Who else thinks that theoretical immortality is acheivable?

Post Reply New Topic

Now, mind you, I'm not talking about the complete elimination of accidental death, incidental heart failure, death from infectious disease (such as some hard-to-stop viral epidemic), death from suicide, and so forth. You simply can't altogether eliminate death from external forces, and, sorry, you're going to can it eventually no matter how high we manage to drive our theoretically plausible lifespan. True, complete, foolproof immortality actually is all but impossible. You're not going to be around to see the end of the universe, and you're probably not going to be around to see human contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence. You're almost definitely SOL if you want to stay around long enough to witness any sci-fi goodness. Good luck if that's your life's ultimate goal, but I'm not pinning my hopes on it.

However, when I discuss this subject, I'm often confronted with so-called "realists" who pop off classically dismissive statements like, "it's a nice thought, but," or "I just don't see how." To any "realist" who comes across this thread: you're not a realist, moron. In fact, practically every person I've known who calls him/herself a "realist" seems to be completely out-of-touch with reality in any real sense of the word. What calls itself "realism" is nothing more than obstinate, self-defeating pessimism, and this attitude, whether it's toward the destiny of Mankind or toward some short-term project, is a highly maladaptive strategy that excludes personal effort and innovation from its reckoning. What calls itself "realism" forbids any sort of speculation, even if it is based on measurable trends and plausible mechanics. Essentially, the "realist" blindly denies the idea that what constitutes reality can ever change in response to his or her own behavior. To a true realist, they're no more than nihilists. There is nothing truly realistic about taking such a stalwartly external locus of control. If you call yourself a "realist," odds are pretty high I consider you a complete imbecile, and I'm completely uninterested in what you have to say. Realism without vision constitutes a blind, illogical faith in defeat.

Having said that, I want to actually dismiss the idea that, in some whatever-odd years, we'll find some magic button that turns off aging. I want to altogether dismiss the idea that medical technology will, in some puff of smoke, become altogether infallible. What I'm talking about basically amounts to getting ahead of the statistics. I think that there will and should come a point at which our predicted life expectancy is increasing more rapidly than we age. This wouldn't be as much some transition as it would be us remaining constantly at work on improving the quality and efficiency of our medical technology. It would be a matter of staying constantly at work on bringing down our chances of dying from some incidental failure in the technology that sustains us. It would be a matter of staying constantly at work on improving our safeguards against death by some viral epidemic, whether engineered or naturally evolved. Sociologically, it would be a matter of keeping our work from being interrupted by war or some other social upheaval, which is also a matter of constant labor. It would be a matter of convincing people not to retire as soon as they have enough money to their name to live on interest, which could require some serious political reforms that many of us just wouldn't like. It would require us to excercise some discipline in regard to our own fertility rate, so we won't find ourselves overpopulated.

Obviously, such an endeavor would be quite daunting. The number of things that could go wrong are enough to keep a so-called "realist" talking flap about the idea for hours. Actually letting yourself feel daunted by the number of things that might go wrong is what psychologists call assuming an "external locus of control." This is not considered by psychologists to be a healthy or particularly constructive approach. It is ultimately self-defeating, and it quite efficiently constructs self-fulfilling prophecies.

Ultimately, our greatest enemies in this are, of course, people who call themselves "realists" and resign themselves to eventual rot and death. If we believe those who shout, "impossible," then surely we'll find some way to make it impossible. I think that the only hope we really have for survival, as individuals, is actually getting a surplus of people to realize how attainable the goal of feasible immortality actually is. Not through magic and not even through the sudden appearance of technological marvels: rather, through our own stubborn refusal to give up, through an ever-present determination to improve our odds of long-term survival. The only thing that can make it possible is getting people to realize that they don't really have to die and that they can and should make an investment in their own survival.

