Tech Based Youthful Immortality

[AWPrime]

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.

That is the difference between obsession and normal desire. Obsession leads to stress.

 

[Lonewulf]

That is the difference between obsession and normal desire. Obsession leads to stress.

Yeah, exactly. My point is you can attempt to reach a goal without being obsessed about it... it just tends to take longer, which I have no problem with. I may not be given the chance at immortality (even though I'm 21), but I would love for future generations to have the choice.

 

[Dave1001]

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

One can both have the desire never to die, and to enjoy the life one is currently living. In fact, I think the 2 probably correlate strongly. The more one is enjoying life, the more likely I suspect one is to want to keep on living.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

I don't think either of us knows whether or not functional immortality (working solutions to all the apparent causes of mortality) is attainable. But I agree with you that it will probably require perpetual striving and investigation as a species.

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

I don't see a scenario where I'd have to do that. But if somehow that was a decision I'd have to make, in almost any scenario, mathematically it would make sense to go with the hope for immortality. Because even a very small percent chance of winning infinity seems to me to be more valuable than a 100% chance of winning 50.

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.

How are they idiots even if future generations will most likely choose not to revive them? I don't see how playing the odds, even if they're long odds, is idiotic. It would seem to be a smarter choice than having oneself cremated and one's ashes scattered, if one desired to persist at a later date.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

Lonewolf, the arguments against seeking immortality that smart folks tend to present are so easily rebuttable, that I wonder if most folks just have a genetic, hardwired disposition towards maintaining the 130 year cap on lifespan, and if folks like you and me were just born without that genetic hardwiring? I'm interested what your thoughts are on that?

 

[politas]

I don't see a scenario where I'd have to do that. But if somehow that was a decision I'd have to make, in almost any scenario, mathematically it would make sense to go with the hope for immortality. Because even a very small percent chance of winning infinity seems to me to be more valuable than a 100% chance of winning 50.

Well, say there's a treatment you could get which is expected to give you an extra fifty to 100 years of extra life, but there is a side effect which will make cryogenic suspension impossible for you. Would you take the treatment or go for the risk of never being unfrozen?

How are they idiots even if future generations will most likely choose not to revive them? I don't see how playing the odds, even if they're long odds, is idiotic. It would seem to be a smarter choice than having oneself cremated and one's ashes scattered, if one desired to persist at a later date.

Well, there is a substantial cost in being frozen. You'd need to substantially invest time and effort in order to afford it. That's money you can neither pass on to your children, nor use yourself before your death.

Also, from what I gather, the law does not recognise cryogenic suspension as being functionally different from dead.

Lastly, cryosuspension is an elitist waste of resources. From a moral perspective it is difficult to support, since it places a burden on other people.

 

[politas]

Lonewolf, the arguments against seeking immortality that smart folks tend to present are so easily rebuttable, that I wonder if most folks just have a genetic, hardwired disposition towards maintaining the 130 year cap on lifespan, and if folks like you and me were just born without that genetic hardwiring? I'm interested what your thoughts are on that?

Where do you get this "130 year cap" stuff? Just curious. And I don't see anybody here arguing against extending lifespans beyond 130 years, just about certain extreme extensions.

Personally, I'm all for the idea of living as long as possible, I just happen to think that death is not something to be terrified of. Avoided, yes, but I can easily imagine reaching a point in a highly extended life where I would just get bored with life and want it to be over with.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewolf, the arguments against seeking immortality that smart folks tend to present are so easily rebuttable, that I wonder if most folks just have a genetic, hardwired disposition towards maintaining the 130 year cap on lifespan, and if folks like you and me were just born without that genetic hardwiring? I'm interested what your thoughts are on that?

I think that it's hard to break tradition, no matter what tradition that is... and death is the greatest tradition of all. Plus, there's societal leanings towards praising death (I.E., promise of reward in the afterlife for certain religions).

I don't think that it has anything to do with being born. I can honestly say that I don't fear death, though... but if I had a choice to die and to live a good life, you know which one I'd pick?

Personally, I'm all for the idea of living as long as possible, I just happen to think that death is not something to be terrified of. Avoided, yes, but I can easily imagine reaching a point in a highly extended life where I would just get bored with life and want it to be over with.

