[Spede]

(06-08-2014 02:48 PM)Slick Shimmer Wrote:  

I'm not against the technology, but I am against its privatization, especially by Google.

I agree with that, but given the current state of affairs, any financial & scientific investment is more than welcome. So... deep-pocketed Google is planning to throw big cash in life extension? TAKE MY MONEY.

That's the thing. As much as I'd prefer the public sector to spearhead life extension, funds are slowly coughed by our technocrats. Precisely because there's no political push; and there's no political push because politicians have no incentive to do so; and they have no incentive to hurry a scientific leap because voters think death is unavoidable.

And now you have Google, which never does anything for free, that stepped in. Brilliant.
That means more private competitors will join the race in an attempt to undercut Google's newfound nich; and that also means the public and non-profit sectors will too be forced to pay better attention, because of what's at stake (complete societal revolution) and because the public society will be increasingly made aware of the incurring changes and challenges.

(06-08-2014 03:39 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

It would be interesting to see how this would impact things economically, were something like this to come to fruition.

This should go hand to hand with the Universal Basic Income, in my view.

(06-08-2014 03:50 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

The notion of any of this being available to the common man is laughable.

Well, you too are making speculations. You're not taking into account the possibility that public sector/non-profits would contribute to life extension treatments, and that they'd make them affordable (possibly free, actually).
And who's been doing the heavy scientific lifting up to now? Public and non-profits.

But anyway if you're playing along the "elitist conspiracy" line (which I don't agree with), then you could imagine them being happy to keep their common men slaves in good shape for a very long time. No more burn-out, etc. Good for their profits.

(06-08-2014 04:43 PM)Solus Wrote:  

Disease, aging and death are all devices which have regulated life on Earth for billions of years. How exactly is stopping all of them a good thing?

This is not an accurate statement, since some natural species do not die of aging.
Plus, you're assuming that we would keep procreating at an unregulated rate, which wouldn't be the case anymore.

I will also point out that humans have been cheating death since prehistoric times.

(06-08-2014 04:43 PM)Solus Wrote:  

Eternal youth would only beneficial from an individual standpoint if you were the only person it would apply to and even then you'll still watch everyone you know and love age and die in your place.

No, it would be a good thing on many levels for the society, if and only if as many people as possible could stay young (not immortal, just young).

Keep in mind that life extension is all about gaining control over your life; the ultimate game that empowers you to pick, not a girl, but yourself.
Wanna die old and without knowing when? More power to you! Wanna die young at 100 years old? Go ahead! Wanna die young err... don't know when? Enjoy your stay and take your time!
Indefinite life extension gives you a choice - that you don't currently have.

Also, life extension as envisaged by SENS doesn't aim at fusionning with machines (but AFAIK doesn't exclude some degree of cohabitation for medical reasons). That's a different story. Human enhancement has its own share of supporters.

Then, regarding suicide. Suicide would still bear some sadness, as all departures, but will be a much more accepted social practice. Simply because unlike now, in a life extended society people will more likely choose to end their lives not out of despair, but because they will feel complete. They'll have decided that they did everything they wanted to, that they weren't interested in making more, and they'll leave this world with a smile on their face.

Already in countries like Belgium and Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, the patients who will die from incurable conditions are much happier to choose the exact day they'll die, rather than having to endure useless therapies for an undetermined amount of time. They even hold small parties with friends and family before going. Why? Because under such system, they've reclaimed some control over an unavoidable death.

The next step is to claim full control over death, through an indefinite life.

[Benoit]

(06-08-2014 07:40 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

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.

If I've understood you right, I agree completely.

It's the height of arrogance to presume that you can predict your future thoughts absent all context.

I'm in my 30s now, no way could my teenage self have been capable of even comprehending the concept that I would be in the best shape of my life and getting hotter women than ever at this point.

I can clearly remember being sat alone in my room in absolute despair, something I'm not certain actually happened. Since even hindsight is distorted, how people expect foresight to work is mystifying.

There's a zen way of thinking that treats living in the moment as the only true life - your past self is dead and your future self doesn't exist. Contemplating death on a daily basis doesn't seem to lead to very many suicidal buddhists.