Philosophically, no, I'm not afraid to die. I actually reject the idea that I should be. It's not like, after you've canned it, you're going to spend eternity thinking, "I sure wish I were alive again. It sucks not to exist." You'll be dead as a door-knocker, and you won't be in a position to care about anything. However, I do have a high interest in my personal health, and part of the reason I'm so comfortable with the idea that I'm eventually going to can it is that I felt it was in the best interests of my personal health. That's pretty ironic, isn't it? What motivates me to want to continue living is the theory that being motivated to do so is an essential part of physical and psychological health. I consider my most optimal position being ready and motivated to pursue the challenges of the day, of the week, of the month, of the year, of the decade, of the century and of the millenium in an optimistic, constructive fashion.

Furthermore, I'm a big believer in the idea of adopting an internal locus of control and holding my own behavior and my own efforts to be what ultimately determines my destiny. Although there is no way to completely mark off accident or sabatoge, I can and should guard against them, starting with such simple measures as buckling my safety harness when I get behind the wheel and, if I feel in any way disoriented while driving, finding a safe place to pull onto the shoulder, turn on the interior lights, and roll down the window. Although accidents do happen and sabatoge is possible, I consider it my responsibility and mine alone to guard against them, whether by calling on the assistance of others or relying upon my own efforts.

This is ultimately what I want to stress: it may be a daunting challenge to keep pushing our life expectancy upwards. It's a heavy load to carry. There are thousands of things that can go wrong. However, the worst thing that could possibly go wrong is coming to believe that we can't do it. It isn't nature's responsibility to determine how much effort we exert toward our own survival. The responsibility is ours. If we want to live, we will have to exert effort toward it.

Now, one of the greatest advancements that I would like to point out, in the past few years, is the mapping of the human genome. I don't think that it has quite sunk in with people how significant this really is. This is probably one of the greatest advancements in the history of technology, yet many people don't even know the name of the chief figure behind it. He is absolutely one of the most amazing people of the 20th Century.

Another important factor, however, is the economic concern of energy independence. We're essentially under the threat of coming under the power of some of the most tyrannical governments in the world. Rather than falling to military conquest, however, we're being controlled by oil. If we come too far under their sway, we could find our culture and way of life being dictated to us by murderous towel-heads. We have enough problems with our own towel-heads (conservative Christians), and we really don't need the help of some messed-up, totalitarian regime in inhibiting our cultural and technological advancement, whether out of jealousy or out of religious zealotry. Our number one concern at the moment, really, is becoming economically self-sufficient. The less attached our wealth is to finite resources and the more it is attached to production, the more swiftly our technology will move. Production depends upon technology, whereas land-bound resources depend upon ownership of territory. Industry is the great liberator. It rewards diligence and innovation and punishes petty squabbling.

Otherwise, our ability to make medical advances is not a problem. We have been doing some pretty awesome things lately in the field of medicine. We have an artificial hippocampus in the animal testing phases. Did you realize that? We'll soon be able to replace one of the most significant and important structures in the human brain, using what is basically a fancy silicon chip. It sounds impossible, but it's becoming reality. Our understanding of DNA grows with each passing day. We have recently learned how we can exploit our own natural immunity in treating cancer, using the same exact chemicals that our own bodies use (interleukin-2, for example). It has been suggested that Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) could be a possible treatment for Alzheimers and other forms of old-age dementia, and more money is going into this research with each passing day. Our efforts to understand autism could lead us to learning just how important the thymus and other organs are to the functions of the brain.

The issue is not one of medical/scientific feasibility. It's a matter of our own personal efforts and our own skill in marshalling our resources. It's not a matter of whether we can. In my eyes, that's a given. It's a matter of whether we're willing to try.

Okay, I know that rambled everywhere, but what do you guys think?

You are only subject to this because your narrow minded administration(and i mean the past 3 or 4 administrations) thinks that is the only source of oil. Current provable reserves here in Alberta alone is 25 years supply for the whole world. it was only a year or two that the administration grokked to that, despite it being known fact in the CIA world handbook(which is the last part of the CIA that would hear of it). 25 years of Alberta offering greater amounts of oil had fallen on deaf ears.

