148 replies to this topic

[gashinshotan]

Why do I know so much about this topic? Because I'm currently studying for a Pathogenic microbiology final exam - so ask away, I have my text book and slides with all the CORRECT information.

well if you want to use an appeal to authority as part of your argument, I might as well inform you that I'm a microbiologist, I just submitted the first draft of my thesis in microbiology two days ago. Good luck on your final exam.

Read my post before. Isn't it valid?

[Traclo]

1. The difference between my insults and yours are that mine are on arguments, yours imply a personal element. But enough of that.

2. All humans can be killed by H5N1 and the other anti-biotic resistant fatal strains and this necessarily rules out the chance for evolution.

I believe Elrond already dealt with this virus/bacterial disparity.

And suggesting that all humans can be killed by a virus is mildly inane. Perhaps ideally we could all possibly die from it (unlikely, because we have 6 billion chances at being at the very least resistant, see #3), but even a bad outbreak of this flu wouldn't destroy the world, because we have and are preparing for it (socially as well as medically)

3. You say that inbreeding has led to no genetic variability. Please support this. (There are plenty of people that are resistant to 'universal viruses' ex. AIDS)

[DJS]

Did I say that H5N1 could be treated with anti-biotics? Allow me to educate you. Not all pathogens are viruses.

Clearly you're back peddling now in an attempt to cover up you earlier confusion. This statement:

Then why are public health officials panicking over H5N1? An avian flu virus which cannot be treated and which could easily mutate into a more infectious form? Because WE CAN'T TREAT IT. Treating disease with anti-biotics leads to the domination of pathogenic communities by anti-biotic resistant strains as the vulnerable strains are wiped out. This is basic evolution

implies that you believed H5N1 could be treated* with antibiotics. Either that, or your train of thought is so terribly disjointed that your q's are not following your p's.

*Edit: To be more specific, "could be treated" meaning that it would have some sort of consequence, either negative or positive, on a viral infection.

[eternaltraveler]

Read my post before. Isn't it valid?

No. It isn't.

Avian flus are nothing new. The 1918-19 was such a flu, so where the 57 and 68 strains. What makes them virulent in humans has nothing to do with prior vaccinations of any of these populations (in fact effective poultry vaccines can do much more to prevent the development of such strains and their spread to humans. If there is a lot less avian flu in general there is less out there doing random mutations that could allow the jump to humans).

Also you appear to be making the invalid assumption that infectibility and pathogenicity are one and the same concept. Which they are not. Pathogenic organisms do not evolve to become more pathogenic. They evolve to become less pathogenic. That is because if an organism kills its host, or even only slightly limits it's host chance to reproduce, it limits it's supply of hosts, and it's ability to transmit itself. This is simple evolutionary theory. There are numerous organisms we are infected with that at one time in our evolutionary past were very deadly, but today don't even cause symptoms.

[gashinshotan]

1. The difference between my insults and yours are that mine are on arguments, yours imply a personal element. But enough of that.

No. Your insults were against everything but my arguments and on your personal opinion on what is insulting.

2. All humans can be killed by H5N1 and the other anti-biotic resistant fatal strains and this necessarily rules out the chance for evolution.

I believe Elrond already dealt with this virus/bacterial disparity.

I never said that viruses were treated with anti-biotics.

And suggesting that all humans can be killed by a virus is mildly inane. Perhaps ideally we could all possibly die from it (unlikely, because we have 6 billion chances at being at the very least resistant, see #3), but even a bad outbreak of this flu wouldn't destroy the world, because we have and are preparing for it (socially as well as medically)

It can if it became infectious. And there are many ways for it to become infectious and spread - random recombination, artificial recombination and dissemination

3. You say that inbreeding has led to no genetic variability. Please support this. (There are plenty of people that are resistant to 'universal viruses' ex. AIDS)

No genetic variability in immunity to such universally fatal diseases such as H5N1. There are not plenty of people that are resistant to AIDS nor H5N1. You're wrong. The amount of people that are resistant to AIDS and H5N1 would be so insignificant in comparison to the numbers that would be killed. A highly infectious outbreak of H5N1 would destroy the world socially, economically, politically, and culturally - this is the sense I am talking about; don't try to use the technicality of a few thousand survivors as an indication of the survival of the human species because in all likelihood they would succumb to nature without the aide of modern human technology and medical technology - especially the anti-biotics and vaccines they would need to survive other diseases.

[gashinshotan]

No. It isn't.

Avian flus are nothing new. The 1918-19 was such a flu, so where the 57 and 68 strains. What makes them virulent in humans has nothing to do with prior vaccinations of any of these populations (in fact effective poultry vaccines can do much more to prevent the development of such strains and their spread to humans, as if there is a lot less avian flu in general there is less out there doing random mutations that could allow the jump to humans).

