve mortality.


Me personally, I just want to persist. The turing (and radical substrate change) problem seems so non-trivial that if uploading became possible before keeping our bodies perpetually youthful and healthy did (and I doubt uploading will become possible first) I would still want my body cryopreserved with the best available technology, so that when technology becomes advanced enough to repair and restart my body, it's still around to benefit. At such time, I think that I'll ask for folks to turn of that Turing-bot posing as Dave1001 and to transfer all of my property to my revived body (It would have been held in trust, minus a modest stipend for the the Dave1001Turing-bot).

 

[AWPrime]

perhaps I should have said "maintain" the body - in other words, maintain the position of each atom, or molecule, in the body, in relation to other molecules.

This is called death. They needs to move around to allow life.

Besides, I don't see why we need that level of nano-maintenance to functionally eliminate mortality. Just like I don't see why would need to "upload ourselves to computers". cells seem like a stable enough substrate (trees live for thousands of years) and the elements of programmed death and other forms of deterioration in our bodies don't seem to me to need repairs on the atom-by-atom level. I'm sure the challenges to eliminating mortality are non-trivial, but I don't see how they necessarilly involve either that level of nanotechnology or the ability to upload ourselves onto computers.

I know that one can't repair something into eternity, in time it just gets harder and harder, untill it falls apart completly.

 

[AWPrime]

Me personally, I just want to persist. The turing (and radical substrate change) problem seems so non-trivial that if uploading became possibile before keeping our bodies perpetually youthful and healthy did (and I doubt uploading will become possible first) I would still want my body cryopreserved with the best available technology, so that when technology becomes advanced enough to repair and restart my body, it's still around to benefit. At such time, I think that I'll ask for folks to turn of that Turing-bot posing as Dave1001 and to transfer all of my property to my revived body (It would have been held in trust, minus a modest stipend for the the Dave1001Turing-bot).

But this could lead to severe overpopulation in time......

 

[Dave1001]

But this could lead to severe overpopulation in time......

This has already been discussed in the thread. What are your thoughts on people's responses to this concern?

 

[AWPrime]

This has already been discussed in the thread. What are your thoughts on people's responses to this concern?

A few ways:

1. We go for compactness
2. We sent people into space
3. We set a revived population limit

 

[politas]

I can see a point in time where the time it takes to train someone to the point where they could actually be expected to make their own discoveries is greater than the current human life span, and science could grind to a hault. (In fact, I'm surprised an episode of Star Trek hasn't addressed this already. If it has though, I'm sure the fans here will promptly correct me.)

I think Trek's pushing the humanitarian utopia too hard to do something like that. Stargate came close.

What I would really like is, on top of having eternal life, the ability to metabolize almost anything this planet could throw at me and extreme resistance to damage and the elements, as well as a much higher tolerance so I wouldn't be so frickin' specific about where I'm "comfortable" (I'd like to be perfectly content sleeping on a jagged rock in the rain). Then I would no longer need to find shelter or food and can just live in the wild. Apply such exotic tech to everyone and you can say goodbye to wage slaves.

I think you've gone way beyond the premises of the OP here. long lifespan and no aging is a very, very long way from being "Superman".

But then again, death terrifies me.

Ah, there's your problem.

 

[Dave1001]

Ah, there's your problem.

Are you saying that pejoratively? What's wrong with being terrified of death?

 

[politas]

Are you saying that pejoratively? What's wrong with being terrified of death?

If you allow it to stop you enjoying what life you have, then there's definitely a problem. Striving for immortality seems like a waste of effort to me.

 

[UserGoogol]

Some things are getting worse, some better. I'm pretty sure that old minds become set in their ways, while newcomers have new outlooks and sometimes notice what the old minds have missed... or discarded as valueless.

Possibly. But you have to realize that by the time technology advances to the point where we will have indefinite lifespans, we will also have a lot of other stuff. In particular, the ability to make minds more flexible.

Along similar grounds, when such technology is around, the economic system would almost certainly be completely different. I think that as technology advances, all jobs (except possibly creative and intellectual fields) will be able to be replaced by robots or whatever, meaning that the traditional capitalist system will be kind of obsolete and thus people might not need to be especially useful to anyone.

But will it ACTUALLY be the same isntance AS me? I have my doubts. Will I, ME, my own awareness, my "me-ness", be IN THAT HEAD, looking out it's eyes and thinking those thoughts?

I think that the concept of me-ness may be shown to be an illusion after all in the next century or so.

