• 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.

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Search your posts. I'm not doing it for you.
When you have ever not been overbearing on this subject?

I've given very specific details. Either with the questions of apopstosis and telomeres.
Huh? What are you talking about? I'm honestly confused. I just checked my posts in this thread to be sure... and I don't think I've suggested any of the things you're claiming I did. My post above yours has a quote stating that telomeres haven't been figured out and any simplistic argument surrounding its role in aging is potentially dangerous. I never claimed that telomeres are fully understood or that there is a surefire way to fix problems with them right now.

In this topic I've mostly been trying to demystify what aging is. And also countering the overtly simplistic critcisms like "it's going to be exclusive to the rich", "overpopulation" etc.
And I'm suggesting that scientists know more about what causes pathology in old age and possible solutions to combat it than most people replying to this thread seem to realize. I don't think I've ever suggested some magic quick fix for anything. That's why I'm asking for specific quotes.

Are you denying there is promising progress being made in recent years?

hmm my guess is you saw "telomerase" mentioned in my post and thought I was talking about snake oil claiming to lengthen it? Without actually reading my full post. Fess up if that's what happened, please.

There's no way we're anywhere near this. I believe that healthcare and medicine will absolutely continue to progress and extend life expectancy, but there are still so many things we don't know. I think there's a strong tendency to linearize promising research into "surely this will all be fleshed out in x years" without realizing that that's nowhere near a certainty. Doing that will constantly make it seem like we're on the verge of huge breakthroughs that will revolutionize everything. I used to be really buy into the idea of a medical/technological singularity, but now I'm certain that it will never happen.
What would you call "near"?
I think a revolution has recently happened in CRISPR. Or at least it's going to be the start of one. Do you have any arguments against CRISPR for example being a big deal? to me it seems like a big deal.
 

Diablos

Member
Jun 6, 2004
46,424
31
1,675
US
I'm conflicted on this. It's honestly unethical to want to live forever. The planet could never sustain that.

If we truly figured out how to do this it would bring class warfare to an entirely new and disturbing level. Do you really want a world where only the elites can live forever? Because ultimately I think that's what would happen.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't thought about pursuing it if it were ever possible though.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Feb 6, 2014
18,653
0
0
Crispr is a limited technology. It's revolutionary in its simplicity and efficiency. With just the fact that you can edit a genome without foreign plasmids etc (simplification of course). We just have barely been able to use it.


I am not a scientist or geneticist. Anyone with the knowledge and know how can correct me.
 

Laieon

Member
Jun 3, 2013
5,830
36
725
30
I don't know if I'd like to live forever, but I'd love to live as long as I possible can, 200 years sounds great. I'm 26, I feel like my life is just getting started. I'm not scared of death itself, but I don't like the idea of my life potentially being 1/4 or 1/3 finished already.
 

Kimawolf

Member
Sep 15, 2012
6,164
7
765
Missouri
There's no way we're anywhere near this. I believe that healthcare and medicine will absolutely continue to progress and extend life expectancy, but there are still so many things we don't know. I think there's a strong tendency to linearize promising research into "surely this will all be fleshed out in x years" without realizing that that's nowhere near a certainty. Doing that will constantly make it seem like we're on the verge of huge breakthroughs that will revolutionize everything. I used to be really buy into the idea of a medical/technological singularity, but now I'm certain that it will never happen.


Why do you think we are not close? We are close as in it wont be hundreds of years, but decades instead.

I firmly believe we can do this. Hell i didnt even link some of the groundbreaking stuff people are doing like developing viruses and drugs which clean out the "junk" which builds up in cells which plays a huge role in aging as well.

You also have to remember, this research no longer happens in a vacuum, while its going on there are people looking into cybernetics, people looking into consciousness research, a myriad of things. Its all happening at once. Just look at what DARPA is doing in robotics and brain machine interface.

It's why I have hope that these scientists will crack aging in decades. Again, i will use the creation of the net as proof things can happen which seem impossible a decade before.


And also umm no i NEVER want to die nor do i look forward to it, welcome it etc. Some folks seem a bit dark and grim.
 

hurricanes

Member
Jan 24, 2013
1,843
1
0
I don't think we will see any of that in our lifetime.
I would like to have great health everyday, not sure about eternal life though...
 

BGBW

Maturity, bitches.
Jan 19, 2007
54,012
0
1,140
If one could live forever nothing would be done because everyone could put things off till tomorrow indefinitely.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
If one could live forever nothing would be done because everyone could put things off till tomorrow indefinitely.
There are many people whom have endless passion, curiosity and zeal. There will always be people who want to reach other stars or build better things or extend the reach of humanity in some other way. I think for some of these people, they simply can't not do anything. What is the reason you think this will change? Projection?
 

Kimawolf

Member
Sep 15, 2012
6,164
7
765
Missouri
Perhaps your thread title is a tad too enthusiastic for most people.
Maybe... but i think if you can make it to the first major life extension tech then you can probably last till the next, and the next, etc etc. The key is making it to that first step, the first wall, then each one gets smaller with time. And i think we will be over the first wall here in the next few decades at most. And its not me, a moron in this kind of thing saying it, its the people in the trenches doing the actual hard work.
 

