Immortality

[tracer]

The most effective way to shut down the pernicious memes of the various afterlife-promising religions would be to find a way to halt the aging process.

How're we coming on that, guys?

[danielk]

Stopping the aging process is not the same as achieving immortality. I believe if we ever manage to stop aging completely, it would introduce a great deal of uncertainty in the estimation of one's expected life span. The constant fear of dying for some random reason after having lived 3000 years might actually increase the interest in religion as a psychological crutch.

[danielk]

Not to mention that a strong culture of birth control would be absolutely necessary.

[Lonewulf]

Depends on our technological level, really, IMO.

I don't necessarily think in the "today" when I think of immortality.

[tracer]

The constant fear of dying for some random reason after having lived 3000 years might actually increase the interest in religion as a psychological crutch.
I'm willing to take that risk. Now gimmie my Live Forever pills, dammit!



But seriously, folks ... I remember reading an article in Scientific American a few years back that said, basically, that despite glowing claims by some charlatans, we really haven't a frickin' clue as to how to halt (or even significantly slow down) the aging process.

I wanna see that change. Hop to it!

[Lonewulf]

I'm willing to take that risk. Now gimmie my Live Forever pills, dammit!



But seriously, folks ... I remember reading an article in Scientific American a few years back that said, basically, that despite glowing claims by some charlatans, we really haven't a frickin' clue as to how to halt (or even significantly slow down) the aging process.

I wanna see that change. Hop to it!

Not that I'm saying that this is necessarily a significant clue, but I have a "WTF?!" video to show you.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41926/forever_young/

ETA: I'm betting on a significant clue when we finally decipher the Human Genome. :D

[Fnord]

The most effective way to shut down the pernicious memes of the various afterlife-promising religions would be to find a way to halt the aging process.

How're we coming on that, guys?


Not so well. The best we've come up with is an eternity of "I Love Lucy" re-runs.

It just seems like forever...

[Lonewulf]

Not so well. The best we've come up with is an eternity of "I Love Lucy" re-runs.

It just seems like forever...
:D

[tracer]

Not that I'm saying that this is necessarily a significant clue, but I have a "WTF?!" video to show you.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41926/forever_young/


Interesting that her mental development is every bit as "frozen in time" as her physical development is. That'd kinda defeat the purpose of immortality. ;)

[Lonewulf]

Interesting that her mental development is every bit as "frozen in time" as her physical development is. That'd kinda defeat the purpose of immortality. ;)

So a 20 year old with a mind that could gather information as well as a 20 year old mind isn't worth having? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? :confused:

Also, if you notice, I never claimed that this was the "fountain of youth". I rather pointedly pointed out that this may be a small clue what direction to head in.

What genetic anomaly made it so that your physical process stopped? Is it possible to tweak this genetic anomaly? That's why I brought up the Human Genome Project.

[tracer]

So a 20 year old with a mind that could gather information as well as a 20 year old mind isn't worth having? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? :confused:


I'm more worried about the possibility of a mind that had gathered information as well as a 20 year old mind could, but then stopped gathering information due to the Magical Arrested Development treatment....

[Lonewulf]

I'm more worried about the possibility of a mind that had gathered information as well as a 20 year old mind could, but then stopped gathering information due to the Magical Arrested Development treatment....

I'm pretty sure that conclusions at this point on what is and isn't possible with a hypothetical situation of being able to determine the cause of the physical arrested development in this one anecdotal case are ... uhm... rather hasty.

Which is why I'm not making any. I just brought it up as a point of interest, really. I'm not sure if her brain was really "arrested", as much as it was just kept from being able to fully develop because the brain itself was kept from fully developing. At the age of 20, though, I think the brain would stay the same.

What I'm mainly concerned about is how she's gone through things such as seizures and the like. She *is* "aging", just not in the way we associate aging. Either way, or she's just more prone to bad health.

[Soapy Sam]

Only the young want immortality.

The whole idea sucks, in my view.

[lionking]

Only the young want immortality.

The whole idea sucks, in my view.
I agree. I remember a short story by Julian Barnes, I think, about living forever. After he got his golf score to 18 holes in one, read everything there was to read and seen every part of the world, he still had to linger on. Sounds ghastly.

[Lonewulf]

Only the young want immortality.

The whole idea sucks, in my view.

It doesn't suck, in my view. ;)

[Beady]

How does that go? Something like, "Millions crave immortality, without knowing how to occupy themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."

I think I'll keep my impending demise, thank you. Just so it doesn't come too soon. Or, to quote Woody Allen, "I don't mind the thought of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens."

[Lonewulf]

Beady, you can keep your impending demise all you want. But I want the ability to be able to live longer. I feel that it's my right to be able to choose to live longer, and for others to not choose for me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My guess is that the most common cause of death for immortals would be suicide.

~~ Paul

[Lonewulf]

Why? I've been able to keep myself pretty occupied for the last 20 years of my life. The next 20 can't be that unbearable. If your life really sucks that much that you don't want to prolong it, maybe you need a better life. ;)

Besides, does anyone really think that we'll have an "immortality serum" anytime soon? What about just +100 years added to your lifespan?

[Cuddles]

My guess is that the most common cause of death for immortals would be suicide.

~~ Paul

That's a fairly standard idea in sci-fi really. Although it's not usually actual suicide, just trying more and more things until eventually one of them kills you. Considering how many people who kill themselves by doing silly things like climbing mountains and jumping out of planes, just imagine what would happen when people have nothing else left to do except more and more dangerous hobbies.

Of course, this is assuming we are just using immortality to mean not aging, rather than actually being unkillable. I'd love to not age, but the idea of being left floating around in space all alone long after the Sun has died and faded away and all the other stars have gone out just doesn't sound like that much fun. As it is, I plan to live forever or die trying.

[Soapy Sam]

If nobody can afford to retire (forever), and nobody dies, the scope for job promotion looks limited.
Also, when you've heard (and told) all your best stories so often everyone else has them word perfect, suicide, or murder by your nearest and dearest becomes well-nigh inevitable.

An extended healthy life I could cope with, for a time, but as more bits continue to wear out / seize up / fall off, I find myself increasingly looking forward to shuffling off the old mortal coil.

Not for a few years yet, quite- but I recognise that a time will come. I don't think I could have said that and meant it at any time before my mid forties. Not to be morbid- just an acceptance that life has limits. All the more reason to have fun now.

[Kumar]

Immortality-Immorality

Do we decide our longevity by expecting to achieve certain age? If we think our life span in 1000 years or more, can it add to longevity?

[Beady]

Why? I've been able to keep myself pretty occupied for the last 20 years of my life. The next 20 can't be that unbearable.

True. If you can make it through the first 100 years or so, the next 20 eons should be a piece of cake. And the next 20, and the next 20, and the next 20, and...

Even if you have cancer, TB, are quadraplegic, whatever.

[Lonewulf]

True. If you can make it through the first 100 years or so, the next 20 eons should be a piece of cake. And the next 20, and the next 20, and the next 20, and...
When do you think that we'll be able to physically or realistically be able to live for multiple eons with no chances of ever dying, from accidental deaths or otherwise?

Even if you have cancer, TB

Uh, cancer kills you. Hence, you cannot be immortal with cancer. Logic 101.

are quadraplegic, whatever.

Right, and since you're participating in strawmen, let me make mine:

Yes, because we'll never actually be able to cure quadriplegics, cancer, or TB. Medicine is stuck as it is today, and will be the same in 100 years as it is today.

:rolleyes:

Also, I'm pretty sure when we develop the neural net, quadriplegics, even if unable to move, will still be able to enter virtual reality. I'm all down with making the Matrix from Shadowrun (not "The Matrix", that was icky and rather silly). But that's assuming there's absolutely no way to cure their condition, which is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Seriously, Beady... you don't want to live very long. You want to live about 60% of a century and that's it. That's fine. Some of us want longer lives.

Don't interfere with me, and I won't interfere with you. Don't force me, and I won't force you. Quid pro quo.

[NoAstronomer]

My guess is that the most common cause of death for immortals would be suicide.

~~ Paul

"The first million years were the worst, the second million years were the worst too, after that I went into a bit of a decline." - Marvin

I may have paraphrased a bit, but Paul's right on the money, Besides immortality is logically impossible.

[Lonewulf]

I just find it odd that people seem to go into extremes. You either have to live 75 years average, or live forever.

You can't aim for simply 1000 years, or 10,000 years; it HAS to be immortality, normal lifespan, or bust.