[Samseau]

(06-09-2014 12:29 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

(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.

Who cares if computers are fast. They still can't get a computer to think for itself.

And the idea we can "upload our consciousness" seems ridiculous considering no one understands how the brain works.

Ray Kurzweil has been making insane predictions for a long time, and none of them have come true.

I read his "Singularity is Near" back in 2007, and he predicted by 2011 everyone would be walking around with little Google Glass type devices. So far it's 2014 and Google Glass is probably another 5 years away.

All of this futurism stuff is escapism from human nature and will be forgotten once civil war breaks out.

[Spede]

(06-09-2014 10:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Ray Kurzweil has been making insane predictions for a long time, and none of them have come true.

According to this list, you're not being exactly honest regarding Kurzweil's track record.

(06-09-2014 10:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I read his "Singularity is Near" back in 2007, and he predicted by 2011 everyone would be walking around with little Google Glass type devices. So far it's 2014 and Google Glass is probably another 5 years away.

Predicted for 2009, available (albeit on a limited scale) since 2013.
What gives?

(06-09-2014 10:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

All of this futurism stuff is escapism from human nature and will be forgotten once civil war breaks out.

Civil war? Where, why? This assertion makes very little sense to me.

[eradicator]

(06-09-2014 11:55 AM)Spede Wrote:  

Civil war? Where, why? This assertion makes very little sense to me.

Falling off the fiscal cliff, hyperinflation, energy shortages, immigration, that is just off the top of my head about what could potentially divide the nation to a civil war..

Part of me things "we are too smart of any of that to actually happen" but the other part of my brain is like "we are all doomed"

[Beyond Borders]

(06-09-2014 10:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 12:29 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

(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.

Who cares if computers are fast. They still can't get a computer to think for itself.

And the idea we can "upload our consciousness" seems ridiculous considering no one understands how the brain works.

Ray Kurzweil has been making insane predictions for a long time, and none of them have come true.

Didn't a computer just pass the Turing Test? I thought I saw that here somewhere?

If not, here you go.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../10224461/

Anyhow, I think Google getting on board with this whole stop aging thing is an interesting development. They've got some brilliant minds over there. There must at least be something to it if they're entertaining the idea.

[Samseau]

2015
By now, it is likely that "clean a house" will be within the capabilities of a household robot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions...zweil#2015

[Beyond Borders]

(06-09-2014 12:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

2015
By now, it is likely that "clean a house" will be within the capabilities of a household robot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions...zweil#2015

http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp

[Spede]

(06-09-2014 11:59 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

Falling off the fiscal cliff, hyperinflation, energy shortages, immigration, that is just off the top of my head about what could potentially divide the nation to a civil war..

These are things which can certainly provoke a temporary or not-so-temporary meltdown, but why a civil war? Why do terrorised people always think in terms of war -- civil war, world war, race war, anything war??

(06-09-2014 12:18 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

Didn't a computer just pass the Turing Test? I thought I saw that here somewhere?

If not, here you go.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../10224461/

Anyhow, I think Google getting on board with this whole stop aging thing is an interesting development. They've got some brilliant minds over there. There must at least be something to it if they're entertaining the idea.

Yup. Even though it didn't fool all of the judges, it did lead some to think it was actually human; and that's a landmark.

The point is this: progress is real and not far off from past predictions. I don't buy all the transhumanist discourse (I already said that they're a different bunch of people compared with SENS' more modest ambitions), but life extension and other technological leaps are not a scam.

Google has the financial and intellectual means to bring significant advances, and hopefully this will force Apple and Samsung (already promoting gadgety vital sensor features) to pour their mountains of cash in the same direction and will also slowly coerce the pharmaceutical majors into reorienting their funding priorities.

[Travesty]

I think it will take another 5 years with Google's support and once news of greater progress comes out before you see a good 5-10% of the general population (likely the most intelligent) start to let this sink in and change their life philosophies even if the human science is 30 or 40 years off.

I don't think the real tipping point will be for another 15-20 years. People are very concerned with the now.

