[Veloce]

(06-08-2014 06:12 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

thedude, there is absolutely no reason to believe this -- none whatsoever. There has never been a single truly important technological breakthrough -- not one -- that has not eventually benefited all of mankind.

This is a bit of a stretch. Rulers of the past might not have had running hot water or air travel, but they had ornate palaces, slept on extinct bird feathers, ate wild animals unadulterated with chemicals, and had harems of 500 women.

But let's not dwell on that. I understand your point. While modern peasants might not have it so great (I'm thinking homeless people here), the average man does indeed have it pretty goddamn sweet.

However, my point still stands. The best medical treatment on earth is still reserved for the global elite. Knowing the control schemes that are in place, I don't see this technology being available to the common man, let alone peasants, at any point unless the ruling class decides it's in their best interests.

The only advantage I can see (from the corporate overlord perspective )with allowing average citizens access to this technology is some sort of lifetime commitment to the corporate state. Corporations would have board meetings in discussing consumer habits; is it easier to maintain eternal customer loyalty or create new customers? Would a human with a 1000 or 10000 year lifespan buy into the corporate state or not? Our current ruling class depends on consumers that buy into the "system" (birth, education, work, marriage, children, house, cars, retirement, healthcare, death)

If it turned out that millions of "eternals" were opting out of the system and spending their days on a beach in Thailand, basically opting out of the "American Dream", then you would see a pretty fierce and ugly resistance from capitalist nations.

The notion of eternal life does bring up some interesting questions. It would certainly bring spirituality and organized religion under greater scrutiny. If there was a God, how and why would he allow humanity to defy him in this way? If you lived eternally, what's the end game? Earthly pleasures would eventually cease to satisfy. You would either deviate and start murdering people for a new thrill, or go the opposite direction and spend your days meditating on a mountaintop.

Or an even scarier scenario, what if you were thrown in prison? Falsely accused? Eternity in jail? What if you were horribly maimed in a car accident and had zero feeling from the waist down? Or lost an arm?

I know the prospect of eternal darkness is terrifying, and only but the most devout religious adherents would willingly choose death, but having a portion of the population that lives eternally is not a future I would look forward to.

[cooledcannon]

Imo anyone who isnt looking forward to this, is probably being too irrational/fearful about this.

If it turns out to be bad to be living so long, we can simply have a "kill switch", where you can commit suicide at any time you want.

[speakeasy]

(06-08-2014 07:21 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

Imo anyone who isnt looking forward to this, is probably being too irrational/fearful about this.

If it turns out to be bad to be living so long, we can simply have a "kill switch", where you can commit suicide at any time you want.

Well that's the dilemma. Most people when you ask them say they don't want to live forever. Especially religious people(the majority) that believe in heaven and want to go to an afterlife. Yet nobody that's healthy, happy and in sound mind would commit suicide. Everyone wants to live to see the next day unless they are in severe physical pain or mental anguish.

[The Lizard of Oz]

There is a confusion that some on this thread are subject to. It consists in extrapolating the emotional state, the dark grievances and rages of ourselves -- the OLD HUMAN BEING -- to the necessarily more orderly world of the improved species to come, the NEW HUMAN BEING. This extrapolation has no merit whatsoever.

The old human being -- that is what we are -- can find a million reasons to die, because he senses the exhausted weight of every man that has passed before him -- the tribe of death. But we cannot and must not extend our animal grievances and rages to the new human being -- the tribe of life and power. That being will be different in kind -- so to imagine that it will share the most benighted and destructive aspects of our emotional makeup is to make a category error.

The difference in kind in the very nature of what the human being will be -- achieved through the gradual modification of the human being's very genetic code and the way it interacts with its environment -- yields an entirely new soul for the next human being. The next soul is mysterious -- the only thing we know about it is that it is not ours.

[Travesty]

Out of all the problems I see with this the only ones I fear are:

1) Death by accident or suicide would be extremely devastating to loved ones, on the other hand life always goes on, but the pain of living 500 years and seeing many loved ones die could be a source of a huge building pain. You also statistically would have a much greater chance of outliving your children maybe a 50/50 due to accidents or chosen death.

2) Sentences for violent crimes would be an issue to contend with as said. How long do you jail murders or rapists? Death penalty? I think as our species advances we will have less violent criminals in general, but still doesn't solve the problem.

Those are tough.