[Z]

Immortality, in and of itself, would be unbearable. I'd prefer an extended lifespan, though - 200 or 300 years would be about right.

The problems with simple immortality - ok, with immortality minus aging - as I see it are these:

1) The mind couldn't possibly hold infinite information, so eventually you will have to forget things. Of course, this could be good, since it means experiences could theoretically be new to you again.

2) Population control would be impossible, unless breeding was reduced to maintaining a stable population. But who wants to raise kids when they're 1000?

3) Having to work - forever.

4) The chance for diseases cropping up that will disable you are good odds to bet against, in a normal lifespan. In an infinite one? You're going to get very, very sick. Who wants to be an immortal, if you have to spend immortality in a wheelchair with a breathing tube?

5) There's no guarantee that human society - even with immortals - is going to continue to advance and improve. If immortality were a one-time treatment, would you want to live through another dark ages?

6) There's an almost certain guarantee that Earth is going to go through more Ice-Age phases. That would suck.

7) And, eventually, the Earth will become unlivable, one way or another. On the off-chance we fail to escape our planet before this happens, would you really WANT to experience the death of the planet?

8) People change - even immortals (and if they stopped changing, that would suck too). So people you love and respect and admire now, in a thousand years, might be total strangers or hated enemies. The emotional ramifications of losing mortal loved ones is bad enough - watching an immortal loved one turn into your ideal of a scumbag would be even worse.

9) An infinte number of Monday mornings? Oh, hell no!

10) Outliving ANYTHING would give you a very cynical view on things like monuments, tributes, technology, etc. Even your most prized possession, your platinum and diamond Immortality Club ring, will eventually erode into nothing. Of course, we might really start to value those non-bio-degradable plastics after that...

Now, if immortality were enhanced to include perfect regeneration, immunity to illness, immunity to starvation and dehydration, the ability to survive in any climate/pressure/environment, and guaranteed mental stability - well, that might be just fine. You could wait out any problem then, secure in the knowledge that things will change. Then again, you might spend a million years stuck by gravity to the surface of a dying star before something happened to free you. BORING!

[Soapy Sam]

Most of the social and psychological problems kick in with a vengeance at about 150 years. Being an accounts clerk for 40 years is tolerable; but for 140 years?
Where do people live when they grow up and their parents are still youthful, healthy and apt to remain so through their next three centuries , 23 divorces and ten sex changes?

The point is that every aspect of all societies is founded on the assumption we will have a few kids , then expire. The world is already in a mess. (Though maybe we'd take more care if we thought we'd still be around in a thousand years.)

Nah. I'd like to be stuck in a frozen sleep box and woken for a month every 100 years- like Brigadoon, or Sleeping Beauty, or Dracula- just to have a look around.

[Lonewulf]

Immortality, in and of itself, would be unbearable. I'd prefer an extended lifespan, though - 200 or 300 years would be about right.

The problems with simple immortality - ok, with immortality minus aging - as I see it are these:

1) The mind couldn't possibly hold infinite information, so eventually you will have to forget things. Of course, this could be good, since it means experiences could theoretically be new to you again.

Well, you brought up why that's not necessarily a bad thing, but like I said before, technology doesn't stand still. Someday we'll probably have ways to, biologically or cybernetically, be able to enhance our memories. Imagine having a picture-perfect database made of a clustered group of nano-machines in our brain?

Impossible? I'm not so sure. We ARE talking about hundreds to thousands of years from now.

2) Population control would be impossible, unless breeding was reduced to maintaining a stable population. But who wants to raise kids when they're 1000?

It depends. Maybe immortality isn't on a wide scale. The assumption seems to be that if some people go immortal, EVERYONE goes immortal. Is that really a safe assumption? There are people in this thread that won't go immortal, no matter how fallacious their reasons are. I don't think that's necessarily going to change.

Also, I'm skeptical that we'll all be stuck on earth. Expansion is a good thing. Plus, as you put it, birth rates will probably go down as a result of living longer lives. But I don't think it will disappear entirel.

3) Having to work - forever.
Am I the only one that actually works with stuff that he's interested in? Or doesn't plan on sticking to the exact same job all of his life?

There are fun and exciting jobs out there, including scientific and medical jobs. Some people are really good at these jobs; people that we would want to actually keep around, such as some of the best doctors and surgeons. I wouldn't refuse them the ability to live longer lifespans.

4) The chance for diseases cropping up that will disable you are good odds to bet against, in a normal lifespan. In an infinite one? You're going to get very, very sick. Who wants to be an immortal, if you have to spend immortality in a wheelchair with a breathing tube?
Once again, are people really arguing that medical science will never ever ever ever ever get better? I brought up why this point was fallacious, as well as bringing up virtual reality. I think that VR and AR (Augmented Reality) will change a lot of how society works in the future. Imagine Second Life with perfect VR.

5) There's no guarantee that human society - even with immortals - is going to continue to advance and improve. If immortality were a one-time treatment, would you want to live through another dark ages?
While this is a good point, usually it's hard for a technology to completely be wiped out and destroyed. Also, if there were another "dark ages", I don't see it as possible to really live that long anyways. All of the medical technology that could keep you immortal would probably be wiped out anyways. So on point 5, I agree, is a good point. :)

6) There's an almost certain guarantee that Earth is going to go through more Ice-Age phases. That would suck.
Again, why the assumption that the human race will always stay on Earth? There's other fish in the sea, and other inhabitable terrestrial worlds in space.

7) And, eventually, the Earth will become unlivable, one way or another. On the off-chance we fail to escape our planet before this happens, would you really WANT to experience the death of the planet?
How is this worse than experiencing death of being hit by a speeding locomotive at the age of 20?

8) People change - even immortals (and if they stopped changing, that would suck too). So people you love and respect and admire now, in a thousand years, might be total strangers or hated enemies. The emotional ramifications of losing mortal loved ones is bad enough - watching an immortal loved one turn into your ideal of a scumbag would be even worse.
I never got why people aren't able to move on. Would the emotional baggage that people go through in failed relationships really be so devastating as to ruin them for thousands of years? IMO, people that emotionally frail should probably be allowed to put themselves out of their misery. I'm able to get over otherwise sad things in my life... I don't get why it's so impossible.

9) An infinte number of Monday mornings? Oh, hell no!
:D

10) Outliving ANYTHING would give you a very cynical view on things like monuments, tributes, technology, etc. Even your most prized possession, your platinum and diamond Immortality Club ring, will eventually erode into nothing. Of course, we might really start to value those non-bio-degradable plastics after that...
I honestly think that this is more speculative more than anything.

Now, if immortality were enhanced to include perfect regeneration, immunity to illness, immunity to starvation and dehydration, the ability to survive in any climate/pressure/environment, and guaranteed mental stability - well, that might be just fine. You could wait out any problem then, secure in the knowledge that things will change. Then again, you might spend a million years stuck by gravity to the surface of a dying star before something happened to free you. BORING!
I'd let everyone have a "kill switch" implanted that only they can activate. Would keep you from hassles like that.

[Folly]

Immortality-Immorality

Do we decide our longevity by expecting to achieve certain age? If we think our life span in 1000 years or more, can it add to longevity?

Congratulations, Kumar! You have won today's grand prize, which is an answer from someone who generally does not post. Here's your prize!

"No."

[Lonewulf]

See, this is my main problem with "immortality", or longetivity, or any other concept:

It seems that I cannot enter a single discussion where there aren't wild assumptions made on both sides, by the supporters and the detractors. Also, it seems like many rejections against immortality are made with rather knee-jerk reactions (though people like Z make some good and very well-thought out points, others do not).

Essentially, it seems that almost every claim about how immortality would be good or bad has, like, at least 100 assumptions all sprinkled throughout.

[tracer]

Only the young want immortality.

I'm 42, and I want immortality.

Of course, I want immortality with eternal Good Health to go along with it, too. Tell me that an 80 year old man wouldn't like to have the body he had at 25, and get to use it for another 100 years!

[Ladewig]

Nah. I'd like to be stuck in a frozen sleep box and woken for a month every 100 years- like Brigadoon, or Sleeping Beauty, or Dracula- just to have a look around.

Me, too. I'm curious as to what the future holds but don't want to go through hundreds of years of mundane activities to see it.

[tracer]

(deleted)

[tracer]

I figger I'll while away the centuries working on my World of Warcraft characters. (I mean, do you know how long it's going to take JUST to get exalted with the Sha'tari Sky Guard -- let alone how long it'll take to gear up my tankadin for raid bosses?)