No one cares about scientific papers so until there is some YouTube video showing a mouse living to 2-3 times its age in perfect youth people will not care even if the 5-10 years prior it is out there and practically guaranteed to happen.

[Spede]

(06-09-2014 01:35 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

I think it will take another 5 years with Google's support and once news of greater progress comes out before you see a good 5-10% of the general population (likely the most intelligent) start to let this sink in and change their life philosophies even if the human science is 30 or 40 years off.

I don't think the real tipping point will be for another 15-20 years. People are very concerned with the now.

No one cares about scientific papers so until there is some YouTube video showing a mouse living to 2-3 times its age in perfect youth people will not care even if the 5-10 years prior it is out there and practically guaranteed to happen.

Fully agreed.

The human's mindset is traditionally slow to change, and it certainly doesn't help that the ministers in charge of health policies are focused on their own careers - e.g. do anything to appease the masses and save their arses. "Educate people on the prospects of maintaining a constant youth? Uh oh, that could put the current healthcare spendings back on the table! Better dodge the matter."

[Samseau]

Too bad the turing test is nonsense...

If it acts like a human it must be a human?

If she acts like a virgin she must be a virgin?

[Travesty]

Roosh posted this article earlier:

Should we be concerned that Google is obsessed with making intelligent robots?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/20...telligence

This is another point in the direction of the $ being plowed into a Post-Work & Post-Aging environment.

There are many very intelligent minds in different fields starting to back these notions and the $ is following suit.

Just another reason why $ will be king in the near to mid future to afford all these technologies and remedies.

[Beyond Borders]

(06-09-2014 11:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Too bad the turing test is nonsense...

If it acts like a human it must be a human?

If she acts like a virgin she must be a virgin?

Not one single person on this forum - or likely the entire planet - is insinuating that the Turing Test makes a robot human or even close.

It's a very clever carnival trick, yes, but most importantly, a huge leap in robotic design.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[iknowexactly]

(06-09-2014 12:27 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 12:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

2015
By now, it is likely that "clean a house" will be within the capabilities of a household robot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions...zweil#2015

http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp

That thing can't do 10% of what an average maid can do.
Can't wash dishes, do laundry, wash windows, take out trash, clean the trash can, answer the phone... all it does is one simple task ( not to denigrate the programming involved) it moves around a proscribed area and vacuums. That is nowhere near "cleaning a house" , not even 1/3 of it.

As far as intelligent robots go, I remember a couple of years ago a robotics research admitting how primitive they are: You can 't even tell a robot to go to the bookshelf and get you "War and Peace" when any literate 7 year old can do that.

I admit however, that self-driving cars will be huge. I waste fully 3 hours a day tiring myself out trying not to crash into other Priuses.

[NewView]

(06-11-2014 08:46 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

Roosh posted this article earlier:

Should we be concerned that Google is obsessed with making intelligent robots?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/20...telligence

This is another point in the direction of the $ being plowed into a Post-Work & Post-Aging environment.

There are many very intelligent minds in different fields starting to back these notions and the $ is following suit.

Just another reason why $ will be king in the near to mid future to afford all these technologies and remedies.

I've tried to wrap my mind around the implications of robots taking over most of the jobs, 75% unemployment etc but i keep running into the wall of how or why corporations keep making stuff if no one has income with which to buy it? In a post-work world won't everything in effect have to be state owned? Big picture, doesn't it require a fundamental restructuring of what we call the Economy?

[Beyond Borders]

(06-12-2014 12:29 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 12:27 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 12:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

2015
By now, it is likely that "clean a house" will be within the capabilities of a household robot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions...zweil#2015

http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp

That thing can't do 10% of what an average maid can do.
Can't wash dishes, do laundry, wash windows, take out trash, clean the trash can, answer the phone... all it does is one simple task ( not to denigrate the programming involved) it moves around a proscribed area and vacuums. That is nowhere near "cleaning a house" , not even 1/3 of it.

That post was meant to be snarky. Hence the big grin.

I can't resist when Samseau gets on one of his rolls.

