• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Want to live forever? You probably will have that option!

Status
Not open for further replies.

SDCowboy

Member
Feb 23, 2014
9,156
63
0
To all the people who think longer life is a bad idea because of over population, food shortage, etc.

Should we shut down all the hospitals of the world?
Should we stop finding ways to fight/cure cancers, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease and other chronic diseases?

If not, you realize the result of finding cures for diseases like this is almost certainly a longer life span for most people.

What a ridiculous comparison. Keeping people healthy and extending their lives within reason is completely different than people living forever.
 
Feb 9, 2007
3,512
19
1,160
I wanna see the sun swallow earth. Give me infinity.

.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Old age. We'd all end up like Sloth from Seven, too weak to move.
You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?
What? How old are you exactly?
 
Nov 21, 2013
1,819
0
375
Overpopulation has a simple solution. If you want to live indefinitely, then you don't get to have kids. If you want kids, you don't get to live indefinitely. Easy peasy.
 

Onemic

Member
Sep 27, 2007
22,722
0
1,290
T Dot
SENS research foundation has recently had a paper accepted in a scientific journal. "The headline result in this paper is that we are the first team ever to get two of the proteins encoded by genes in the mitochondrial DNA simultaneously functioning in the same cell line..."
The aim is to have back up copies of the mitochondrial DNA in the genome itself.

I'm sure that has significant meaning to you since you seem to be an expert on the subject.

How much do you read about the subject and developments in the field on a weekly basis would you say?

Where did I say I was an expert? The overt passive aggressiveness is hilarious.

Im giving my opinion, just like you are. Clearly you dont like that people dont think such a breakthrough will be widely available in our lifetime. Sorry.
 

Fou-Lu

Member
Mar 25, 2010
10,099
3
0
Canada
Where did I say I was an expert? The overt passive aggressiveness is hilarious.

Im giving my opinion, just like you are. Clearly you dont like that people dont think such a breakthrough will be widely available in our lifetime. Sorry.

Opinions on science don't matter much if you don't do research into the subject.
 

Onemic

Member
Sep 27, 2007
22,722
0
1,290
T Dot
Opinions on science don't matter much if you don't do research into the subject.

Provide the articles that show that immortality will be available in our lifetime. If I'm supposedly spouting faux-science bs, this should be an extremely easy find.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Overpopulation has a simple solution. If you want to live indefinitely, then you don't get to have kids. If you want kids, you don't get to live indefinitely. Easy peasy.
I think overpopulation wouldn't really be a problem anymore if the need for governments to actively fight the greying of their population disappears. Right now governments want people to produce children because they want society to continue existing, I guess? If people stay healthy much longer, the need to actively get people to produce babies will diminish and I'm sure the way things are governed right now will change also.

But I haven't really thought about it for more than 5 seconds so what do I know, right?
Where did I say I was an expert? The overt passive aggressiveness is hilarious.

Im giving my opinion, just like you are. Clearly you dont like that people dont think such a breakthrough will be widely available in our lifetime. Sorry.
I guess I was over estimating your knowledge then. But I really can't understand why you would make these statements though. You haven't really provided any basis for why you think this. And if you haven't really read anything about it then of course you would think this. It's hard to make a reasonable assessment if you don't really know much about a subject, right?
Maybe you should try reading on the subject. Unless you don't want to change your mind of course.
 

Clockwork5

Member
Feb 19, 2013
5,505
63
530
You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?
What? How old are you exactly?
What do you think makes people old?
 

BobTheFork

Member
Feb 14, 2005
25,070
0
0
41
Denver
For some reason, when I hear about this, all I can think of are the people who will start actively 'hunting immortals' as a hobby.
 

Jotaka

Member
May 17, 2013
2,557
0
0
Death is a feature.

Do you imagine the amount of assholes that will keep living forever..
 

kavanf1

Member
Oct 27, 2013
2,982
0
505
Scotland, originally Ireland
You think people die from having made a certain number of revolutions around the sun or something? What do you think old people die from exactly? Just being old? Like literally, the number of years since they were born kills people?
What? How old are you exactly?

Our bodies maintain themselves by cellular division. As cells divide, the support structure that keeps our genetic material intact gradually wears away. The more the cells divide, the more that structure wears away. This manifests itself as aging. Eventually it wears away completely, and your cells can no longer reproduce. This manifests itself as death. Its a bit more complicated than that but essentially that's it.

Other factors like stress contribute to this degradation, which is probably why stress is considered a major factor in reducing life expectancy.

I'm almost 37 and a half.
 

Neo C.

Member
Mar 2, 2007
7,877
0
0
What a ridiculous comparison. Keeping people healthy and extending their lives within reason is completely different than people living forever.

Well, good news for you then! Most improvements we'll get in the next few decades will extend our lives within reason.
 

Apollo

Banned
Apr 21, 2007
466
0
0
so does aging slow down? no point in me living if I look old and crusty and in a wheel chair for 100 years getting my ass wiped by my great great great great grand daughter.
 

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,515
2,250
795
In the future we will live on Earth colonies, instead of another name planets will be named after Earth, Earth -1 Earth-2, etc.

Earth -1 will be the most polluted, rotten one and people will be divided by socioeconomical class.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
What do you think makes people old?
Could provide me with an definition of "old"? Then I could attempt to answer your question.
A person whom has lived for 80 years is old in number of years relative to other humans who were born much later and certain other organisms too. But not old in years compared to some other organisms that can live for hundreds or thousands of years.

So if we're talking number over revolutions around our sun, earth years, counted since birth then yes the passage of time makes people older in that sense. And 80 years or whatever is old for humans relatively speaking. However some people that have been alive for 80 of those years can be fitter than some people who have been around for less years. There are people whom live beyond their twenties with the mind of a child... So earth years seems to be an irrelevant counter when it comes to this subject.