[Lonewulf]

I figger I'll while away the centuries working on my World of Warcraft characters. (I mean, do you know how long it's going to take JUST to get exalted with the Sha'tari Sky Guard -- let alone how long it'll take to gear up my tankadin for raid bosses?)

:D :D :D

I'll be working on my GURPS campaigns and characters... and probably be around for GURPS 5th edition, and even 6th. They say that they're long in coming, but I'll be there. Ohohoho.

(Meanwhile, D&D works on it's 11th edition in Year 2020)

[JoeTheJuggler]

On the theoretical side, many theorize that the aging process is a preset number of times a cell can divide (due to using up of telomeres).

On the practical side, they have achieved some extreme longevity in mice with an ultra-low calorie diet. I heard of a 2 year human study which obviously can't measure longevity, but only markers of general health like cholesterol levels and so on.

I heard about it in a call for subjects, but 2 years of nearly not eating held no interest for me! I surely wouldn't want to live a hundred years or so nearly not eating.

[Lonewulf]

Personally, my bet is less on some "ultradiet" leading to lengthened longetivity, but instead other means, mainly medical and genetic, as well as cellular. Possibly bionic, who knows? :P

There's also "mind uploading" into computers, but I'm STILL not convinced that that isn't the same as committing suicide and leaving a clone in your place. You're still dead, from your perspective, but other people have a "you" to play around with. It's about as close to immortality as people "remembering" you, or having kids.

[Z]

Well, you brought up why that's not necessarily a bad thing, but like I said before, technology doesn't stand still. Someday we'll probably have ways to, biologically or cybernetically, be able to enhance our memories. Imagine having a picture-perfect database made of a clustered group of nano-machines in our brain?

Even enhanced memory isn't infinite, so that's only a patch, not a fix.

Impossible? I'm not so sure. We ARE talking about hundreds to thousands of years from now.

Impossible. In order for memory to be infinite, it would necessarily have to encompass all existence.

It depends. Maybe immortality isn't on a wide scale. The assumption seems to be that if some people go immortal, EVERYONE goes immortal. Is that really a safe assumption?

If immortality were possible, it would either be restricted to a very, very select few - who would have to live in utter secrecy for the rest of their lives - or it would be mass-distributed. Realistically, people DENIED immortality would revolt, and eventually murder the immortals.

There are people in this thread that won't go immortal, no matter how fallacious their reasons are. I don't think that's necessarily going to change.

Yes, but that's what, a dozen, compared to billions who wouldn't think twice about it?

The deliberate mortals would be an insignificant minority.

Also, I'm skeptical that we'll all be stuck on earth. Expansion is a good thing. Plus, as you put it, birth rates will probably go down as a result of living longer lives. But I don't think it will disappear entirel.

Even if we expand to the stars, and continue to live eternally, eventually - yes, maybe a googolplex generations from now - we'll have to switch to population control. Finite universe, and all that.

And, based on the vast interstellar distances involved, I'm skeptical that we'll ever expand beyond the Solar System.

Am I the only one that actually works with stuff that he's interested in? Or doesn't plan on sticking to the exact same job all of his life?

There are fun and exciting jobs out there, including scientific and medical jobs. Some people are really good at these jobs; people that we would want to actually keep around, such as some of the best doctors and surgeons. I wouldn't refuse them the ability to live longer lifespans.

But if the population now contains immortals, all the 'fun and exciting jobs' are going to be taken by people who will never age, never retire, never die off.

Imagine working in a field where your boss happens to be immortal, loves his job, and is stubborn...

As for your first question here, you DO realize the VAST majority of people do NOT work in fields that they enjoy or are really interested in. The VAST majority work in fields they can get work in, that offer sufficient pay to survive. Humor like Dilbert and Office Space wouldn't be nearly so popular, if the majority of people loved their jobs.

I love my job, btw - but I'm a homemaker.

Once again, are people really arguing that medical science will never ever ever ever ever get better? I brought up why this point was fallacious, as well as bringing up virtual reality. I think that VR and AR (Augmented Reality) will change a lot of how society works in the future. Imagine Second Life with perfect VR.

VR and AR have absolutely nothing to do with the argument of degenerative and debilitating diseases.

Of course medical science MIGHT find cures for all diseases. Or the world could be plunged into a medical dark ages. And curing disease doesn't necessarily mean restoring the effects of diseases ages past.

Plus, there's a pretty even chance that, if we invent immortals, nature will just find a bacteria/virus/other that would be unique to immortals, and untreatable as a result. That's been the history of disease so far on Earth.

(As for SL - since it won't even load onto my computer, I gotta say - what a sucky situation!)

While this is a good point, usually it's hard for a technology to completely be wiped out and destroyed. Also, if there were another "dark ages", I don't see it as possible to really live that long anyways. All of the medical technology that could keep you immortal would probably be wiped out anyways. So on point 5, I agree, is a good point. :)

Unless it were a one-time treatment that made you immortal, in which case, you wouldn't really have much choice. And we don't know what would happen, today, if some catastrophic event pushed us to a new age of barbarism and lack of technology. It could very well eliminate all progress for thousands of years from our reality.

Again, why the assumption that the human race will always stay on Earth? There's other fish in the sea, and other inhabitable terrestrial worlds in space.

Because it's not a good idea to assume that humans WILL escape Earth. Whenever you consider an idea, you should always look at all possible negative consequences first. In a worst-case scenario, the immortal will be stuck on Earth forever, with nothing left of the long-dead Human race except what he has been maintaining himself, as the Earth plunges toward the sun.

So that would be the first question you'd have to answer - would you really want to experience this?

Otherwise, you're taking a huge risk, and that's not a very skeptical thing to do.

How is this worse than experiencing death of being hit by a speeding locomotive at the age of 20?

There's no comparison - none at all. The death of the planet will be horribly slow and dreary. Being hit by a train - instant death.

I never got why people aren't able to move on. Would the emotional baggage that people go through in failed relationships really be so devastating as to ruin them for thousands of years? IMO, people that emotionally frail should probably be allowed to put themselves out of their misery. I'm able to get over otherwise sad things in my life... I don't get why it's so impossible.

You're still a child. You'll understand when you get older.

I honestly think that this is more speculative more than anything.

You're welcome to your opinions, of course.

I'd let everyone have a "kill switch" implanted that only they can activate. Would keep you from hassles like that.

So much for immortality.

[Lonewulf]

Even enhanced memory isn't infinite, so that's only a patch, not a fix.

Depends. Never know what me might develop in the next billion years. ;) My money's on finite, though, so yeah.

Impossible. In order for memory to be infinite, it would necessarily have to encompass all existence.
True.

If immortality were possible, it would either be restricted to a very, very select few - who would have to live in utter secrecy for the rest of their lives
Not necessarily. As people in this thread have already pointed out indirectly, not everyone wants immortality. I don't see the need for secrecy.

or it would be mass-distributed. Realistically, people DENIED immortality would revolt, and eventually murder the immortals.
I never suggested being denied it. But I think that if immortality was a legitimate choice, many would turn it down... especially those that are religious. How can you reconcile heaven and immortality?

Yes, but that's what, a dozen, compared to billions who wouldn't think twice about it?
I dunno on the billions. I think that in most countries, immortality would be seen as sinful/undesirable/whatever. If religion had a less strong an influence, then maybe interest may go up. Depends, really.

The deliberate mortals would be an insignificant minority.
It would be interesting to see a poll to back that up, really. I wonder what people across the world would really want...

Even if we expand to the stars, and continue to live eternally, eventually - yes, maybe a googolplex generations from now - we'll have to switch to population control. Finite universe, and all that.
Depends on if there's ways to enter other universes. We really don't know all cosmological concepts yet, so any speculation as to what we will know or not know in 2 billion years is pretty much worthless.

And, based on the vast interstellar distances involved, I'm skeptical that we'll ever expand beyond the Solar System.
I'm sure we'll be able to travel to other areas in the galaxy, and from what I understand, there are ways to live in asteroids. From http://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist.technologies

Space colonies will become necessary to house the many billions of individuals that will be born in the future as our population continues to expand at a lazy exponential. In his book, The Millennial Project, Marshall T. Savage estimates that the Asteroid Belt could hold 7,500 trillion people, if thoroughly reshaped into O'Neill colonies. At a typical population growth rate for developed countries at 1% per annum (doubling every 72 years), it would take us 1,440 years to fill that space. Siphoning light gases off Jupiter and Saturn and fusing them into heavier elements for construction of further colonies seems plausible in the longer term as well.