Alcoremortis

Member
Feb 5, 2014
2,753
0
0
I think a revolution has recently happened in CRISPR. Or at least it's going to be the start of one. Do you have any arguments against CRISPR for example being a big deal? to me it seems like a big deal.

I do genome editing with the CRISPR system and it's amazing and it is a huge deal... for geneticists.

See, it is not very efficient. You can only edit regions near particular sites (GGNGG), and while those sites are plentiful, you're still restricted in where you can make deletions or insertions. In addition, the process doesn't work 100% of the time, more like 1 out 35 will work. Even with that, it's still way faster than mutagenic screens for isolating specific mutants.

There are some situations where this would still be useful in medicine, like in combating HIV, where even a small number of resistant T cells would make a huge difference for the patient. But not in anything that would require most cells to be affected.
 
Jun 5, 2013
12,775
0
0
How about a better way of life before living for 200 years. Futurists can be so annoying. Live in the present please.

These technological miracles are all contigent on our current economic/monetary system continuing unchanged which seems unlikely with climate change happening anyway.
Are you still voting Trump for fun then?
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
I do genome editing with the CRISPR system and it's amazing and it is a huge deal... for geneticists.

See, it is not very efficient. You can only edit regions near particular sites (GGNGG), and while those sites are plentiful, you're still restricted in where you can make deletions or insertions. In addition, the process doesn't work 100% of the time, more like 1 out 35 will work. Even with that, it's still way faster than mutagenic screens for isolating specific mutants.

There are some situations where this would still be useful in medicine, like in combating HIV, where even a small number of resistant T cells would make a huge difference for the patient. But not in anything that would require most cells to be affected.
Wow. Thanks for this. Do you think it is possible to improve on CRISPR techniques in the future? Increasing the accuracy and range of sites that can be edited using CRISPR?

Maybe... but i think if you can make it to the first major life extension tech then you can probably last till the next, and the next, etc etc. The key is making it to that first step, the first wall, then each one gets smaller with time. And i think we will be over the first wall here in the next few decades at most. And its not me, a moron in this kind of thing saying it, its the people in the trenches doing the actual hard work.
I know. I'm hoping the same thing will happen. But still, people who haven't read up on the promising results from recent times will instantly balk at such a title and probably not bother reading much further. They'll just do a drive by post and that's it.

By the way It's funny how quickly people take things for granted or see things as an obvious progression once they have happened. Even though we're living in a technological wonderland. Still they think nothing will change in the foreseeable future. Yes, it's hard to predict the future if you don't really keep up to date with anything.
 

Terrifyer

Banned
Jul 19, 2009
174
0
0
What would you call "near"?
I think a revolution has recently happened in CRISPR. Or at least it's going to be the start of one. Do you have any arguments against CRISPR for example being a big deal? to me it seems like a big deal.

Yeah, it could very well be a big deal eventually. But to jump from looking at promising research into a technique for curing some diseases that has just started to become approved for limited human trials to this idea that within our lifetimes we'll have figured out how to live forever is not scientific, it's blind faith.

I'm not being critical of any particular area of study especially since I don't have the expertise. What I'm being critical of is this general pattern of packaging up a whole bunch of hypotheticals and then selling that package as a certainty, which is what I think is happening here:

You also have to remember, this research no longer happens in a vacuum, while its going on there are people looking into cybernetics, people looking into consciousness research, a myriad of things. Its all happening at once. Just look at what DARPA is doing in robotics and brain machine interface.

It's why I have hope that these scientists will crack aging in decades. Again, i will use the creation of the net as proof things can happen which seem impossible a decade before.

People have been predicting that a convergence of technological breakthroughs will revolutionize society for a while now and it simply hasn't happen. Yes, things change and progress marches on. But there is no "hump" of technology to get past before we blast of into light speed. Progress will always be measured.
 

Terrifyer

Banned
Jul 19, 2009
174
0
0
Wow. Thanks for this. Do you think it is possible to improve on CRISPR techniques in the future? Increasing the accuracy and range of sites that can be edited using CRISPR?

...

Yes, it's hard to predict the future if you don't really keep up to date with anything.

I'm legitimately shocked that you could read that update on CRISPR and still believe that it's a revolutionary technology that will solve death in our lifetimes or whatever.

It's also hard to predict the future if you believe you already know how it will turn out and only look for evidence to support your claim.
 

Oppo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
17,540
0
925
Toronto
I'm legitimately shocked that you could read that update on CRISPR and still believe that it's a revolutionary technology that will solve death in our lifetimes or whatever.

It's also hard to predict the future if you believe you already know how it will turn out and only look for evidence to support your claim.

what is this weird tone policing you are doing?

research is very often punctuated in progress. there are big leaps. I don't understand what you are trying to do here. managing expectations is fine but this is a little beyond that.
 

deleted

Member
Feb 10, 2009
5,311
1
935
I'd love to see humanity and technology evlving for a few hundred years.
I'm also fine if they manage to stop the aging process when I'm around 50..
They still have 20 years to make it happen.

