<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 8 2003, 07:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 8 2003, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mean it *would* happen, i'm just saying that, whenever you mess around with genes or anything as complicated as them, there's a risk. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Experimenting with human genes isn't going to be risky to anyone other than the person born with those experimented genes. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> You don't modify human DNA looking for immortality and have it come out a flesh-eating virus. Doesn't work like that.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
It's still a risk. We know virtually nothing about genes other than what the thing on a whole looks like, and where certain genes are and what they do.
Animals, and humans in particular, are very, very complicated creatures. If you go around messing with all the genes and all kinds of **** in the body, what's to say you won't in-advertantly give, say, the common cold immortality, making it impervious to all anti-bodies? It would be unstoppable, and there'd be very few/no people with a natural resistance to it. Again, "The Stand" anyone?
I <b>know</b> that there is literally a one-in-a-million chance of this happening, i just think that the risk is too great for a thing that we don't need, and is probably impossible to achieve. We're designed to live, and we're designed to die. Are people forgetting things like the carbon cycle here?
If we don't die, eventually, elements will run out. It would take thousands, perhaps even millions of years for this to happen, but it would be there eventually, and then the only solution would be to kill people to start the cycle over again.
For people who don't know what i'm on about, i'll give a quick overview of it: There is a set amount of carbon (and other minerals, i'm just using this as an example) on our planet. Carbon is contained in our bodies. When we die, it is released back into the planet by decomposition and stuff. If we didn't die, it'd start to run out. As i said, it would take millions of years probably, but it would happen unless the cycle/ratio of births to deaths was re-introduced, and even then it would take forever because it needs a few thousand years to break down. We're using coal and oil formed by the dead bodies of pre-historic animals and plants at the moment (probably anyway). In the year 20 000 people (if indeed we still use coal and oil at all) will be using OUR bodies for coal and oil.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Nov 7 2003, 10:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Nov 7 2003, 10:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are only a finite number of neurons in the brain, therefore, there are only a finite number of connections that can be made when you learn something. therefore, there will come a point when you couldn't learn anymore.
If you live forever, You will get bored. guaranteed <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps you can not learn, but you can forget and adapt. Given a near infinite amount of time it may be possible to train your mind to bring to bear all your experiences in the most effecient manner. You may no longer have any memory, but instead could become an Idiot Savant of the highest order. With an unlimited awareness of all that happens in the world around you. Kind of like what God might be. Because with awareness inevitably comes ability.
And besides, the space within the skull may be finite, but the space outside that scale may not be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution has worked perfectly so far. we can tell this by the simple fact that Life still exists on Earth in some form or another.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may have performed 'adaquately', but it obviously did not perform perfectly. Otherwise, we would be living in perfect balance with our environment in perpetuity. This is simply not guaranteed.
BRING ON THE WISDOM OF THE AGES! I'm ready for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - To be the famous last words of the first true immortal, just before going insane. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> There may be generations of immortals if this will ever come to pass. The 2nd and nth generations will learn from the failures of the previous. There is likely no hope for us. Perhaps there will be for some future sentient species. I'm betting on the cats.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 8 2003, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 8 2003, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I <b>know</b> that there is literally a one-in-a-million chance of this happening, i just think that the risk is too great for a thing that we don't need, and is probably impossible to achieve. We're designed to live, and we're designed to die. Are people forgetting things like the carbon cycle here?
If we don't die, eventually, elements will run out. It would take thousands, perhaps even millions of years for this to happen, but it would be there eventually, and then the only solution would be to kill people to start the cycle over again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lots of people used the "we might mess everything up" argument against development, but it has no merits. If you never test things out you will never develop. It is of course practical to minimize the chances of catastrophic failure, but ignoring a certain research path because it might "do something bad" is a sure way to never develop. This is the same reasoning that gun control advocates and anti-drug people use.
If it indeed takes "perhaps even millions of years" for resources to run out than that is a motivation to develop the immortality technology, and not a reason to ignore it. It is pointless to plan for millions of years (at least while we are still clinically mortal). You also ignore the fact that the human body gives back to the environment everything it takes in (besides the body) during normal function. Humans are not a black hole for resources.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also ignore the fact that the human body gives back to the environment everything it takes in (besides the body) during normal function. Humans are not a black hole for resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The human body does, but human consumption does not. We take natural resources all the time and turn them into things which nature simply can not use. Carbon, Oil, and other natural resources are turned into plastics, chemicals, most industrial waste, etc.