I believe if we had a Post-Work and Post-Aging environment people would have a sort of a everyday stipend that is deemed livable, but a large portion of people would want to create and still sell products and services to obtain more money and better things like always.

The rest of humanity can sit on a beach, or go be creative, or do anything.

You could work hard for 50 years, build a company or be a doctors save some $ then lay back and visit people and travel for the next 10 or 20 years and pick a whole new career after.

As time goes on the quality standard of living should only increase.

[Travesty]

I am very interested to see how the younger vs. older guys fall on this.

I would predict younger guys up to 40 would be more against this as they still see themselves as peaking and not at their best yet anyways.

40-45 would be somewhere in the middle as they realize men too do peak in physical ways and realize it is male hamster to think otherwise.

45+ would be much more accepting as you can rationalize as much as you want, but things get taken away from you by force with old age and youth is a glorious thing to experience.

[FeederOfRavens]

This is truly disturbing. Why are people so obsessed with advancing technology and changing nature. No one needs to live forever.

[Travesty]

(06-08-2014 08:01 PM)FeederOfRavens Wrote:  

This is truly disturbing. Why are people so obsessed with advancing technology and changing nature. No one needs to live forever.

I cannot see how you can rationalize this.

What if you got diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow? I'd be shocked if you would rather be killed prematurely by cancer than have the ability to live hundreds of years.

Don't you care about the health and well-being of your parents and grandparents?

If you live long enough you will get cancer.

A large part of this isn't vanity with living forever. It is letting elderly people live the rest of their lives with as least pain and disability as possible.

The main purpose of this is to CURE DISEASES. We have stopped infectious disease. Diseases of aging are causing trillions of dollars and immeasurable pain to people.

Stopping the aging process is a SIDE EFFECT of stopping age-related diseases. You cannot fully stop age-related diseases without stopping aging.

[FeederOfRavens]

(06-08-2014 08:06 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 08:01 PM)FeederOfRavens Wrote:  

This is truly disturbing. Why are people so obsessed with advancing technology and changing nature. No one needs to live forever.

I cannot see how you can rationalize this.

What if you got diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow? I'd be shocked if you would rather be killed prematurely by cancer than have the ability to live hundreds of years.

Don't you care about the health and well-being of your parents and grandparents?

If you live long enough you will get cancer.

A large part of this isn't vanity with living forever. It is letting elderly people live the rest of their lives with as least pain and disability as possible.

The main purpose of this is to CURE DISEASES. We have stopped infectious disease. Diseases of aging are causing trillions of dollars and immeasurable pain to people.

Stopping the aging process is a SIDE EFFECT of stopping age-related diseases. You cannot fully stop age-related diseases without stopping aging.

I guess I'm alone with this but I'd rather die from cancer than live forever. I can't see why someone would want to live that long.

[Travesty]

(06-08-2014 08:13 PM)FeederOfRavens Wrote:  

I guess I'm alone with this but I'd rather die from cancer than live forever. I can't see why someone would want to live that long.

I respect that.

Sometimes I wish we as tax payers could get a portion of our tax money where we get to choose where it is distributed to help the societal causes we care about.

[weambulance]

I'm hesitant to get involved in this discussion because trying to fathom all the problems with widespread agelessness is extremely complicated. My position boils down to "this sounds great in theory, but in practice it's unworkable because it is contrary to human nature".

Besides the fact that the human mind probably can't handle being immune to death from natural causes, what about population growth? What about social mobility? People will still want kids, and people will still want to move up in society, and that's hard to do when you're at maximum population for the planet and the people above you at work don't retire with age.

Who gets to have kids when there's an opening in the population? Who decides that? How are the kids raised when the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population is hundreds or thousands of years old?

Who takes the risks in the society? How badly would innovation suffer as people have thousands of years of life to lose instead of dozens? How are criminals handled, when getting put in prison for 10-20 years is an eyeblink to someone with a limitless lifespan?

Think about how fragile a society like that would be, from a reproduction standpoint. Unless we can start and stop ovulation reliably so that a 100 year old woman could naturally give birth--let alone a 2000 year old woman--all it would take is a technological breakdown (from, say, a war) to wipe out 99% of the reproductive capacity of the population since it would necessarily be in the form of frozen eggs and sperm. All but a tiny portion of the population would be post menopausal, after all.

I could go on all day, this stuff is just off the top of my head and not meant to represent the biggest problems with widespread "immortality".

