Tech Based Youthful Immortality

[Dave1001]

So, do you think we as individuals, on this message board, have a shot at the option of tech based youthful immortality before we die, decompose, and entropy does its worst to us?

What difference can our individual efforts make?

[Soapy Sam]

So, do you think we as individuals, on this message board, have a shot at the option of tech based youthful immortality before we die, decompose, and entropy does its worst to us?



* Glances at reflection in dark window *

No.

[wipeout]

I think this is a very important and interesting question. The two main problems are creating or repairing body parts and the effects of aging on the brain and while the former sounds like it's possible in the next 50 years, the latter sounds rather more tricky.

I'd guess that creating replacement body parts would be easier than trying to repair them. Once all the parts can be created, not only does this allow aging of all but the brain to be avoided but it also cures most forms of cancer, heart disease, etc. The public demand would be massive, however, which brings its own problems and then questions about a shortage of surgeons and then questions about robotic surgeons doing the work instead and so on.

All interesting questions, though.

[Meffy]

Not only do I not think I deserve longevity or immortality, unless minds could somehow remain always lively, inquiring, and interested, I can't imagine many horrors worse than physical immortality. No thank you, I'll return my borrowed chemicals to the planet when I'm done with them. Others better than I will follow.

[Bronze Dog]

The soulless minions of orthodoxy have been suppressing it for years. I should know: I'm hooked up here Ghost in the Shell style.

[roger]

Not only do I not think I deserve longevity or immortality, unless minds could somehow remain always lively, inquiring, and interested, I can't imagine many horrors worse than physical immortality. No thank you, I'll return my borrowed chemicals to the planet when I'm done with them. Others better than I will follow.Well, what's your number? I'm assuming that it's over 30-40 years, if you avail yourself of modern medicine. Would you like 200 years? 300? 1000?

Me, I'd like a few 10s of thousands of years at a minimum. I can always turn myself off if it gets too bad.

[luchog]

Well, what's your number? I'm assuming that it's over 30-40 years, if you avail yourself of modern medicine. Would you like 200 years? 300? 1000?

Me, I'd like a few 10s of thousands of years at a minimum. I can always turn myself off if it gets too bad.
Amen.

Personally, I've always thought that the sort of people who are scared or intimated by the thought of physical immortality and youth are those who lack imagination, motivation, and vision. I would welcome it if it was available. Just imagine the sorts of things that one could accomplish over that space of time.

[Foster Zygote]

Not only do I not think I deserve longevity or immortality, unless minds could somehow remain always lively, inquiring, and interested, I can't imagine many horrors worse than physical immortality. No thank you, I'll return my borrowed chemicals to the planet when I'm done with them. Others better than I will follow.

Immortality would also bring a grinding halt to human evolution. I would like a long, healthy life but I guess as a parent I now better understand the need to make way for following generations. Plus it would get rather crowded after a while.

Steven

[Dave1001]

Immortality would also bring a grinding halt to human evolution. I would like a long, healthy life but I guess as a parent I now better understand the need to make way for following generations. Plus it would get rather crowded after a while.

Steven

Our default genetic programming may also be to want to die within 130 years. We're programmed to have generations of about 35 years to promote genetic population change at a certain rate (much slower than flies, faster than giant turtles), and I suppose to live a little longer in the case of men to propogate longer if you're an "alpha male" of your cohort, and for men and women to help care for a couple generations of offspring beyond one's procreative years. Thus I think it's interesting that exceptions like me (and some other folks on this thread) have a desire for our conscious awareness to persist for periods greatly beyond the limits genetically programmed into our bodies.

[Soapy Sam]

Imagine the autobiographies:- "My first 150 years as a double glazing salesman".

The social implications:- No labour shortage and minimum wage $1 a day.

The housing crisis.

Living at home with your parents till you could afford to rent an apartment , aged 70.

The wars.

Thank you, no.

[Dave1001]

Imagine the autobiographies:- "My first 150 years as a double glazing salesman".

The social implications:- No labour shortage and minimum wage $1 a day.

The housing crisis.

Living at home with your parents till you could afford to rent an apartment , aged 70.

The wars.

Thank you, no.

These and similar arguments are all so easily refutable as inevitable outcomes that I think smart folks who promote them probably have a programmed biological/genetic disposition towards living less than 130 years.

[Angus McPresley]

These and similar arguments are all so easily refutable as inevitable outcomes that I think smart folks who promote them probably have a programmed biological/genetic disposition towards living less than 130 years.


Agreed. To all those opposed to an extended lifespan, I have a question. Your 100th birthday rolls around, and still feel as young and healthy as you were when you were 30. Will you kill yourself? By what means?

[Meffy]

Agreed. To all those opposed to an extended lifespan,
I'm opposed to a vastly extended lifespan. A few years, a couple decades, fine. Centuries? No.
I have a question. Your 100th birthday rolls around, and still feel as young and healthy as you were when you were 30.
This question seems to include an unstated assumption that when I was thirty I was "young and healthy." In fact I've been in moderate to severe pain the entire time since I was about seventeen, eighteen years old, in the mid-1970s. Non-stop unless you count the times when my right leg, foot, and hip experienced excruciating "pins and needles" numbness for a few days at a stretch. Frankly the pain is preferable. Pain I can relegate to a back corner of my consciousness so it's not overwhelming most of the time.

This omits health problems that have appeared since the 1970s, one of which is almost as bothersome as the leg trouble but considerably more dangerous.
Will you kill yourself? By what means?
Yes. My insides will do the job by the means that they've been working at for decades. The loss to the world will be minimal, far outweighed the advantages of my no longer being around to consume increasingly scarce resources.

These and similar arguments are all so easily refutable as inevitable outcomes that I think smart folks who promote them probably have a programmed biological/genetic disposition towards living less than 130 years.
I'll be interested in reading your refutations of those arguments.

[Meffy]

Well, what's your number? I'm assuming that it's over 30-40 years, if you avail yourself of modern medicine. Would you like 200 years? 300? 1000?
I would like about eighty years but am unlikely to make it.

Given that I've accomplished little of value in what life I've had so far, I can't imagine that stretching that life out over centuries would add anything useful to the world. I'd expect the opposite, in fact: the less likely death is, the less urgency actually to accomplish or achieve anything. One could always do it next century, or the next, instead.
Me, I'd like a few 10s of thousands of years at a minimum. I can always turn myself off if it gets too bad.
Can you, though? Suicide is unpopular, and strong forces want to keep you from having that option. They'd rather rely on their religious convictions than your wishes. I distrust such people but they do seem to be in power.

[Dave1001]

I'll be interested in reading your refutations of those arguments.

Is there really a need on this board for me to write a refutation to a claim that it's inevitable that the minimum wage will decline to a 2006 $1 U.S. and that the planet will experience severe overpopulation if tech based healthy imortality became an option for everybody? I think pretty much any of us can propose solutions to those negative eventualities besides the default solution (if it even is a solution) of maintaining the 130 hard lifespan limit.

Are you against healthy immortality becoming a widely available option due to these hypothesized negative outcomes? If so, I'm interested if you think you're genetically predisposed to maintaining a 130 year lifespan limit (at least for yourself) or if you think you arrived there solely by weighing all the possible advantages and disadvantages to allowing folks the option of healthy immortality.