That said, just to be on the safe side, I'd prefer that my transition to posthumanity take place gradually, with my neurons slowly being replaced over time so that there's no point of discontinuity to make people uncomfortable.

 

[Dave1001]

If you allow it to stop you enjoying what life you have, then there's definitely a problem. Striving for immortality seems like a waste of effort to me.

Oh, I agree on both accounts. One should enjoy the life one lives while one's living it, and ideally, other folks bear the cost of effort of striving for immortality while one picks up the benefit cost free. For example, think of the enjoyment of life hours Thomas Edison wasted inventing the electric light bulb. But I get to enjoy his invention without the sweat equity.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you allow it to stop you enjoying what life you have, then there's definitely a problem.

Well, you seem to be making the assumption that desiring longer life means that you don't enjoy the life you have... which you may not be, I admit. Personally, I want to enjoy the life I have, but I also want more time to effeciently use what life I do have presently. I want to use the information I have today, gain more information tomorrow, and use more information the day after tomorrow; and the decade after that, and the decade after that, and the decade after that...

Striving for immortality seems like a waste of effort to me.

Well, society as a whole seems like it isn't a waste of effort to expand lifespans, cure illnesses, and prevent major diseases from spreading. Quite frankly, much about modern society are ways to live longer and healthier.

I honestly think that longevity and lengthened lifespans would quite frankly be a repercussion from the direction society is taking in general, and that lifespans would gradually rise. If we strived for immortality, we couldn't do it tomorrow, or the day after, or even a century from now... but longevity of life is going to get longer and longer, gradually.


Oh, just to comment: Being immortal is pretty much impossible. Sure, even if you somehow make it so that you don't eventually decay in some way or another (or manage to prevent all secondary side effects that cause death -- like getting shot), at what point can you really say you lived an eternity? The idea behind being immortal is "living forever", but how can you say that you lived forever? At what point can you stop and say, "I lived forever!"? This isn't an argument for or against immortality, just one of those side things I find kinda funny.

Either way, if I could lengthen my lifespan by a few centuries, I'd be happy. As that's probably not going to be the case for a while now, I'm guessing that the future generations will have to deal with that. And I don't pity them; quite frankly, we'll probably be more accepting of the idea in the future, assuming we would have the extra resources to pull it off (which, I admit, we might not)... but a few centuries from now, things will be radically different, about us and about society and about the general state of medicine and science.

Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

 

[AWPrime]

If you allow it to stop you enjoying what life you have, then there's definitely a problem. Striving for immortality seems like a waste of effort to me.

I know someone how suffers from this, he tries to extend his life to atleast 120 years, but he hasn't got any family members that are over 80 yo. He uses pills and a wierd diet to try to achieve it. And he doesn't even care about the quality of his life.

And he hasn't got a life and plenty of stress.

 

[Dave1001]

Oh, just to comment: Being immortal is pretty much impossible. Sure, even if you somehow make it so that you don't eventually decay in some way or another (or manage to prevent all secondary side effects that cause death -- like getting shot), at what point can you really say you lived an eternity? The idea behind being immortal is "living forever", but how can you say that you lived forever? At what point can you stop and say, "I lived forever!"? This isn't an argument for or against immortality, just one of those side things I find kinda funny.

Either way, if I could lengthen my lifespan by a few centuries, I'd be happy. As that's probably not going to be the case for a while now, I'm guessing that the future generations will have to deal with that. And I don't pity them; quite frankly, we'll probably be more accepting of the idea in the future, assuming we would have the extra resources to pull it off (which, I admit, we might not)... but a few centuries from now, things will be radically different, about us and about society and about the general state of medicine and science.

Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

Immortality of course is a goal, not a destination. Personally, I wouldn't be satisfied just to live a few centuries. I think it was Voltaire who did a thought experiment on this, and concluded that conscious existence in the context of future cessation of existence is absurd. What do you have after it's all over? The memories? Apparently not.

I agree with those that are skeptical about us living within the window for physical immortality, but I think the best odds may be through being cryogenically preserved. With a little luck, a few hundred years from now Walt Disney, Ted Williams and myself will be revived and living it up Futurama style. I'll be sure to tip a glass to the memory of the fine folks of the 21st century JREF Forum, who preferred our biologically programmed limit of 130 years of life. You will not be forgotten.

 

[Dave1001]

I know someone how suffers from this, he tries to extend his life to atleast 120 years, but he hasn't got any family members that are over 80 yo. He uses pills and a wierd diet to try to achieve it. And he doesn't even care about the quality of his life.