If we still end up using fossil remains in the year 20,000 then it would mean that the human race has failed.
Even a thousand years is a very, very, excrusiatingly very optimistic projection of our resource use. Even if we begin to die off so much that population growth is reversed, we can not hope to replace the number of resources we consume on a daily basis. The only way to replenish these resources is to take humanity out of the equation, at least temporarily.
Clinical immortality will not reduce our resource reserves significantly. Natural death is trivial in the support of these reserves.
Yes, of course, but you missed one important thing.
Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transformed.
The plastics you speak of can be recycled very easily. Immortality would kick in the "I have to be here for a long time, better not mess this up" mode of thinking.
Also, Who's to say fusion wont get bugfixed in the next thousand years? The technology curve is only ever going to increase, lest a relapse into luddism.
Sure, I suppose I left out the point that technology may exceed nature. But that wasn't what we were talking about at the time. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The thing is, no matter what level of technology you have, you will in all likelyhood have matter which is unusable and energy which is dispersed. That brings us to entropy of course. But I don't really want to go there yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The technology curve is only ever going to increase, lest a relapse into luddism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there could be more reasons for that happening than just social pressure. Global warming, nuclear winter, or Stickman's 'super viruses' could all be culprits. (But what if nuclear winter cancels out global warming and the super viruses are cancelled by supermen! yeah, whatever) All it takes is one good disaster to bring fear and religious prosecution of all things unholy to the limelight.
But that doesn't mean our technological progress is easily stopped. I don't believe in progress, but I do believe in mankind's desire to become more and more aware of the world. You aren't going to stop this, short of giving everyone a lobotomy and shoving dogma down their throats. But, you can slow it down.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 8 2003, 04:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 8 2003, 04:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you go around messing with all the genes and all kinds of **** in the body, what's to say you won't in-advertantly give, say, the common cold immortality, making it impervious to all anti-bodies? It would be unstoppable, and there'd be very few/no people with a natural resistance to it. Again, "The Stand" anyone?
I <b>know</b> that there is literally a one-in-a-million chance of this happening, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, no, it's far less than one-in-a-million. Human beings and cold viruses have different genetic structures - modifying one in any simple way won't turn it into the other. Never mind that viruses are already effectively immortal, as are many single-celled organisms.
It's in fact almost infinitely more probable that the use of microwave ovens will accidentally mutate a common cold virus and turn it into the plague from <i>28 Days Later</i>. Start stocking up on shotgun shells now!
Our bodies and minds are DESIGNED to fail after a certain amount of time, determined by our genetic code. Immortality IS possible, if we can simply recode that section, so that we renew ourselves instead of the slow decay of age. As for my opinion....read my signature, it may be humorous, but it still holds true.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
My general point in this discussion is this:
There are risks linked with everything we do, and i mean everything. No matter how small, they're there. However, we take these risks, some are small, like drinking tap water (who knows that one of the people in the water works isn't a terrorist and dumped a load of anthrax in it?), and some are large, like developing biological weapons to use on the enemy.
We accept these risks as an everyday part of life, whether we are aware of them or not. We accept them because they stand in the way of things we need: Food, water, cures, defence etc. We do not, however, need immortality. It's pointless, and more to the point, dangerous for any and all humans who become immortal.
Let's discuss the various different forms of immortality:
Clinical Immortality: You will live forever, as long as nothing stops you. I.E, diseases won't, age won't, but a 15 tonne lorry hitting you will. This is still a dangerous form though. Ok, so you might be happy for the first few hundred years, but then what? You start to get bored. Scared. You want to die, but people see this and they make sure you can't kill yourself. So then what? You end up locked up in a cell for the rest of eternity. Wow, that just plain sucks.
Physical Immortality: Nothing can kill you. You can get shot in the head, and you'll live. Very, very dangerous. ou'd never, ever be able to die. Not even if you wanted to. The sun would explode, destroying the whole galay, and you'd still be there, floating in space, wishing you'd never taken the damn potion in the first place. Or maybe you've gone too far into insanity to wish for that.