[Travesty]

@New View

People will still be enticed to earn money, it is just that the pool of people with the intelligence whether social or scientific will shrink for those that have the ability to provide new value to the economy.

Just like the current trend more will be partially or employed or unemployed living on a welfare system that becomes less and less expensive to provide and becomes more and more generous in what it can offer.

It somewhat confuses me for red pillers to not admit that as we progress many people literally just do not have the intelligence or drive to provide real value. You can tell them to work harder or find a niche all you want. The stark reality is that humanity just really will not need their services.

We can have them starve in the streets or offer welfare. The world will always be competitive therefore not everyone can offer substantial value especially as we make computers that have the brain power of the entire human race.

As time goes on only a slimmer and slimmer sliver of the most talented portion of humans will offer real value when robots start making robots.

[soup]

(06-08-2014 02:59 PM)Switch Wrote:  

I watched the first video. Needless to say I'm still not convinced. I think you guys are missing the fundamental cause of happiness. Money doesn't cause happiness. Just the simple fact of being alive doesn't cause happiness. Overcoming struggle and achieving goals causes happiness. What's the point of life if it doesn't end? If you simply live forever, your happiness would have to decrease. Sure you could accomplish more in your life, but more isn't necessarily better. I think seeing how much you can accomplish in your 100 years on earthis a task in itself. If you eliminate the time limit you kind of defeat the purpose.

It's not about happiness, but joy.

I want several lifetimes worth of time to explore the things that interest me in the world. I know that I'm only limited to one, and have had to cut lose some pursuits in my life they I had strong passions for.

This guy Aubrey is very smart- he realizes that complex disease like Cancer and Altzheimers have a low likelyhood of ever being stopped once they've manifested, but possibly prevented with a more systematic approach instead of a direct head of conflict.

It's like locking down the venue.

[soup]

(06-08-2014 03:34 PM)Switch Wrote:  

^I don't think this topic could possibly be over thought. We're talking about fundamentally changing the way people live life. The planet cannot physically withstand infinite human growth. What do you do when you have to start killing people off and telling people sorry you can't have kids. How do you decide who stays and who dies? Life is cyclical. If you take away the end, then what happens? Living 200 years, I can see. 500? Sure. But immortality? Too many problems. It would he a disaster. Read Brave New World, that's what our world would turn into. That would suck.

I think we should seriously start considering some of these issues even without the aging thing.

People have to get a license to drive.. why not have one for having kids? The world population is already too much.

I think having a child should be a bigger deal than it is right now. There are people pumping kids out in to terrible living conditions for no other reason than that they feel like it. Does the kid feel like it?

It can't be based on emotions.. I think we need to think strategically about reproduction if our species is going to survive because I believe the rate/type of population growth happening now is un-sustainable.

[soup]

(06-08-2014 06:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Part of what makes life valuable is knowing it will end. It's hard to value something that comes in infinite supply. Knowing you will die one day gives you a sense of urgency to create something meaningful in your short time. If you knew you'd still be alive in the year 6,517AD while looking and feeling exactly like you do now, you'd never be hustling to do anything, because you'd have all the time in universe. If there were any reason though that I'd love to live a very long life it's to see how humanity evolves. Do we solve all global problems and eventually become an Eden? Or do we descend into post-apocalyptic dystopia? Do end up colonizing other planets? What will become of religions? How will cities and technology look in thousands of years. I'm so curious about this kind of stuff.

I honestly think life is way too short. Now that I'm heading toward 40, I'm REALLY realizing that. That though I feel as fit and healthy as I did at 20, statistically I'm half way to the grave. I wish we lived for at least a few hundred years, while retaining our physical youth for much longer.

I agree that death lights the fire under the ass in terms of motivation.. but we are going to all die even if aging is cured. Why not have the best possible lives we can while we are alive?

[soup]

I think the thing that Samseau is pointing out about failed projections is the problem.

Life is one big gamble.

There are too many variables out there to safely predict whether or not the singularity will happen.

That said, I was surprised to hear that an AI passed the turing test this week. And, yes, it is indistinguishable from a human, than it is human. Whose to say that everyone but yourself is just a zombie or what Daniel Dennet calls a Zimbo. I think there's a lot semantic confusion in these matters..

