Is living forever in the future?

by Deborah Braconnier report

(Medical Xpress) -- Is it possible that your child could live to see 150 years of age? What about your grandchild living to see their 1000th birthday? According to a British biomedical gerontologist and chief scientist of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) Foundation Aubrey De Grey, that is a definite possibility.

De Grey believes that we are within 25 years of finding the medical technology to essentially bring a ‘cure’ to aging. He says the first person to live to see 150 is already alive and that the individual who will first live to see 1,000 years could be born within the next two decades.

He believes that with the advancement of medical treatments in areas such as gene therapy, , therapy, immune stimulation and a variety of other medical techniques, people will soon be able to just visit their physician for regular maintenance checkups and cures for diseases that are a part of aging will no longer be an issue.

While De Grey’s predictions may seem a bit extreme, life expectancy is growing by three months every year and many experts are predicting over a million centenarians by 2030. In 2010, Japan alone had over 44,000 residents who had passed the 100 year mark.

In 2005 a group of scientists dismissed his work as ‘pseudo-science’ and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Technology Review journal offered $20,000 to any molecular biologist who was able to show that De Grey’s theory was wrong. This reward has yet to be claimed.

Heart disease is caused by what De Grey refers to as “molecular garbage” that accumulates when the body ages and can no longer ‘take out the trash.’ De Grey is currently looking at identifying particular enzymes that can break down this garbage with the idea of being able to develop a type of genetic therapy to increase longevity.

De Grey defines aging as a lifelong accumulation of cellular and molecular damage and believes that with medical technology, the practice of preventative geriatrics will enable physicians to repair this damage before it becomes a problem and extend the healthy and life of individuals.

Related Stories

Researchers seek to create 'fountain of youth'

Jan 16, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The same principles that a Biodesign Institute research team has successfully applied to remove harmful contaminants from the environment may one day allow people to clean up the gunk from ...

Heart of glass

Nov 24, 2010

What’s the best way to keep track of medicines or luxury goods? Just give them a number, of course. But what if the item you want to keep your eye on is made of glass?

The Lighter Side of Nanotechnology

Mar 30, 2005

Grey Goos, the first comic strip developed for the nanotechnology community, has been released by leading Nanotechnology portal NanoApex. The weekly cartoon, currently in its fourth episode, examines the lighter side of nanotechnology ...

New blood test shows how long you will live

May 17, 2011

(Medical Xpress) -- A controversial test capable of revealing just how long you have to live is set to hit the market in Britain within the year. The test measures a person's telomeres which are the structures found on the ...

Recommended for you

AMA examines economic impact of physicians

12 hours ago

(HealthDay)—Physicians who mainly engage in patient care contribute a total of $1.6 trillion in economic output, according to the American Medical Association (AMA)'s Economic Impact Study.

Less-schooled whites lose longevity, study finds

12 hours ago

Barbara Gentry slowly shifts her heavy frame out of a chair and uses a walker to move the dozen feet to a chair not far from the pool table at the Buford Senior Center. Her hair is white and a cough sometimes interrupts her ...

How to keep your fitness goals on track

13 hours ago

(HealthDay)—The New Year's resolutions many made to get fit have stalled by now. And one expert thinks that's because many people set their goals too high.

Suddenly health insurance is not for sale

Apr 18, 2014

(HealthDay)— Darlene Tucker, an independent insurance broker in Scotts Hill, Tenn., says health insurers in her area aren't selling policies year-round anymore.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
2 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2011
Let's just put it this way: we'll have working tokamaks and fusion energy before people even get to 150 years old.

And even if you would fix everything in the body, who says you don't get bored to death after the first 100 years? I mean, there's should be more to life than seeing your great-grand-grand-grand-children do the same mistakes as all of their parents and their parents, again and again. Or reading in the newspaper what movie is the rage of the day, for the umpteenth time.

About as nice as spending three trillion trillion trillion years in heaven. Wouldn't you run out of chit-chat already?
lovenugget
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2011
qwrede i think you're forgetting about the feats of engineering that an advanced civilization is cabable of. regardless of whether we run out of things to chit-chat about our sun will eventually die and consume the earth. if humans are still around in 3-4 billion years, we'll have plenty to keep us busy including finding a new planet and/or constructing a new solar system to call home. not to mention interplanetary spacecraft, stardams, attempting to communicate with extra terrestrials etc. where's your imagination?
XQuantumKnightX
4 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
I agree with you lovenugget! gwrede you must have realized by now that there is a universe of things to discover and experience. One of the greatest discoveries in the last 200 years is that if a human mind can dream of it then it can surely make it reality. We have never lived forever so we don't really know how it would be! If your perspective is negative then you would say the earth would over populate and our condition would deteriorate. If you are positive then you would enjoy dreaming up the possibilities.
Jaeherys
5 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2011
Oh telomerase, why oh why can't you just fix our telomeres and not cause cancer!
XQuantumKnightX
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
I must say that I agree and disagree with Aubrey De Grey! I agree that living forever is possible and I disagree that we would have to wait 50 years or more to make it happen. I have been studying all of the great achievements and breakthroughs in the areas of Nanotechnology, Molecular Technologies, Stem Cells and cellular biotechnology. It is a hardcore fact that we have all of the elements to regenerate our bodies with a compilation of our current understanding & technologies. For instance, what happens if we utilize nano-particles and nano robotics to manage the stem cell processes in our body? Or utilize our understanding of DNA and RNA to reverse the age of all the cells our body (http://www.physor...ng.html) or extend the life of every cell in the body (http://www.physor...ng.html). There are numerous examples and demonstrations of regenerative processes to keep us young forever.
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
And even if you would fix everything in the body, who says you don't get bored to death after the first 100 years?


Do people against life-extension intentionally conflate immortality and invincibility? No one is saying you HAVE to live forever, just that you could should the technology exist.

I'm extremely confident in saying the first person to make it to 150 is already alive. I read some researcher (I believe de Grey), who believes the first person to live to 400 is already 60. That doesn't even seem that far fetched to me. Penicillin alone increased the average lifespan 10 years.

We're on the verge of being able to biologically replicate any organ for replacement except the brain. Within the next decade or two we routinely will be playing with our genomes. Unless you believe we were intelligently designed, there should be PLENTY of room for improvement. De Grey has already identified several problems that could be fixed through genome optimization.
gwargh
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
Oh telomerase, why oh why can't you just fix our telomeres and not cause cancer!

Actually, short telomeres are highly linked with cancer. It's just that some cells that have very short telomeres become cancerous and THEN kick in telomerase.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2011
Anyone heard of TA-65? Supposedly it activates telomerase in humans.

http://www.lieber...010.1085
pauljpease
3.9 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2011
Wow. Just wow. Not at the prospect of living to 150 or 1000 years. Just how uninformed some of the posted comments are. So it's a "hardcore" fact that we already have the knowledge and technology to live that long? Really, I thought a fact was something that has been shown to be true, not just a wild extrapolation based on some popular media reports of science. As a cancer biology researcher, I can assure you that things get really really really really really complicated at that level. We don't even have a cure for cancer, or HIV, and people are CERTAIN that we'll cure aging in a couple years? No, and especially not now that they are reducing basic science funding. There is way too much hype here and no substance. Perhaps someone will live to 150 this century, but it will most certainly be a billionaire and they won't have a mind, so if you call that living, then yeah, go for it.
Newbeak
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2011
I am in my 60s,and have been playing with the idea of signing up for The Alcor Life Extension Foundation program http://www.alcor.org/ ,which is funded from the payout of a life insurance policy.The way I see it,the alternative is to end up as worm food.Being frozen at death gives you a shot at being cured of what killed you,and potentially living forever.
aerospacemajor88
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2011
There are people sending mixed signals on this. This article implies that people who are alive right now are not going to be able to live to 1000 years. People like Ray Kurzwei and Michio Kaku say that anyone alive will be able to extend their life forever, regardless of when they were born. So, which is it? Do I as an early 20-something have a chance to live to be 1000 or not?
Glyndwr
5 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2011
Do I as an early 20-something have a chance to live to be 1000 or not?