Immortality: You "live" forever, but your body doesn't. So you'd either end up being "aware" but blind, immobile, deaf and dumb. Or you'd end up as a brain in a jar. Either way, it sucks.
(I based all these on my own views. Other people might and probably will disagree with me, but these are my opinions, and this is how i'd act probably).
Without sounding like a Matrix Fanboi, it really does all boil down to choice. Every single choice we make can be un-done (apart from suicide or other similar things) if we wish it to be. But once you drank the potion of immortality, what can you do? You'll live forever, and there's bugger all you can do about it. You might be captured by someone else who is immortal, and has gone insane, and keeps you alive in agony forever.
I realise that i've extracted the worst possible scenarios here. But it is better to expect the worst, then be pleased when it doesn't happen, than to expect the best and be sad when that doesn't happen.
And samwise: There are many diseases that lie dormant in our DNA. We could inadvertantly trigger one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 9 2003, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 9 2003, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And samwise: There are many diseases that lie dormant in our DNA. We could inadvertantly trigger one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Those "diseases" are genetic defects, not viruses that could spread from a modified human to an unmodified one. The only one at risk would be the person whose genes got borked to activate one of those defects. Refer to my previous statement about how the only one at risk is the one who's being tampered with. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for the various kinds of immortality... I don't think we're in immediate danger of coming up with anything better than stopping the aging process (and even that is REALLY far fetched). Granting one individual immunity to all diseases is impossible, because diseases are adaptable - if you were somehow able to engineer immunity to all existing diseases, you'd be thwarted next winter when the next variant of the common cold came around. Granting anyone immunity to physical harm is even more impossible, because it'd more or less require a rewrite of the laws of physics as they apply to that one person.
It involves tweaking DNA such that Telomeres dont break upon replication.
Telomeres are like the bumper bars of the DNA molecule. They dont play a role in encoding, only in replication.
The only problem with telomeres is that it's exactly what cancer cells have. The cells are defective, and their telomeres dont degrade as normal. Therefore, they can multiply like mad.
Somehow Immortality will have to wait for the cure for cancer methinks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Even so, there are other paths to immortality.
Nanites continually repairing damage to cell tissue/dna structure would do the job quite nicely and be able to fix any cancerous cells.
And stickman, Immortality would fundamentally change culture. If all persons were immortal, they would be entitled the Right to Die as they see fit, so long as they can justify their death. Locking up someone in a room would be a violation of their rights as a human being. People whom are suicidal do not get locked up. They get counselling, if they are willing, or they simply kill themselves.
If you start wanting to kill yourself after a few thousand years, you'd see a psychiatrist, or at least, confide in a few friends. If your lucky, they will propose a solution to your problem leading to many more happy years of immortality. If not, then you have every right to end your immortal existence.
Although society isnt egalitartian, it is not so facist as to limit freedom of choice over ones destiny.
As im sure others in this thread have said, i'll say it too. I beleive immortality would be the end of human existance as we know it. Those without would be completely powerless to those with it, considering the amount of concurrent technology that be invented by the time anything to the point of "immortality" being possible. We were not meant to be immortal, we are meant to die pass on what genes we have, and to evolve to better suit the next generation of humans. That is our purpose, to be immortal would counterdict it completely.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--Island Savage+Nov 14 2003, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Island Savage @ Nov 14 2003, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As im sure others in this thread have said, i'll say it too. I beleive immortality would be the end of human existance as we know it. Those without would be completely powerless to those with it, considering the amount of concurrent technology that be invented by the time anything to the point of "immortality" being possible. We were not meant to be immortal, we are meant to die pass on what genes we have, and to evolve to better suit the next generation of humans. That is our purpose, to be immortal would counterdict it completely. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed
Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that several of the people who say immortality is a bad thing for humanity can also embrace the concept of an eternal afterlife? Are the two not basically the same thing? For that matter, our culture is one that fears death. Why then not embrace life, eternally? Are we a species so paralyzed by fear that we fear to live, and also fear to die?