I think if the technology someday exists to stop aging, it is very likely our society will stratify into the ageless rulers (1% or less of the population) and the rest of humanity will exist to support them. Maybe there would be a lottery to elevate people to the ruling class every year to replenish the ranks after accidental deaths, or something like that. Life might be great for the 99%, it doesn't have to be Elysium-esque, but there's no way the human population in general will get to drink from the fountain of eternal youth. If it did, it would spell the end of humanity.

[Glider]

It's the next part of our evolution.

Merging with robotics and becoming mostly cyborg will be where we are heading. Population control isn't really required, why do we need children if we live forever?

Imagine what Newton/Einstein/Tesla etc could have accomplished if they lived for 1000 years and WITH enhanced genetic properties from robotics?

Interstellar space travel would become possible for humans.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords

[Travesty]

(06-08-2014 08:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Besides the fact that the human mind probably can't handle being immune to death from natural causes, what about population growth? What about social mobility? People will still want kids, and people will still want to move up in society, and that's hard to do when you're at maximum population for the planet and the people above you at work don't retire with age.

Population growth: 1 child per couple rule until technology progresses enough to deal with expansion. The world birth rates are declining because of economic forces. As people receive more education there will be less children.

No one will be in a rush to have kids! You won't need to. You could live life until 150 and be the wisest dad ever. And you could search a lifetime for the perfect mom.

As for people running companies fine, let them. You could spend 20 years trying and failing to start your own business and it is no big deal. This gives even more employment freedom you have more choice.

Public officials and organizations would have terms, and be kicked out just like politicians.

(06-08-2014 08:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Who gets to have kids when there's an opening in the population? Who decides that? How are the kids raised when the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population is hundreds or thousands of years old?

It could be by age. Older people meaning they lived as 25 year old bodies for 80 years could then have a child and not be heavily taxed. Frankly I don't see this issue rising. People won't be in a rush to have kids! As education and money grows people wait much longer to have kids.

How are the kids raised?

Better than ever. You could wait til 90 to have kids and have the perfect mother with a vast amount of wisdom and maturity to bestow on your child.

(06-08-2014 08:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Who takes the risks in the society? How badly would innovation suffer as people have thousands of years of life to lose instead of dozens? How are criminals handled, when getting put in prison for 10-20 years is an eyeblink to someone with a limitless lifespan?

As for danger? You could bet prices for dangerous labor would skyrocket. This in turn would lead to investment in robotics and technology to do the dangerous work for us.

Violent crime is tough. I don't know. I am hoping as humanity evolves and we enjoy greater resources, educations, and quality of life there will be less crime per person.

(06-08-2014 08:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Think about how fragile a society like that would be, from a reproduction standpoint. Unless we can start and stop ovulation reliably so that a 100 year old woman could naturally give birth--let alone a 2000 year old woman--all it would take is a technological breakdown (from, say, a war) to wipe out 99% of the reproductive capacity of the population since it would necessarily be in the form of frozen eggs and sperm. All but a tiny portion of the population would be post menopausal, after all.

With this technology we could revert our age to whatever is optimal, let's say 25. Everything is restored. Sperm, eggs, everything. We have the beginning of the technology to replace or reproduce any cell type.

...

(06-08-2014 08:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I think if the technology someday exists to stop aging, it is very likely our society will stratify into the ageless rulers (1% or less of the population) and the rest of humanity will exist to support them. Maybe there would be a lottery to elevate people to the ruling class every year to replenish the ranks after accidental deaths, or something like that. Life might be great for the 99%, it doesn't have to be Elysium-esque, but there's no way the human population in general will get to drink from the fountain of eternal youth. If it did, it would spell the end of humanity.

This is why a public and open non-profit needs to have the most authority so that private industry does not take this over. This is why I support SENS.

It isn't if this will happen, it is just when. The technology and proof is here.

In 10 to 20 years when the announcement comes out we can successfully make mice live 2 or 3 times their normal lifespans at perfect health there will be pandemonium. We as the human race need to let this sink in so it doesn't punch us in the face.

[Veloce]

Imagine if humanity ever reached a point where there was some equilibrium; that is to say, a set population that we strictly controlled. What, the same 5 billion people inhabit the planet and that's it? Let's say we figure out that in order to live completely sustainably so that we don't destroy our environment, that number is somewhere between 5 and 20 billion humans. (Who knows really, just a hypothetical) Then what? Everyone fucks the same people for recreational sex? Or is there a death and birth lottery?