If the middle east situations are all about oil, and you are currently embr(OIL)ed in it, its proof of what i say.

Interesting concepts though I think that your proposals really would mean theoretical immortality for the few not the all, the few being the rich. To extend the same treatments/opportunities/lifestyles to everybody would be extremely costly and slow down the progress needed to maintain necessary advancements. Such an inherently unfair society would be difficult to control and would deserve to be destroyed.
Ooops! am I being a realist ?

There are two problems with this. I do not desire immortality in living forever because it would be boring. So it's not because I believe it's impossible to increase life expectancy, but rather that I have no interest in doing so. Furthermore, scientists would probably be in a better position to tell you how much they can increase life expectancy (and don't take my word for this), but I also think that each time you try to increase life expectancy, there comes a point where you can't increase it as much as you could before, and life expectancy might just come to a standstill--this, of course, is just a possibility; I am still not suggesting it is impossible, probably highly unlikely, but I suggest that it is futile and not important.

However, the only case you could suggest it is impossible would be where you come across a contradiction--if living forever contradicts any of the mechanics that allows you to live forever, then it is impossible.

That really depends on production capacity. If we can increase it twenty to thirty fold, that may be enough to offset declines in other fields. The funniest part IMO is the proposed use of nuclear power to provide heat/power for extraction operations, even if it's a at net energy loss. I mean, the whole thing wreaks of money grubbing. I'm surprised we aren't growing pine trees in Iraq for Ethanol. But I suppose that would be a little too obvious...

if its an energy loss thats too bad, but the fact is that petroleum products cannot be substituted from something else. The real crisis will be in lubricants and cooling fluids rather that fuel sources. as well, many plastics cannot be made any other way, and they cannot be recycled indefinately.

The irony being that increased extraction is because of high demand for petroleum as a fuel source, not it's significant/hard to replace industrial applications. I would lol at the use of a relatively clean (because of the waste concentration) energy stream in order to use a dirtier much less efficient form of energy. Just tryin' ta make a buck, eh? Same old same old.

Anyway, oil sands will only be viable at replacing existing declines if they can scale appropriately.

You speak truth!

You've never tried Salvia 40x, have you? Besides, why should one day be more boring than the last? For that matter, the excitement and flavor of life is only going to keep growing. Wouldn't you want to be around for our first extra-terrestrial contact?

Another point of significance to this, however, would be that the number of adults to young people would be magnified significantly. To prevent a dangerous population explosion, we'd have to drastically reduce our fertility rate, thus leaving younger people as not only a minority but a rather special population. There would be enough mature people on the planet to give everyone a private tutor and care-taker, even a team of them, until close to thirty years of age. Given that it takes until about one's mid-twenties to complete moral development, this could come to be considered a necessity.

That's all sociological, though. What really turns me on to this idea is that the mapping of the human genome and the medical advances that have been and can be based upon it are at least as important as the advent of modern medicine as we know it. We haven't seen any fireworks yet, but think back to the very start of the scientific revolution. New medical techniques have always taken time to mature and come into common usage. The artificial hippocampus, for example, may take decades to become something that you can get on Medicaid. It remains, however, that the advancement is a significant one.

Perhaps this would have gone better in socio-political, actually, because that's really apt to be a more interesting aspect of this discussion. Anyway, the more I read about this subject matter, the more convinced I become that we're on the verge of another surge in medical technology. It's going to create sociological problems, and it's going to raise a few interesting ethical questions regarding population control and other odd subjects following the same lines.

Ty, ty very mucho!

I have to say, Griff, that I was very pleased with everything you were saying, until you hit the nasty US jingoistic bit in the middle, which was totally irrelevant.

Anyway, I find the whole thesis of imminent immortality to be almost certain. I'm always amazed at the strange arguments people come up with against it.