No one can give you a definite answer.
I am optimist and believe living past 120/130 is possible but we must be aware that past these ages 120 new medical challenges will arise such as stopping/ mitigating against certain deleterious proteins building up in the brain etc.
If only more ppl got into science and maths and stop wasting their lives worrying over the top about the next celebrity gossip or sports result :( heyho
Newbeak
5 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
Do I as an early 20-something have a chance to live to be 1000 or not?


No one can give you a definite answer.
I am optimist and believe living past 120/130 is possible but we must be aware that past these ages 120 new medical challenges will arise such as stopping/ mitigating against certain deleterious proteins building up in the brain etc.
If only more ppl got into science and maths and stop wasting their lives worrying over the top about the next celebrity gossip or sports result :( heyho

Exactly.Science has taken a back seat to bread and circuses.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2011
if humans are still around in 3-4 billion years, we'll have plenty to keep us busy including finding a new planet and/or constructing a new solar system to call home

Unfortunately, that isn't how long we have. With luck we might have a billion years, but more likely 6-700 million years before the planet becomes unlivable (barring a human induced catastrophic event even sooner).
Deesky
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2011
The way I see it,the alternative is to end up as worm food. Being frozen at death gives you a shot at being cured of what killed you,and potentially living forever.

Futurama had a great deal of fun with that notion - justifiably, IMO.

It's a terrific business model though. Basically, they're saying, trust us, we'll be around in tens or hundreds of years and will keep the power on all that time and we promise we'll bring you back when the time is right. LOL, sounds like a scam to me. I'd rather leave my endowment to family or friends or to charity, than waste it like that.

And what would be the point? You're dead anyway so you've pretty much stopped caring about anything at that stage. Nothing wrong with being worm food, they need to live too!
Shakescene21
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2011
@pauljpease
Please keep up your good work in cancer research. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised when you reach your 100th birthday as a fit and intelligent man.
Regarding the probability that billionaires may be among the first to reach 150, this would be a good thing if it will make it possible for the rest of us. Typically the cost of technology drops dramatically with scale, so a treatment that costs a billionaire $5 million in year 1 might cost me $50,000 in year 10. You lamented that science funding is being cut, so maybe billionaires can step up to the plate. (Also, I would like see a few guineau pigs try out the technology before I take it.)
Birthmark
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
We need to work on global population first. How much longer can our planet hold 7 billion people (and counting!)? Now all the people that will have died decades ago will still be eating 3 times a day, using water and electricity, and living in a home.

However I do see the future where we may be able to enhance the body so that we won't have to eat as much, we'll move to living in the sky, oceans, moon, Mars, and other places.

Hopefully, the population problem will be solved before we start letting everyone live til 1,000.

Maybe in the future, we'll be able to upload our conscious in a computer, and that could solve the problem too. We could live in virtual worlds, and we could inhabit a body if we'd like.
IsaacNewton
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
This branch of science is still in it's infancy. It was only in the 1890's that they had figured out how to boil amino acids apart. It was in the 1960-70's that it had figured out the helix dna configuration. In the 1990's they said that it would take 1000 years to figure out the gene sequencing and now they can figure out several a day....It will be sooner than later that we will be living longer, the time line of discoveries are already compressing.
FroShow
1.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
In my humble opinion, life is meant to end. It's how species have been able to evolve; by the old making way for the new. No doubt many would want to live forever, but if that were the case, resources would be held in reserve for countless obsolete models. Not saying that everlasting life isn't possible, just that at some point it might be considered pointless.
Negative
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
When we die, we cease functioning. (I admire the believers in god for their ability to ignore this not-yet, never-to-be-contradicted fact.)

This is why I perceive as utterly hypocritical the claims that "we are meant to die, so any attempt to achieve the contrary is futile, outrageous and in the end totally wrong".

I want to live forever. I want to see my kids and grand-kids populating the solar system, my further successors escaping into the outer space, myself stepping on another planet of another star.

I can dream. Without Man's Dreams, we would be amoebas.
meeker
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
If Nanotech, Biotech, Cognitech ... technology in general begins to accelerate exponentially as some have predicted, then I believe living past 1000 is possible. Of course, this could just be a 21st Century search for the fountain of youth.

However, computers are becoming faster and cheaper each year. Computational results that used to take days will take seconds in the years ahead. If you look at how far we've come in the past 30 years, we will advance much faster in the next 30. In fact, we will advance faster in the next 10 years.

If it is possible to extend our lives to 150, who's to say that there won't be technology in the next 100 years that extends it even further?

As far as stuff to do ... We will have outer-space to explore, but we will also have virtual reality that would allow us to be anyone we wanted to be, go anywhere we want to go, fly, swim underwater without air, travel to the year 1800 (in simulation, of course) and it will all feel very real.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
No one is saying you HAVE to live forever, just that you could should the technology exist.


Suicide is unlawful.
You may be required to live as long as available.
Jaeherys
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
@bluehigh
If you were 1000 years old, I don't think suicide would apply to wanting to die but more of like how a cell kills itself when its reached the end of its benefit to the cells around it. I'd think that when you're that old and seen so much you'd think about "Do I still provide a benefit to those around me?". If not, personally I'd go on a final mission out into space and just go until I am no more. For me, that would be the way I think I'd want to go.
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
@Jaeherys

A reasoned insight into your feelings - thanks.
Yellowdart
1.3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
Isn't there a problem with cells not being able to replicate after so long? It's not just an accumulation of negative build up. Without it, you can still only replicate so many times or for so long and why it stops is not known. This article doesn't address that.

You will never get the average lifespan to be over 120 years.

The reason why the average goes up 3 months a year, is because the low end is coming up. 3rd world nations having better medicine and food and clean water as the years go by are going to raise the average. Nations are still developing. Your top end, has hardly increased in comparison.
Jaeherys
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
@Yellowdart
DNA can only be replicated so many times because each time they are replicated a portion of the end of our chromosomes, called a telomere, is "chopped off". So as we age and they are replicated many, many times, eventually the telomeres are completely gone and coding regions of our DNA begin to be chopped off. So if it happens to be an important gene and the homologous chromosome doesn't have a good copy of it, your phenotype will be affected resulting in some sort of change. Whether it's good/bad/neutral depends on the gene.

Telomerase is the enzyme that adds more telomeres to our chromosomes (in humans its a repeating sequence of TTAGGG) but unfortunately, that is the main reason cancer cells can replicate so many times without major effects on the genotype of the cancerous cells.

consequently this is the reason why we can't just use telomerase to replenish our telomeres on a body wide scale, as it can cause cancer.
thales
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
Jesus is the only way to avoid hell.


Did you even read the article?
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
No one is saying you HAVE to live forever, just that you could should the technology exist.


Suicide is unlawful.
You may be required to live as long as available.


So? Who's gonna arrest you if you succeed?
TheMuskyBuck
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
In 1993, I was a broadcaster on the air in Calgary, AB.

I was 24 and I remember scientists speaking on this subject. There were two main camps of thought as I recall.
The one camp believed we were capable of extending life by 150-500 years, the other camp believed that number was actually indefinate...both camps believed we were 5-15 years away from that technology.

I've been expecting this since. During this time, I've kept to exercise, good diet...trying to keep myself a good candidate.

I'm now 43 but I'm still playing football, hockey and anything else I like.

So I guess if the technology isn't available to me in my life...I still haven't wasted a year of what I've been naturally given.
emsquared
3 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
It always interests me how the politics of people who are vehemently saying the earth is already over-populated match up with their views on advances in life-extension...