[Meffy]

So no refutations? I'm disappointed.

And please do not attribute to me attitudes and opinions I have not explicitly stated.

[Just thinking]

Can you imagine given the medical miracle of living 10,000 years (by injection?) and then getting hit by a bus that afternoon.

Doctor: It looks like we can save him -- but he'll be in a vegetative state for the remainder of his years.

[toddjh]

So no refutations?

The refutations are economic in nature, and fairly self-evident if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.

Obviously the birth rate must be controlled if the death rate is going to be reduced. The simplest (and fairest) way to do this is to make sterilization a prerequisite for the immortality treatments. If you want to live forever, no more kids, except perhaps on a lottery basis as needed if the growth rate drops below replacement levels. I don't think the kind of people who would go for immortality would have any problem with that at all.

That alone would solve pretty much all the other problems listed.

[toddjh]

I'd also welcome the possibility of living thousands of years, although I don't think the technology will quite arrive in time to help anybody alive today. I suspect we'll be among the last few generations to live less than a century. Bummer, huh?

[Meffy]

The refutations are economic in nature, and fairly self-evident if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd have liked to see them stated by the person who brought it up though. *shrug* And who knows? Maybe the refutations could be refuted. That's what discussion's about, yes?

Obviously the birth rate must be controlled if the death rate is going to be reduced. The simplest (and fairest) way to do this is to make sterilization a prerequisite for the immortality treatments.
Obvious but I think there's a lot more than economics involved in this. I cannot imagine that most people would consent to sterilization in exchange for such treatments, nor can I believe this could be enforced. Consider the problems population growth already provides, even with naturally limited lifespans. The only nation I know of [there might be others] that routinely employs sterilization in order to control population is China; it's not generally voluntary, it's mandatory; and the practice is widely viewed as a severe violation of human rights.

What I would foresee is short-sighted people wanting to fill the planet with immortal offspring, political and economic considerations determining who would be chosen to receive immortality, and opportunities for the worst sort of tyranny.

[Dave1001]

So no refutations? I'm disappointed.

And please do not attribute to me attitudes and opinions I have not explicitly stated.

I'm not attributing, I'm asking. And I don't think it's attitudes or opinions I'm asking about as much as your assessment of where your root motivation stems from. It's honest curiosity, not some sort of sneaky type of ad hominem.

[Dave1001]

Maybe, maybe not. I'd have liked to see them stated by the person who brought it up though. *shrug* And who knows? Maybe the refutations could be refuted. That's what discussion's about, yes?


Obvious but I think there's a lot more than economics involved in this. I cannot imagine that most people would consent to sterilization in exchange for such treatments, nor can I believe this could be enforced. Consider the problems population growth already provides, even with naturally limited lifespans. The only nation I know of [there might be others] that routinely employs sterilization in order to control population is China; it's not generally voluntary, it's mandatory; and the practice is widely viewed as a severe violation of human rights.

What I would foresee is short-sighted people wanting to fill the planet with immortal offspring, political and economic considerations determining who would be chosen to receive immortality, and opportunities for the worst sort of tyranny.

technically, I think the core asymptote is keeping our rate of increase of efficiency equal to or higher than the rate of growth of our material needs and desires + entropy. If we can do that forever, we can can survive in comfort forever as a species, regardless of whether we have individual immortality, even if our population grows at a certain rate (which would be factored into the rate of growth of our material needs). Not so different from living within a budget, the only difference is we'd be factoring in all the externalities that we generally don't.

[Meffy]

Dave, I think you give humanity far too much credit for levelheadedness and altruistic self-sacrifice than I see evidence for. Greed and selfishness are the motivators that seem to govern what people do on the grand scale. I don't foresee this changing because of a big "gift."

But whatever. You want to live forever, go right ahead. Given the choice I would refuse such treatments. I've no desire to see how much worse we could screw things up if given such a double-edged sword as immortality.

[Dave1001]

Dave, I think you give humanity far too much credit for levelheadedness and altruistic self-sacrifice than I see evidence for. Greed and selfishness are the motivators that seem to govern what people do on the grand scale. I don't foresee this changing because of a big "gift."

I'm not a techno-optimist per se. Who knows what will happen? I just want to persist as a conscious entity. Although I'd rather persist in a relatively hellish state than not persist at all, of course my 1st choice would be to persist in a peaceful, enjoyable society.


But whatever. You want to live forever, go right ahead. Given the choice I would refuse such treatments. I've no desire to see how much worse we could screw things up if given such a double-edged sword as immortality.

And that's what I support. Healthy immortality as an option, not as some type of Terry Schiavo law.

[Meffy]

Just think of the opportunities for abuse. Does everyone get the treatment who wants it? If not, how does the controlling body decide who gets it and who will be denied? Who decides who will be on the controlling body? And so forth.

[Dave1001]

Just think of the opportunities for abuse. Does everyone get the treatment who wants it? If not, how does the controlling body decide who gets it and who will be denied? Who decides who will be on the controlling body? And so forth.

Those will certainly be thorny ethical and legal issues to be worked out. I suspect that more than a few lawyers and ethicists will put their kids through college by being paid to help society hash out these type questions.

[Meffy]

I don't think they could be worked out. There are too many examples of the privileged few keeping their pretties to themselves for me to believe it wouldn't happen all over again, but with feelin'.

That's no world I'd want to live in.

[Dave1001]

I don't think they could be worked out. There are too many examples of the privileged few keeping their pretties to themselves for me to believe it wouldn't happen all over again, but with feelin'.

That's no world I'd want to live in.

I support you having a right, now and in the future, to cease to exist as a conscious entity.

[roger]

I would guess that this technology is going to come on slowly. Immortality requires more than no aging, it also requires curing all terminal diseases. I'd imagine this would be a gradual process, with expected lifespan inching out further and further.

[Dave1001]

I would guess that this technology is going to come on slowly. Immortality requires more than no aging, it also requires curing all terminal diseases. I'd imagine this would be a gradual process, with expected lifespan inching out further and further.

I think that's not unreasonable. But I do think how quickly the various challenges to our immortality are solved is probably a function in part of how society invests its resources. For example what we as a society have invested in suvs and extra pairs of shoes alone that could have gone towards finding cures for cancers, heart disease, and alzheimers.

[UserGoogol]

Immortality would also bring a grinding halt to human evolution. I would like a long, healthy life but I guess as a parent I now better understand the need to make way for following generations. Plus it would get rather crowded after a while.

Steven

It would bring a grinding hault to natural selection, yes. But if we were smart enough to live forever, surely we'd be smart enough to modify ourselves. Who needs natural selection when you have intelligent design? :D

[Dave1001]

Who needs natural selection when you have intelligent design? :D

:D :D

[Dark Jaguar]

Agreed!

Look, those who say "we need to make way for the future" must understand that all reproduction efforts throughout the entire history of all living things only existed for one purpose, the closest thing to immortality we could get. We invest a lot of energy training entire new beings, and the "catch up" time with new generations of scientists is getting greater and greater simply because we as a species are attaining more and more knowledge. 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.)