I'm no expert, though.

But if the population now contains immortals, all the 'fun and exciting jobs' are going to be taken by people who will never age, never retire, never die off.

"Fun and exciting" is not a single blob of definites. If you really think that all people find the exact same jobs boring, and the exact same jobs interesting, then I suggest you need more real-world experience.

Everyone is interested in different things. We aren't some hivemind that always agree and disagree, and are always interested in the same things. I like computers, some people hate computers. I like astronomy, some people find astronomy boring. I like RPGs and working with gaming companies, some people don't like gaming.

Imagine working in a field where your boss happens to be immortal, loves his job, and is stubborn...
Like astronomy? Why would I have to be boss to have all the fun when discovering the stars?

As for your first question here, you DO realize the VAST majority of people do NOT work in fields that they enjoy or are really interested in. The VAST majority work in fields they can get work in, that offer sufficient pay to survive. Humor like Dilbert and Office Space wouldn't be nearly so popular, if the majority of people loved their jobs.

I love my job, btw - but I'm a homemaker.
I'd like to see some hard evidence that most people are in miserable jobs. I'm certainly not planning on working for a job I'd loathe in the long-term.

And if everyone selects dead end jobs that never will improve, then sucks to be them.

VR and AR have absolutely nothing to do with the argument of degenerative and debilitating diseases.
Really? So VR can't be used by a quadriplegic to have fun, or even "live" a better life?

I don't get why not. But if you say so.

Of course medical science MIGHT find cures for all diseases. Or the world could be plunged into a medical dark ages.
Once more, making any discussion of immortality meaningless. Moving on...

And curing disease doesn't necessarily mean restoring the effects of diseases ages past.
So you really think that it would be impossible to restore the spinal cord, muscular tissue, brain tissue, etc.?

Really, I don't know how I could live if I was as pessimistic as you. I'd probably commit suicide if I was that hopeless.

Plus, there's a pretty even chance that, if we invent immortals, nature will just find a bacteria/virus/other that would be unique to immortals, and untreatable as a result. That's been the history of disease so far on Earth.
Which is pretty much speculation, one way or the other.

(As for SL - since it won't even load onto my computer, I gotta say - what a sucky situation!)
To each their own. I love virtual reality and videogames. I also love stories, movies, and other forms of entertainment.

Personally, if I was quadriplegic, I would take up VR anyday. People that are paralyzed from the neck down use chat rooms and are given neural transmitters to be able to chat with real people online, to give them a sense of socialization. (Fun stuff, eh? They're actually able to type by *thinking*. What a whacky future we have to look forward to).

Unless it were a one-time treatment that made you immortal, in which case, you wouldn't really have much choice.
Which would be a rather crazy hypothetical, and purely in the "magical" sense. It's certainly not what I think will be possible, so I don't really make the assumption.

And we don't know what would happen, today, if some catastrophic event pushed us to a new age of barbarism and lack of technology. It could very well eliminate all progress for thousands of years from our reality.
It could. But I don't usually plan for world-wide apocalypses that would destroy the entire human race. It's not really worth discussing because, quite frankly, until there's actual evidence that everything will collapse soon, it's just speculation. Yeah, sure, it COULD happen, but that doesn't mean it will. So you can take the pessimist route, or the optimist route. I usually take the latter.

Because it's not a good idea to assume that humans WILL escape Earth. Whenever you consider an idea, you should always look at all possible negative consequences first. In a worst-case scenario, the immortal will be stuck on Earth forever, with nothing left of the long-dead Human race except what he has been maintaining himself, as the Earth plunges toward the sun.

In which case, it doesn't really matter what we speculate then, does it? We're all doomed, and life sucks.

So that would be the first question you'd have to answer - would you really want to experience this?
Of course not. I also don't want to experience a heart attack or stroke.

Otherwise, you're taking a huge risk, and that's not a very skeptical thing to do.
And you're making a huge group of assumptions, including the bit about "magical immortality that's one-use, lasts forever, blah blah blah", which isn't very skeptical either.

There's no comparison - none at all. The death of the planet will be horribly slow and dreary.
What, while you're living on the planet? Believe me, just up the temperature a few tens of degrees celsius, and you'll be over relatively quickly.
Being hit by a train - instant death.
Being hit by a car isn't necessarily. You could easily be left on the ground, your leg bones shattered, your spine twisted, feeling your urine soaking your clothes because you lost all control. Then you're wheeled into the hospital, where you die a few hours later.

Contrary to popular opinion, "instant deaths" are rare.

You're still a child. You'll understand when you get older.
Whenever someone says this, they always come off as condescending and arrogant. It's always in the realm of, "I know more than you do." When you demonstrate greater knowledge, I will respect you for it. However, I agree with Henry David Thoreau, that age does not always bring wisdom, and that the old can be just as ignorant as the young.

Let's just put it this way: Saying, "You're still a child, you'll understand when you get to my age" sounds about the same as a religious fundie saying, "Oh, you're wrong, but don't worry, someday you'll see the light and convert to my favorite religion".

You're welcome to your opinions, of course.
And you're welcome to yours.

So much for immortality.

Being as I'm not the one that's pushing the "one-use magical immortality" in the first place, I really couldn't care less.

When I talk about immortality, I mean lengthened longevity of life, that may very well end up being indefinite if the correct set of circumstances appear, but is not necessarily so. By definition, if conditions worsen to the point where this longevity doesn't work out very much, then the person would die anyways. I don't really go into the magical unless I have to.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, and that's where these discussions become boring.

[Z]

Being as I'm not the one that's pushing the "one-use magical immortality" in the first place, I really couldn't care less.

When I talk about immortality, I mean lengthened longevity of life, that may very well end up being indefinite if the correct set of circumstances appear, but is not necessarily so. By definition, if conditions worsen to the point where this longevity doesn't work out very much, then the person would die anyways. I don't really go into the magical unless I have to.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, and that's where these discussions become boring.

Oh, so you're not asking about immortality. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? It could have spared us a lot of boring discussion.

See, I thought you were talking about immortality, as in 'living forever'. Immortal does not mean 'living a long time', just like infinite does not mean 'a long time'. If you're just wanting to discuss extended lifespan, well that's a different discussion.

As for discussions becoming 'boring', I disagree entirely. If we were to agree - now THAT would be one boring discussion.

(As for the age comment - I have no idea what your age in years are; my comment was purely in reaction to the style and content of your posts, young one. And yea, I'm an arrogant SOB.)

[Taffer]

I think you should all go away and read Diaspora and Permutation City my Greg Egan.

Immortality by computer upload need not limit your mind-state to what it was before you were uploaded.

[Lonewulf]

Oh, so you're not asking about immortality. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? It could have spared us a lot of boring discussion.

See, I thought you were talking about immortality, as in 'living forever'. Immortal does not mean 'living a long time', just like infinite does not mean 'a long time'. If you're just wanting to discuss extended lifespan, well that's a different discussion.

I pretty much made that clear already, in other posts I've made to this thread.

As for discussions becoming 'boring', I disagree entirely. If we were to agree - now THAT would be one boring discussion.
Perhaps it would. But I find it boring when every single person I ever talk to on the subject seems to assume that, you either live your normal lifespan, OR you live with magical immortality.

Furthermore, my system does create an effective immortality. Upkeeping the body every 10 years with medical advances can, effectively, make you immortal if you have the infrastructure and resources available for all of that time. Just because it isn't "magical" immortality, doesn't make it any less of effective.

Of course, this all becomes moot when the universe destroys itself.

(As for the age comment - I have no idea what your age in years are; my comment was purely in reaction to the style and content of your posts, young one. And yea, I'm an arrogant SOB.)
And my comments on you being condescending and arrogant are the same. I'm 22, soon to be 23, and I can disagree with you without being a "child".

Once again, I still don't think that age and wisdom are necessarily intertwined. I highly recommend you read Henry David Thoreau's essays on the topic sometime. ;)

[Complexity]

Beady, you can keep your impending demise all you want. But I want the ability to be able to live longer. I feel that it's my right to be able to choose to live longer, and for others to not choose for me.


Go ahead and try - you don't have a 'right' to succeed, of course.

I'm 50 and about at the point where I'll be content with dying whenever.

[Lonewulf]

Go ahead and try - you don't have a 'right' to succeed, of course.
And I never said that I did.

I'm 50 and about at the point where I'll be content with dying whenever.
Have fun with that, and thanks for sharing. Was very informative and contributed much to the discussion.