Given that we're nowhere near finding, or perhaps rather reaching, another habitable planet, yet apparently pretty close to extending life by an order of magnitude, isn't there some disconnect in core beliefs of what is right there?
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2011
No one is saying you HAVE to live forever, just that you could should the technology exist.


Suicide is unlawful.
You may be required to live as long as available.


Well I guess the suicide rate should be zero, right?

1) If it were illegal it wouldn't matter. Buildings will still exist. Jump off one.

2) A society that has achieved immortality technology would quickly figure out it wouldn't be able to force people to live against their own will. If you think terrorists are bad today, lol.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2011
Given that we're nowhere near finding, or perhaps rather reaching, another habitable planet, yet apparently pretty close to extending life by an order of magnitude, isn't there some disconnect in core beliefs of what is right there?


I guess those optimistic enough to think we'll end aging also think we'll solve these pressing issues. To me it seems silly to think we'll have billions of millenarians burning coal and driving SUVs.

Fusion and vertical farming should go a long way toward solving our population issues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Deesky,

Your remark shows you do not know what hell is. Hell is a place you would not even wish your worst enemy to go to. Hell is eternal torment. Hell is real place, many people have seen it.

All sinners will end up in hell, but praise be to God for the forgiveness that is in Him through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way to avoid hell.

Be blessed.
Here is a godder bishop who thinks youre full of shit. As he still believes in god I think youre both full of shit, but at least the bishop makes some good points:
http://www.disclo..._Church/

Another informed opinion:
"Evangelical scholar Clark Pinnock asked in the Criswell Theological Review, "How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness" that He would visit "everlasting torture upon his creatures?" He says a God who would do that is "more nearly like Satan."

-Yeah buddy. As are the people who would ascribe to such a devil.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2011
As are the people who would ascribe to such a devil.


This is the key here. People who hate WANT to hate. They will find a way no matter where they source their beliefs.

Can we all just agree to laugh and/or type gibberish at Johan when he inevitably comes in here speaking of "universal morality?" Maybe post links to Jehova's kill count?
JaeKyung
4 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
I won't be happy to hear about people living up to 1000 years unless the lingering issue of overpopulation is not solved by then. Other than that, I am getting jealous of those lucky future generations who will get to experience so much advances in technology. But for now, the possibility still pretty much sounds like Sci-Fi stuff to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
"hell," makes nothing for the doctrine of future unending punishment as a part of the Law penalties. It is never used by Moses or the Prophets in the sense of a place of torment after death; and in no way conflicts with the statement already proved, that the Law of Moses deals wholly in temporal rewards and punishments.

This position, also, I wish to fortify by the testimony of Orthodox critics, men of learning and candor. They know, and therefore they speak.

1. CHAPMAN. "Sheol, in itself considered, has no connection with future punishment." Cited by Balfour, First Inquiry.

2. DR. ALLEN, quoted above, says: "The term sheol does not seem to mean, with certainty, anything more than the state of the dead in their deep abode."

3. DR. CAMPBELL. "Sheol signifies the state of the dead without regard to their happiness or misery."

4. DR. WHITBY. "Sheol throughout the Old Testament signifies not the place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the grave only..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
My above exerpt from
http://www.auburn...ell.html

-And youre right frank, hell is where haters like johan want their enemies to go. Anyway-
I won't be happy to hear about people living up to 1000 years unless the lingering issue of overpopulation is not solved by then.
A LOT will need to change before many of us can live indefinitely. Who pays for our unending retirement? Who pays for continuing longetivity treatments - obamacare? Will birth permits need to be issued? Can the work that robots will be doing other than humans be made to pay lost worker revenues?

Obviously, revolutions not unlike the end of monarchies or the beginnings of industrialism, or the establishment of banking and investment themselves, will need to occur. Working to support ourselves will not be possible.

Machines will be doing the work. Why not pay them wages and tax them for it? They can pay for their own maintenance, storage, transport, and recycling. Automatically. Cut out the middleman.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
"Machines will be doing the work. Why not pay them wages and tax them for it? They can pay for their own maintenance, storage, transport, and recycling. Automatically. Cut out the middleman".
Ha! That makes as much sense as giving your hammer a wage for driving nails! Unless you're talking about sentient machines a la Bicentennial Man,forget it.A machine is a tool to more efficiently create wealth for humans,period.
Imagining people would retire if they could live indefinitely is absurd-even today,retirement is often the death knell for otherwise healthy seniors.Inactivity kills the body and spirit.
People who could live forever would acquire formidable wisdom and skills and would be invaluable to society,and could more than pay their own freight.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Deesky,

Your remark shows you do not know what hell is. Hell is a place you would not even wish your worst enemy to go to. Hell is eternal torment. Hell is real place, many people have seen it.

All sinners will end up in hell, but praise be to God for the forgiveness that is in Him through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way to avoid hell.

Thanks for the education on what hell is. Go to hell Johannes414.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Deesky,

Your remark shows you do not know what hell is. Hell is a place you would not even wish your worst enemy to go to. Hell is eternal torment. Hell is real place, many people have seen it.

All sinners will end up in hell, but praise be to God for the forgiveness that is in Him through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way to avoid hell.

Thanks for the education on what hell is. Go to hell Johannes414.

Amen,brother!
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2011
Hi Deesky,

Your remark shows you do not know what hell is. Hell is a place you would not even wish your worst enemy to go to. Hell is eternal torment. Hell is real place, many people have seen it.

All sinners will end up in hell, but praise be to God for the forgiveness that is in Him through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way to avoid hell.

Thanks for the education on what hell is. Go to hell Johannes414.


*Plays a sick organ riff.*

Preach on, brother!
FroShow
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
FFS! why don't people read the 'Comments guidelines'? So much pointless debate and hate speech could have been avoided, and some pertinent arguments could have taken their place! (I'm referring directly to all religious comments.)
brianweymes
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2011
Who says it would be good for people to live forever? Talk about overpopulating the planet in a hurry once that happens.
Vovix
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2011
I do.

In short, overpopulation threat is a myth. The matter is, the longer we live, the more educated we are, and the less children we have, and later.

Being able to manage these variables, i. e. when and how many, we can ensure for ourselves virtually indefinite time here on Earth (before we get some serious outpost in space, it may be hundreds of years), while letting everyone a possibility to have a child:

Solution 1: One-child culture -> converging sequence.
Each next fixed period of time brings 2 times less than previous. The total growth will never (in infinite time) exceed 2x current population.

Solution 2: Increasing reproductive age -> even faster converging sequence (with 1-child culture of today) or steady linear growth (not exponential) with 2-child culture which is now in highly developed societies a thing of the past.
Vovix
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2011
In general, this all proved one simple thing.

People achieve better results when they have more freedom to decide what to do with their lives. First family planning, now life extension. To deny them their rights means treating people as some herd of cattle without brains. People are far smarted than some "shepherds" think.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2011
Since people over 75 are past their reproductive age, extending lifespans from 75 to 150 would have less effect on overpopulation than current programs that save children and young adults from malaria, AIDS, cholera, etc. Curing old-age diseases like Altzheimers would have a one-time effect on population growth by extending life-span. In contrast, curing diseases like malaria that prevent younger people from reproducing will have an exponential effect on population growth.
I'm not arguing that we quit trying to cure malaria, but rather that any medical advancement is likely to cause more overpopulation. Why is it that progress against malaria is a good thing, but progress against Alzheimers might lead to overpopulation?
TheAlzheimersDoc
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2011
The question to ask is: Why would anyone want to live a 1,000 years? Do any of you know anyone who says that society is better today than when they grew up???????
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2011
"TheAlzheimersDoc"

Looks like your opinion might be skewed a tad. Try imagining a world without Alzheimer's and try again.