And he hasn't got a life and plenty of stress.

That last part is quite ironic, I think for obvious reasons.

 

[politas]

Well, you seem to be making the assumption that desiring longer life means that you don't enjoy the life you have... which you may not be, I admit.

I was talking specifically about immortality, not a longer lifespan. I'm talking about Dave1001's desire to never die.

 

[politas]

Immortality of course is a goal, not a destination.

Now that's a statement I can agree with. It's the kind of unattainable goal that gives us (as a species) an ongoing reason to investigate and strive.

Personally, I wouldn't be satisfied just to live a few centuries. I think it was Voltaire who did a thought experiment on this, and concluded that conscious existence in the context of future cessation of existence is absurd. What do you have after it's all over? The memories? Apparently not.

So you'd turn down an extra fifty years of consciousness in favour of the hope of immortality?

Personally, I think everyone going for cryogenic suspension is an idiot. What possible motivation do people of the future have to revive these "corpsicles"? The only thing I can think of is historical investigation, and given the quantity of the records we are leaving for future generations, a single person's memories are pretty low quality in comparison.

 

[ceptimus]

We do (slightly) risky things in our lives; things like crossing the street, driving a car and so on. The levels of risk we are prepared to take are appropriate for our current life expectancy.

But if we were able (and willing) to live a thousand times longer, then these activities would become much too risky: if you tried to cross the street or drive a car most days for 100,000 years, then you would be virtually certain to be killed or crippled in an accident, long before reaching your available life span.

So with long life comes the requirement to reduce risks: no activity sports, no living in earthquake zones or in ordinary (fire risk) houses, no travelling by unsafe transport such as cars. Would you want to live wrapped up in cotton wool like this? Wouldn't life seem rather boring?

 

[Lonewulf]

I know someone how suffers from this, he tries to extend his life to atleast 120 years, but he hasn't got any family members that are over 80 yo. He uses pills and a wierd diet to try to achieve it. And he doesn't even care about the quality of his life.

And he hasn't got a life and plenty of stress.

And I know plenty of people who want to eat right, be fit, and exercise... and they aren't stressed out, and are actually happy about their lives. You want to take one extreme, I can take another.

Personally, if I suffered an illness that would kill me or have the chance of killing me, I would want to fix my problem... and I feel the same about aging.

We do (slightly) risky things in our lives; things like crossing the street, driving a car and so on. The levels of risk we are prepared to take are appropriate for our current life expectancy.

But if we were able (and willing) to live a thousand times longer, then these activities would become much too risky: if you tried to cross the street or drive a car most days for 100,000 years, then you would be virtually certain to be killed or crippled in an accident, long before reaching your available life span.

So with long life comes the requirement to reduce risks: no activity sports, no living in earthquake zones or in ordinary (fire risk) houses, no travelling by unsafe transport such as cars. Would you want to live wrapped up in cotton wool like this? Wouldn't life seem rather boring?

As was mentioned before, if immortality is a goal, not a destination, then why bother with the idea of needing to wrap yourself up?

Quite frankly, I don't want to worry about aging or a failing body. Accidents, murders, and various other causes of death should also be lowered just by making higher the standards of living.

To use your "risks", for instance:

--Greater medical care after being injured in an activity sports

--Greater responce times and protection against earthquakes, and better fire prevention and responce time (as well as, perhaps, the development of flame retardant material that's not harmful to residents)

--Better protection of passengers and drivers of motor vehicles (or any other futuristic vehicle you can think of, depending on time and location), as well as humane attempts at lowering the rate of accidents substantially (I.E., finding a way to fully discourage alcohol use before driving, and making driver vision and skill much more enhanced through higher technology, as we're attempting to with newer vehicles).

--No, life wouldn't be boring, nor would there be an "cotton ball" over me as an individual. Society, as a whole, is working on increasing the standards of living amongst it's residents. High-risk realities of life are being made safer, diseases are being cured, heart diseases are being prevented, obesity is fought, and we're trying to find a cure for AIDS and cancer...

What's so different about what I just mentioned to the idea of living longer, with the end goal of immortality? To me, this is the inevitable goal of society, if we keep our ideas of morality, ethics, and human survival.

It seems that well-meaning individuals that disagree with my opinion, make the assumption that I cannot work for longer living without being stressed out or unhappy, and that you must die naturally and at the "normal dying age" (whatever that is... as it seems to be increasing from generation to generation) in order to have any sort of "good" life. I disagree with that assumption.