[Complexity]

Why? I've been able to keep myself pretty occupied for the last 20 years of my life. The next 20 can't be that unbearable. If your life really sucks that much that you don't want to prolong it, maybe you need a better life. ;)

Besides, does anyone really think that we'll have an "immortality serum" anytime soon? What about just +100 years added to your lifespan?


No way. It will be someone else's turn in the sun in a few years.

I think that living that long would be horrible.

[Lonewulf]

No way. It will be someone else's turn in the sun in a few years.

I think that living that long would be horrible.

Naturally, I disagree, but I'm sure you saw that coming. BTW, thanks for yet another thoughtful, innovative, and informative post. Appreciate it!

[Complexity]

Don't interfere with me, and I won't interfere with you. Don't force me, and I won't force you. Quid pro quo.


I hope you don't expect the rest of us to pay for research on longevity - that would be forcing the rest of us.

[Lonewulf]

I hope you don't expect the rest of us to pay for research on longevity - that would be forcing the rest of us.

I don't. Well, except that I expect government money to be spent on scientific and medical progress, some of which will lead into more details on longevity no doubt. But most likely more indirectly than directly.

[Complexity]

I don't. Well, except that I expect government money to be spent on scientific and medical progress, some of which will lead into more details on longevity no doubt. But most likely more indirectly than directly.


That's where we differ. I'm not in favor of any 'government' money being spent on science or medicine.

You seem quite content with the use of force to steal money to fund your little games.

[Lonewulf]

That's where we differ. I'm not in favor of any 'government' money being spent on science or medicine.

You seem quite content with the use of force to steal money to fund your little games.

Sure. Curing AIDS, organ transplants, and saving children's lives are "little games". :rolleyes:

Judging by the nature of your posts, I seriously doubt you will ever contribute anything meaningful. Welcome to the ignore list.

[Complexity]

Sure. Curing AIDS, organ transplants, and saving children's lives are "little games". :rolleyes:

Judging by the nature of your posts, I seriously doubt you will ever contribute anything meaningful. Welcome to the ignore list.


As you well know, by 'little games', I was referring to your desire to get others to find ways of prolonging your life.

I welcome private research into curing AIDS and saving the lives of children, neither of which would be classified as the type of life-extension research that you yearn for.

I also welcome private research into organ transplants, though I would certainly hope that age would be a criterion in deciding who gets donated organs - I would that those beyond elderly would be placed near the bottom of the list.

Assuming that the research has been done and methods for serious life extension are available, who is going to decide who gets the therapies and who does not? Who is going to pay for the therapies, and why?

While I think there is a good chance that mankind will not be constrained to living on Earth, only a small sliver of the population is likely to ever go into space. The rest (including you) will breed like rabbits and try to leech off those younger than yourselves.

The same pattern will probably be followed in whatever habitats mankind creates or discovers.

[Lonewulf]

Oh, I don't plan to breed. That's one more of the many childish assumptions you've made of me. Then there's all those assumptions you make on technology and the fate of the future. Pardon me if I don't consider you an expert, nor anything more than some guy behind a computer and basic layman's knowledge.

Now, seriously. Does anyone with anything to actually add want to continue this discussion?

[Taffer]

I see no problem in the government spending money on life extension research. It is no different from any other form of research, and should be given its share of the grant money. If such a technology were to be developed, I would most likely use it. Others don't have to, that's their choice.

[Complexity]

I see no problem in the government spending money on life extension research. It is no different from any other form of research, and should be given its share of the grant money. If such a technology were to be developed, I would most likely use it. Others don't have to, that's their choice.


How nice for you.

I don't think there should be any public funding. Period.

If you want it, pay for it yourself.

Don't reach into my wallet.

[Kumar]

Congratulations, Kumar! You have won today's grand prize, which is an answer from someone who generally does not post. Here's your prize!

"No."



Though just increase can be immoralty, still whether our precption/wishful thinking or positive thoughts can add.

[rocketdodger]

My opinion is that indefinite lifespan may be possible within our lifetime, Lonewulf and Kumar. If we can use slightly better than current technology to bootstrap our lifespans to maybe 120 years, I think advances in nanotechnology and / or A.I. within that time will make enough headway to at least hold off natural death, if not completely remove any effects of aging.

Nanotech is the best chance we have of being able to fully repair our biological bodies, and A.I. advances should allow us to exponentially increase our advancement capabilities at worst. At best, we should be able to transfer our consciousness into man-made structures.

As a programmer, I look forward to being able to contribute to these fields (once they pay as well as the video game industry, that is :) ).

[Kumar]

Thought or thinking is a mental process which allows beings to model the world, and so to deal with it effectively according to their goals, plans, ends and desireshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

Can motivations by positive or negative thoughts, perception, wishful thinking, self hypnosis, placebo, reward/punishment expectation etc. make/ destroy or model our body and increase/decrease our longevity?

[Lonewulf]

My opinion is that indefinite lifespan may be possible within our lifetime, Lonewulf and Kumar. If we can use slightly better than current technology to bootstrap our lifespans to maybe 120 years, I think advances in nanotechnology and / or A.I. within that time will make enough headway to at least hold off natural death, if not completely remove any effects of aging.

Nanotech is the best chance we have of being able to fully repair our biological bodies, and A.I. advances should allow us to exponentially increase our advancement capabilities at worst. At best, we should be able to transfer our consciousness into man-made structures.

As a programmer, I look forward to being able to contribute to these fields (once they pay as well as the video game industry, that is :) ).

"We need someone to work on the experimental nano-machines, stat! Who can we get?!"

'Well, there's this gaming programmer who posts on the JREF...'

"BRILLIANT!"

:D

Regardless, I still have my own perceptions on "uploading" our data, like I mentioned before. It's only immortality in an illusory sense, as the data on your brain may be transfered, but your brain isn't; thus, "you" die, but the "data" doesn't... making a copy of you, but not making YOU live longer.

Otherwise, I agree, nanomachines are the way to go. Maybe even cybernetics can help increase life spans, although I'm not entirely sure on that end. What I do know is that cybernetics are making it better and easier for otherwise healthy people to be able to hear, see, and interact with the world (prosthetics, etc.) Here's to hoping that we make 'em better and more improved.

[Cuddles]

1) The mind couldn't possibly hold infinite information, so eventually you will have to forget things. Of course, this could be good, since it means experiences could theoretically be new to you again.

I forget things already, so the only difference would be that I'd foget more things.

2) Population control would be impossible, unless breeding was reduced to maintaining a stable population. But who wants to raise kids when they're 1000?

Again, it depends if you use immortality to mean "unkillable" or just "infinite lifespan". For the former, you are entirely correct. For the latter, population will always be self-limiting. Unfortunately this generally involves disease, famine and/or war. On the other hand, these all happen anyway so it wouldn't necessarily make that much difference.

3) Having to work - forever.

Firstly, work doing something you enjoy. Secondly, you have to work to support yourself now. Is it really so bad that you couldn't possibly do it for longer? Most people seem to find their lives more or less OK now, I really don't see a problem with it being the same, but longer. Finally, why stick to just one thing? The reason most people stick with one area their whole life is that there just isn't time to learn more. You spend your first 20 years in education and the next 10 or 20 moving up from a newbie to an established worker. You can just about manage to repeat that if you really want to, but for most people there just isn't the time or incentive to do so. Given immortality, you could change career whenever you liked.

I think it could be something like the Games Workshop Eldar - you work in one area until you get as good as you can, then swap to something else and work at that. If you combine this with your first point, by the time you've worked through all possible jobs, you'll have forgotten the first ones and can start all over again.:)

4) The chance for diseases cropping up that will disable you are good odds to bet against, in a normal lifespan. In an infinite one? You're going to get very, very sick. Who wants to be an immortal, if you have to spend immortality in a wheelchair with a breathing tube?

If we manage to cure death, I think lesser ailments wouldn't be that much of a problem. In any case, it again comes to definitions of imortality. If you're unkillable, then diseases aren't a problem. If you have an infinite lifespan barring accidents, disease would just be one of those accidents, and probably one of the main ways of solving point 2.

5) There's no guarantee that human society - even with immortals - is going to continue to advance and improve. If immortality were a one-time treatment, would you want to live through another dark ages?

Yes. In any case, a dark age would happen through loss of technology. If the people who know how to build it are immortal, how could we lose it?

6) There's an almost certain guarantee that Earth is going to go through more Ice-Age phases. That would suck.