In other words, why waste time rebooting civilization every generation when we can just keep going on and on with just one? To prevent overpopulation, I'd say we just cut down on the breeding. Hopefully there will be a tech to take care of the desire to mate (rather than sterelization) by then, so someone CAN decide to mate at some point but the rampant expansion of the population won't happen because of drunken teens (though catholics would see it as sinful, they would probably also see eternal life on earth a curse rather than a blessing).

And again, you can always just destroy yourself. Skunky person, keep this in mind. Even if it is made completely illegal to do yourself in, what are they going to do, arrest you? Suicide is like the most convenient crime there is. You only get punished if you fail (though in my view success is it's own punishment, I love living). I'm sure it'll be a lot more acceptable once we are all highlanders.

Again though, it's a personal choice. If you want a limited life span, go for it. Natural selection does indicate those who die are less likely to survive than those who live though, so it would seem that the immortals are the ones more likely to proliferate.

The social implications:- No labour shortage and minimum wage $1 a day.

The housing crisis.

Living at home with your parents till you could afford to rent an apartment , aged 70.

The wars.

Why would minimum wage drop exactly? I'm not sure I see why that would be the case. I do see your point though. Who wants wastrels living forever? Still, with no way to determine who will and won't be useful to society, why not just give it to everyone?

As for wars, people can still be killed, and if they couldn't, war wouldn't really mean anything would it? Can you imagine?

Someone: Infidel! I will shoot you for heresy! *bang*
Someone else: Stop that.
First someone: Jihads just aren't the same...

I mean to say that without death war would just be an annoyance, and hitler would just be "a jerk".

But if you mean that wars would get so much worse with eternal life, I'm not seeing it. What would make them so much worse?

People can be losers no matter how short their lives are (well, to an obvious point, I wouldn't call a child a loser). I'm not sure that pointing out that someone CAN in fact be a lazy good for nothing for all eternity means anything. The parents always have the option of kicking them to the curb. Dying of starvation would still be in full effect.

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.

But then again, death terrifies me. I can see no point where I would say "this is so bad I'd rather give up any future possibility of it coming to an end and I'll just face nonexistance". In fact, give me otherwise eternal life and I'm off to prevent catastrophies to the planet, then preventing catastrophies to space colony 195, then facing the horror of the heat death of the universe. I mean if I have full access to my own mental faculties by that time I think I'd be able to easily modify myself to constantly be interested in living if at some point I started getting bored.

[toddjh]

Hopefully there will be a tech to take care of the desire to mate by then

I'd like to change my answer. I no longer want to live forever.

[shemp]

Not only do I not think I deserve longevity or immortality, unless minds could somehow remain always lively, inquiring, and interested, I can't imagine many horrors worse than physical immortality. No thank you, I'll return my borrowed chemicals to the planet when I'm done with them. Others better than I will follow.

Considering the direction in which mankind is going generally, I doubt it.

[Dave1001]

I'd like to change my answer. I no longer want to live forever.

Thanks for doing your part to make sure we all have a living wage in the future. I'll be spending mine on sterile robo-booty.:cool:

[Soapy Sam]

Well, the traditional human solution to overpopulation is war.

Does our techno-fix also cure all disease, including late life diseases such as cancer? If so, it would enormously increase our fertile breeding period, certainly in men, possibly in women.
(If not, we have a lot of youthful men married to increasingly aged , infertile women... no, I'm sure that won't cause a problem).

Human culture- law, inheritance, marriage, property, the lot is founded on the solid assumption that people will die before the second generation of their offspring are old enough to provide serious competition.

Increasing the time in which humans remain healthy may seem like a fine plan for the individual, but it would be the end of society as we know it.

Any way, the question in the OP was clear- "So, do you think we as individuals, on this message board, have a shot at the option of tech based youthful immortality before we die, decompose, and entropy does its worst to us?"
And like I said, I only need one glance in a mirror to know my answer is "No".

[Meffy]

It's true that each generation must be taught and trained. But here's what this makes me think of: When I was very young, I was nearly alone in wanting to learn to program computers... even more alone in actually learning. Nowadays children routinely learn to write programs and nobody thinks anything of it. Training techniques in other fields have also improved, with multimedia and interactive educational software and the Internet. Barring theocratic-type revolutions I expect the trend to continue, giving each successive generation a better education. This won't eliminate the problem but it will help.

I don't see how natural selection can select for people who wish to be immortal, unless death occurs before reaching reproductive age... or unless immortals are allowed to breed more than those who reject such extended lifespans, and that this won't happen seems to have been assumed.

I'm glad some of you support the right to end one's own life. Now if you could convince insurance companies, the government, and society at large...

Considering the direction in which mankind is going enerally, I doubt it.
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.

I believe societies must evolve or die, too.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well the thing about insurance companies is they don't want to be "scammed". The fact that you tend to give them far more money than they ever give you back doesn't matter, it's the "peace of mind" they say they are selling you.

But really, when it comes right down to it, suicide being legal or illegal only really matters in the sense that it prevents a proffesion from starting up making it as easy and painless as it can reasonably be. This is bad in itself to be sure, but the reality is the government just can't stop anyone from offing themselves or punish the offenders, unless they fail of course. And, not succeeding in killing yourself is like failing at failing :D. I kid of course, but considering the effort I go through to make sure I don't accidently ingest drain cleaner or fall off a building, it seems that killing one's self is like the easiest thing in the world. And since you won't be around to deal with people being "shocked" that you could do such a thing, I mean why do you care if society frowns on it? Note that I am NOT suggesting it. I disaprove of nonexistance myself and might actually be one of those who frown upon it, at least in the "I'm the only one who's ever been dumped and this is the worst thing that has ever happened to anyone who has lived 14 consecutive years!" sense, as opposed to the "I AM pain!" sense.

And you make a good point, that our teaching methods improve as well. And, if we are suggesting some miracle of technology to make us eternals, we might as well suggest some method of rewiring our minds to include all manner of new information.

At the same time though, if there is an OPTION for me to live 1000 years with no health issues and someone says I can't have it, they just told me they are going to kill me in less than 100 years as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, if all of civilization must be broken down and built back up to deal with the new issues immortality brings, I'm all for it. Modern laws and concepts of life and death are getting boring anyway. A total upheaval of everything society stands for is fun every now and then.

[Meffy]

I'm not concerned with society being hard on me but those around me. And the thing about life insurance is this: if you kill yourself, they don't pay out.

[Dave1001]

I'm not concerned with society being hard on me but those around me. And the thing about life insurance is this: if you kill yourself, they don't pay out.

That would be a tricky one. Sort of like buying fire insurance that covers deliberately burning your house down.

[Dark Jaguar]

See my point about insurance companies. If they have evidence you willingly destroyed your own car, they are less likely to pay. If they have evidence you burninated your house, they are less likely to pay. If they have evidence you got life insurance and then killed yourself, they are less likely to pay. It is very hard to determine if you were doing it to scam them for the sake of your family or had actually just reached a point where your life was for some reason unbearable, but the point is, their contract is very specific about that and I can see their point. Government and society are more likely to change than an insurance company (unless it is for the worse). You are better off saving up all the money you would otherwise have spent on life insurance if your plan is to eventually off yourself.

Just remember to DO IT LIKE A MAN. Eat a tub full of beans, headbutt the sidewalk, slit your NECK through the spine, just don't be a wuss!