And then to those who suggest humanity "was not meant to live forever" or "would become bored having done everything". On what authority can this be based? What human mind can appreciate the overwhelming infinity of our universe, even given an infinite amount of time? Certainly from an evolutionary point of view, death serves the purpose of saving resources for future generations, and allowing for genetic mutation to take place through reproduction, meaning that the species through natural selection is better able to adapt and survive as a whole. If humanity's purpose is to survive, and nothing more, then I agree - immortality will only hinder us in this goal. But if we aspire to something more - maybe a dedication to a principle or knowledge (god forbid!) - living forever is going to be a part of that. And given enough time to appreciate life, maybe death can instead be a peaceful denouement, instead of the force that rips existence away from our grasping hands. Heck, most physicists agree even the universe is going to die someday, several billion years down the road. I just feel 120 odd years is too short.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth, subject to change, all that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burr+Nov 6 2003, 11:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burr @ Nov 6 2003, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Clinical Immortality(i.e. Secret Project in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri): Your brain is still alive in a jar. NOT GOOD!
Non-dying immortality: Evntually you will grow old and your body will not function, but since you can't die your just in an unmovable husk that once was your body.
Immortaliy without aging, but can still "be killed": Sure, would work, but the longer you live, the greater probablity you have of getting into an "accident" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was a scary secret project movie. I jumped when the door opened and there was this brain. But I think it was hooked up to monitors and cameras so it had sensatiotions.
sum1 said sumthing about technology is going to be incredible in 20 years..... they said the same thing 20 years ago that we'd be in space ships etc. It simply is not going to happen.
if heaven is real then im gunna laugh at u in 10000 years when all the humans are dead.
And who said the moon landing was real, there is no solid evidence to back it up. Why dont they go there anymore? perhaps cuz they never did and still cant! or they have got everything they need from the moon.
Either way without transplanting all our thoughts into a computer and then becomming a robot, immortality is impossible, perhaps living for a long time such as 400 years may be possible, but the body would become faaar too frail. Look at 116 yr olds, their bodies r sooo old they cant really move around without breaking bones.
immortality would never happen because evntually you would become so old u would turn to dust. unless u stay young forever but then youd have to invent that as well.
I'd be more then happy to debate the moon landing in another thread, this one is about immortality.
People only live to be 116 in todays world because of current medical technology. Before, back when medicine was far closer to shamanism, people only lived to about 40. The people whom are going to live until they are 200 years old are currently alive today, if not posting on these very boards.
Nobody can predict future inventions, but we can speculate. Factoring in nanotech and advances in medicine and biology, I'd say immortality would be possible within the next century.
Even so, immortality could be achieved today (albiet with serious risks) by using the telomeres approach. Cells only age and die because the telomeres at the end of each and every dna strand chip a little upon cell replication. The cells die when the telomere finally runs out. With a little manipulation, the telomere can be tweaked to NOT breakdown upon replication. Result? The cells of an organism do not age, then the body of the organism wont age. You still have to eat, you still have to make sure you dont get hit by a bus, and you still have to watch out for Ebola, but barring things that will kill you, you will live.
One final thing, it was said that it was impossible that life could exist on the ocean floor, where temperatures drop below zero and complete and utter darkness pervade everything. Yet, in the late 70's/early 80's, they discovered black smokers, deep sea volcanic vents, where life wasnt just clinging on, they were thriving. An entire ecosystem that ultimately drew all it's life energy from the volcanic vent and the sulphourous compounds it spewed out. May I also add that these black smokers have an ambient water temperature of about 300 degrees, also impossible for life to exist in, and yet it does...
Well as science says the universe is suppose to end in 1(add extra 100 0's). The last two black holes are suppose to collide into each other. So if having Immortality is possible id think you wouldnt be too happy being eaten alive by two black holes and still surviving it.
Hey Chronos, let's say you do that telomeres thing. And your cells constantly replicate and regeneration. Your brain cells still won't. Don't you think that might cause problems? Hey, even if you could make brain cells regenerate, the brain doesn't seem to be built with that in the blueprints. It may not be able to carry away all the dead matter of those brain cells that inevitably die while others work to replace them. Not to mention having to deal with constant loss of memory and motor skills.