Do any of you know anyone who says that society is better today than when they grew up???????


Yeah, most good people do. Generally, I'm only aware of racists and the senile believing the opposite.

Also if you share this sentiment about modern society, do you mind sharing why you feel this way?
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2011
Here's a quote I think you should read:

The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.


Here's an alternate version:

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."


Sounds like one of your patients said this, doesn't it? Well unless you have a time machine, I doubt you've treated Socrates.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2011
Here's another one:


I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint."


(Hesiod, 8th century BC)
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
DNA can only be replicated so many times because each time they are replicated a portion of the end of our chromosomes, called a telomere, is "chopped off". So as we age and they are replicated many, many times, eventually the telomeres are completely gone and coding regions of our DNA begin to be chopped off.


Thanks for the explanation. But it's not simply just "cutting off". There are also translation and copy errors that occur during replication, right? I understand telomeres are the "end" function so to speak, but it seems telling it where to stop is only one part of the loss of function that occurs with aging.
Yellowdart
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2011
@Frank,

Well if Hesiod was the 8th century, that's about the time the Greek's transitioned from their "Dark Age" to the "Archaic Period". So it's quite possible Hesiod was right :)

And wasn't Socrates right before Alexander the Great and another period shift?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2011
In short, overpopulation threat is a myth. The matter is, the longer we live, the more educated we are, and the less children we have, and later
Well, overpop is obviously not a myth because we are seeing the middle east exploding at the moment due to aggressive, imperialist, religion-mandated repro rates. But I think you do have a good point.

Western society has been able to offer lifestyles as attractive alternatives to the traditional pastime of making and raising babies.

This has been no mean feat - humans are a tropical species which evolved in the context of high attrition rates. Its compulsion to reproduce is therefore a strong one.

The trick will be to supplant (destroy) those cultures which are designed to survive by outreproducing their neighbors. like this one:
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-who KNOW that anything you have to teach them is meant to destroy their way of life (which would be true}.

This will also be no mean feat.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2011
Unless you're talking about sentient machines a la Bicentennial Man,forget it.
Sentient, no; although eventually and inevitably, I suppose... Intelligent, yes. Most machines will soon be tagged, tracked, and monitored. It will be known exactly how much work they do, how much energy they expend, where they are, etc. It will then be possible to pay them DIRECTLY for this work and everything necessary for them to do it, rather than paying some human caretaker who will extract profit and have the opportunity to cheat.
A machine is a tool to more efficiently create wealth for humans,period.
Exactly. Revenues can be MUCH higher if machines are wards of the state like us. The people would benefit directly from the work they do.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
Imagining people would retire if they could live indefinitely is absurd-even today,
And yet today we are losing jobs to machines at unprecedented rates. How do we recover the lost revenue needed to support the people who are permanently out of work, not to mention repair the infrastructure, etc?

This will only get worse as machines become more capable and more autonomous. As it stands we may see a very few people owning these machines and reaping enormous amounts of profit.

This is an age-old conundrum. Technology offers us a new way of solving it.

Machines can report the exact amounts of work they do, and the costs necessary to do it, far better and more HONESTLY than any human. Paying them and collecting revenue can be done instantly, automatically, and a LOT more efficiently.

And as you imply this is inevitable, one way or another, as machine intelligence emerges. WE decide what needs to be done. Let the machines work out all the details.
stanfrax
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
there really is no population problem - its an illusion - there are only 7 billion of us - i did have the calculation somewhere but you can fit every person on the planet inside of Texas and you would have 3oft of space around you or that might have been Canada - ether way there is plenty of space on a planet this size you only have to fly in a plane - its like the water shortage to - like there's a problem turning sea water into fresh water and has for food - its madness - we have hydroponics - unfortunately this does not fit into are social structure that's been created for mankind - its all an illusion
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
retirement is often the death knell for otherwise healthy seniors.Inactivity kills the body and spirit.
People who could live forever would acquire formidable wisdom and skills and would be invaluable to society,and could more than pay their own freight.
And yet why should they have to? As WISE as these people will be, they should be able to devise lifestyles to keep themselves active and enthusiastic indefinitely. Machines will enable them to do this.

Why should many be stuck working boring, unrewarding jobs when they dont have to, and whats more wont be ABLE to, as machines will be doing them instead?

Culture is anready changing to accomodate extended retirement. People can find unlimited things to do to keep themselves busy and happy, if they try. Machines are going to make this EASIER.
Since people over 75 are past their reproductive age, extending lifespans from 75 to 150 would have less effect on overpop
And what about those of us who want to be 30 forever?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
there really is no population problem - its an illusion - there are only 7 billion of us - i did have the calculation somewhere but you can fit every person on the planet inside of Texas and you would have 3oft of space
I am thinking you must be a religionist? Because this particular type of disconnect is prevalent among peoples who believe god wouldn't put restrictions on their ability to procreate.

There is an immense overpop problem. When someone uses the Texas argument I always like to point out that they're right I suppose but a large percentage of those people would be dead within hours. Silly? So is your argument.

You obviously have no conception of the infrastructure needed to maintain pops. You also totally ignore the social factors which keep people separated. If we could eliminate your religionist cultures which are the main cause of overpop and the resulting conflict in the world today, then maybe the world could support it's present pops. But not before.
stanfrax
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
no you have got me wrong all the books are covered in our species blood - used for gaining resorses and control - i don't want my ancestors eating my soul - if people believe its their right that's up to them - they all clash - this is in the eugenics section but you have to remember its there only right as a human being you can believe in whatever you want - my belief is all time and knowledge is collapsing and we are going through one of the greatest extinction proses this planet as ever seen - what about you
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
And yet why should they have to? As WISE as these people will be, they should be able to devise lifestyles to keep themselves active and enthusiastic indefinitely. Machines will enable them to do this.

I don't understand what you your objection is. Of course,people will be free to do as they please.My contention is simply that they would almost undoubtedly share with society as a whole what they have learnt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
Newbeak said
Imagining people would retire if they could live indefinitely is absurd-even today,retirement is often the death knell for otherwise healthy seniors.Inactivity kills the body and spirit.
People who could live forever would acquire formidable wisdom and skills and would be invaluable to society,and could more than pay their own freight.
-Which I took to mean that people may well be required to continue to work in order to support themselves, which I am saying is getting harder and harder to do as we are getting replaced by machines (not to mention immigrants) at ever-accelerating rates.

This has happened many times in history - the craftsmen in germany being one example. People have always suffered. Is this going to happen again at an even greater scale?

Machines can now pay for the jobs they displace. I say let them do so, and nobody will suffer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
my belief is all time and knowledge is collapsing and we are going through one of the greatest extinction proses this planet as ever seen - what about you
That sounds dangerously fantastical to me.

Otto believes that religionist-mandated population will kill us all unless something is done to prevent it. This may already be in the works.

Religionists threaten the world because, since they think they can believe anything they want to, they invariably choose to believe that they can live beyond their means as long as they remain devoted, and also squat to crap and walk around in black pup tents and curl their sideburns and whatnot.

This is with the understanding that their patron god will reward their devotion by supporting their excess, which include bearing many more children than they themselves could ever support. Their gods all DEMAND this.

And when their kids start to starve they invariably blame this on the infidel, which is exactly what their god had in mind.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2011
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
"Machines can now pay for the jobs they displace. I say let them do so, and nobody will suffer".
Otto: Machines are not legally culpable under the law.The makers/owners are culpable.The bills will be sent to owners/inventors of such machines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2011
Otto: Machines are not legally culpable under the law.
Laws can and will need to be changed anyway as machines begin to operate autonomously. Machines can pay directly for their own insurance. As they are incapable of malice or emotion, and are not hindered by drugs or lack of sleep, this should be cheaper than normal.