[Angus McPresley]

I don't see how natural selection can select for people who wish to be immortal, unless death occurs before reaching reproductive age... or unless immortals are allowed to breed more than those who reject such extended lifespans, and that this won't happen seems to have been assumed.

I don't think people who opt for longer lifespans will be prevented from breeding. The average lifespan has already doubled in the last few centuries, and no one holds it against the people who are living longer.

I don't think overpopulation or scarcity of resources will be an issue either -- I think we will eventually become a society where people only procreate when they are damn well ready, and population will plummet. I hope, at least.

[roger]

I think Meffy brings up some good points about stagnation, but really, isn't all that will happen is that progress may slow down? I don't see that as a bad thing. Really, what do most people over 50 contribute to society? Not so much. They grind it out in their career until they retire, then suckle on society's teats until they start pining for the fjords. So, let's end all medicine past prenatal and infant care, get life expentency down to 50, and society will be better. (don't bother posting counterexamples, of course they exist. I'm talking averages)

Er, no. There's plenty of things that I don't like about our social organization, but the recognition that the person comes before society is not one of them. When you put society before people, then people suffer. I want to live, and so do most people. Let us. Too bad if progress slows down compared to what it could be. That's already the case. Imagine if we took all the money we spent on social security, medicare, etc., and invested it in basic science research. We'd progress faster, but at what cost?

[Angus McPresley]

This question seems to include an unstated assumption that when I was thirty I was "young and healthy." In fact I've been in moderate to severe pain the entire time since I was about seventeen,...Yes. My insides will do the job by the means that they've been working at for decades. The loss to the world will be minimal, far outweighed the advantages of my no longer being around to consume increasingly scarce resources.


I'm am sorry to hear about your pain, and apologies for my wrong assumption. However, your answer misses my point entirely.

I think when most people hear about the possibility of extra longevity, they think it means extra time tacked on at the end, spent being infirm. I can see not wanting that (although some, myself included, would settle for it).

What my question was driving at was, what if, through advancement of medical science, you reach the end of whatever is supposed to be your appointed number of years -- beyond which, you are just being "selfish" in wanting to keep living -- and you are still healthy, vibrant human being? Should you be expected to off yourself?

[Meffy]

I don't know. Leaving discussion now because the topic makes me feel very bad about the future and I don't need any more of that.

[Soapy Sam]

I dare say life assurance companies would love an extended lifespan. More time to pay premiums and people who live longer might be more careful about accidents, having more to lose.

My mother, aged 81, is rarely at home, enjoying both complete mental acuity (ie she's no dafter than ever) and good physical health. I'm happy this is the case. Would I be quite so happy if she looked 24 and was constantly coming home drunk with young men in tow?
I don't know the answer to that.

This is a trivial example of what I'm trying to get at. Extending human youth and healthy life span changes every cultural assumption we have.
The political effects globally are incalculable.

Would Arab suicide bombers be more or less willing to blow themselves up if they faced 100 years in their current political situation? I don't know.

This is not just a question about individuals. It's a question about society.

Ask yourself- Who would you rather have sex with- a twenty year old, or an 80 year old who looked twenty? There's a lifetime of difference. Society would be very different.

[advancedatheist]

Philosopher Mark Walker, currently teaching at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, discusses the problems of a radical increase in longevity in the following lecture:

http://www.archive.org/download/sentdev20060512/superlongevity.mp3

[Dark Jaguar]

Am I willing to face the consequences of completely upheaving society and radically altering everything we know, as well as potential negative consequences for society as a whole?

Yes, I want to LIVE.

[Soapy Sam]

You're a bolshie bugger, is your trouble!;)

I dunno. At eighteen I felt immortal and if someone had offered me an extended lifespan in my eighteen year old body, I might have gone for it.

If medical science could give me that body back today, I'd jump at the chance, because frankly, the one I have now hurts most of the time.

And that, by definition, would be adding (probably) thirty years to my life.
Maybe when I hit 80 , they would do it again...

But I can't see that sort of tech coming without a price; A price to society and to the individual.
What if the treatment cost $1 million, so you spent half your life saving for it, but a year before you got there your wife was hit by a truck and needed her treatment fifteen years early to save her life?

What if the only way to get the money was to kill?

What if the price was compulsory sterilisation?

I dare say there are some interesting SF stories in there. Some have already been written of course. Wyndham's "Trouble with Lichen" is still my favourite.

[advancedatheist]

I don't understand why everyone keeps dragging up the problem of "overpopulation," when almost all the developed democratic countries face demographic implosions, and a lot of the developing ones have birthrates declining somewhat ahead of the expected "demographic transition" for their GDP's because of the availability of contraceptives. The Japanese have nearly renounced baby-making as the major value in life -- maybe because of all those hikikomori who won't leave their parents' homes and get married.

[Soapy Sam]

Yep- and those same countries are now faced with permitting mass immigration, because their aging population needs young people to do the dirty work , earn salaries, pay tax and fund the retirement of the aging population.
Which causes social upheaval because the immigrants tend to be (gasp!) foreign...
Changes in birth rates and in life spans have social effects. Zis iss my point.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

You guys are so old fasioned. You assume immortality will *have* to be by fixing our bodies, fighting disease and so forth, but what if we didn't have these frail bodies? What if we could have all our memories, personality and so on uploaded into a vastly powerful computer network? If you want a physical body you download into a robot and can walk around and do your thing. I'm thinking few would want to when they could have heaven in whatever virtual worlds they want. Orgasms that last for thousands of years are just the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway, it might be possible to upload like this in seventy-eighty years. Unless you're over the hill now you could live to that time with the stuff that's coming along to keep you going. I really hope I live so long, 'cause if I do I'll live forever, and can someday be a mind spanning multiple solar systems on giant sun-sized computers. Blows the pants off of being human, doesn't it? :)

[Bruno Putzeys]

I'd sign up to being uploaded. Not that it would help, subjectively. Suppose I'm uploaded and die only later. Nice playground for shaky philosophy imho. But fun to ponder.

[Dark Jaguar]

Why would you die later after the upload? System crash? I'd love that sort of thing, but if there weren't enough bodies around there would need to be some time share thing on robo bodies.

At any rate, "the cost to me personally" is something I have all eternity to deal with. :D Also, I wouldn't take issue with being steralized. I don't intend on having kids anyway, and I could always adopt if I did change my mind.

What's a bolshie bugger? Sounds British.

[Dave1001]

You guys are so old fasioned. You assume immortality will *have* to be by fixing our bodies, fighting disease and so forth, but what if we didn't have these frail bodies? What if we could have all our memories, personality and so on uploaded into a vastly powerful computer network? If you want a physical body you download into a robot and can walk around and do your thing. I'm thinking few would want to when they could have heaven in whatever virtual worlds they want. Orgasms that last for thousands of years are just the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway, it might be possible to upload like this in seventy-eighty years. Unless you're over the hill now you could live to that time with the stuff that's coming along to keep you going. I really hope I live so long, 'cause if I do I'll live forever, and can someday be a mind spanning multiple solar systems on giant sun-sized computers. Blows the pants off of being human, doesn't it? :)

I guess I am old-fashioned, cause I look at uploading as a last resort. I think a more conservative approach towards preserving my conscious identity is to keep it in the milieu where I'm most sure it (I) exist: my brain encapsulated in my body. It doesn't seem unreasonable that this brain and body, with good technology, could keep on going forever. I think there is a serious danger that by "uploading my mind into a computer", what will actually happen is that an entity will be created that will pass the Turing Test of being Dave1001, but it won't actually be me, in the sense that I won't personally be experiencing conscious awareness through it. It will just be fooling everyone else.