I like skiing.

7) And, eventually, the Earth will become unlivable, one way or another. On the off-chance we fail to escape our planet before this happens, would you really WANT to experience the death of the planet?

Depends. If we're going the unkillable route, then I already pointed out how much fun floating around in complete darkness for enternity would be. On the other hand, if the end of the Earth would also be the end of me, I definitely would like to experience it. It would be a hell of a way to go, and it would really be nice to know if our theories about how the Earth will end are actually correct.

8) People change - even immortals (and if they stopped changing, that would suck too). So people you love and respect and admire now, in a thousand years, might be total strangers or hated enemies. The emotional ramifications of losing mortal loved ones is bad enough - watching an immortal loved one turn into your ideal of a scumbag would be even worse.

But at the same time your mortal enemies could be your loved ones in a thousand years. Not everything has to be one way, and not everything has to be black and white. I think it far more likely that people would drift apart and drift back together over the millenia. You wouldn't necessarily hate your old friends, you just wouldn't see them for centuries and maybe get back together occasinoally to see what's new. Basically just what happens with school and university friends, only more so.

9) An infinte number of Monday mornings? Oh, hell no!

I've never had a problem with Mondays. It's Wednesday that's the bad one. You've already had a few days of work, but it's too soon to be looking forward to the weekend.

10) Outliving ANYTHING would give you a very cynical view on things like monuments, tributes, technology, etc. Even your most prized possession, your platinum and diamond Immortality Club ring, will eventually erode into nothing. Of course, we might really start to value those non-bio-degradable plastics after that...

Meh, property doesn't have any meaning in itself. I've always seen monuments and things like that as fairly pointless. I guess I'm perfectly suited to immortality.

Now, if immortality were enhanced to include perfect regeneration, immunity to illness, immunity to starvation and dehydration, the ability to survive in any climate/pressure/environment, and guaranteed mental stability - well, that might be just fine.

I don't see how immortality could possibly exist without all those things. If you don't have perfect regeneration, eventually you will die. If you can starve to death then you can starve to death. If you go for "unkillable immortality" then these things obviously can't be a problem. If you go for "immortal barring" accidents then you are almost guaranteed to have an accident eventually, and all those things are just possible accidents.

[rocketdodger]

Regardless, I still have my own perceptions on "uploading" our data, like I mentioned before. It's only immortality in an illusory sense, as the data on your brain may be transfered, but your brain isn't; thus, "you" die, but the "data" doesn't... making a copy of you, but not making YOU live longer.


Except I am talking about a realtime consciousness transfer, so it would be more like "you" getting a mechanical body (which might suck for alot of reasons, but might not for alot of others).

You hook something up to your brain, then there is a "learning" period when you get acclimated to this new "space" in your mind and what it entails, and eventually when you are ready (I.E. when you think you have moved as much of yourself to the new space as possible) the old brain is gradually disconnected in such a way as to squeeze out every last bit of consciousness into the new one. This would imply a transition period where you are actually present in both physical entities at once.

Incidentally I figure this is the same way to solve the "transporter copy" problem -- instead of making a copy, the consciosness should be continually updated, even in flight. That guarantees that the "you" who left is the same as the one who arrives, rather than being just a copy.

[rocketdodger]

I welcome private research into curing AIDS and saving the lives of children, neither of which would be classified as the type of life-extension research that you yearn for.


But you don't welcome using public funds to apply the results of such research to those who can't afford it themselves?


I also welcome private research into organ transplants, though I would certainly hope that age would be a criterion in deciding who gets donated organs - I would that those beyond elderly would be placed near the bottom of the list.


Are you against using public funds for these procedures as well? Would "whether or not one can afford the procedure" be a more pertinent criterion? What happens when a good deal of those that can afford it on their own happen to be elderly also?


Assuming that the research has been done and methods for serious life extension are available, who is going to decide who gets the therapies and who does not? Who is going to pay for the therapies, and why?

This question would take an entire thread to answer, because the nature of the product throws much of known economics and politics out the window. However, I don't think *any* possible answer would be a reason to *not* move forward. In fact, I would say that (assuming indifinite extension is possible someday) the desire to live indifinitely gives me a natural right to pursue that end regardless of how much damage it does to those that don't. After all, humans assume such a right against all other life on Earth in their day to day lives, so I would just be extending that mindset one step further.


While I think there is a good chance that mankind will not be constrained to living on Earth, only a small sliver of the population is likely to ever go into space. The rest (including you) will breed like rabbits and try to leech off those younger than yourselves.

Do you consider yourself part of this "leeches" catetory, Complexity? Why or why not?

[Complexity]

But you don't welcome using public funds to apply the results of such research to those who can't afford it themselves?


Nope. I'm not in favor of much public expenditure at all. I'm also not in favor of nearly all of the taxation that occurs.

If people weren't forced to give up so much of their money to the government, they'd have it available to do with it what they think best.

Some people would choose to support the types of research that you advocate with their own money.

If you have the money and wish to enable someone else to benefit from the therapies you desire, that is very nice of you. Just make sure you do it with your own money.


Are you against using public funds for these procedures as well? Would "whether or not one can afford the procedure" be a more pertinent criterion? What happens when a good deal of those that can afford it on their own happen to be elderly also?


I think very few would be able to afford the therapies you yearn for.

Many of those who could afford these therapies would be foolish enough to purchase them.


This question would take an entire thread to answer, because the nature of the product throws much of known economics and politics out the window. However, I don't think *any* possible answer would be a reason to *not* move forward. In fact, I would say that (assuming indifinite extension is possible someday) the desire to live indifinitely gives me a natural right to pursue that end regardless of how much damage it does to those that don't. After all, humans assume such a right against all other life on Earth in their day to day lives, so I would just be extending that mindset one step further.


There are no 'natural' rights.

We don't have similar moral systems. In the context of my moral system, you are a monster.


Do you consider yourself part of this "leeches" catetory, Complexity? Why or why not?


I don't think I'll become a leech.

I plan to put myself down when my quality of life becomes poor or when I become a burden on others. I expect that one or both of these will happen within fifteen, at most twenty, years.

I think there are several life-extending medical procedures that I don't think I'd bother with now.

[rocketdodger]

Some people would choose to support the types of research that you advocate with their own money.

If you have the money and wish to enable someone else to benefit from the therapies you desire, that is very nice of you. Just make sure you do it with your own money.

My question was whether you support using public funds to pay for helping those with AIDS, or saving children, when those being treated cannot pay themselves.


I think very few would be able to afford the therapies you yearn for.

Many of those who could afford these therapies would be foolish enough to purchase them.


My first question was whether you support using public funds to pay for organ transplants when those involved can't pay themselves.

My second question was whether you think being able to pay for an organ is a valid criterion to use when deciding who gets it.

FYI I am in agreement with you about all of this,.


We don't have similar moral systems. In the context of my moral system, you are a monster.

Why do you say that?


I don't think I'll become a leech.

I plan to put myself down when my quality of life becomes poor or when I become a burden on others.

Why do you think you are not one already? And why do you contend that so many elderly are leeches?

[Lonewulf]

Except I am talking about a realtime consciousness transfer, so it would be more like "you" getting a mechanical body (which might suck for alot of reasons, but might not for alot of others).

You hook something up to your brain, then there is a "learning" period when you get acclimated to this new "space" in your mind and what it entails, and eventually when you are ready (I.E. when you think you have moved as much of yourself to the new space as possible) the old brain is gradually disconnected in such a way as to squeeze out every last bit of consciousness into the new one. This would imply a transition period where you are actually present in both physical entities at once.

Incidentally I figure this is the same way to solve the "transporter copy" problem -- instead of making a copy, the consciosness should be continually updated, even in flight. That guarantees that the "you" who left is the same as the one who arrives, rather than being just a copy.

Well, okay, but this seems to imply that the original body/brain is upkept through the ages, which yeah, would be perfectly fine as far as immortality.

However, I don't think there is any real way to "transfer" consciousness, just data. Since we are the data processors that we're hooked up with (brain-wise), if our processor stops "working", we're dead. It doesn't matter where that data actually is.

Or am I misunderstanding this?

[Complexity]

My question was whether you support using public funds to pay for helping those with AIDS, or saving children, when those being treated cannot pay themselves.


No.

Voluntarily donated private funds, yes.


My first question was whether you support using public funds to pay for organ transplants when those involved can't pay themselves.

My second question was whether you think being able to pay for an organ is a valid criterion to use when deciding who gets it.