For instance construction machines will soon be capable of driving themselves to a site, excavating or erecting per 3D engineering dwgs and GPS, and returning themselves for maintenance. Fewer mistakes and accidents.
The makers/owners are culpable.The bills will be sent to owners/inventors of such machines
Owners stand to reap enormous profits from autonomous machines who do not need them to operate. Owners use accountants and tax lawyers and financial advisors and mafia connections etc to steal and launder money and hide profits. Paying machines directly will eliminate this unnecessary source of waste and corruption.
stanfrax
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
fanatical leaders wanting power over people - most of them want to get rid of the corrupt governments and it looks like there turning to religious groups for leadership none have solutions its the same cycle - people don't want war - its promoted in our system - its nurture - born in in a forest raised by wolfs running round howling and think nothing of it - we are all the same speices - we all have the same internal organs - if there are any differences the sun and gravity did it - we are all on the same planet - our 1st tecnolagy was fire and flint technology has been invented to move mankind forward - we wouldent have survived the ice age - what havent we got - its a play of people all down to ego - profit and greed - our nurtured planet it all been made for us - government propaganda keeping the cycle going
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
Otto: You still don't get it.Machines are still tools,and will be for the foreseeable future,and thus the owners/operators will be legally liable for their actions.What you are suggesting is totally incompatible with present legal concepts.In my mind,it will continue to be so until androids as exemplified by the creatures in Bicentennial Man are a reality,and that won't be for hundreds of years hence.
brianweymes
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
I do.

In short, overpopulation threat is a myth. The matter is, the longer we live, the more educated we are, and the less children we have, and later.

Solution 1: One-child culture -> converging sequence.
Each next fixed period of time brings 2 times less than previous. The total growth will never (in infinite time) exceed 2x current population.


The 1 child scenario is far from assured, as populations in Sub-Saharan Africa continued to balloon and birth rates in Europe started to rebound recently. Although the Earth could potentially hold billions more ideally, overconsumption is real, and the addition of billions more humans after we start to radically extend our lifespan could wreak havoc on fisheries, water aquifers, rainforests. Note that this article states humans born soon could live to 150 or 1000 even, and not in thousands of years after we're colonizing space and have technology that makes everything better.
FroShow
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
Just an FYI: I've personally really enjoyed the TED talks by Hans Rosling; they're both entertaining and informative (in about 15min each). For anyone looking for an informed opinion (backed by significant research) on population growth, poverty rates, etc... start with this: http://www.ted.co...een.html and then check out his other TED talks (links at the right).
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2011
We immortals have been discussing this forever:
What is it like to die?
Do tell us. Are we missing anything? :)
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
We immortals have been discussing this forever:
What is it like to die?
Do tell us. Are we missing anything? :)

Didn't one of the Continuum become exiled as an ordinary mortal human on the Enterprise? You might ask him that question..
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Mr newsbeak
Otto: You still don't get it.Machines are still tools,and will be for the foreseeable future,
You dont seem to be able to see very far at all. Try using your imagination. EVERY machine can and will have within it sensor networks which can record and report on their condition, location, operational status, energy usage, maintenance requirements, etc. This will ALL be constantly and automatically monitored whether you can imagine it or not. High end autos, rental vehicles, planes, ships, trucks, all have this in one form or another, to prevent theft and ensure theyre being used in the proper manner. They will soon be operating themselves.
and thus the owners/operators will be legally liable for their actions.
These machines WON'T NEED OWNERS. The state can own them, as it owns us.
What you are suggesting is totally incompatible with present legal concepts
So was women voting and interracial marriage when the laws prohibited it. They WILL be changed as needed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
These machines can hire themselves out to contractors, developers, manufacturers, shippers, trucking firms, etc much like job shops or union halls work right now.

Except that, since theyre not people, a great deal more of what they earn can revert to the state which in turn can allocate it to rebuilding the infrastructure (by further contracting their services) and to supporting all the many millions of humans these machines will be putting out of work.

Much of this can and will happen AUTOMATICALLY, whether human 'owners' and their countless legal, financial, political, and criminal minions are left in the mix or not. Each time a human handles money this human gets a cut and has the chance to steal more. This will soon be UNNECESSARY and thus detrimental to the system as a whole and to Progress.

The machines can take care of ALL the intermediary details. Humans can decide what needs to be done and they can reap the benefits. The bourgeoisie need not be involved in the middle.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Take a human who wants to manufacture a consumer good. His computer advisors will design his production lines and determine which machines need to be included. These advisors will crunch the numbers for him and arrange for financing directly with banking computers.

Engineering computers will survey his building site, design the building to accommodate production (maybe some human architect will be employed to pretty it up although I wouldnt know why) and an exacting 3D model of the project will be produced AUTOMATICALLY, incorporating materials from known sources.

Can you imagine this all happening without human input? Computers can contract for production and construction machinery. This would include things like lifecycle costs to operate and projected production output. Machines would be delivered and installed and serviced and replaced by other machines. The only substantial unknown would be how well the product would sell.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
'Danger - construction site. No humans allowed beyond this point.'

Danger - automated production area - human access by permit only - must be accompanied by machine.'

'Automated roadway - no human-driven vehicles allowed.'
Newbeak
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2011
Otto: Have you stopped taking your meds again?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Otto: Have you stopped taking your meds again?
Why dont you try a more substantial rebuttal? In the meantime:
http://www.pathne...?id=1100
http://www.scienc...9290017E
http://www.youtub...4pivaCMg

Look at all these pesky humans:
http://www.youtub...7rwTWwhg

Cave_Man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
So many comments i hope mine still gets read.

I have thought alot about this kind of dilemma.
If aliens came to our planet tomorrow and offered us eternal life what would be your first course of action?

Mine would be to set a date and method of my termination, probably flying into a black hole while having sex, eating cake and listening to rock and roll.

But in my imagination (the conspiracy lobe of my brain probably) I believe there are little gray aliens out there possibly working in secret here on earth, who have overcome all aging and sickness but they build a universe spanning civilization and dedicated their whole society to learning, to learning EVERYTHING. The only problem is that everything doesn't make a whole lot of sense and there is the inevitable end of the universe (i believe in the big crunch) where they are sitting in their space shit orbiting a black hole and thats the whole universe. Kind of a dead end. The only problem is they started fucking with time travel eh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
I would think a sufficiently advanced intelligence could avoid sitting in its own space shit -?

Hey newbeak the myopic-
heres another glimpse of da future:
http://www.youtub...Z3UnnS_0
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
Otto: Have you stopped taking your meds again?
Why dont you try a more substantial rebuttal? In the meantime:
http://www.pathne...?id=1100


Otto,I have been as succinct as possible.I still maintain that your views are irrational.My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.Try trolling on some other board.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Otto: Have you stopped taking your meds again?
Why dont you try a more substantial rebuttal? In the meantime:
http://www.pathne...?id=1100


Otto,I have been as succinct as possible.I still maintain that your views are irrational.My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.Try trolling on some other board.
Sorry dimwit I like it here.

Heres a car that probably drives better than you do:
http://www.physor...res.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Oh wait I get it
My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.
-You think that paying taxes and obeying laws are something we have to DECIDE to do or not, or at least deserve the opportunity to avoid if we are clever enough to get away with it? I suppose thats endemic with your gen. In the future it will be impossible to avoid doing either.

If we can get past this criminal mindset we can begin to make real progress in ending crime and beginning to find ways to compensate for revenues lost to machines. By PAYING them and taxing them directly and automatically.
Cave_Man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
Oh wait I get it
My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.
-You think that paying taxes and obeying laws are something we have to DECIDE to do or not, or at least deserve the opportunity to avoid if we are clever enough to get away with it? I suppose thats endemic with your gen. In the future it will be impossible to avoid doing either.

If we can get past this criminal mindset we can begin to make real progress in ending crime and beginning to find ways to compensate for revenues lost to machines. By PAYING them and taxing them directly and automatically.