However, I could see scenarios where I'll be forced to upload, such as everyone else has, and I'll be at a huge cognitive competitive disadvantage if I don't. In that case, it will probably be like every time I have to get on a plane for business of family reasons. I'll be scared sh*tless, but I'll do it anyway.:(

[advancedatheist]

Yep- and those same countries are now faced with permitting mass immigration, because their aging population needs young people to do the dirty work , earn salaries, pay tax and fund the retirement of the aging population.


We wouldn't have to depend on immigrants if we stopped our own aging and stayed functional. We'd also have to abolish the system of publicly funded "retirement" as well. Negligibly senescent people with the inclination to stop working will have to pay for their leisure with proceeds from their own invested wealth.

[advancedatheist]

What if the treatment cost $1 million, so you spent half your life saving for it, but a year before you got there your wife was hit by a truck and needed her treatment fifteen years early to save her life?


Sounds like a good reason not to marry. I don't understand why men feel the need to marry any way, considering the overall social trend away from binding social relations and towards facultative contracts, free agency, self-employment and so forth. The traditional ideal of marriage ("Till death do us part") looks a lot like swearing an oath of lifetime "fealty" to the local warlord in a premodern society.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Why would you die later after the upload? System crash?

You wouldn't. In the event of a system crash that copy of you would be gone, and perhaps the most recent memories if they've not been backed up in other places, but for many systems to all go down that have you on it, the odds of that are very, very slim. Lets just say that happened though, you still have a datacopy of yourself stored in a holographic cube, or whatever. Something that doesn't rot and doesn't loose data if it's subjected to an electrical shock or electromagnetic pulse. Stored in an insulated box made of a diamond-like material.

[Soapy Sam]

Sounds like a good reason not to marry. I don't understand why men feel the need to marry any way, considering the overall social trend away from binding social relations and towards facultative contracts, free agency, self-employment and so forth. The traditional ideal of marriage ("Till death do us part") looks a lot like swearing an oath of lifetime "fealty" to the local warlord in a premodern society.

Your lover then. (I speak as a lifetime bachelor).

[roger]

What if the treatment cost $1 million, so you spent half your life saving for it, but a year before you got there your wife was hit by a truck and needed her treatment fifteen years early to save her life?So? That's what bank loans are for. It's a great business model. The bank invests in a technique that insures decades more of earning potential in the person signing the loan.

And ... "What if a heart transplant costs $1 million (entirely realistic) ...." We face that issue today. We muddle through, somehow.

Or am I missing your point?

[roger]

What if we could have all our memories, personality and so on uploaded into a vastly powerful computer network?Well, that seems like a much more difficult problem then fixing our biological machines. And we are biological machines, we are not merely neural nets. That surge you feel in the bit of your stomach when afraid, in love (sorry for that bit of redundancy), etc., is chemical. An upload, in and of itself, won't fix that. Now, yes, a sophisticated enough simulation can simulate those chemical interactions, but that task requires a complete understanding of the underlying biology. So, a much harder task.

My guess is that we will first achieve very long lives through biology, and then through computers.

[Dave1001]

Well, that seems like a much more difficult problem then fixing our biological machines. And we are biological machines, we are not merely neural nets. That surge you feel in the bit of your stomach when afraid, in love (sorry for that bit of redundancy), etc., is chemical. An upload, in and of itself, won't fix that. Now, yes, a sophisticated enough simulation can simulate those chemical interactions, but that task requires a complete understanding of the underlying biology. So, a much harder task.

My guess is that we will first achieve very long lives through biology, and then through computers.

What's your take on the "Oh crap, they think something that can pass a Turing test for being me actually is me uploaded to a computer" problem with uploading to computers?

[advancedatheist]

So? That's what bank loans are for. It's a great business model. The bank invests in a technique that insures decades more of earning potential in the person signing the loan.

All the more incentive to stay employable and credit-worthy. Putting rejuvenation and negligible senescence treatments onto the market would do wonders for the rates of savings and capital formation in the economy.

[advancedatheist]

Your lover then. (I speak as a lifetime bachelor).

All the more incentive to choose a lover who earns and saves plenty of money so he or she can buy long-term disability insurance.

[roger]

What's your take on the "Oh crap, they think something that can pass a Turing test for being me actually is me uploaded to a computer" problem with uploading to computers?I think "me" is a fairly meaningless term in that context. It only makes sense in the context of a single instance, hosted in a biological medium. It kind of like asking which is the "real" instance of Microsoft Outlook, and if I stop and start it is it the "same". The words are being used in a realm where they can't be usefully correlated with their use in our non-computer world. So I don't worry about the "is it really me" arguments.

[Dark Jaguar]

But you totally SHOULD! I do! There is no "real instance" of Outlook, all of them are equal, but they are distinctly seperate instances of Outlook. You can run two copies of Outlook on two different computers and recognize that they are two seperate instances, each unable to communicate with each other, barring access to a network email folder :D.

Look at the actual question. If I am destroyed, utterly, I cease to be, and if my data is replicated, it isn't about it "passing the turing test of being me" really, I can accept that sice it is a machine, it'll be aware, and fully convinced it is me. 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? That is my fear, that all I've done is perfectly cloned myself and my self-ness is still dead forever. Like, in Star Trek, what if every time they teleport all they do is create a new captain? Maybe that's why Q laughs at them, they all just create new "thems" each time and the old one is dead forever and is no longer aware.

Me is the most meaningful term in the universe to... ME! So I HAVE to know if that new instance of me is just someone fully capable of everything I have but a seperate instance (in the same way that if I run a program 4 or 5 times each one is a seperate entity and isn't actually the same one, just a perfect copy), and my "instance" is merely dead and buried. It's like the most important question ever. I don't care at ALL about making a perfect copy of myself digitally if my "me-ness" isn't there to experience the whole thing.

[Dave1001]

But you totally SHOULD! I do! There is no "real instance" of Outlook, all of them are equal, but they are distinctly seperate instances of Outlook. You can run two copies of Outlook on two different computers and recognize that they are two seperate instances, each unable to communicate with each other, barring access to a network email folder :D.

Look at the actual question. If I am destroyed, utterly, I cease to be, and if my data is replicated, it isn't about it "passing the turing test of being me" really, I can accept that sice it is a machine, it'll be aware, and fully convinced it is me. 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? That is my fear, that all I've done is perfectly cloned myself and my self-ness is still dead forever. Like, in Star Trek, what if every time they teleport all they do is create a new captain? Maybe that's why Q laughs at them, they all just create new "thems" each time and the old one is dead forever and is no longer aware.

Me is the most meaningful term in the universe to... ME! So I HAVE to know if that new instance of me is just someone fully capable of everything I have but a seperate instance (in the same way that if I run a program 4 or 5 times each one is a seperate entity and isn't actually the same one, just a perfect copy), and my "instance" is merely dead and buried. It's like the most important question ever. I don't care at ALL about making a perfect copy of myself digitally if my "me-ness" isn't there to experience the whole thing.