You seem to make it seem that I would want immortality because I'm afraid to die. Those that are against immortality seem to be afraid to live...

And, for that matter, I highly doubt I'll ever get to the point I'll grow bored. What's to be bored of? Five hundred years from now, can you imagine the radical changes resulting from technology, societal views, and changes to the ecosystem? Hell, in five hundred years (assuming a positive outcome of humanity; I'm an optomist, y'know), I might be able to go to the stars... casually.

A few thousand years from now, and I'll probably be able to experience things that no human could ever even imagine experiencing today.

A few millions of years... ditto.

I highly doubt I'll ever get bored. But then, I can get easily amused. See, I've lived 10 years now... and I haven't been bored yet. Why should that change over a long stretch of time, no matter how extreme? Hell, imagine what would happen if you could make a game or a video with just the power of thought, with high tech machines that could practically just read the output of your brain... I would never stop story-telling.


--On cryogenics: I consider it a non-issue at the moment. Cryogenics has been shown to simply not work; matter still becomes too damaged over time, and is VERY unlikely to be useful in the future, especially over a long enough time, even if frozen for long enough. At least, that's going by contemporary sources on the issue. However, if your main reason to dislike it is because "elitist waste of resources"... why do the majority of rich celebrities need those $2 million mansions? That's morally hard to accept, but hardly anyone argues that they should be taken away from them.

 

[Dave1001]

I think that it's hard to break tradition, no matter what tradition that is... and death is the greatest tradition of all. Plus, there's societal leanings towards praising death (I.E., promise of reward in the afterlife for certain religions).

I don't think that it has anything to do with being born. I can honestly say that I don't fear death, though... but if I had a choice to die and to live a good life, you know which one I'd pick?

Some people think that I would want immortality because I'm afraid to die. I have to wonder if they don't want immortality because they're afraid to live.

I talk with plenty of folks who are opposed to immortality, who aren't religious or traditional -for example, most of the folks in this thread who oppose immortality. Yet their rationalizations for their opposition are so weak that it seems to me that their backwards rationalizing from a social aesthetic.

I think there are reasonable reasons that the normative genetic hardwiring for most people could be not to want to exceed a 130 year lifespan: our selfish genes are on a generational clock of about 35 years, as I described earlier in the thread. We may also be wired that way for a certain amount of social hierarchy evolution. Clearly, it's not just that parts inherently wear out after 130 years: there are animals designed to age much more quickly and much more slowly. What I think is interesting is that we may be genetically wired not just to live to 130 years or less, but as a normative state to DESIRE to only live to be 130 years or less.

But you remain skeptical about that last part?

--On cryogenics: I consider it a non-issue at the moment. Cryogenics has been shown to simply not work; matter still becomes too damaged over time, and is VERY unlikely to be useful in the future, especially over a long enough time, even if frozen for long enough. At least, that's going by contemporary sources on the issue.

I don't see how cryogenics "has been shown to simply not work" just because "matter still becomes too damaged over time". I think our capability to predict future technology 500 years from now is probably about as good as the capability of people in 1506 to predict what the level of technology would be like today. But just as there are still universities, hospitals, and cemeteries around from 500 years ago, I think it's reasonably possible that there will still be cryogenics facilities from 20th and 21st century around in 2506. Will their technology be able to repair and revive people cryogenically "preserved" with today's technology? I don't know. But I suspect that Walt Disney and Ted Williams will have a better shot at being revived than James "Scotty" Doohan.

 

[politas]

You seem to make it seem that I would want immortality because I'm afraid to die. Those that are against immortality seem to be afraid to live...

I don't know why you want immortality. Dave1001 has stated quite clearly that he is "terrified of death". It's not clear that he's willing to actually do anything about it other than wishful thinking, though

However, if your main reason to dislike [cryogenic suspension] is because "elitist waste of resources"... why do the majority of rich celebrities need those $2 million mansions? That's morally hard to accept, but hardly anyone argues that they should be taken away from them.