Wtf is my toaster going to do with its annual salary?
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
Oh wait I get it
My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.
-You think that paying taxes and obeying laws are something we have to DECIDE to do or not, or at least deserve the opportunity to avoid if we are clever enough to get away with it? I suppose thats endemic with your gen. In the future it will be impossible to avoid doing either.

If we can get past this criminal mindset we can begin to make real progress in ending crime and beginning to find ways to compensate for revenues lost to machines. By PAYING them and taxing them directly and automatically.


Wtf is my toaster going to do with its annual salary?

At least someone agrees with me.I hope that troll moves on soon.
eachus
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2011
Sigh! All this extraneous discussion, and just a few comments on the real topic of the story.

I am a statistician, and I've always found lifetime issues fascinating. Light bulbs, computer chips, people, the issues are always the same.

First, can I measure the average (mean) lifetime? Not really. If I take a sample and test until all die, I have a statistic. Not necessarily a useful one. One immortal in the total--not the tested--population, and the actual mean is infinite. Oops!

It is much better to measure the median lifetime, it doesn't take as long (you only have to wait until 50% of the light bulbs burn out) and it allows you to make other order statistic predictions.

The real zinger is one that happens all the time with computer chips, and is about to happen with humans. What happens when the improvement in (expected) lifetime grows faster than one year per year?

It is already true for infants at birth--they add about two years of life expectancy in their first year.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
eachus: Yes,back to the article at hand,and back to sanity,IMO.One comment: If there is an immortal in the 50% of the population that is still alive when the first 50% die,there goes your statistical predictions,n'est pas?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2011
eachus: Yes,back to the article at hand,and back to sanity,IMO.One comment: If there is an immortal in the 50% of the population that is still alive when the first 50% die,there goes your statistical predictions,n'est pas?
I smell supercilious... Sane people usually know how to punctuate, n'est pus?

Sorry. As you was.
socean
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2011
I am glad that we are at least having discussions about longevity. While the timelines are uncertain, if we don't eliminate ourselves as a species first, we are almost certain to extend our lifetimes. I have a two year old and a 15 year old. Simply stated, I have no way to predict about how long they will live. That alone is a fundamental change.

How does a parent help their children prepare for their lives if everything that child faces may be dramatically different from the parent's experience?

As anyone that visits this site knows, things are changing, not just in one area, but across the entire spectrum of human activity. And the rate of change is accelerating, in many cases, exponentially.

This is the moment when we must let go of all assumptions that the future will resemble the past. Which begs the question, "What kind of future do we want to create together?"
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 09, 2011
socean: I really envy your children,and a what they will see in their lifetimes.I am in my early 60s,and barring a breakthrough in aging research,will be gone in 20-30 years.
Dr_Doe
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2011
I wonder, if we can make it to 150 and people born in 20-30 years can years make it to 1000 then I would like to believe we'll be able to stay ahead of the curve and possibly live forever already... and then there's the idea of being able to download our brain into a machine and travel space forever using new-age renewable energy sources... I love to dream!
eachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2011
Newbeak said: If there is an immortal in the 50% of the population that is still alive when the first 50% die,there goes your statistical predictions,n'est pas?


No problem, if you are predicting the median age at death, not the mean. This is why I prefer to use the median for things like incandescent light bulbs which are notorious for such behavior. They will have a median life than is often less than a third of their mean lifetime.

socean asked: How does a parent help their children prepare for their lives if everything that child faces may be dramatically different from the parent's experience?


We have long passed the point where our children will live in a world that is vastly different from the one we grew up in. My children seem to have survived the experience, and I am starting on grandchildren. But I'll always remember my grandfather's, who learned to fly from the Wright's, saying during the first moon landing: "I never thought Lindburgh would make it!
_nigmatic10
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011
Evolution of the human condition cannot happen until we conquer ourselves both physically and mentally. The idea of preserving the progress via longevity of life is only a tool to reaching that end.

There is no such thing as forever. It belongs in a verbal trash can with the junk terminology like singularity.
mosahlah
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2011
Technology changes, culture changes, society changes. But life will always find a way. Even if Japan, Norway, Seattle, and every other bastion of environmental benevolence have their population evaporate to nothing, someone who hates wearing a condom or taking a pill, or loves children, or procreates in the name of faith will be reproducing and changing the character of humans globally. Someday, the liberal yuppie DINK will be a relic of the history book, maybe American's currency will feature Joseph Smith.
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2011
Even if Japan, Norway, Seattle, and every other bastion of environmental benevolence have their population evaporate to nothing, someone who hates wearing a condom or taking a pill, or loves children, or procreates in the name of faith will be reproducing and changing the character of humans globally.


Mercenaries such as yourself can satisfy your psychotic need to murder for many years to come. The dinks are going to hire you to take care of your own kind. Keep otherizing and one day you'll be The Other.

Also, last time I checked, the military was ran by dinks. You must feel impotent, huh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2011
procreates in the name of faith will be reproducing and changing the character of humans globally
Yes they are already doing so. Look at middle east. Wherever religion reigns there is trouble. This will obviously have to end before we can seriously consider extending lifespans. We do not want your religionist violence and degradation and ruin here.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011


The real zinger is one that happens all the time with computer chips, and is about to happen with humans. What happens when the improvement in (expected) lifetime grows faster than one year per year?

So the predictive value from finding the median is negated when considering human longevity,since human lifetimes are currently a moving target? I had to take a statistics course in first year university,and it wasn't my favourite class.
eachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2011
So the predictive value from finding the median is negated when considering human longevity,since human lifetimes are currently a moving target?


Not yet. Right now human life expectancies hit a wall. About 90% of the population of the US reaches age 57, 50% age 81, and only 10% reach age 94. So when you look at medians or deciles, or whatever, life insurance companies and pension plans can do a decent job of planning.

However, those curves depend on data (for 2006 currently) that deals with the present. What is the probability that a person whose 89th birthday was today will reach age 90? That I can answer. Change it to 80th birthday and reaching 90, and the picture is fuzzier. A baby born today? About the only reasonable answer is that he or she has a very good chance of reaching age 90. There is a lot of rightward movement in the wall built into the current population--in general you are healthier than your parents (or grandparents) were at the same age.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011
Live forever ? I highly doubt it, what's " forever " even supposed to mean ? Live longer, yes. At what age will we get to stop aging ? 18, 25, 60, ..? Or are they also predicting the ability to reverse physiological aging in the body with things like stem cells ?

Newbeak
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2011
At what age will we get to stop aging ? 18, 25, 60, ..? Or are they also predicting the ability to reverse physiological aging in the body with things like stem cells ?

All of the above,eventually..

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
what's " forever " even supposed to mean ? Live longer, yes. At what age will we get to stop aging ? 18, 25, 60, ..? Or are they also predicting the ability to reverse physiological aging in the body with things like stem cells?
Indefinitely is probably a better word. But at what age form would people wish to remain, if they could choose?

From our vantage point most people would say early 20s, or 30 perhaps, but biologically this is well past our prime. Pleistoceners were old by age 30. Of course their lives were much harder on them than ours are.

But humans reach their prime in adolescence and immediately begin their decline. Its obvious that the physical change which takes its greatest toll on us physically and mentally is the onset of the reproductive potential.

Overactive hormones produce exaggerated physical changes and aggressive tendencies which age us and waste our time being preoccupied with reproducing and contending for the opportunity.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
Coincidentally this ability has always presented mankind with its greatest potential dangers. The tropical repro rate which was set back when humans existed at the mercy of the natural attritive elements, remains with us today. The resultant URGE to comingle is just as strong today as it was back then. Cultures have developed to either mitigate it to preserve peace, or to exacerbate it in order to protect themselves from more primitive cultures in which it runs unrestricted.