If science is really able to do this, it could also mean the dawn of a new form of society. With the death 'problem' solved and robotics on the rise, maybe humanity can get some other things out of the way, like war and poverty.
who am I kidding

Seriously though, it would be awesome to live on for a while longer.
 

RocknRola

Member
Jul 9, 2016
4,102
0
275
Awesome! Now I need only to get filthy rich to actually enjoy this perk! :D

Anyone here know if "doing nothing" gets you loads of money? That's my current plan :p
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Yeah, it could very well be a big deal eventually. But to jump from looking at promising research into a technique for curing some diseases that has just started to become approved for limited human trials to this idea that within our lifetimes we'll have figured out how to live forever is not scientific, it's blind faith.
That's almost a fair point. It's all these things that appear to be progressing. But I agree "living forever" is a stretch right now. However, it is also not scientific to say it is impossible to achieve biological immortality either.

People have been predicting that a convergence of technological breakthroughs will revolutionize society for a while now and it simply hasn't happen. Yes, things change and progress marches on. But there is no "hump" of technology to get past before we blast of into light speed. Progress will always be measured.
Citations needed. What time scales have these "people" been claiming? Can you be a bit more specific?

What do you consider measured progress? I think history would indicate that technological progress is exponential actually.
I'm legitimately shocked that you could read that update on CRISPR and still believe that it's a revolutionary technology that will solve death in our lifetimes or whatever.

It's also hard to predict the future if you believe you already know how it will turn out and only look for evidence to support your claim.
Where did I say that I believe CRISPR will be a revolutionary technology that will solve death?
 

Terrifyer

Banned
Jul 19, 2009
174
0
0
what is this weird tone policing you are doing?

research is very often punctuated in progress. there are big leaps. I don't understand what you are trying to do here. managing expectations is fine but this is a little beyond that.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh, I don't know. I don't think I'm tone policing so much as disagreeing with the futurist singularity hypothesis the two posters I'm replying to are arguing for.
 

Oppo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
17,540
0
925
Toronto
Maybe I'm being a little harsh, I don't know. I don't think I'm tone policing so much as disagreeing with the futurist singularity hypothesis the two posters I'm replying to are arguing for.

I think it's good to keep a level head but I disagree with your "research is always measured and even" comment.

There's lots of counter examples. like, polio was a big problem until it just wasn't.
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Maybe I'm being a little harsh, I don't know. I don't think I'm tone policing so much as disagreeing with the futurist singularity hypothesis the two posters I'm replying to are arguing for.
Am I arguing for a futurist singularity hypothesis?
 

Terrifyer

Banned
Jul 19, 2009
174
0
0
Am I arguing for a futurist singularity hypothesis?

You might not be. This thread is claiming that exponential development in medical techniques will somewhat imminently usher us into a post-death era, and the evidence for this is a ton of promising but not yet functional research. This is one of the most common and popular arguments made by singularity type futurists...but it was definitely unfair of me to attribute it to you.

I'd like to apologize for being so vindictive and hammering in my rather straightforward point.
 

F-Pina

Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,097
0
865
Portugal
www.nerdmonkeys.pt
Let's consider we find a way to live hundreds or even thousands of years.
Let's also imagine that we have overcome the problem of overpopulating the Earth, either by travelling in space to another home or cleaning up our mess right here at home.

I do believe that the biggest problem will be ourselves. Our brains. Our mind.
Some people age terribly and others do it gracefully, not only physically but also mentally. But even the ones that manage to retain some freshness and look at life through "happy eyes" eventually cave in and get tired of it all. I constantly see it in old people the mental fatigue of repetitiveness. I have seen it in 70, 60, 50 and 40 year olds. It varies due to all sort of circunstances, be it their country, their relatives, the economy etc.
I guess after a bunch of years living most people just start getting tired of it all and there is no way around it. They have lived and it's time to go.
I also see it in crazy people right here in Lisbon. Homeless people that are still in their 40's or 50's but their mind gave up. The body will still live and function fine for a few more decades but it really doesn't matter because "nobody is home".

Now, some will say "no way!", I will live 300 years and try new things every day. Spend 10 years travelling the world, spend another 10 learning languages, etc. Yes, I get you, I see myself doing something like that and enjoying 200 or 300 years of life just fine. But will our brains cope with it being forever? I don't think so. There is some sort of limit for sure and this will most definitely be the big problem.

Our brain has a limit to what it can endure.

On a side note: I can already imagine some sort of dystopian future where the human race is all a bunch of crazy hobos that live forever :p
 

Nocebo

Member
Oct 18, 2007
6,101
0
0
Well, at least it would be nice if death was a choice and not a sentence from birth. In my opinion anyway. If people's minds can't cope any more for some reason, they can choose to end their lives.

It is impossible to predict what augmentations might come along in the distant future, or that don't come along .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.