On RVF in the year 2072 there will be competitions for who can fuck the entire world's population of 18-22 year olds and how long it takes them

[Travesty]

(06-08-2014 09:05 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Imagine if humanity ever reached a point where there was some equilibrium; that is to say, a set population that we strictly controlled. What, the same 5 billion people inhabit the planet and that's it? Let's say we figure out that in order to live completely sustainably so that we don't destroy our environment, that number is somewhere between 5 and 20 billion humans. (Who knows really, just a hypothetical) Then what? Everyone fucks the same people for recreational sex? Or is there a death and birth lottery?

We will travel into space. We also will with environmental technology progress make less and less of a foot print on earth. Ever been to Wyoming? We have plenty of space. And again we could possibly build vertical cities high into the sky and have easy transport to large outdoor recreational areas. The options are endless.

Death lottery?

People will still overdose on drugs. People will fall off a cliff. Hurricanes will happen. Planes will fall out of the sky.

You can bet there will be a ton of $ invested in safety and robotics to preserve as much life as possible.

I really don't think there will be a birth lottery. You can wait 100+ years to have kids if you want.

(06-08-2014 09:05 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

On RVF in the year 2072 there will be competitions for who can fuck the entire world's population of 18-22 year olds and how long it takes them

This is a positive.

Almost every girl would look 18-22 except new children. So what's the math on bangs per day for 50 years and 4 billion chicks?

There would be game by age. Completely different game for 50 year old chicks vs. 150 year old, but they all are young physically.

Imagine the most interesting person you have ever met. Now give them 4 more lifetimes and now meet them? It would be incredible.

[Veloce]

(06-08-2014 09:12 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 09:05 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Imagine if humanity ever reached a point where there was some equilibrium; that is to say, a set population that we strictly controlled. What, the same 5 billion people inhabit the planet and that's it? Let's say we figure out that in order to live completely sustainably so that we don't destroy our environment, that number is somewhere between 5 and 20 billion humans. (Who knows really, just a hypothetical) Then what? Everyone fucks the same people for recreational sex? Or is there a death and birth lottery?

We will travel into space. We also will with environmental technology progress make less and less of a foot print on earth. Ever been to Wyoming? We have plenty of space. An again we could possibly building vertical cities high into the sky and have easy transport to large outdoor recreational areas. The options are endless.

Death lottery?

People will still overdose on drugs. People will fall off a cliff. Hurricanes will happen. Planes will fall out of the sky.

You can bet there will be a ton of $ invested in safety and robotics to preserve as much life as possible.

I really don't think there will be a birth lottery. You can wait 100+ years to have kids if you want.

(06-08-2014 09:05 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

On RVF in the year 2072 there will be competitions for who can fuck the entire world's population of 18-22 year olds and how long it takes them

This is a positive.

Almost every girl would look 18-22 except new children. So what's the math on bangs per day for 50 years and 4 billion chicks?

Leaving Earth would be punishment.

I think a more likely "Elysium" scenario is actually opposite of what happened in the movie. Lower classes must move to the moon or Europa and only the global elite would be allowed to remain on Earth.

This kind of future scenario assumes a lot of things, one of which is the establishment of a true New World Order. I firmly believe a World War will have to occur before that Order is established, and a subsequent genocide on a massive scale.

[Travesty]

Well again these treatments won't happen overnight.

They will be incremental in nature and give you a +5 years of youth, then 5 years later a new treatment gives a +10 and so on.

This will take time to take effect.

I think making the conclusion only the super wealthy will take it over is like saying only they get to do vegetable juicing, or have heart surgery, or cancer treatment.

This is going to be incremental widespread knowledge.

Is the elite going to kill off all the biologists that can provide these treatments? Or kidnap them all?

It would be in their favor to have as many scientists working on this openly as humanly possible.

This isn't going to be a one-off injection or pill and that's it in the first round. There will be many iterations of better and better treatments.

And believe it or not many very wealthy people are actually philanthropic and like to help people.

This is a rich people are evil fear.

[Wutang]

Would people still die by natural causes with this technology? I'm thinking of old people that aren't sick, have no medical issues but end up kicking the bucket in their sleep - seemingly out of nowwhere.