So you're saying that our containment of human flu strains had no contribution to the ability of H5N1 to infect human hosts? Doesn't ability of pathogens to infect hosts lead to their dominance and repression of competing pathogens? Human flus inhibiting the spread of avian flu infections of humans by the mere fact that they outcompete them for human hosts?

Also you appear to be making the invalid assumption that infectibility and pathogenicity are one and the same concept. Which they are not. Pathogenic organisms do not evolve to become more pathogenic. They evolve to become less pathogenic. That is because if an organism kills its host, or even only slightly limits it's host chance to reproduce, it limits it's supply of hosts, and it's ability to transmit itself. This is simple evolutionary theory. There are numerous organisms we are infected with that at one time in our evolutionary past were very deadly, but today don't even cause symptoms.

Where did I do this? When I used the term pathogenic I was only using it as a label - my post was about the infectivity of pathogens, not the actual signs and symptoms.

[eternaltraveler]

considering your ideas elsewhere on exactly what to do with such viruses I'm thankful you are so ignorant on the subject.

I'm off

[eternaltraveler]

So you're saying that our containment of human flu strains had no contribution to the ability of H5N1 to infect human hosts?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. This argument may be somewhat different with dealing with bacteria. You can be simultaneously infected with multiple flu strains. And you can be infected with one flu strain immediately after recovering from another (assuming their antigens are dissimilar enough. Furthermore vaccines give you similar imunity you would get as though you had already recovered from an actual infection to that strain. So your points are entirely invalid when it comes to viral disease.

This picture is somewhat different with bacteria, but not in the way you are alluding either.

really off now.

[Traclo]

As Elrond has already said, many previous outbreaks were similar in nature to the one you are referring to. Not only that but there was a SARS outbreak in Toronto (near where I live), and society managed to deal with it. Using precedent as a reference point, it would seem that H5N1 isn't a Steven King virus (The Stand anyone?) and that the scenario you are laying out is unlikely (Many of Elrond's points ex. evolution supporting a reduction in death rates, past precedent, etc.)

Please supply more arguments.
(Edit: Please don't, I'm done, computer programming to do, deadline: 5 hours)

Edited by traclo, 04 December 2007 - 09:21 AM.

[StrangeAeons]

I voted that I definitely have no idea. There are so many promising things out there, but promises are more often than not broken. I am definitely scared of the whole "we will destroy ourselves/environment" thing because it really makes life extension technology a non-issue. As a matter of fact, even if I question whether true immortality is feasible in our lifetimes I still thing that a new paradigm of longevity (the sesquicentarians of the future will be the octagenarians of today or so) will probably come about in developed countries, with the dystopian/apocalyptic scenarios being my main obstacle towards reaching at least that much.

[JediMasterLucia]

I vote for option 3:

I think that i have a really high chance of making it, either with treatemtns coming up in my lifespan or with cryonics, which could be much more developed by the time i die.

I don't know if I'll live long enough before aging is stopped.
if not, cryonics is the best thing to do and wait until they can revive me and restore my health en youth.

[Luna]

Scary, isn't it? will anyone make it? is it even possible?
Will you die?

[REGIMEN]

Scary, isn't it? will anyone make it? is it even possible?
Will you die?

This is awesome, like a radio ad for soda, because saying something one time means its worth saying three more times differently.

I'm really the only one to choose the last option here? Yeah, that means no one is probably even reading this... {forest quiet, chirping and cicadas, ol prole ambles'a'crunch'crunch over past the clearing away from the main campfire with a hotdog on a stick} "I'll just eat my hotdog over here in the toasty starlight." {Long sigh that segues back into the soft buttery purr of the shadowy woodlands.}

{iiiiiiinhale, sighhhhhh again, gah it's relaxing out here.}

Edited by liplex, 12 December 2007 - 08:30 AM.

[forever freedom]

Scary, isn't it? will anyone make it? is it even possible?
Will you die?

This is awesome, like a radio ad for soda, because saying something one time means its worth saying three more times differently.

I'm really the only one to choose the last option here? Yeah, that means no one is probably even reading this... {forest quiet, chirping and cicadas, ol prole ambles'a'crunch'crunch over past the clearing away from the main campfire with a hotdog on a stick} "I'll just eat my hotdog over here in the toasty starlight." {Long sigh that segues back into the soft buttery purr of the shadowy woodlands.}

{iiiiiiinhale, sighhhhhh again, gah it's relaxing out here.}

I guess that most people don't like to "just roll" with whatever comes. We prefer to try to control our destiny than to just accepts whatever comes. But i understand you, maybe your way is one of the best ways to happiness, since whatever comes, is fine with you, isn't it?