This seems to call for either further gene manipulation, and this time from birth, nanotechnology, of which I have some doubts of its utility in this situation, or regular invasive medical procedures, of which it is likely that only the well established will ever be able to afford. Any thoughts?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well as science says the universe is suppose to end in 1(add extra 100 0's). The last two black holes are suppose to collide into each other. So if having Immortality is possible id think you wouldnt be too happy being eaten alive by two black holes and still surviving it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think there are still some unknowns as far as the end of the universe is concerned... Anyway, how much happier would you be being killed in a car accident in the next 3 years than being driven insane during something as spectacular as that?
*takes a deep breath* <span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'><b><u>Disclaimer:</u>
OK I'm going to warn you a bit now - I'm going to (shock horror) insert a little "spiritual belief" opinions and such here. If the admins/Mods deem this inappropriate, I shall edit this post out. My intention is not to create a science vs religion debate.</b></span>
From what I've read so far, a lot of this "desire to be immortal" seems stemmed from the simple fear of death (obviously) - and the idea that when our bodies die, so does "what we are". However, there is <i>some</i> evidence this <i>may</i> in fact be false - IE: Near death experiences, in particular, the out-of-body ones (worth reading up on if you are interested) - so maybe "what we are" does not die when our bodies do? In which case, are we not allready immortal?
Just to note as i've now actually read through some of the posts of this thread. I beleive some people on this thread have different ideas of immortality. In a one or two posts that i read, people talk about immortality as in, god-like immortality, so-to-speak. The body being able to take punishment and abuse and survive it to any extent, or within whatever conditions the poster decides. When i post, i'm talking about ageless immortality, an immortality that either preserves the essence of one, or causes them once they reach maturity to no longer "Age" so-to-speak. I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to kill them in respect with the aging immortality, quite the opposite in fact. The essence immortality i'm referring to is more or less disputable with releigion's eternal life, but i don't want to get into a debate about it. When i'm talking about it, i'm referring to a transferrence of ones consciousness being exactly transfered to some other sentient or non-sentient container. some of my ideas more or less run parrelell with Chronos's post.
Comments
what is your point?
Experimenting with human genes isn't going to be risky to anyone other than the person born with those experimented genes. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> You don't modify human DNA looking for immortality and have it come out a flesh-eating virus. Doesn't work like that.
Animals, and humans in particular, are very, very complicated creatures. If you go around messing with all the genes and all kinds of **** in the body, what's to say you won't in-advertantly give, say, the common cold immortality, making it impervious to all anti-bodies? It would be unstoppable, and there'd be very few/no people with a natural resistance to it. Again, "The Stand" anyone?
I <b>know</b> that there is literally a one-in-a-million chance of this happening, i just think that the risk is too great for a thing that we don't need, and is probably impossible to achieve. We're designed to live, and we're designed to die. Are people forgetting things like the carbon cycle here?
If we don't die, eventually, elements will run out. It would take thousands, perhaps even millions of years for this to happen, but it would be there eventually, and then the only solution would be to kill people to start the cycle over again.
For people who don't know what i'm on about, i'll give a quick overview of it:
There is a set amount of carbon (and other minerals, i'm just using this as an example) on our planet. Carbon is contained in our bodies. When we die, it is released back into the planet by decomposition and stuff. If we didn't die, it'd start to run out. As i said, it would take millions of years probably, but it would happen unless the cycle/ratio of births to deaths was re-introduced, and even then it would take forever because it needs a few thousand years to break down. We're using coal and oil formed by the dead bodies of pre-historic animals and plants at the moment (probably anyway). In the year 20 000 people (if indeed we still use coal and oil at all) will be using OUR bodies for coal and oil.
- X_Stickman
If you live forever, You will get bored. guaranteed <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you can not learn, but you can forget and adapt. Given a near infinite amount of time it may be possible to train your mind to bring to bear all your experiences in the most effecient manner. You may no longer have any memory, but instead could become an Idiot Savant of the highest order. With an unlimited awareness of all that happens in the world around you. Kind of like what God might be. Because with awareness inevitably comes ability.
And besides, the space within the skull may be finite, but the space outside that scale may not be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution has worked perfectly so far. we can tell this by the simple fact that Life still exists on Earth in some form or another.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It may have performed 'adaquately', but it obviously did not perform perfectly. Otherwise, we would be living in perfect balance with our environment in perpetuity. This is simply not guaranteed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Speak for yourself, mortal.