You and me both, baby!!

Although it is a much less important question from a solipstic standpoint, I do also have my doubts that a copied version of me that can pass a Turing of being me even has a subjective experience of consciousness. I think it could just as well be a more complicated version of an animatronic puppet.

[toddjh]

You and me both, baby!!

Although it is a much less important question from a solipstic standpoint, I do also have my doubts that a copied version of me that can pass a Turing of being me even has a subjective experience of consciousness. I think it could just as well be a more complicated version of an animatronic puppet.

It all depends on what view of consciousness you take. Sure, if you adopt solipsism you're going to run up against all kinds of doubts about the nature of the self, but that's the least of solipsism's problems. :)

Likewise, if you view consciousness as something which inhabits a body rather than something which arises from it (in other words a "soul"), then of course the idea of replacing yourself with a copy is going to trouble you.

But if you regard consciousness as an emergent property of the complex processes that take place in your brain, then recreating those processes precisely will result in the exact same emergent behavior. Under this model, there is no basis for saying that the copy is anything other than "you."

Personally, I think a lot of people adopt the "soul" theory without even realizing it. It's certainly tempting -- our subjective experience of consciousness and the continuity of our awareness makes it very easy to think of ourselves as something which exists separately from our brains, and our current inability to explain exactly how the complex flow of signals in our brains gives rise to awareness muddies things even more.

[roger]

Me is the most meaningful term in the universe to... ME! So I HAVE to know if that new instance of me is just someone fully capable of everything I have but a seperate instance (in the same way that if I run a program 4 or 5 times each one is a seperate entity and isn't actually the same one, just a perfect copy), and my "instance" is merely dead and buried. It's like the most important question ever. I don't care at ALL about making a perfect copy of myself digitally if my "me-ness" isn't there to experience the whole thing.Well, you shut "me" down every night when you go to sleep. Do you balk at going to sleep, and mourn the death of yesterday's "me". Do you refuse to go under anethesia, where it can be argued to are shut down to a greater extent? What if you drowned in cold water, and were brought back to life after your brain showed no activity except in the brain stem? Would you mournfully hold a funeral for your past "me", or jump around and say "yay, I'm alive!!!"?


I'm not saying it's not an important question. I'm saying the terms "me" just don't work in this context, and our intuitions are deeply flawed.

FWIW, no, I wouldn't step in a teleporter that destroyed this body, and more than I would accept a brain transfer that worked by, say, copying my mind, waiting 1/2 hour to make sure the transfer worked, then killed my body. It's somewhat illogical, in that the continuity of my conscious is already an illusion, but so be it. Our desire for life evolved in entirely different circumstances, where destruction of the corporeal body meant final destruction of the mind.

ETA: I.e. to talk about this coherently, I would totally remove use of the words "me", "I", etc., and replace them with "brain process", etc. Describe the biology of what is happening, not the misleading labels based on a completely incorrect model of what our minds are.

[Dave1001]

But if you regard consciousness as an emergent property of the complex processes that take place in your brain, then recreating those processes precisely will result in the exact same emergent behavior. Under this model, there is no basis for saying that the copy is anything other than "you.".

I think one can regard consciousness as an emergent property of the complex processes that take place in your brain, and still be skeptical that recreating those processes "precisely" will result in the exact same emergent behavior.

Because in the real world, when we say "precisely" we mean precise enough ... there are huge numbers of differences between any recreation and the previous version of a real world phenomenon. I think it's a non-trivial concern about how precise we need to be in the recreation and ways it can work or not work, to preserve our individual subjective experiences of conscious existence.

It's a great topic worth discussing, but I doubt we know enough to know yet. I hope we hash this stuff out as we need to though.

[Dave1001]

Well, you shut "me" down every night when you go to sleep. Do you balk at going to sleep, and mourn the death of yesterday's "me". Do you refuse to go under anethesia, where it can be argued to are shut down to a greater extent? What if you drowned in cold water, and were brought back to life after your brain showed no activity except in the brain stem? Would you mournfully hold a funeral for your past "me", or jump around and say "yay, I'm alive!!!"?


I'm not saying it's not an important question. I'm saying the terms "me" just don't work in this context, and our intuitions are deeply flawed.

FWIW, no, I wouldn't step in a teleporter that destroyed this body, and more than I would accept a brain transfer that worked by, say, copying my mind, waiting 1/2 hour to make sure the transfer worked, then killed my body. It's somewhat illogical, in that the continuity of my conscious is already an illusion, but so be it. Our desire for life evolved in entirely different circumstances, where destruction of the corporeal body meant final destruction of the mind.

ETA: I.e. to talk about this coherently, I would totally remove use of the words "me", "I", etc., and replace them with "brain process", etc. Describe the biology of what is happening, not the misleading labels based on a completely incorrect model of what our minds are.

I doubt many of us would capriciously go under anethesia or be drowned and brought back to life. I doubt if temporary cessation of subjective consciousness through sleep were optional (rather than a biological necessity) that many of us would be the first to volunteer to try it out. In the same way, my approach towards something as extreme as being uploaded to a computer or teleported star trek style, is let me wait until I have to do it to survive, or to keep up with my cohort. Until then, I think it's rationally prudent to be as conservative about maintaining bodily (and brain) integrity as possible.

[toddjh]

I think one can regard consciousness as an emergent property of the complex processes that take place in your brain, and still be skeptical that recreating those processes "precisely" will result in the exact same emergent behavior.

Because in the real world, when we say "precisely" we mean precise enough ... there are huge numbers of differences between any recreation and the previous version of a real world phenomenon. I think it's a non-trivial concern about how precise we need to be in the recreation and ways it can work or not work, to preserve our individual subjective experiences of conscious existence.

Well, I don't think you need perfectly exact down-to-the-neuron replication for it to be close enough. After all, you can kill a few million brain cells in a night of heavy drinking and still be "you" when the hangover wears off. You don't give it a second thought, except to swear never to drink jagermeister again.

And as for the continuity of consciousness, as roger pointed out, that's broken every time you go to sleep, or if you get hit on the head hard enough. But when you wake up, you're still "you." I'm of the opinion that you'd still be "you" even if the substrate which supported your "software" had been swapped out while you were asleep, as long as the new substrate were a sufficiently close copy. But you're right, "sufficiently close" does still need to be defined.

[Dave1001]

Well, I don't think you need perfectly exact down-to-the-neuron replication for it to be close enough. After all, you can kill a few million brain cells in a night of heavy drinking and still be "you" when the hangover wears off. You don't give it a second thought, except to swear never to drink jagermeister again.


Does heavy drinking really kill several million brain cells? I'm not saying that to undermine your argument (cause I accept the basic principle and agree with it), it just seems counterintuitive to me that heavy drinking would have that specific effect.


And as for the continuity of consciousness, as roger pointed out, that's broken every time you go to sleep, or if you get hit on the head hard enough. But when you wake up, you're still "you." I'm of the opinion that you'd still be "you" even if the substrate which supported your "software" had been swapped out while you were asleep, as long as the new substrate were a sufficiently close copy. But you're right, "sufficiently close" does still need to be defined.