There's also the concept of biological age. Psychological age, functional age. These are not necessarily determined by how much time a person has been alive.
 

Onemic

Member
Sep 27, 2007
22,722
0
1,290
T Dot
I guess I was over estimating your knowledge then. But I really can't understand why you would make these statements though. You haven't really provided any basis for why you think this. And if you haven't really read anything about it then of course you would think this. It's hard to make a reasonable assessment if you don't really know much about a subject, right?
Maybe you should try reading on the subject. Unless you don't want to change your mind of course.

You seem so offended.

Here's the thing. You seem to be confusing my stated opinion, that I think the medical breakthroughs for human immortality are probably further away than our lifetime, with the the opinion that I think it isnt possible to achieve such a breakthrough. If you're truly that upset that I think the former, I'd really begin to wonder how you even lasted this long on the internet.

And for the record, of course I'd want a breakthrough like this to be available within my lifetime. Im just not gonna get my hopes up on something that is still being researched with no clear roadmap to implementation.

Also, since you seem to be the expert in this field, can you please provide articles to show that the medical tech for human immortality is going to be widely available within the next ~50 years?
 

DpadD

Banned
Mar 26, 2016
382
0
0
Im sure it's been mentioned in this thread but, yes, the rich will, and only the rich.

And with the disparity between the rich and poor being as wide as it is..

Well, pretty much, I see dystopia as inevitable.
 

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,515
2,250
795
Overpopulation has a simple solution. If you want to live indefinitely, then you don't get to have kids. If you want kids, you don't get to live indefinitely. Easy peasy.
lol its not always easy when we breed like rabbits regardless :p
 

therealist

Member
Feb 18, 2016
1,161
0
0
I'd rather just install my conscious onto a machine. I'd live forever and then could just turn myself off (setting a timer to turn on again in 100 years) whenever I felt bored.
 

Breads

Banned
Jun 4, 2015
7,412
3
0
Darpa? Nano technology?

How is this not rife with metal gear references.

Am I too old or too unfunny?

You see millenials this is what we in the biz call a setup.
 

lewisgone

Member
Nov 6, 2013
1,843
0
0
UK
Well you'd still eventually die from natural disaster/accident/whatever so it's not really a major question to me...I'd take these treatments or whatever if they gave me an extra few decades and weren't a huge inconvenience. That's if it was common and cheap. If it was crazy hard to get I wouldn't bother because I wouldn't want to be sticking around while everyone I know my age died.

I would never want to live forever, death is a part of life - whatever happens afterward.
 

Razorback

Member
Dec 5, 2008
2,484
247
1,060
Could provide me with an definition of "old"? Then I could attempt to answer your question.
A person whom has lived for 80 years is old in number of years relative to other humans who were born much later and certain other organisms too. But not old in years compared to some other organisms that can live for hundreds or thousands of years.

So if we're talking number over revolutions around our sun, earth years, counted since birth then yes the passage of time makes people older in that sense. And 80 years or whatever is old for humans relatively speaking. However some people that have been alive for 80 of those years can be fitter than some people who have been around for less years. There are people whom live beyond their twenties with the mind of a child... So earth years seems to be an irrelevant counter when it comes to this subject.

There's also the concept of biological age. Psychological age, functional age. These are not necessarily determined by how much time a person has been alive.

Just want to let you know that you're doing great work in this thread. *thumbsup
 

turmoil

Banned
Apr 15, 2016
1,355
0
0
I'll pass. I just want to be uploaded into a computer.

Enjoy your corporeal prison, meatbags.
We'll be dead long before this happens :(
 

Langdon Alger

Banned
Nov 9, 2014
3,441
1
0
I always hear about amazing medical advances that are going to change everything in ten years, and then ten years later nothing has changed. All this stuff is always insanely over-hyped.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
You seem so offended.
I'm not. It seems to me that the way things seem to you are not how they actually are.

And for the record, of course I'd want a breakthrough like this to be available within my lifetime. Im just not gonna get my hopes up on something that is still being researched with no clear roadmap to implementation.

Also, since you seem to be the expert in this field, can you please provide articles to show that the medical tech for human immortality is going to be widely available within the next ~50 years?
Good news! There are road maps of sorts. And they're gaining traction in main stream scientific discourse. Watch anything by Aubrey de Grey for instance. If you want to keep up with developments here is a good website. There news, papers etc. relevant to fighting aging are discussed and linked. It is written a bit dry, though.
I suggest looking at the FAQ if you want to get a quick idea of things.

There is certainly reason for hope that something significant comes a long in the next 50 years. Did you look at the video posted earlier about CRISPR? While not necessarily directly related to longevity, the video claims that the cost of genetic engineering has been reduced by 99% over night by this technique. Which is a huge deal obviously.
 

Already Torn

Banned
Sep 29, 2015
12,213
0
0
Yes, those things aren't natural and look where they've gotten us. The world is literally rotting and telling us that what we're doing is wrong. Denying natural processes by attempting to exert control over them is a losing battle that just leads to needing to exert more and more control to correct for the consequences of the initial attempt at control.

And what did astronauts do when they got to the moon? They looked back at the Earth and were in awe of its beauty. We don't exist without it.

"Nature" isn't battling us. Life isn't a race for "progress." There is no life without death. You cannot live without also dying.

Besides, if everyone stopped dying, the world would descend into total chaos. No organism, planet, star, etc. exists eternally.

Furthermore, to what end? If everyone lived forever or even just for 200 years, we would quickly need multiple other Earths to live on. If life is a race for "progress," as you seem to think it is, then what is at the finish line?
This also works as a great argument against the Polio vaccine and giving aid to tsunami victims. I'm not buying it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.