BRING ON THE WISDOM OF THE AGES! I'm ready for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- To be the famous last words of the first true immortal, just before going insane. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> There may be generations of immortals if this will ever come to pass. The 2nd and nth generations will learn from the failures of the previous. There is likely no hope for us. Perhaps there will be for some future sentient species. I'm betting on the cats.
If we don't die, eventually, elements will run out. It would take thousands, perhaps even millions of years for this to happen, but it would be there eventually, and then the only solution would be to kill people to start the cycle over again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of people used the "we might mess everything up" argument against development, but it has no merits. If you never test things out you will never develop. It is of course practical to minimize the chances of catastrophic failure, but ignoring a certain research path because it might "do something bad" is a sure way to never develop. This is the same reasoning that gun control advocates and anti-drug people use.
If it indeed takes "perhaps even millions of years" for resources to run out than that is a motivation to develop the immortality technology, and not a reason to ignore it. It is pointless to plan for millions of years (at least while we are still clinically mortal). You also ignore the fact that the human body gives back to the environment everything it takes in (besides the body) during normal function. Humans are not a black hole for resources.
The human body does, but human consumption does not. We take natural resources all the time and turn them into things which nature simply can not use. Carbon, Oil, and other natural resources are turned into plastics, chemicals, most industrial waste, etc.
If we still end up using fossil remains in the year 20,000 then it would mean that the human race has failed.
Even a thousand years is a very, very, excrusiatingly very optimistic projection of our resource use. Even if we begin to die off so much that population growth is reversed, we can not hope to replace the number of resources we consume on a daily basis. The only way to replenish these resources is to take humanity out of the equation, at least temporarily.
Clinical immortality will not reduce our resource reserves significantly. Natural death is trivial in the support of these reserves.
Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transformed.
The plastics you speak of can be recycled very easily. Immortality would kick in the "I have to be here for a long time, better not mess this up" mode of thinking.
Also, Who's to say fusion wont get bugfixed in the next thousand years? The technology curve is only ever going to increase, lest a relapse into luddism.
The thing is, no matter what level of technology you have, you will in all likelyhood have matter which is unusable and energy which is dispersed. That brings us to entropy of course. But I don't really want to go there yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The technology curve is only ever going to increase, lest a relapse into luddism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there could be more reasons for that happening than just social pressure. Global warming, nuclear winter, or Stickman's 'super viruses' could all be culprits. (But what if nuclear winter cancels out global warming and the super viruses are cancelled by supermen! yeah, whatever) All it takes is one good disaster to bring fear and religious prosecution of all things unholy to the limelight.
But that doesn't mean our technological progress is easily stopped. I don't believe in progress, but I do believe in mankind's desire to become more and more aware of the world. You aren't going to stop this, short of giving everyone a lobotomy and shoving dogma down their throats. But, you can slow it down.
I <b>know</b> that there is literally a one-in-a-million chance of this happening, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no, it's far less than one-in-a-million. Human beings and cold viruses have different genetic structures - modifying one in any simple way won't turn it into the other. Never mind that viruses are already effectively immortal, as are many single-celled organisms.
It's in fact almost infinitely more probable that the use of microwave ovens will accidentally mutate a common cold virus and turn it into the plague from <i>28 Days Later</i>. Start stocking up on shotgun shells now!
There are risks linked with everything we do, and i mean everything. No matter how small, they're there. However, we take these risks, some are small, like drinking tap water (who knows that one of the people in the water works isn't a terrorist and dumped a load of anthrax in it?), and some are large, like developing biological weapons to use on the enemy.
We accept these risks as an everyday part of life, whether we are aware of them or not. We accept them because they stand in the way of things we need: Food, water, cures, defence etc. We do not, however, need immortality. It's pointless, and more to the point, dangerous for any and all humans who become immortal.
Let's discuss the various different forms of immortality:
Clinical Immortality: You will live forever, as long as nothing stops you. I.E, diseases won't, age won't, but a 15 tonne lorry hitting you will. This is still a dangerous form though. Ok, so you might be happy for the first few hundred years, but then what? You start to get bored. Scared. You want to die, but people see this and they make sure you can't kill yourself. So then what? You end up locked up in a cell for the rest of eternity. Wow, that just plain sucks.