That was the very last of my arguments against cryogenic suspension, and I fully accept that it isn't a very good argument against it. It's one of many reasons that I am uninterested in it, just as I doubt I would ever be interested in amassing more than about $20million.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't know why you want immortality. Dave1001 has stated quite clearly that he is "terrified of death". It's not clear that he's willing to actually do anything about it other than wishful thinking, though

Well, ideally I would be able to freeload off the work of others making functional immortality possible. But certainly, if my effort as an individual has any possible chance of making a difference, I will exert it in the direction of making functional immortality possible for myself. For example, I'm a healthy BMI, get 2 hours cardiovascular excercise every day, get 8 hours sleep, and keep my brain stimulated (here among other places). I don't base jump or ride in cars without a seatbelt on. But, I'm not a narrow lifespan maximizing machine. For example, I live in NYC even though I think it's been shown to result in a lifespan cost, perhaps due to the environmental pollution and personal interaction stressors. But it adds immeasurably to the quality of my life, and I actually suspect it will do more for my healthy lifespan as an individual to live here rather than Vermont, for example (because I'll be happy and in a resource rich environment).

All things equal, however, I wish the negative externalities of living in NYC could be dramatically reduced: particularly the environmental pollution (the social aspects have improved tremendously under Guiliani and even more so under Bloomberg).

That was the very last of my arguments against cryogenic suspension, and I fully accept that it isn't a very good argument against it. It's one of many reasons that I am uninterested in it, just as I doubt I would ever be interested in amassing more than about $20million.

awesomeness

 

[Lonewulf]

I talk with plenty of folks who are opposed to immortality, who aren't religious or traditional -for example, most of the folks in this thread who oppose immortality. Yet their rationalizations for their opposition are so weak that it seems to me that their backwards rationalizing from a social aesthetic.

Oh, I never said that everyone who was opposed to immortality did so for religious reasons. However, there is a negative societal outlook on immortality, if you notice, that people become exposed to as itty bitty little kids. I don't see it as a "nature" issue, but instead as a "nurture" issue. Further, the arguments actually aren't that weak...

Overpopulation is a concern if you have everyone wanting to be immortal or gaining immortality at once, for instance. I just personally think that when we develop the methods to be truly "immortal" in mainstream society(i.e., unaging at all, no breakdown of our physical body, brain, or mind), we as a whole will also be fully capable of supporting our decision.

I think there are reasonable reasons that the normative genetic hardwiring for most people could be not to want to exceed a 130 year lifespan: our selfish genes are on a generational clock of about 35 years, as I described earlier in the thread. We may also be wired that way for a certain amount of social hierarchy evolution. Clearly, it's not just that parts inherently wear out after 130 years: there are animals designed to age much more quickly and much more slowly. What I think is interesting is that we may be genetically wired not just to live to 130 years or less, but as a normative state to DESIRE to only live to be 130 years or less.

But you remain skeptical about that last part?

Yeap, I'm completely skeptical. The idea of immortality is one based on reason and thought, and some consider it unreasonable to be immortal. I don't degrade them or their arguments, as there is some truth to them, but I just disagree that things would be as horrible as they claim.

I don't see how cryogenics "has been shown to simply not work" just because "matter still becomes too damaged over time". I think our capability to predict future technology 500 years from now is probably about as good as the capability of people in 1506 to predict what the level of technology would be like today. But just as there are still universities, hospitals, and cemeteries around from 500 years ago, I think it's reasonably possible that there will still be cryogenics facilities from 20th and 21st century around in 2506. Will their technology be able to repair and revive people cryogenically "preserved" with today's technology? I don't know. But I suspect that Walt Disney and Ted Williams will have a better shot at being revived than James "Scotty" Doohan.

The thing is, five hundred years from now, if you could resurrect someone in a cryogenics chamber, if their tissue was entirely damaged, you might as well also be able to resurrect someone's mummified corpse (at least, from what I know on the issue). Mummification also is easier and less expensive... just sayin'.

Another bit on cryogenics (pro, not con this time): The claim that no one in the future would be interested in resurrecting someone from the past seems, to me, to be rather assumptive. Quite frankly, if we could resurrect someone from a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago... by George, we'd do it! The information we'd gain from a society so long ago, not to mention seeing, first-hand, the personality of someone from a distant time, would have INCREDIBLE anthropological and historical implications. Plus, it would be pretty damn cool...