Some examples?


• It will be boring. If you feel that way, I'm quite happy if you wish to die prematurely. I may try to argue you out of it, but don't expect me to spend a lot of effort on that.
• Medical science will never stop the ageing process. A pretty defeatist attitude, so hardly worth discussing, except to ask why you assume it will be a medical issue? I wish my conciousness to continue. The body is what houses that at present. If need be, I think we will get around that.
• Only the rich will live longer. I see the concept of "rich" as one which is not going to remain with us much longer.
• Natural resources will run out. That's quite a scary one. I hope not... at least not before we get seriously off-planet, with nanotech up and running, or whatever else happens (soon).
• We're meant to die. No.

Sorry I went off topic, but you did drop that bomb in the middle.

I cannot see why it need get boring. I think a lot of elderly take the stance "Why bother learning that, I only have a few more years" or "I'm too old to change" both these attitudes fall away as fast as the spectre of decrepitude fades. That is, if you are 100 and can expect to see 200, you are no longer old, no matter what. You wont act it. remember that in the last century, live expectancy in north america was 50 years old at one point. Nowadays you can see 60 year olds that act like kids, jetting around in convertibles, dating like teens, sometimes marrying for the first time!

I agree with lau. the meaning of rich is changing. Some still might have all the money, but thats going to just one of several ways to be an ultra success.

One cannot make the assumption that such extra-terrestrial beings do actually exist, and if they did, it does not mean our race as a whole may survive long enough for that to happen, if it did (ie, the sun running out of energy before we disappear, if our controversial nature doesn't end up destroying us first). You might eliminate the problem of being too old to do the things you used to enjoy by removing the aging process, but that doesn't mean you won't get bored of doing the same activities you used to enjoy. You're also not guaranteed to enjoy any new activities that might be developed in the future, as not everyone enjoys the same things--if you don't, living may as well just be boring. It might also sound exciting at first that everyone gets to stay young forever, but then that would also mean that people will become desensitized to being young, and it stops being exciting and becomes a norm. Or I could also ask you the same--why assume that life will continue to be "exciting"? Besides, most people live relatively uninteresting lives anyways.

So most people have boring lives and wish to die? A norm isnt an indicator of dissatisfaction. By your logic anyone over the age of thirty yearns for death?

There is nothing profound about age 30, 40, 6 or 99. All importance placed on an age as milestone is simply symbolic. It is an imagined value common only to humans, or even a specific culture.

You might argue that people start school at 6, but thats a western notion, possibly borrowed or forced upon third world nations.

Take 30.. what is special about it developmentally? Nothing. A complete examination or even dissection of a 29, 30 and 31 year old would not provide any fundamental indicators of who was oldest. 30 is just a human invention, even if it marks the rotation of a heavenly body.

What about the classic "words by two, complete sentences at 3" that defines autism Spectrumites? Again, its some respected person(s) notion of what is ideal, and doesnt necessarily indicate that the child in question will not have superior faculties later in life. Its simply a measuring stick, and falls in the realm of human invention. In fact, one might suppose that as life spans lengthen, this development stage will lengthen as well. There is certainly evidence that adulthood is being delayed.

You wont see 300 year old people that experience 3 years as a toddler, 9 years as a kid, 6 years as a teen and the rest as an adult. All the stages of life will stretch out. Even if people are sexually mature, as most modern teens are, you will see extended periods of youth, as we do in modern times with extended educational development and the delay of responsibility.

...I don't get it.

It's highly unlikely that they don't.

It would be highly interesting, though.

That's a long way off. The former, at least. I seriously don't even expect to survive that long. It's a good goal, though .

The more well-adjusted elderly seem to take a fair amount of pleasure in retracing old steps.

I'm not sure that any such thing is guaranteed as it is. I'm unsure as to how longer lifespans would affect this.

That's the idea.

You've never had a salvia trip, have you?