[REGIMEN]

I guess that most people don't like to "just roll" with whatever comes. We prefer to try to control our destiny than to just accepts whatever comes. But i understand you, maybe your way is one of the best ways to happiness, since whatever comes, is fine with you, isn't it?

(You were doing fine until you loaded the rest of that phrase with a smug condescension by uttering "isn't it?" at a meter flush with this recognition. IF I AM TOTALLY WRONG, THEN IGNORE THE REST OF THIS POST!!! Had to vent. Warm palm extended...I'm waffling, but your vagueness of conviction with ghostly barbs of implication could be called waffling, too. )

There is definition between "just rolling with it" and "rolling with what is available outside of magazine-grade sci-fi porn with decades long arrival projections". I don't see how "controlling my destiny" has anything to do with this topic as I do as much as anyone else does to make something of their life.

I "understand you" too. A religious fantasy of hope colors the empty spots in life pretty well. Go 'head and dream.

What I don't understand is how a number of intelligent people need to couch their sentiments in this "Transhumanism" belief system; "we believe science...some day...will be able to make us live forever...I hate the idea that I may have to die...I am hopeful not for the future but for the elimination of my fear of dying". It's not much more productively involving than any religion. So "rolling with it" as I see it is more about creating value by developing tangible certainties which are actually available from a position of being incapable of offering science a helping hand.

"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage. Even if you did live long enough to see it happen politicians would make certain to never allow an unwashed majority partake. Captains of multinational industry would live long enough to gather flawless nuanced data on the spending practices of a multitude of regular-length life arcs, "LE" down the ranks from the top only those "gifted enough", and at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries. Rolling with it, indeed. "Isn't it"....you speak as if you had the golden ticket already. Smug. And I was ready to let that image I painted linger on....

Edited by liplex, 13 December 2007 - 07:21 AM.

[Grimm]

Death is a natural part of the life cycle, so I do not fear it, and do not want immortality. The old must always make way for the new.

[mitkat]

I guess that most people don't like to "just roll" with whatever comes. We prefer to try to control our destiny than to just accepts whatever comes. But i understand you, maybe your way is one of the best ways to happiness, since whatever comes, is fine with you, isn't it?

(You were doing fine until you loaded the rest of that phrase with a smug condescension by uttering "isn't it?" at a meter flush with this recognition. IF I AM TOTALLY WRONG, THEN IGNORE THE REST OF THIS POST!!! Had to vent. Warm palm extended...I'm waffling, but your vagueness of conviction with ghostly barbs of implication could be called waffling, too. )

There is definition between "just rolling with it" and "rolling with what is available outside of magazine-grade sci-fi porn with decades long arrival projections". I don't see how "controlling my destiny" has anything to do with this topic as I do as much as anyone else does to make something of their life.

I "understand you" too. A religious fantasy of hope colors the empty spots in life pretty well. Go 'head and dream.

What I don't understand is how a number of intelligent people need to couch their sentiments in this "Transhumanism" belief system; "we believe science...some day...will be able to make us live forever...I hate the idea that I may have to die...I am hopeful not for the future but for the elimination of my fear of dying". It's not much more productively involving than any religion. So "rolling with it" as I see it is more about creating value by developing tangible certainties which are actually available from a position of being incapable of offering science a helping hand.

What I dislike about transhumanism most is the fan-boy aspects - the idle dreaming, fantasizing, the "magazine grade sci-fi porn", lol...pretty much hit it on the head. If "rolling with it" is not becoming a totally anthropocentric society that only exists to further meager human desires and the needs of dorian gray wannabes...then I'm more than happy to be rolling with it, until the day I die. And yeah, I'm going to die!

"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage. Even if you did live long enough to see it happen politicians would make certain to never allow an unwashed majority partake. Captains of multinational industry would live long enough to gather flawless nuanced data on the spending practices of a multitude of regular-length life arcs, "LE" down the ranks from the top only those "gifted enough", and at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries. Rolling with it, indeed. "Isn't it"....you speak as if you had the golden ticket already. Smug. And I was ready to let that image I painted linger on....

Let's be quite realistic here, there will never any sort of LE utopia. If you think primitive LE medicines are expensive now (which is really just going to a specialized G.P. who'll put you through lots of tests, make a great number of suggestions, active and intelligent supplementation, and most likely CR, which doesn't really cost anything), just you wait. Most of us here will not be able to afford these technologies, possibly ever.

My gf pointed out a great flaw in the title of this thread: "Do you think you will make it?" Semantics or not, I think the point still stands, and to me, this speaks of a greater rift - as it should be "Do you think WE will make it?" If people honestly think our capitalist society (I'm using that as a fairly global term) is going to start giving handouts or making things highly accessible for those who can't afford it and "deserve it", gimme a break.