I also think there are things about statistics that we need to keep in mind when talking about all this stuff.. tipping points, randomness, etc.

[magellan]

(06-12-2014 01:29 PM)soup Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:34 PM)Switch Wrote:  

^I don't think this topic could possibly be over thought. We're talking about fundamentally changing the way people live life. The planet cannot physically withstand infinite human growth. What do you do when you have to start killing people off and telling people sorry you can't have kids. How do you decide who stays and who dies? Life is cyclical. If you take away the end, then what happens? Living 200 years, I can see. 500? Sure. But immortality? Too many problems. It would he a disaster. Read Brave New World, that's what our world would turn into. That would suck.

I think we should seriously start considering some of these issues even without the aging thing.

People have to get a license to drive.. why not have one for having kids? The world population is already too much.

I think having a child should be a bigger deal than it is right now. There are people pumping kids out in to terrible living conditions for no other reason than that they feel like it. Does the kid feel like it?

It can't be based on emotions.. I think we need to think strategically about reproduction if our species is going to survive because I believe the rate/type of population growth happening now is un-sustainable.

Been saying there should be a license to give birth for years now. Too many idiots pumping out kids for the fuck of it.

Regardless of what you believe, the only way to insulate yourself from the uncertainty of the future and other worldly nonsense is to make serious money. That's where my priorities are.

[Travesty]

^
Even if these projections are wildly off it is still the right game plan. Preventing major diseases through cellular maintainance and clean up is much better than putting the elderly through more surgeries and giving them more pills while they cost us all a fortune.

The demographics of a graying and sickly
population is a drain on everyone's personal freedom.

As I said before the real thing to be angry about is how little money ($10M out of the U.S.'s $30B a year budget) is put into this.

Imagine if it was even just $500M a year, the progress increase would be staggering.

[NewView]

(06-12-2014 11:18 AM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

@New View

People will still be enticed to earn money, it is just that the pool of people with the intelligence whether social or scientific will shrink for those that have the ability to provide new value to the economy.

Just like the current trend more will be partially or employed or unemployed living on a welfare system that becomes less and less expensive to provide and becomes more and more generous in what it can offer.

It somewhat confuses me for red pillers to not admit that as we progress many people literally just do not have the intelligence or drive to provide real value. You can tell them to work harder or find a niche all you want. The stark reality is that humanity just really will not need their services.

We can have them starve in the streets or offer welfare. The world will always be competitive therefore not everyone can offer substantial value especially as we make computers that have the brain power of the entire human race.

As time goes on only a slimmer and slimmer sliver of the most talented portion of humans will offer real value when robots start making robots.

Oh, I'm down with the redundancy of 75% of the global population, see my "unpopular opinion" that diseases shouldn't be cured.

I think there's a general lack of foresight about what the era of "robots making robots" entails. We imagine it from where we stand now, as in gee imagine if it takes zero input costs to build a house. So we input robot labor into that, with a sort of unspoken assumption that knowledge based industries, which are the sole purview of humans right now, will be unscathed. But as computers become smarter than humans, all new advances will be within the context of computers making them. There will be no need for humans at most every level of the system-ie. there's no reason doctors won't be robots, movies will be entirely CGI etc

I'm not suggesting there will be zero room for human value, but i think it'd be very small. So lets say it's 75% unemployment/ welfare; where does the money come from to fund it if we still have a corporate situation like exists now where we work, pay taxes, which funds welfare programs, but magnitudes fewer people paying in with equal magnitudes more taking out? Super high taxes on wealth? Or if everything becomes robot driven, who provides the robots, or who pays those who provide the robots?

I don't see how a corporate, profit driven situation exists if there's mass disruption to employment leaving those masses with zero income. The only thing that seems to me to make sense is a new economic paradigm where the state controls every aspect of the means of production (robots and the computers that program robots, as well as raw materials) and the market for product demand is determined someway like how facebook determines which ads to show you. So the government "owns" everything, but the actual mechanics are completely program driven with maybe no human input at all.