An organ transplant and subsequent, possibly lifelong, immunosuppressant and other therapies will cost a significant amount of money.

Someone has to pay for it. If a patient can't afford it, and his insurance can't afford it, and no one else is able or willing to pay for it, the organ should go to someone else.

I am unwilling to have the government pay for health care.

You seem to believe that organ transplants and other long-extending therapies should be available and be performed regardless of the cost.

I think we're well past the point where we can afford the level of health care to which people have become accustomed.

I think the rationing of health care will become increasingly common.

Not everything that can be done should be done.

The very rich will always be able to get what they want, given what is available.

I think you'll find that the rest of us will find increasingly significant levels of health care unavailable.


FYI I am in agreement with you about all of this,.


That's news to me.


Why do you say that?

In fact, I would say that (assuming indifinite extension is possible someday) the desire to live indifinitely gives me a natural right to pursue that end regardless of how much damage it does to those that don't. After all, humans assume such a right against all other life on Earth in their day to day lives, so I would just be extending that mindset one step further.

Why do you think you are not one already? And why do you contend that so many elderly are leeches?


I think that, to date, I have sustained myself financially, after being raised and supported by my parents, who willing paid for my upbringing.

Most of my first pass at undergraduate education was paid for by my parents, the rest was paid for by me. I paid for my second bachelor's, one year of my graduate education was awarded to me as a fellowship, and the remaining three years of my graduate education were paid for by my work as a teaching assistant.

I have no children, yet I am forced to pay taxes each year to educate the children of others.

I have been a very good teacher and a very good software developer.

I have borne the consequences and expenses of my mental illnesses, which are under control, and my physical illnesses, which are less so.

I have thought about and chosen the limits of my life, beyond which I don't wish to pass.

I have not said or suggested that 'so many elderly are leeches'. I said earlier, with regard to your desire for extreme life extension, that I would be opposed to granting limited medical resources such as organs to those who are 'beyond elderly'.

I am much more interested in the quality of life rather than its mere length.

[rocketdodger]

Or am I misunderstanding this?

Yeah I think you are :(

Suppose I made an exact copy of your brain, without any activity, and connected your current brain to it neuron by neuron, giving your mind time to sync perfectly with the new domain. Then suppose I destroyed the original brain one neuron at a time. This process *would* be copying data, as you say, but if the granularity was small enough (I.E. one neuron at a time) I think your consciousness would be continuous throughout it.

[Lonewulf]

It's really hard for me to imagine that being done in a way that doesn't just create a new clone of myself. :boggled:

[Complexity]

Yeah I think you are :(

Suppose I made an exact copy of your brain, without any activity, and connected your current brain to it neuron by neuron, giving your mind time to sync perfectly with the new domain. Then suppose I destroyed the original brain one neuron at a time. This process *would* be copying data, as you say, but if the granularity was small enough (I.E. one neuron at a time) I think your consciousness would be continuous throughout it.


Don't be ridiculous.

[rocketdodger]

You seem to believe that organ transplants and other long-extending therapies should be available and be performed regardless of the cost.

Absolutely not. I am a die hard Objectivist. You presuppose my queries to you are *arguments* against your answers, which they are not! I only asked those questions because your earlier posts were confusing to me.


I think we're well past the point where we can afford the level of health care to which people have become accustomed.
I agree, but I think its only because most people are more interested in smaller cell phones than cheaper health care and would rather be hip-hop stars than scientists.


I think the rationing of health care will become increasingly common.
This is OK, as long as the reasons are economic and not political :/


The very rich will always be able to get what they want, given what is available.

I think you'll find that the rest of us will find increasingly significant levels of health care unavailable.

I would instead say "the very powerful," but otherwise I agree with you. That is why it is important to be one of the powerful ones.


That's news to me.

Because you are looking for a fight, which I don't understand. Not everyone comes to this forum to flame and be flamed.


I am much more interested in the quality of life rather than its mere length.
As am I, as are most of the people who want to live longer. Why should a 20 year old accident victim be saved? Because they have a "potentially enjoyable" life ahead of them. Why are the years between age 100 and 500 any less "potentially enjoyable?" Any reason you give *would not exist* if we could actually live to 500, which makes the argument against life extension an empty one.

[Lonewulf]

One thing I will say is that I think that life extension isn't really a top priority. It would be nice to get homes for orphans, to cure some majorly crippling diseases, to lessen famine and poverty in our own country (and hopefully, the world pulls together to end famine and poverty in other countries as well), etc.

So yeah, I would agree that increasing the quality of life is a higher priority than increasing the quantity. But I think that increasing the quantity is also a side effect of increasing the quality. Remove disease from the picture, make people healthier with advanced medicine, and by necessity you'll see lifespans go up.

[rocketdodger]

We don't have similar moral systems. In the context of my moral system, you are a monster.


I think most balanced individuals would agree that, all else being equal, when faced with the choice to either kill another human or be killed by that human, they would choose the former if they could. I also think they would make this choice because of a desire to survive, for whatever reason. If our lifespans were indefinite, the seriousness of any threat would be magnified a great deal, perhaps to such a point.

I was not talking about enslaving the population to work on nanobots. I was talking about a situation something like a group of religious zealots trying to burn down a research lab -- it would be acceptable, given the ethical framework I operate in, to kill them in order to prevent the lab's destruction.

[Lonewulf]

Wait, zealots? Killing? Where did this stuff come from?

[Complexity]

I am a die hard Objectivist.


I'm afraid that you're not. The following would not be written by an Objectivist:

In fact, I would say that (assuming indifinite extension is possible someday) the desire to live indifinitely gives me a natural right to pursue that end regardless of how much damage it does to those that don't. After all, humans assume such a right against all other life on Earth in their day to day lives, so I would just be extending that mindset one step further.

[Modified]

It's really hard for me to imagine that being done in a way that doesn't just create a new clone of myself. :boggled:

Let's say nanobots could sweep across your brain, replacing the original neurons with synthetic ones, converting a .01mm slice of brain each day. At what point would you cease to exist?

[Lonewulf]

Let's say nanobots could sweep across your brain, replacing the original neurons with synthetic ones, converting a .01mm slice of brain each day. At what point would you cease to exist?

Hm, I'm not sure. I think that in a particular case like that, I'd still be able to exist, just with an "updated" brain, as long as the brain is kept whole and intact while the process continues.

[Taffer]

How nice for you.

I don't think there should be any public funding. Period.

If you want it, pay for it yourself.

Don't reach into my wallet.

So you don't think medical research should be publically funded?

[Complexity]

So you don't think medical research should be publically funded?


No.

[Taffer]

No.

Then, sir, all I can say is that I am glad you are not in a position of power which would allow you to make such a decision.

[Complexity]

Then, sir, all I can say is that I am glad you are not in a position of power which would allow you to make such a decision.


I get that a lot, especially from family and friends.

The last thing I want is any form of power.

[rocketdodger]

I'm afraid that you're not. The following would not be written by an Objectivist:


Then please explain to me how, given that they are the archetypes for Objectivism, the main heroes in all of Rand's books have adopted such a morality? Or are you just saying "the following would not be written by an Objectivist, and by 'Objectivist' I mean 'my own version of Objectivism that may or may not be the same as Randian Objectivism'?"

[Lonewulf]

Now we're talking about Ayn Rand?

Jeez, am I totally out of the loop here? :boggled:

[rocketdodger]

Now we're talking about Ayn Rand?

Jeez, am I totally out of the loop here? :boggled:

No, you aren't. Its an off-topic tangent, in response to Complexity's perverse need for argumentative conflict in these forums. I would much rather talk about the thread issue but ...

[Lonewulf]

Complexity's not bad. He's not Cain, after all.

Still, not someone I'd want to engage with in a real discussion, as opposed to an argument. ;)

So, let me give you a hypothetical. If you could live hundreds of years longer if you had a cyborg body that required monthly (at the least) upkeep to keep from breaking down, assuming you could pay for it... would you do it?

I'll add that your tactile and taste senses aren't necessarily gone, in this theoretical case, though it does cost extra.

[rocketdodger]

Absolutely. Why wouldn't you? There are so many exciting things that might happen in the next few hundred years -- emergence of human power A.I., contact with other intelligent species, interstellar travel, flying boots, just to name a few of the things that are very likely.

Then what about all the fascinating human history that will unfold? I don't know about you but I could read history forever -- seeing what humans have done and how they interact is very interesting.

