Immortality -- Possible?

[Pulp]

Recently, I stumbled upon the "Immortality Institute" home website and got increasingly interested in what the scientists working with them had to say.

I suggest you first take a look at the FAQ (http://www.imminst.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ) and read the different questions answered by it. Their mission is quite a simple one -- to cure aging. They explain how aging is a disease and can, if not now then in the future, be cured forever. However, the project is quite stunted from funding problems and little support. I also suggest, if you're interested, to take a look at the Film Project (http://www.imminst.org/film.php) if your interested further (takes a looong time to load fully).

Other questions are raised when the topic of religion is brought up -- especially Christianity which requires death as part of the journey into the afterlife. Even more questions are raised when the thought of overpopulation is brought up. The institute claims that overpopulation will not be a problem, because as the people become more educated, the less children they will have (This is explained in the film). Also, stem cell research, which is currently looked down upon by the president (in my opinion a ludacris stance stunting the progression of science and biotechnology for the human race) is brought up and discusses the impotance of it.

I just ask for your thoughts on this subject -- as I tend to believe that some of it is exaggerated and trying to attract donators.

[flatline]

Immortality is inevitable. Its just a question of when it will happen and who it will benefit. Of course, it will not happen in the immediately foreseeable future, but I do not think it is 100% certain that someone alive today will die within the next million years.

[bunny]

I think it will never happen although I expect lifespan will continue to increase the way it has.

Infinity is a long way off, no matter how exponential the improvements.

[bunny]

I cant edit the post but I did want to add that I do think it is a goal worth striving for - I expect we can live for ages and ages given adequate technology. Nonetheless, I think it is a goal that will never be realised.

[oneeye13]

we post on an internet message board. why would we want to live forever?

[FortunaMaximus]

Because your millionth post's gonna kick some severe [bleep]?

To answer the question, it's possible. A biological solution is not gonna work though. Atomic decay. True immortality needs a quantum solution. You observe and influence by observing. How do you influence by suddenly not observing?

Or try this. You're immortal. Try proving yourself wrong.

[Shooby]

Even if you could make someone live indefinately with technology,etc, nobody would actually be able to do it indefinately.
There are 2 things standing in the way:
1.Accidents that injure you beyong repair.
2.Suicide. Living forever may be unsustainable mentally.
Steve

[FortunaMaximus]

#2 is pretty spot on. Our perceptual sensoriums are finite.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
. Also, stem cell research, which is currently looked down upon by the president (in my opinion a ludacris stance stunting the progression of science and biotechnology for the human race) is brought up and discusses the impotance of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The president does not look down upon stem cell research. You are mistaken about his position. In any event, comments like the above belong in the politcal forum.

Anyways, I don't think ageing will ever be "cured". What will happen is what is happening now. Our ability to treat its symptoms will continue to improve. Eventually we will acheive average life spans of about 1200 years. 1200 years is would be around the limit because, as someone alluded to earlier, an accident will eventually take you out.

Stu

[vhawk01]

1200 years? How completely arbitrary is that? Did you take that from some actuarial tables? Because I have a feeling that those tables dont really reflect the reality of 2975 America.

[DonkBluffer]

The body could never be immortal. Even if you would find some way to live a *LONG* time, then to be truly immortal you would have to outlive the earth, and eventually the universe. Everything is transient, the wise men in the east say.

[vhawk01]

Right. Lets nip this in the bud. Lets just assume that by 'immortal' we mean as long as we would ever care to live, or until the universe ends or whatever. Not literally for eternity.

[raze]

I'm slightly off topic here, I know. But is it not obvious that if people's lifespans were radically extended (say just to 200 years or so), our planet would become so populated so fast that it would create a TON of food/water problems, not to mention crowding in urban areas, the need drastic expansion of cities/surrounding areas... etc etc?

These problems would basically negate the idea of immortality, because we would reach a point where resources no longer support the entire population. Actually, I'm wrong. We would end up with a minority of wealthy immortals and a majority population whose needs are not met. Much like today I suppose, minus the immortality.

[vhawk01]

I guess that depends on how many people you think our technology and currently available landmass could support. Its several times the current world population, I am sure, although obviously there is some upper bound. I don't think we would even come close to this limit if lifespans were increased to only 200 years. But your point remains valid. If a couple has more than 2 children, the population will go up. But several countries have already moved towards and in some cases surpassed zero population growth. In a society such as this, drastically increasing lifespan would have a much reduced effect on world population.

This all ignores any potential increases in the speed of technological advance that may or may not be a result of people living for hundreds of years and accumulating knowledge over that time. What might Einstein have been able to accomplish with a few hundred more years to learn and work?