And I, for one, think that someone like Walt Disney would spark a lot of interest in future generations if they had the technology to resurrect him. You can bet that classical and historical figures -- especially those that have an ounce of genius in them -- would be resurrected at some time or another. I mean, heck, if Albert Einstein was put in the freezer to cool, you bet someday he'd be taken out.

I don't know why you want immortality. Dave1001 has stated quite clearly that he is "terrified of death". It's not clear that he's willing to actually do anything about it other than wishful thinking, though

I want to be immortal so I can continue thinking, progressing, and living into a society that is shifting. I want to keep changing with the times, to experience and see things that, at current, are only the dreams of humanity.

I want to see robots. I want to see the stars. I want to walk the surface of Mars (with protection!) I want to plug my brain into a videogame, and see what it's like to be fully immersed. I want to see what the future brings, simply by living in it.

As for what I'm willing to do about it: I'm willing to support biomedical research. I'm willing to support advocates for safety. I'm willing to be healthy by continuing to do what I love (fencing, for instance). However, I DO need to work more on this "exercise" thing, I admit. But, once more, I'm not in this thing for the individual; I personally think that "immortality" should be a given choice to any member of society, and not a choice that's taken away because society decides that immortality is uncool.

 

[politas]

Another bit on cryogenics (pro, not con this time): The claim that no one in the future would be interested in resurrecting someone from the past seems, to me, to be rather assumptive. Quite frankly, if we could resurrect someone from a thousand years ago, or two thousand years ago... by George, we'd do it! The information we'd gain from a society so long ago, not to mention seeing, first-hand, the personality of someone from a distant time, would have INCREDIBLE anthropological and historical implications. Plus, it would be pretty damn cool...

Oh, definitely, but then, we have very poor records of what people thought about things from back then. As opposed to today, where we have records like this forum and blogs, which, being digital, have a good chance of surviving the ravages of history, and give explicit detail about how people live their lives and how they think.

Resurrecting people from even two hundred years ago would have immense benefits. Resurrecting someone from today in the future will be far less useful. Walt Disney has a chance. Anyone getting themselves frozen now? Not so much.

 

[Dave1001]

Resurrecting people from even two hundred years ago would have immense benefits. Resurrecting someone from today in the future will be far less useful. Walt Disney has a chance. Anyone getting themselves frozen now? Not so much.

I think it's very difficult for us to assess one way or another what folks will want to do hundreds of years from now. One of my favorite dystopic science fiction novels had people in the future, heavily overpopulated and underresourced, using cryogenically preserved people from the past as the equivalent of frozen dinners, in a Soylent Green sort of way.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think it's very difficult for us to assess one way or another what folks will want to do hundreds of years from now. One of my favorite dystopic science fiction novels had people in the future, heavily overpopulated and underresourced, using cryogenically preserved people from the past as the equivalent of frozen dinners, in a Soylent Green sort of way.

I find this very ironic, for obvious reasons...

But if they have the ability to restore degenerated tissue, they probably have the ability to grow their own. Why not start up labs that grows human or animal tissue without the bodies to serve?

Resurrecting people from even two hundred years ago would have immense benefits. Resurrecting someone from today in the future will be far less useful. Walt Disney has a chance. Anyone getting themselves frozen now? Not so much.

Well, you don't know that. Neither do I, really. I can't predict the mindsets of people hundreds of years into the future...

All I know is that cryogenics wouldn't be my personal preference. I'd take the computer or the immortality option anyday... and despite the "technophilia" that comes with downloading yourself into a computer, I see little wrong with it. Just have to wait until people can grow me a new body. Though I do agree that there is the possibility that we'll discover immortality before we discover downloadable brains.

(Note: If you can download your brain into a computer, wouldn't it also be possible to download from a computer into the brain? Download new skills today! Online universities galore...)

 

[Dave1001]

(Note: If you can download your brain into a computer, wouldn't it also be possible to download from a computer into the brain? Download new skills today! Online universities galore...)