Physical Immortality: Nothing can kill you. You can get shot in the head, and you'll live. Very, very dangerous. ou'd never, ever be able to die. Not even if you wanted to. The sun would explode, destroying the whole galay, and you'd still be there, floating in space, wishing you'd never taken the damn potion in the first place. Or maybe you've gone too far into insanity to wish for that.
Immortality: You "live" forever, but your body doesn't. So you'd either end up being "aware" but blind, immobile, deaf and dumb. Or you'd end up as a brain in a jar. Either way, it sucks.
(I based all these on my own views. Other people might and probably will disagree with me, but these are my opinions, and this is how i'd act probably).
Without sounding like a Matrix Fanboi, it really does all boil down to choice. Every single choice we make can be un-done (apart from suicide or other similar things) if we wish it to be. But once you drank the potion of immortality, what can you do? You'll live forever, and there's bugger all you can do about it. You might be captured by someone else who is immortal, and has gone insane, and keeps you alive in agony forever.
I realise that i've extracted the worst possible scenarios here. But it is better to expect the worst, then be pleased when it doesn't happen, than to expect the best and be sad when that doesn't happen.
And samwise: There are many diseases that lie dormant in our DNA. We could inadvertantly trigger one <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Those "diseases" are genetic defects, not viruses that could spread from a modified human to an unmodified one. The only one at risk would be the person whose genes got borked to activate one of those defects. Refer to my previous statement about how the only one at risk is the one who's being tampered with. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for the various kinds of immortality... I don't think we're in immediate danger of coming up with anything better than stopping the aging process (and even that is REALLY far fetched). Granting one individual immunity to all diseases is impossible, because diseases are adaptable - if you were somehow able to engineer immunity to all existing diseases, you'd be thwarted next winter when the next variant of the common cold came around. Granting anyone immunity to physical harm is even more impossible, because it'd more or less require a rewrite of the laws of physics as they apply to that one person.
It involves tweaking DNA such that Telomeres dont break upon replication.
Telomeres are like the bumper bars of the DNA molecule. They dont play a role in encoding, only in replication.
The only problem with telomeres is that it's exactly what cancer cells have. The cells are defective, and their telomeres dont degrade as normal. Therefore, they can multiply like mad.
Somehow Immortality will have to wait for the cure for cancer methinks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Even so, there are other paths to immortality.
Nanites continually repairing damage to cell tissue/dna structure would do the job quite nicely and be able to fix any cancerous cells.
And stickman, Immortality would fundamentally change culture. If all persons were immortal, they would be entitled the Right to Die as they see fit, so long as they can justify their death. Locking up someone in a room would be a violation of their rights as a human being. People whom are suicidal do not get locked up. They get counselling, if they are willing, or they simply kill themselves.
If you start wanting to kill yourself after a few thousand years, you'd see a psychiatrist, or at least, confide in a few friends. If your lucky, they will propose a solution to your problem leading to many more happy years of immortality. If not, then you have every right to end your immortal existence.
Although society isnt egalitartian, it is not so facist as to limit freedom of choice over ones destiny.
Agreed
For that matter, our culture is one that fears death. Why then not embrace life, eternally? Are we a species so paralyzed by fear that we fear to live, and also fear to die?
And then to those who suggest humanity "was not meant to live forever" or "would become bored having done everything". On what authority can this be based? What human mind can appreciate the overwhelming infinity of our universe, even given an infinite amount of time? Certainly from an evolutionary point of view, death serves the purpose of saving resources for future generations, and allowing for genetic mutation to take place through reproduction, meaning that the species through natural selection is better able to adapt and survive as a whole. If humanity's purpose is to survive, and nothing more, then I agree - immortality will only hinder us in this goal.
But if we aspire to something more - maybe a dedication to a principle or knowledge (god forbid!) - living forever is going to be a part of that. And given enough time to appreciate life, maybe death can instead be a peaceful denouement, instead of the force that rips existence away from our grasping hands. Heck, most physicists agree even the universe is going to die someday, several billion years down the road. I just feel 120 odd years is too short.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth, subject to change, all that.
Non-dying immortality: Evntually you will grow old and your body will not function, but since you can't die your just in an unmovable husk that once was your body.