We will SOON be able to outsource the entire reproductive process. This will offer additional freedom for women and I suppose increasing numbers will opt for it.

In conjunction with the ability to arrest the aging process and alter our physiology, I also think people will begin to choose to discard all this reproductive baggage which we primitives are forced to contend with.

Whether this means humans remain preadolescent or not is a question; but our bodies are most efficient while in that state.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
I just think H G Wells may have had it right when he described the eloi, but there will be no need for a separate underground race of engineers as the machines will be running themselves.

Humans will probably eventually look like the grays as described by whitley streiber - small, compact aliens with huge 'eyes' for processing the entire electromagnetic spectrum; and metallic skeletons, and huge heads for all the hybrid stuff we will need inside.

But until then I think humans will want to attain a state where they are personally and collectively free from the tiresome distraction of the urge to reproduce. We can then begin to get some real work done.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011

Humans will probably eventually look like the grays as described by whitley streiber -


Personally,I prefer the future of mankind to resemble the Metron race: http://memory-alp...i/Metron
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
Naw maybe more like this:
http://memory-alp...ki/Balok

Only with better teeth.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011
Why would our limbs not eventually just become vestigial stumps given enough time ? I don't have any problem with the idea of humans populating the universe, I just don't see us remaining in typical humanoid form when we would have such high technologies. Wouldn't the intergration of technology over eons of time affect evolution ? We always envision " aliens " pressing buttons in their ufos, looking at screens, when that will all be primative technology to a lifeform that can traverse interstellar space.

Back on topic, if we are advanced enough to " fix " our physical bodies, we will also likely be advanced enough to alter our bodies in any way we see fit.

I had a Mad magazine from the 60's that showed everybody in the future ( 2010 ) had become obese little round people riding little scooters.

Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011
Why would our limbs not eventually just become vestigial stumps given enough time ?

I think it would be a matter of aesthetics.The ideal form would,to my mind at least,be that of a person in their early 20s,at the height of their physical attractiveness and prowess.Of course,no one can accurately predict events 10 years from now,let alone 1000 years,so anything anyone says about future events is purely speculative.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2011
procreates in the name of faith will be reproducing and changing the character of humans globally
Yes they are already doing so. Look at middle east. Wherever religion reigns there is trouble. This will obviously have to end before we can seriously consider extending lifespans. We do not want your religionist violence and degradation and ruin here.


And science is not a religion? Its just as strict, has its own set of rules and causes people to become angry or sometimes violent if you blatantly contradict them.

Science has no more merit than any other view of the universe, and to think that it does just proves my point and illustrates your hubris.

As Einstein would say, "It's all relative."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
Why would our limbs not eventually just become vestigial stumps given enough time ?

I think it would be a matter of aesthetics.The ideal form would,to my mind at least,be that of a person in their early 20s,at the height of their physical attractiveness and prowess.Of course,no one can accurately predict events 10 years from now,let alone 1000 years,so anything anyone says about future events is purely speculative.
Yah like this maybe:
http://www.youtub...xEjwXHcM

Why wait? Clone her I say.
And yes this is the famous aether crank everybody is familiar with.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2011
procreates in the name of faith will be reproducing and changing the character of humans globally
Yes they are already doing so. Look at middle east. Wherever religion reigns there is trouble. This will obviously have to end before we can seriously consider extending lifespans. We do not want your religionist violence and degradation and ruin here.


And science is not a religion? Its just as strict, has its own set of rules and causes people to become angry or sometimes violent if you blatantly contradict them.

Science has no more merit than any other view of the universe, and to think that it does just proves my point and illustrates your hubris.

As Einstein would say, "It's all relative."


Lol, go away moron.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011

Why wait? Clone her I say
.
Never heard of her,but yes,that is what I mean to a T.She is a hottie,and has a great voice as well..
Skultch
not rated yet Jul 10, 2011
I also think people will begin to choose to discard all this reproductive baggage which we primitives are forced to contend with.


Why not just slow the process down to a crawl? There could be plenty of time to enjoy it while learning about it (introspective) faster than it changes. No confusion and awkwardness, just total efficiency of carnal pleasure with no negative repercussions. THEN, you get on with your more productive life. It's still temporary, lives are full, and progress is still exponential.

Of course that's just an intermediate phase. Eventually, every experience could be holographic and/or controllable.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2011
Wouldn't the intergration of technology over eons of time affect evolution ?


I think technology will transcend us beyond the need for chaotic evolution. I don't think we will evolve much before we can completely control and subvert our evolving physiology.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 11, 2011
Wouldn't the intergration of technology over eons of time affect evolution ?


I think technology will transcend us beyond the need for chaotic evolution. I don't think we will evolve much before we can completely control and subvert our evolving physiology.


Interesting, yes, I could see that.

In essence, we will have the unique opportunity to prevent our own long-term biological evolution as a species, if we choose so.
hush1
4 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2011
"Keep otherizing..." - FH
"Lol, go away moron." - FH

"Otherizing" a wonderful, insightful expression.

No one's commentary reflects an active awareness of "otherizing".

Imagine commentary in which everyone casts their commentary actively under the awareness of "otherizing".

No one wants to be like Kevinrtrs. No one wants to be like lots of people. No one want to be different from their heroes. Just an extension of them.

Everyone is unique. "Otherizing" is inborn and innate.
The common denominator is a disadvantage to those wishing to exploit. Longevity is one of those exploits. Longevity provides a chance to find what unites everyone, despite uniqueness.

"Otherizing" has more priority as a dictionary entry than "lol".
Thks. FH. Thoughtful vocabulary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2011
And science is not a religion? Its just as strict, has its own set of rules and causes people to become angry or sometimes violent if you blatantly contradict them.

Science has no more merit than any other view of the universe, and to think that it does just proves my point and illustrates your hubris...
You only say these things because you do not know what you are talking about. You dont know enough about the process of doing science to know the difference between 'faith' and 'confidence'.

Science has a spectacular track record of successfully explaining how the world works, and so people who understand it have growing confidence that it will continue to do so.

Religion has no such track record. It has proven to explain nothing. The more that science uncovers, the more it demonstrates how much of religion is nonsense and deception.

Faith is what religionists use to ignore all of this and continue to ascribe to religious nonsense and deception.

See the difference?
Pyle
not rated yet Jul 11, 2011
Otto, just wait until you die. Only then will you see what is nonsense and deception.

What?

You say you are already a ghost?

Nevermind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2011
Otto, just wait until you die. Only then will you see what is nonsense and deception.

What?

You say you are already a ghost?

Nevermind.
Only in the aether that is the interwebz. Here our digitalz live forever on some big server somewhere.

But that is besides the point.

Out here otto must keep fighting evil like Flynn. I mean out there.
wealthychef
not rated yet Jul 11, 2011
Aubrey De Grey is not a gerontologist by his own depiction. Gerontologists try to prolong life by treating aging-related disease. He treats aging as the accumulation of damage, and aims to reverse the damage before it becomes disease.
stealthc
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2011
their advances will be countered by chemical contamination already present in our environment. It'll be countered by the garbage they put in our food, and new diseases will arise from the concentration of their crap over the course of 150 years (as opposed to 60-70 if that ends up being the new average lifespan. Soon we'll get so old that everybody will die after going totally SENILE, and while you are SENILE they will keep you around rather than put you out of your misery. FUN FUN FUN!
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2011
their advances will be countered by chemical contamination already present in our environment. It'll be countered by the garbage they put in our food, and new diseases will arise from the concentration of their crap over the course of 150 years (as opposed to 60-70 if that ends up being the new average lifespan. Soon we'll get so old that everybody will die after going totally SENILE, and while you are SENILE they will keep you around rather than put you out of your misery. FUN FUN FUN!