Yes, and I'm not sure "sufficiently close" can be definable outside of our own subjective, experiential confirmation to ourselves after the fact, because something sufficiently close to pass a turing test of being me or you may not actually be sufficiently close to allow you or I to experience subjective consciousness through it. It may be that it's only behaving like it is you or I well enough to convince observers.

But in a best case scenario, we'll never need to achieve this type technological breakthrough to thwart mortality, because we'll only have to replace parts of our brain incrementally rather than swapping entire substrates or other relatively radical approaches.

[AWPrime]

No body lasts forever, so Immortality can only be reached by transfering your mind to a new body.

Now we should also have law that dictate that the new bodies should be different from the old ones, to offer the mind a new perspective.

[russingram]

No body lasts forever, so Immortality can only be reached by transfering your mind to a new body.

Now we should also have law that dictate that the new bodies should be different from the old ones, to offer the mind a new perspective.

Nanotechnology could theoretically rebuild the body atom by atom, on a continuous basis.

Of course, some might consider nanotechnology to be "woo".

[Lonewulf]

Nanotechnology could theoretically rebuild the body atom by atom, on a continuous basis.

Of course, some might consider nanotechnology to be "woo".

Nanotechnology, as used and developed today, is not "woo" at all. You're talking about carbon nanotubes, making edges that are literally a single molecule wide (to slice open virii, you understand), to make fireproof glass, and various other nifty little effects.

Nanotechnology according to the idea of minicomputers that can rebuild matter like in hollywood (or fictional stories) is, as present, fiction. But don't discount real nanotech; we're using nature's building blocks (molecules) instead of artificial computers.

As for immortality...

Well, downloading your mind into the computer is cool and all, but that tech is a long way off, I believe (but then, so is physical immortality, so meh). The usage of the brain takes millions of tetrabytes, if I remember correctly, and that's just for memory; I have a feeling that the RAM of our mind is quite high too. After all, you're dealing with visual input, audio input, touch input, smell input, all while thinking and operating (not to mention operating your body -- fingers to type on a computer, legs to walk, etc.)

While you can trim things a bit, the overall process would require a large amount of getting used to (which can be done), and probably would come with it's own problems. For instance, you no longer have chemicals or hormones to stimulate your emotions... which can really change how you view the world, even if you can find a way to simulate emotions another way.

As for immortality itself, I see good sides and bad sides to it. The main bad side is that, as a whole, humanity would starve itself of resources. That's the main argument against immortality...

However, longetivity that can get you past the age of 10,000 years, or even 150 years, is probably a ways off. I'm assuming that we'll be going a vast technological and biomedical rennaissance in a few decades, which can have many impacts, small and wide... and I feel that we'll be starting getting serious about our expansion. I say that immortality is mainly only viable when you start expanding the population you got.

Also, furthermore, research shows that in all high economy climates (I.E., U.S., Europe, etc.), the birth rate goes down, not up, which would greatly aid immortality of those still around. (Note: Yes, America's population is increasing, but mainly thanks to immigration, not birth control)

As for "evolution"... you have to realize that "natural selection" does not operate for the human race anymore. It's hard for us to evolve if we try to keep alive everyone, infirm or not, mentally retarded or not, crippled or not, heart disease or not. I'm of the opinion that "natural" evolution is not in store for us in the future, but personal evolution... we can change our young or ourselves in any way we want (genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc.) in the future, and I think such technology should be looked into... cautiously, if you please.

[AWPrime]

Nanotechnology could theoretically rebuild the body atom by atom, on a continuous basis.

I think that the control systems would be nearly impossible to carry with you. And some nanos might malfunction, and go corrupt like normal human cells.

[russingram]

I think that the control systems would be nearly impossible to carry with you. And some nanos might malfunction, and go corrupt like normal human cells.

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.

[Dave1001]

I think that the control systems would be nearly impossible to carry with you. And some nanos might malfunction, and go corrupt like normal human cells.

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.

[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.:D

[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.

[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:D

[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.:D

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.

[politas]

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.
Lets just say that all available evidence points towards my conclusion. Other things are possible, but I'm not one to place a lot of faith in things that are possible but for which there is no evidence.

[Dave1001]

Lets just say that all available evidence points towards my conclusion. Other things are possible, but I'm not one to place a lot of faith in things that are possible but for which there is no evidence.

I think it's highly contestible that all available evidence point to your conclusion. If anything, all available evidence points to the futility of making predictions this specific about decisions that will be made hundreds of years in the future. But if in the future civil contract law is still honored, and Alcor Foundation and other cryogenic companies' finances are prudently managed, I think cryogenically preserved people will have as good a shot at having their estate wishes being legally honored as are the multigenerational trusts written for deceased people hundreds of years in the past.

It's an interesting question: what the oldest/longest running trust that is still being legally honored?

[Morrigan]

I have only skimmed the thread, so apologies if this has been brought up before, but I am reminded of the case of the 12-year-old girl who never aged (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/22/wbrook22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/22/ixworld.html), video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41926/forever_young/)). Though it's not well known if she doesn't age, or doesn't grow. I wonder if they would pick some of her cells for lab analysis? Surely they could see an anomaly in there. But maybe they already tried that and found nothing conclusive...

I am also reminded of the SENS (http://www.sens.org/) concept. It seems interesting at first, but it seems to have been debunked as pseudoscience by Estep et al. (http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf) (pdf). But de Grey (the SENS founder) offered a rebuttal, which had its counter-rebuttal, and so on. I admit that much of the science talk goes well over my head, so the debate is difficult to follow.
Interestingly, the SENS guy's organisation, Methuselah Foundation, along with Technology Review, offered a $20K prize (sounds familiar?) for anyone who could successfully demonstrate that SENS is "so wrong it is unworhy of debate". Three submissions were made to be examined by a panel of judges (who is, strangely, not made up of expert gerontologists and biologists...). They were eventually rejected, but Techonology Review awarded their $10K half to Estep et al. for "careful scholarship". Go figure?

[politas]

I think it's highly contestible that all available evidence point to your conclusion. If anything, all available evidence points to the futility of making predictions this specific about decisions that will be made hundreds of years in the future. But if in the future civil contract law is still honored, and Alcor Foundation and other cryogenic companies' finances are prudently managed, I think cryogenically preserved people will have as good a shot at having their estate wishes being legally honored as are the multigenerational trusts written for deceased people hundreds of years in the past.

Those trusts usually have living benefactors, though, who are motivated to ensure that the requirements of the trust are followed correctly. When the only benefactors of a trust are a legally dead person and a computer program that faces possible termination, what's going to make the lawyers give up their control of a big swag of investment funds from which they draw a regular income?

Call me a cynic if you want, but I can see lawyers being mighty "careful" about the possibility of reviving a corpsicle before they can be "properly cared for".

[Dave1001]

Those trusts usually have living benefactors, though, who are motivated to ensure that the requirements of the trust are followed correctly.

They often don't, though. Not infrequently, the thing that benefits may seem ridiculous to the rest of the world except the person who left the resources. But if such trusts persist for hundreds of years, the odds for cryogenically preserved folks who left similar legal protections for themselves I think would be about as good.

[Lonewulf]

They often don't, though. Not infrequently, the thing that benefits may seem ridiculous to the rest of the world except the person who left the resources. But if such trusts persist for hundreds of years, the odds for cryogenically preserved folks who left similar legal protections for themselves I think would be about as good.