Finally, what about the unlikely stuff that is worth seeing, like the possibility of our evolution into beings of pure energy, faster than light travel, antigravity, construction of a Dyson sphere, etc?

[Lonewulf]

Lol. "Beings of pure energy" is always hilarious.

Apparently the highest state of existence is being a floating orb that somehow talks and thinks even though there's not really many physically possible ways it can.

The only one that doesn't seem to break the laws of physics is the dyson sphere, and that's only if you use a "soft" dyson sphere made of different collectors, and not a hard shell one.

[rocketdodger]

Given what little we are realizing we know about "the laws of physics" I don't think anything I listed is that far-fetched. And at any rate thats why I listed that stuff under "unlikely."

[Lonewulf]

Given what little we are realizing we know about "the laws of physics" I don't think anything I listed is that far-fetched.
It's pretty far-fetched, honestly. It "might" be possible, but that doesn't make it at the least bit probable.

And at any rate thats why I listed that stuff under "unlikely."
At the least, yeah. :D

[tracer]

Lonewulf ... dude ... did your avatar just wiggle its eyebrows at me? :boggled:

[Lonewulf]

He winked at you.

He's saying he wants you. Badly.

[Complexity]

Then please explain to me how, given that they are the archetypes for Objectivism, the main heroes in all of Rand's books have adopted such a morality? Or are you just saying "the following would not be written by an Objectivist, and by 'Objectivist' I mean 'my own version of Objectivism that may or may not be the same as Randian Objectivism'?"


What you say is wrong. The main heroes in all of Rand's books have not adopted such a morality.

I don't think you read very carefully.

I first read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged about forty years ago. I reread it every year or so. I've read her other works, including excerpts from her journals.

I find a great deal of value in her writings and in her philosophy.

I'm not a joiner but I'd probably be considered an Objectivist by others.

Atlas Shrugged was the capstone of Rand's achievement. It has several heroes, but one towers above them all: John Galt.

Each of these heroes is given the gift of proclaiming some aspect of Rand's philosophy, but it is left to John Galt lay it all out on the table.

John Galt protected one of the things he held most dear with a simple oath, one that I think sums up, and was intended to sum up, Rand's beliefs:

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.The following statement that you made earlier in this thread directly contradict the second part of Galt's oath :

In fact, I would say that (assuming indifinite extension is possible someday) the desire to live indifinitely [B]gives me a natural right to pursue that end regardless of how much damage it does to those that don't. After all, humans assume such a right against all other life on Earth in their day to day lives, so I would just be extending that mindset one step further.I try to live according to the philosophy expressed in Galt's oath; you do not.

That is why I stated that no Objectivist worthy of the name would have written what you wrote.

[rocketdodger]

Having read the book ten times as much as I have doesn't mean you are any more of an expert on how my statements mesh with Randian Objectivism than I am. How does what I said *necessarily* conflict with Galt's oath?

Yes, you might interpret it as me saying "I will use the flesh of them for raw materials," but I was thinking more along the lines of "I won't let them get in the way of how I think I should be able to live my life, given that I stand for life and they for death," which, if you remember (and I am sure you do), is pretty much exactly what Galt is trying to tell everyone.

But you know what Complexity, since you are obsessed with winning battles that only you are participating in, I defer. I admit that I might not be a perfect Randian Objectivist, nor even an "Objectivist" at all according to you and possibly others. However I would wager that if you knew more about me you would rather have me as a neighbor than you would a great deal of the rest of our species. I suspect you will disagree, but it doesn't matter one way or the other.

[Lonewulf]

Well, as much as I may have disliked the newer Star Wars, your avatar is kickass, so you get my vote for neighbor. :D

[Complexity]

Having read the book ten times as much as I have doesn't mean you are any more of an expert on how my statements mesh with Randian Objectivism than I am. How does what I said *necessarily* conflict with Galt's oath?

Yes, you might interpret it as me saying "I will use the flesh of them for raw materials," but I was thinking more along the lines of "I won't let them get in the way of how I think I should be able to live my life, given that I stand for life and they for death," which, if you remember (and I am sure you do), is pretty much exactly what Galt is trying to tell everyone.


You are in favor of using 'public money' to fund life-extension research, knowing that this money is being taken from others.

You are prepared to do harm to others solely for your benefit.

You don't understand Galt's / Rand's words.


But you know what Complexity, since you are obsessed with winning battles that only you are participating in, I defer. I admit that I might not be a perfect Randian Objectivist, nor even an "Objectivist" at all according to you and possibly others. However I would wager that if you knew more about me you would rather have me as a neighbor than you would a great deal of the rest of our species. I suspect you will disagree, but it doesn't matter one way or the other.


As you wish.

Actually you sound interesting and I probably would enjoy knowing you.

I'm doing my best to walk away from most arguments these days - this thread is an obvious exception. I'm really tired of arguments.

It might surprise you to learn that I find the field of life-extension fascinating. I first really gave it some thought when I read Methuselah's Children by Heinlein when I was a kid, followed, of course, by his Time Enough for Love.

I don't think I ever wanted my life to be significanly extended.

As I've gotten older, I've glimpsed the possibility of contentment. I think that something other than longevity will suffice.

I've also been able to watch much of what was dreamt of in the science fiction of my youth come to pass. I still may be able to contribute to that realization.

I have been plotting, and scheming, and writing science fiction that explores several of the ideas that excite you.

I don't want to argue about this stuff. The presumption that other people should pick up the bill and the belief in the obviousness of the desirability of life extension frankly ticked me off. I should have just said my piece once and walked away.

All that said, I've jumped on you, hard, several times. I'm sorry for overdoing it - I could have found gentler ways of saying that I don't agree.

I don't think we're nearly as different as we'd each like to believe, and I think we'd probably enjoy talking over a beer.

[rocketdodger]

You are in favor of using 'public money' to fund life-extension research, knowing that this money is being taken from others.

No I am not! I don't know why you think that... I don't agree with public funding of ANYTHING one bit. In fact I am in favor of every citizen being educated and informed enough to vote directly on every issue that concerns them, which includes deciding who to give their money to for infrastructure, defense, etc.


You are prepared to do harm to others solely for your benefit.


So is every other rational human, in the context of self defense. Which, incidentally, is the context I was thinking of when I wrote that. I think you read a bit too far into that remark, which is partially my fault for not being more specific.


I've also been able to watch much of what was dreamt of in the science fiction of my youth come to pass. I still may be able to contribute to that realization.


Unfortunately for me, alot of the dreams of sci-fi in MY youth will probably take hundreds of years to come to pass -- hence my desire for more longevity.


I don't want to argue about this stuff. The presumption that other people should pick up the bill and the belief in the obviousness of the desirability of life extension frankly ticked me off. I should have just said my piece once and walked away.


As is often the case there was just a miscommunication, since I don't actually support any of the things that made you mad. Because I am a gamer and not an academic many of my ideas based in reality sound far-fetched due to a lack of proper volcabulary and communcation skills.

I am glad we could make up <3.

And for the record I realize that *right now* the biggest problem is surviving the impending war between people like us and people who stand for what pisses us off. That is why I have a feeling that before I work on nanobot A.I. to fix my tissues, I will probably work on state of the art weapon A.I. to defend my family.

[rocketdodger]

Well, as much as I may have disliked the newer Star Wars, your avatar is kickass, so you get my vote for neighbor. :D

This is actually from a larger screenshot of Obi-Wan and Darth Maul fighting *outdoors on Tatooine*, which, if you remember, never actually happened in the movie! Somehow, somebody got footage that wasn't released and took a screenie, which I think I found using a simple google image search. Just an interesting side note...

[Lonewulf]

<--- Is honestly not entirely against public funding. Is an evil liberal that you all and Heinlein and Ayn Rand would probably beat to death with dildos. :D

[Complexity]

Rocketdodger - So am I.

The past year has been horrible and hasn't started to get better yet. I have a hair-trigger. I am not entirely sane and have lost much of whatever wisdom I'd found.

Lonewulf - I'm far from a purist or even very consistent. I have my days when I'm glad for funded research - not because I think we're going the right direction, but because we've gone this direction and I still hope for some good to come out of it.

I know where I'd like us to be, but I don't know how to get there from here, and I doubt very much whether human nature is such that it would ever be possible.

Once the dust settles, I hope to enjoy conversations with both of you. I need to decompress for a while, first.

[Lonewulf]

Okay, no problem.

Just remember, it's just the internet. :)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Back to the OP, you can find a lot of info here:

http://www.imminst.org/