These are all good questions, and although I am sure we could make some predictions based on population models, they are difficult to answer. Either way, though, I find it almost impossible to believe that considerations of overpopulation will in ANY way slow technological progress. If you can tell me I won't get cancer I doubt I'll complain about overcrowding. The same arguments could be made about polio and flu vaccines, I suppose.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
1200 years? How completely arbitrary is that? Did you take that from some actuarial tables? Because I have a feeling that those tables dont really reflect the reality of 2975 America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard a couple of figures for the life expectancy of a human that would only die from an accident or suicide and I factored those opinions into my thoughts on this. That being said, 1200 years is a number I pulled out of my ass. I figure that in predicting something like this, my ass is as good as anyone elses.

Stu

[IronDragon1]

Dyson's eternal intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson%27s_eternal_intelligence)

[Metric]

To sum up: At present it looks as if the universe does not have the right combination of properties to support immortal intelligence, even in idealized principle.

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets just assume that by 'immortal' we mean as long as we would ever care to live

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I feel like there is certainly quite a disparity in how long some people care to live. Someone committing suicide, in the rare instance that it is not for some selfish and earth-bound motive, obviously feels like his life is already too long. I say we should hold off on reaching immortality until we convert all new york phone booths into suicide booths.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets just assume that by 'immortal' we mean as long as we would ever care to live

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I feel like there is certainly quite a disparity in how long some people care to live. Someone committing suicide, in the rare instance that it is not for some selfish and earth-bound motive, obviously feels like his life is already too long. I say we should hold off on reaching immortality until we convert all new york phone booths into suicide booths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously there is a large disparity, and so the question is, can we extend life to the longest that anyone could reasonably be assumed to want to live. We already can extend it to far longer than SOME people want to live. I just think using the word 'immortal' is a distracting and unhelpful descriptor. Who here even believes in or understands the concept of eternity? Taking the under on infinity sort of makes this question moot.

[_TKO_]

Immortality may not be viable economically. The fact remains that it would turn death into a choice, but then again, perhaps death already is a choice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Immortality may not be viable economically. The fact remains that it would turn death into a choice, but then again, perhaps death already is a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The only reason we die, man, is because we accept it as an inevitability." - Stewie Griffin

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
...and so the question is, can we extend life to the longest that anyone could reasonably be assumed to want to live. We already can extend it to far longer than SOME people want to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great clarification, thanks

[Pulp]

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually we will acheive average life spans of about 1200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that sometime in the future that all illnesses and diseases (cancer, aids etc.) will be cured?
Do you believe that sometime in the future we will be able to repair all physical problems? Right now we have artificial hearts, pacemakers, mechaniacal replacements to joints and ligaments. Why stop there? If more and more artificial parts are being added to the human body -- which seem far more efficient than the birth given parts -- won't the human body just become a thing of the past? Just a little brainstorming.

[FortunaMaximus]

Become post-human, you mean? Wrap the brain in a buckministerfullerene mesh, shave a bit off the skull, harden it with ceramics.

Make the body redundant, upgrade it to a practically indestructible form.

I don't know. It seems like a logical progression. But is it a semantic carryover to call ourselves humans then?

[jman220]

Even if it were possible to expand the human life to, say, 1,000 years, think of the devastating consequences this would have on our already strained natural resources. We'd have to institute some sort of policy that those who choose immortality could not have any children.

[vhawk01]

Which natural resources are those? We have the capacity to make FAR more food than we currently need. There is abundant drinking water, worldwide at least, although there are sometimes local shortages.

But all of this is even supposing that we somehow manage to extend our lifespan to 1,000 years while simultaneously making NO advances in other areas such as agriculture, energy or civil engineering. I think thats a bit naive.

[FortunaMaximus]

Space. We have a whole solar system to exploit and a ready-made fusion engine for energy and light. Rapacious consumers as we are, we're also survivors. We'll get by.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
If more and more artificial parts are being added to the human body -- which seem far more efficient than the birth given parts

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any of the artificial parts are more efficient than its average human counterpart, they are just better than the failing pieces that have a genetic defect or have suffered through years of abuse. Also most people only have one or a few new parts, to replace all, or even most would require hundreds of extensive surgerys, which are not easy on the body at all. Replacing average humans with parts is a long way off.

Longer life spans seem inevitable as we learn more about our genetic predispositions and causes of illnesses, but currently many illnesses are still being treated at the level of visible symptons, not at the causal level, for reasons of convience and profit. But sooner or alter a big ass asteriod will hit, or a supervolcano will erupt and pretty much end civilization as we know it, and all the religious nuts left will start screaming about how its because of the gays, or the porn, or whatever that lead to it and it'll be a lot of regression.

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
and all the religious nuts left will start screaming about how its because of the gays, or the porn, or whatever that lead to it and it'll be a lot of regression.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean it's not? I guess maybe it could be immigrants

[FortunaMaximus]

Gaian terrorism. Damn you, mother nature.

Uh, regression from what, exactly?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and all the religious nuts left will start screaming about how its because of the gays, or the porn, or whatever that lead to it and it'll be a lot of regression.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean it's not? I guess maybe it could be immigrants

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are all being mislead by the Devil. The cause of all of our suffering is Rock n' Roll, and dancing.