That seems to me to be very near term and accessible. Even if it won't possible to download one's subjective conscious self to a computer. It's one step beyond using thoughts to control a robotic arm, which can already be done. For example, one could think "What is the square root of 169?" and one could either hear in one's head "13 ... or negative 13"

 

[Dave1001]

All I know is that cryogenics wouldn't be my personal preference. I'd take the computer or the immortality option anyday... and despite the "technophilia" that comes with downloading yourself into a computer, I see little wrong with it. Just have to wait until people can grow me a new body. Though I do agree that there is the possibility that we'll discover immortality before we discover downloadable brains.

One could hedge one's bets with both cryogenics and "downloading oneself into a computer" if those were the only 2 options available at the time of death. But while your physical body was in cryogenic suspension, would you leave control of your assets to a trust for your cryogenically preserved self, or to your downloaded self? What if your downloaded self decides it wants your cryogenically preserved self destroyed, to keep costs down? What if your cryogenically preserved self is revived with future technology and wants your Turing self destroyed? What if the courts decide for your downloaded self over your cryonic self, but future technology later reveals that your Turing self missed some key elements of your mind that means that it doesn't contain your actual subjective identity: it was able to fool 2200 AD technology but not 2400 AD technology. I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions -just that we may still need lawyers in the future.

As for what I'd do: If functional biological immortality wasn't available as I was near death but the other 2 technologies were, I'd both have myself cryopreserved and I'd "upload my mind" to computer. But, I'd leave as much of my assets as possible in trust for my cryopreserved self. My uploaded self would only have the minimal amount of income necessary from the trust to survive. When my cryopreserved self revived, it would have the option of terminating my uploaded self. I consider cryporeservation simply as a last resort that improves my odds of future survival somewhat better than cremation does, or letting my body be eaten by worms.

 

[Lonewulf]

That seems to me to be very near term and accessible. Even if it won't possible to download one's subjective conscious self to a computer. It's one step beyond using thoughts to control a robotic arm, which can already be done. For example, one could think "What is the square root of 169?" and one could either hear in one's head "13 ... or negative 13"

Ah, yes, internal mental calculators. That would so rock.

 

[politas]

Well, you don't know that. Neither do I, really. I can't predict the mindsets of people hundreds of years into the future...

I know a fair bit about historical research. The biggest problem with historical research is getting primary source material. Actual artifacts (things made during the period being investigated) are the best source of historic information. These are called "primary sources". Secondary sources are writings of people who have examined primary sources. These are not as good as primary sources, because they often are biased by the writer's personal beliefs or interpretations. if primary sources are not available, though, secondary sources can be useful, as long as they are studied with a critical mindset. Tertiary sources are writings by people who have for the most part relied on secondary sources.

Say you are trying to investigate the historical basis of Arthurian legends. Sir Thomas Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur is a tertiary source. It was almost entirely based on Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings in the 12th century.

Historical investigators of the future will quite likely have access to vast quantities of well-preserved digital archives of writings from today. Everything from children's kindergarten paintings, through teen angst journals and blogs by important political and business figures. The sheer quantity of this information completely dwarfs the value of any single person's perspective.

The situation for studying the past prior to the information age is very diferent. While we often have relatively good accounts of major socio-political events, what is seriously lacking is good information about what individuals thought, and this is why resurrecting a person from the past would be of great historical value.

Now do you see why I can confidently state that there is unlikely to be any interest in resurrecting anyone from the early 21st century?

 

[Lonewulf]

Now do you see why I can confidently state that there is unlikely to be any interest in resurrecting anyone from the early 21st century?

Not really. You're not factoring all the possibilities... but as you do not know all the possibilities, that would be a bit difficult to do.

Either way, I personally would not want to be cryogenically frozen. But I see that in the future, there is the distant possibility that they might need someone from today... even if just because they need new DNA in their bloodstreams, or they need a genius mind of today (and who knows? Maybe what seems to us like some "some rich idiot" that got himself cryogenically frozen could be the genius of tomorrow... after all, our standards today might not stand the test of time to the future).

Quite frankly, there are many unknowns to the future.