Immortaliy without aging, but can still "be killed": Sure, would work, but the longer you live, the greater probablity you have of getting into an "accident" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was a scary secret project movie. I jumped when the door opened and there was this brain. But I think it was hooked up to monitors and cameras so it had sensatiotions.
if it was possible, we'd already have it.
sum1 said sumthing about technology is going to be incredible in 20 years.....
they said the same thing 20 years ago that we'd be in space ships etc. It simply is not going to happen.
Imortality= Impossible.
Anything claimed to be impossible is always and I mean ALWAYS proven to be otherwise in the long run.
Going to the moon? IMPOSSIBLE!!! And for centuries we believed, until 1969.
It was also impossible for humans to withstand a speed greater then 4 miles per hour, and it was also impossible that the earth could be round.
NEVER say something is impossible unless you have solid proof that it IS impossible.
And who said the moon landing was real, there is no solid evidence to back it up. Why dont they go there anymore? perhaps cuz they never did and still cant! or they have got everything they need from the moon.
Either way without transplanting all our thoughts into a computer and then becomming a robot, immortality is impossible, perhaps living for a long time such as 400 years may be possible, but the body would become faaar too frail. Look at 116 yr olds, their bodies r sooo old they cant really move around without breaking bones.
p.s there was no moon landing it was a coverup
p.s. they did land on the moon. it wasnt a cover up
p.p.s Dont drag this off topic, start a new one if you want to discuss it further
People only live to be 116 in todays world because of current medical technology. Before, back when medicine was far closer to shamanism, people only lived to about 40. The people whom are going to live until they are 200 years old are currently alive today, if not posting on these very boards.
Nobody can predict future inventions, but we can speculate. Factoring in nanotech and advances in medicine and biology, I'd say immortality would be possible within the next century.
Even so, immortality could be achieved today (albiet with serious risks) by using the telomeres approach. Cells only age and die because the telomeres at the end of each and every dna strand chip a little upon cell replication. The cells die when the telomere finally runs out. With a little manipulation, the telomere can be tweaked to NOT breakdown upon replication. Result? The cells of an organism do not age, then the body of the organism wont age. You still have to eat, you still have to make sure you dont get hit by a bus, and you still have to watch out for Ebola, but barring things that will kill you, you will live.
One final thing, it was said that it was impossible that life could exist on the ocean floor, where temperatures drop below zero and complete and utter darkness pervade everything. Yet, in the late 70's/early 80's, they discovered black smokers, deep sea volcanic vents, where life wasnt just clinging on, they were thriving. An entire ecosystem that ultimately drew all it's life energy from the volcanic vent and the sulphourous compounds it spewed out. May I also add that these black smokers have an ambient water temperature of about 300 degrees, also impossible for life to exist in, and yet it does...
What Crons said in short:
The possibilities are there, don't disclude them.
I also heard that people lived up to 900 during the "bible-mythical era."
This seems to call for either further gene manipulation, and this time from birth, nanotechnology, of which I have some doubts of its utility in this situation, or regular invasive medical procedures, of which it is likely that only the well established will ever be able to afford. Any thoughts?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well as science says the universe is suppose to end in 1(add extra 100 0's). The last two black holes are suppose to collide into each other. So if having Immortality is possible id think you wouldnt be too happy being eaten alive by two black holes and still surviving it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think there are still some unknowns as far as the end of the universe is concerned... Anyway, how much happier would you be being killed in a car accident in the next 3 years than being driven insane during something as spectacular as that?
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'><b><u>Disclaimer:</u>
OK I'm going to warn you a bit now - I'm going to (shock horror) insert a little "spiritual belief" opinions and such here. If the admins/Mods deem this inappropriate, I shall edit this post out. My intention is not to create a science vs religion debate.</b></span>
From what I've read so far, a lot of this "desire to be immortal" seems stemmed from the simple fear of death (obviously) - and the idea that when our bodies die, so does "what we are". However, there is <i>some</i> evidence this <i>may</i> in fact be false - IE: Near death experiences, in particular, the out-of-body ones (worth reading up on if you are interested) - so maybe "what we are" does not die when our bodies do?
In which case, are we not allready immortal?