Yes, my thoughts exactly. How can we be assured that we will be able to find solutions faster than we find problems ?
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2011
Does it not seem that every new discovery or solution only yields a more divergent set of questions, problems and theories ? I don't think we will ever be able to 100% subvert nature's abilities. It will remain a cat-and-mouse game. I know it destroys a lot of fantasies, but it's my belief and I'm stickin' to it. I did think about Skultch's points, but I just think we will never outsmart nature completely, or find a way to completely negate it's responses .
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2011
I find it hilarious that some believe technology can conquer aging but not incontinence or senility.
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
FH, aging is small potatoes. Sphincters and word salad are two of the most difficult problems facing science today. Just look at comments above and tell me I am wrong.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 12, 2011
FH, aging is small potatoes. Sphincters and word salad are two of the most difficult problems facing science today. Just look at comments above and tell me I am wrong.


So what is the difference between online sophism and the Socratic method of learning ?

For some reason folks online have a problem differentiating between a question and a statement in comments and forums.

How is a non-scientist supposed to learn and discuss science, or is that forbidden by some secret code ?
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2011
@Issacsname

You said this

I know it destroys a lot of fantasies, but it's my belief and I'm stickin' to it.


Which doesn't really match up with your last comment. It seems you made it clear you weren't interested in learning. How are we supposed to know otherwise?
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 12, 2011
It's a toungue-in-cheek comment. All beliefs are subject to, or should be subject to, constant re-examination or questioning. Not interested in learning ? I don't know how you got that one. Why else would I be reading a website like this one ?
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
Helpful advice:
So what is the difference between online sophism and the Socratic method of learning ?
The difference is the same as offline. The Socratic method takes two to tango. If someone is using lies and trickery to sway the argument it is sophism.

Helpful advice part two:
For some reason folks online have a problem differentiating between a question and a statement in comments and forums.
Use a question mark? Seemingly rhetorical questions such as the following make it difficult though.
Does it not seem that every new discovery or solution only yields a more divergent set of questions, problems and theories ?

Answer to semi-rhetorical question: Nope, just some discoveries.

Not interested in learning ? I don't know how you got that one.
I do, you said "but it's my belief and I'm stickin' to it." It didn't seem very tongue in cheek in its previous context. Try being cheekier to get it across.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
FH, aging is small potatoes. Sphincters and word salad are two of the most difficult problems facing science today. Just look at comments above and tell me I am wrong.
?
Pyle
not rated yet Jul 12, 2011
Come on Otto. You too? I guess I need to spell it out.

FH said (with added emphasis):
I find it hilarious that some believe technology can conquer aging but not INCONTINENCE or SENILITY.


Sphincters = incontinence and word salad = senility...

I thought I was funny anyway... I'll let everyone else decide who is guilty of which. I really had several commenters, not all present, in mind.
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2011
Otto,I have been as succinct as possible.I still maintain that your views are irrational.My position is rather simple-machines are NOT sentient beings,and won't be for the foreseeable future,end of story.Try trolling on some other board.

Newbreak, your sentiment that the machine owners should take the profit is doomed. Think how many machines those with major finances could purchase? If Google purchased 1 million machines and then rented them to do your job for 2 x machine maintenance costs (which I can assure you would be much less than your salary!), how would you live? Get another job? Oh wait, proffits from the million machines allowed for the purchase of another million machines, and so another machine fills that position too. Anyone with major finances would have a monopoly on work itself!
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2011
Cave_Man
Newbeak
Wtf is my toaster going to do with its annual salary?
At least someone agrees with me.I hope that troll moves on soon

I think you two miss the point. The question is what would you do with an annual salary in such a society? Buy food? Why? The "toaster" prints whatever food or drink you require. Maybe then you can spend that salary on an entertainment system? Oh but wait, the "toaster" already supplied you with that and keeps it up to date. Maybe you want to spend that salary on a trip around the world? Again, world travel is set up and maintained by the "toaster" for your use.
You see in such a society, everything you need or want, within realistic limits, is provided or created by the "toaster".

Humans set the limits and goals while "toasters" (machines) do all the work, including maintaining themselves.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2011
Replace "toaster" with "phone" and you're probably right. Lol, it would be really hilarious in the future if the toaster became highly technical and not really a toaster anymore, but retaining the name like the phone today.
eachus
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2011
their advances will be countered by chemical contamination already present in our environment. It'll be countered by the garbage they put in our food, and new diseases will arise from the concentration of their crap over the course of 150 years...


Sigh! Pay attention to history, you might learn something. In December 1952 an anticyclone over London England resulted in a killer fog that killed about twelve thousand people, and made around a hundred thousand sick.

That it was London, not Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Mexico City or a dozen other metropolises was random. But governments everywhere realized that cleaning up the air needed doing. We are still in the process, but it is getting cleaner every year.

The same story applies to adulterated food. There was a huge scandal in China last year about adulterated formula for babies. China did have laws against it, just some people who thought they could get away with it, and ended up hung.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 13, 2011

Newbreak, your sentiment that the machine owners should take the profit is doomed. Think how many machines those with major finances could purchase? If Google purchased 1 million machines and then rented them to do your job for 2 x machine maintenance costs (which I can assure you would be much less than your salary!), how would you live?

The flaw in your argument is that no machine can do my job yet-my company tried to outsource my job to other PEOPLE (in India),but that didn't work either.
As I said before,until sentient machines a la Bicentennial Man are developed,my job and other skilled human jobs will not be in jeopardy.That means HUMANS will be the ones getting paid for using their TOOLS to produce wealth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2011
Cave_Man
Newbeak
Wtf is my toaster going to do with its annual salary?
At least someone agrees with me.I hope that troll moves on soon

I think you two miss the point. The question is what would you do with an annual salary in such a society? Buy food? Why? The "toaster" prints whatever food or drink you require. Maybe then you can spend that salary on an entertainment system? Oh but wait, the "toaster" already supplied you with that and keeps it up to date. Maybe you want to spend that salary on a trip around the world? Again, world travel is set up and maintained by the "toaster" for your use.
You see in such a society, everything you need or want, within realistic limits, is provided or created by the "toaster".

Humans set the limits and goals while "toasters" (machines) do all the work, including maintaining themselves.
Yay. A believer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2011

Newbreak, your sentiment that the machine owners should take the profit is doomed. Think how many machines those with major finances could purchase? If Google purchased 1 million machines and then rented them to do your job for 2 x machine maintenance costs (which I can assure you would be much less than your salary!), how would you live?

The flaw in your argument is that no machine can do my job yet-my company tried to outsource my job to other PEOPLE (in India),but that didn't work either.
As I said before,until sentient machines a la Bicentennial Man are developed,my job and other skilled human jobs will not be in jeopardy.That means HUMANS will be the ones getting paid for using their TOOLS to produce wealth.
I bet one could type better than you without the annoying and pointless affectations?

And I bet that software has already replaced a lot of the functions which were traditionally a part of your job. Many of us are out of work because of this.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 13, 2011
I bet one could type better than you without the annoying and pointless affectations?

And I bet that software has already replaced a lot of the functions which were traditionally a part of your job. Many of us are out of work because of this.

Ad hominem attacks are a sign of desperation,IMO.Software in the form of email has replaced snail-mail for the the most part in my job,and I do my work on a tool called a computer,which doesn't get paid for it's labour.
scidog
not rated yet Jul 14, 2011
well there is the answer to the space travel problem,6 or 700 hundred years in a space ship could be a bore but it might beat being frozen or something like that during the ride.
Newbeak
not rated yet Jul 15, 2011
well there is the answer to the space travel problem,6 or 700 hundred years in a space ship could be a bore but it might beat being frozen or something like that during the ride.

Yeah,but you wouldn't remember it-just like a dreamless sleep.Anyway,Einstein might be dethroned if this theory pans out: http://www.dailyg...lar.html