Which is still assuming that they can ever be "resurrected" eventually, though. The question is, what if they can't? How long should they stay preserved, and if more people want to be cryogenically preserved, how long should they be allowed to? This is a ton of resources you might eventually be spending.

Of course, I guess a similar argument can be made for graves in general. How much land will we eventually be using to bury the generation of 6 billion people, assuming there isn't a substantial number that want to be cremated? And even with such an assumption, eventually 6 billion people *would* be buried, just from further generations...

And in the case of burial, there's no distant idea of "Oh, we'll just defrost 'em in the future". It's more like, "We'll just stick 'im in the ground and let the worms have him".

[politas]

Of course, I guess a similar argument can be made for graves in general. How much land will we eventually be using to bury the generation of 6 billion people, assuming there isn't a substantial number that want to be cremated? And even with such an assumption, eventually 6 billion people *would* be buried, just from further generations...

You don't actually purchase a gravesite, you just lease it for a certain period of time. Graves are re-used. Not as frequently as they used to be, but they still aren't permanent things. In medieval Europe, people were only buried for a fairly short period, enough for their bodies to become just bones. They were then dug up and the bones placed in ossaries, where everybodies' bones got mingled together.

Note that scene in Hamlet "Alas, poor Yorrick...". The gravediggers are exhuming Yorrick's bones in order to make a new grave.

[politas]

They often don't, though. Not infrequently, the thing that benefits may seem ridiculous to the rest of the world except the person who left the resources. But if such trusts persist for hundreds of years, the odds for cryogenically preserved folks who left similar legal protections for themselves I think would be about as good.

But the lawyers maintaining such a trust continue to draw a stipend from the trust as long as that trust is maintained. The lawyers have a motivation to keep it going.

You're suggesting a law firm receives stipends to maintain a trust, and the trust says that when medical technology has sufficiently advanced to make safe resurrection of a particular person possible, the person will be revived, and the contents of the trust will be given to that person, ending the trust management (and therefore the firm's ongoing stipends).

Again, call me cynical, but I think the law firm is going to be extremely conservative in their estimation of the capabilities of medical technology.

[Lonewulf]

You don't actually purchase a gravesite, you just lease it for a certain period of time. Graves are re-used. Not as frequently as they used to be, but they still aren't permanent things. In medieval Europe, people were only buried for a fairly short period, enough for their bodies to become just bones. They were then dug up and the bones placed in ossaries, where everybodies' bones got mingled together.

Note that scene in Hamlet "Alas, poor Yorrick...". The gravediggers are exhuming Yorrick's bones in order to make a new grave.

How long is the lease for? Or rather, how long until someone's body becomes bones? Because I know that there have been gravestones up for quite a while... and if someone leased your gravesite, then they'd need a new gravestone, right?

[politas]

How long is the lease for? Or rather, how long until someone's body becomes bones? Because I know that there have been gravestones up for quite a while... and if someone leased your gravesite, then they'd need a new gravestone, right?

Depends on the place. The Canberra Cemetary has, from memory, 50-year leases, which can be extended a further fifty years when they expire (if there is anyone alive who still cares to extend it.) Less heavily utilised cemetaries often have no set policy; so they'll have to work something out when they fill up.

The time for a body to become bones depends highly on the type of soil and casket they are buried in. The modern idea of hermetically sealed boxes and trying to stave off decay as long as possible is pretty recent, really. Gravediggers used to add chemicals to speed up the process.

[AWPrime]

But there are also some bodies that refuse to rot.....


Many gravediggers still find whole bodies when they were expecting bones.

[politas]

But there are also some bodies that refuse to rot.....


Many gravediggers still find whole bodies when they were expecting bones.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Maybe they don't taste good to worms?

[Dave1001]

But the lawyers maintaining such a trust continue to draw a stipend from the trust as long as that trust is maintained. The lawyers have a motivation to keep it going.

You're suggesting a law firm receives stipends to maintain a trust, and the trust says that when medical technology has sufficiently advanced to make safe resurrection of a particular person possible, the person will be revived, and the contents of the trust will be given to that person, ending the trust management (and therefore the firm's ongoing stipends).

Again, call me cynical, but I think the law firm is going to be extremely conservative in their estimation of the capabilities of medical technology.

These sort of incentive problems exist for lots trust missions besides maintaining and reviving cryogenically frozen people. I think it can be managed as successfully for cryogenically preserved people as it is for these other trust missions that face similar incentive problems.

[politas]

These sort of incentive problems exist for lots trust missions besides maintaining and reviving cryogenically frozen people. I think it can be managed as successfully for cryogenically preserved people as it is for these other trust missions that face similar incentive problems.

Can you give a hypothetical example? I can't think of anything with similar issues. Maybe a "sword-in-the-stone" sort of trust that says "look after this money until you find someone who matches these criteria, then give them all the money."

In such an example, I would expect the postulated firm to be rather lax in their search for someone to meet the criteria, or if the funds for the search are part of their income from the fund, then they would search extremely widely, but be very precise about whether someone meets the criteria.

[Dave1001]

Can you give a hypothetical example? I can't think of anything with similar issues. Maybe a "sword-in-the-stone" sort of trust that says "look after this money until you find someone who matches these criteria, then give them all the money."

In such an example, I would expect the postulated firm to be rather lax in their search for someone to meet the criteria, or if the funds for the search are part of their income from the fund, then they would search extremely widely, but be very precise about whether someone meets the criteria.

There are many of them. Because trusts have been made for pretty much anything you can think of, and our anglo legal system is very generous in protecting their legality.

An example might be a trust to take care of a relative in a coma until it's established that they're medically brain dead, at such point all the money will go to the Roman Catholic Church. In theory the executor law firm may have an incentive to keep this relative on life support Terry Schiavo style forever. In practice the law firm's reputation as a steward of of people's finances after their die would suffer, so a law firm would be unlikely to forsake significant future business to keep control of one particular person's post-mortem assets.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church is counter-vested and might fight such a law firm in court. Similarly, one could create an incentive structure by promising a payment to a different law firm or company who successfully gets you revived in the future. They only get payment when you're successfully revived. Now, like the Roman Catholic Church, there's an existing, active party, who's differently vested than the executor-law firm.

[politas]

Similarly, one could create an incentive structure by promising a payment to a different law firm or company who successfully gets you revived in the future. They only get payment when you're successfully revived. Now, like the Roman Catholic Church, there's an existing, active party, who's differently vested than the executor-law firm.

That could work, I suppose. I still reckon I'd rather spend my money than tie it up freezing myself. I'll enjoy the time I have, and when I die, I die. No major problem.

[Dave1001]

That could work, I suppose. I still reckon I'd rather spend my money than tie it up freezing myself. I'll enjoy the time I have, and when I die, I die. No major problem.

And I'd defend you're right to do that ... but not with my life of course. ;)

[politas]

And I'd defend you're right to do that ... but not with my life of course. ;)
And in return, I defend your right to get yourself frozen and sign a fortune over to some lawyers in the faint hope that one day you might possibly experience a continuation of your present consciousness.

Just because I think something is idiotic, doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do it.

[Lonewulf]

There we go. Now we're all agreeable idiots.