[Travesty]

(06-08-2014 09:41 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Would people still die by natural causes with this technology? I'm thinking of old people that aren't sick, have no medical issues but end up kicking the bucket in their sleep - seemingly out of nowwhere.

Natural causes is usually a way of just saying their heart finally gave out in most cases from what I gather after watching many videos. This broad term is used because everyone just accepts old people die and the deep research into all the complexities of every cell in the human body at work with aging has just begun to be taken seriously.

The human body is a robot-like machine like any other in the physical sense, just vastly more complex.

So the answer is no. No one would die of natural causes. All your cells would be replenished and replaced over long periods of time along with eliminating any toxins or mutations to cells so you cannot die of "natural causes".

The two diseases that kill all people given enough time are heart disease and cancer.

[LeBeau]

Tim Ferriss and others have mentioned Silicon Valley millionaires investing in current treatments that affect telomeres that supposedly show promise, does anyone know more about this stuff? It's well beyond my areas of expertise.

[Travesty]

Re-lengthening telomeres is a tough challenge from what I have read. If you mess with them too much they can mutate and cause cancer.

They are one piece of a very large puzzle.

From what I gather it may be a solution that causes too many unwanted new problems.

In the second video I posted there are 7 major categories of damage to the human body that must be fixed and maintained to stay healthy.

Even if you re-lengthen telomeres successfully you still need to deal with cell junk, tissue stiffening (ex: types of heart disease), cell and mitochondrial mutations, cells that won't die etc...

Re-lengthening telomeres I believe only solves the problem of replacing dead cells infinitely, which is a big deal, but still is only a piece of a large pie.

This is why more $ is needed to attack all these problems at their level or origin.

The way money is being spent now mostly is on how to fix damage after it is done instead of go to the root of the problem and stop it before it happens.

[Spede]

Delighted by your thread, Travesty444!

Just recently I've started to educate myself about SENS and health/longevity related topics. Fight Aging! is the go-to blog to stay updated on these matters, though the scientific papers cited are often hard to digest for the laywmen such as myself.

(06-08-2014 01:52 PM)Switch Wrote:  

That sounds terrible. Life is supposed to end. Stopping diseases- great idea, but prolonging life to astronomical lengths? Bad idea.

Bad idea for who? You're welcome to die "naturally" in a few decades, it's certainly a fundamental right of yours, but I certainly abhorr this idea and would hate to be prevented from increasing my lifespan.

(06-08-2014 01:52 PM)Switch Wrote:  

Read Brave New World, it might change your perspective on this topic.

Yeah, about that...
http://www.huxley.net/

Quote:

Brave New World (1932) is one of the most bewitching and insidious works of literature ever written.

An exaggeration?

Tragically, no. Brave New World has come to serve as the false symbol for any regime of universal happiness.

For sure, Huxley was writing a satirical piece of fiction, not scientific prophecy. Hence to treat his masterpiece as ill-conceived futurology rather than a work of great literature might seem to miss the point. Yet the knee-jerk response of "It's Brave New World!" to any blueprint for chemically-driven happiness has delayed research into paradise-engineering for all sentient life.

[...]

[Samseau]

There is a very good chance individual humans are programmed to die. It may be the case that it is impossible to defeat aging.

This is probably the most likely case scenario, which implicates resources should be spent on how to build a healthy culture that sustains itself and not on trying to glorify the individual.

[Travesty]

^ This may be true. I am no economist, but aren't healthcare costs the largest concern for our future economy?

Investment in this science at worst will alleviate the decades of expenses for the care of the elderly currently. They might not live forever, but they will be much more active and productive with these medical interventions.

Another major point is that from what I know, populations that have demographics that skew extremely young usually are rife with societal unrest. A major advantage to a healthy and active older population is one that is wiser about the world and has more to lose since they have built knowledge, wealth, families etc... these societies without the ills of medical costs for the elderly I think would do quite well.

[Windom Earle]

(06-08-2014 11:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a very good chance individual humans are programmed to die. It may be the case that it is impossible to defeat aging.

Humans, yes, however nanotechnology and the merger of man with machine will likely enable the reversal of ageing/immortality.

Let's not forget about the potential for the expansion of human intelligence also, Limitless style (through the aid of machines - e.g. nanobots in our brain). If we've reached the point where age reversal/immortality becomes a reality, then this is also highly probable.

This is an interesting chart from Ray Kurzweil. You can see at the "one human brain" point in 2029 where he predicts that a computer will pass the Turing Test.