Edited by mitkat, 13 December 2007 - 08:00 PM.

[forever freedom]

First, how old are you, liplex? Really, just out of sheer curiosity. I'm trying to see if there's any link between age and the belief that we won't ever going to achieve extreme LE in our lifetimes (and this doesn't only include yours, but also you think that no one else will). I did this question with others who had the same opinion you do, so it's really nothing personal.

I guess that most people don't like to "just roll" with whatever comes. We prefer to try to control our destiny than to just accepts whatever comes. But i understand you, maybe your way is one of the best ways to happiness, since whatever comes, is fine with you, isn't it?

(You were doing fine until you loaded the rest of that phrase with a smug condescension by uttering "isn't it?" at a meter flush with this recognition. IF I AM TOTALLY WRONG, THEN IGNORE THE REST OF THIS POST!!! Had to vent. Warm palm extended...I'm waffling, but your vagueness of conviction with ghostly barbs of implication could be called waffling, too. )

I only wrote the "isn't it" because i could be totally wrong. Rather than being condescending in any way, i was being humble enough to admit that my view of your post could be totally mistaken. And stop throwing complicated words to your post, english is not my native language so gimme a break

There is definition between "just rolling with it" and "rolling with what is available outside of magazine-grade sci-fi porn with decades long arrival projections". I don't see how "controlling my destiny" has anything to do with this topic as I do as much as anyone else does to make something of their life.

Not "just rolling with it" means that we can do something about the issue. We can help funding researches, or we can be scientists/researchers ourselves. I make the first choice; while my whole life won't gravitate around transhumanism, it is a part of my life goal to help LE researches and anything related to AI. I will first help myself by trying and getting rich (which i would do anyways, even if i were a deathist like you). Then i will help funding researches. Hopefully, i will be rich enough to be able to give major funds to these researches.

I "understand you" too. A religious fantasy of hope colors the empty spots in life pretty well. Go 'head and dream.

This is no "religious fantasy". The difference between us and religious people is that they have no doubt that their god is the only true one and that only they are right and others are wrong.
Now i do not have nearly any certainty that i will get to see extreme LE in my lifetime, but i think that my odds are good.
YOU are the one closer to the religious fundamentalists than us, because you, even not knowing the future is "absolutely sure" we won't get to extreme LE. How the hell do you know that? Do you have some kind of crystal orb?

What I don't understand is how a number of intelligent people need to couch their sentiments in this "Transhumanism" belief system; "we believe science...some day...will be able to make us live forever...I hate the idea that I may have to die...I am hopeful not for the future but for the elimination of my fear of dying". It's not much more productively involving than any religion. So "rolling with it" as I see it is more about creating value by developing tangible certainties which are actually available from a position of being incapable of offering science a helping hand.

Who said that you are not capable of giving science a "helping hand". You can fund researches. You can become a researcher yourself. If the world had only people like you, we would be still in the stone ages.

"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage. Even if you did live long enough to see it happen politicians would make certain to never allow an unwashed majority partake. Captains of multinational industry would live long enough to gather flawless nuanced data on the spending practices of a multitude of regular-length life arcs, "LE" down the ranks from the top only those "gifted enough", and at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries. Rolling with it, indeed. "Isn't it"....you speak as if you had the golden ticket already. Smug. And I was ready to let that image I painted linger on....

"at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries." You see, you think that death is good. There's no point in arguing further with you about the possible onset or not of extreme LE treatments, because you will either cast it as something impossible of happening in our lifetimes or as something that's going to be bad for humanity. When you belief death is good, you will rationalize every kind of argument against extreme LE, because you don't want it to happen. We should be arguing why you think death is a good thing, so we can go on to the next issues, like the ones we discussed about in these posts.

[forever freedom]

What I dislike about transhumanism most is the fan-boy aspects - the idle dreaming, fantasizing, the "magazine grade sci-fi porn", lol...pretty much hit it on the head. If "rolling with it" is not becoming a totally anthropocentric society that only exists to further meager human desires and the needs of dorian gray wannabes...then I'm more than happy to be rolling with it, until the day I die. And yeah, I'm going to die!

I also think i'm going to die. Even if extreme LE treatments come, i don't think i have many chances of surviving until the day that we achive true immortality (which could take quite a while, if we ever get there). I'm not a dreamer, i'm optimistic. There's a difference between both; i hope you can see it.

Let's be quite realistic here, there will never any sort of LE utopia. If you think primitive LE medicines are expensive now (which is really just going to a specialized G.P. who'll put you through lots of tests, make a great number of suggestions, active and intelligent supplementation, and most likely CR, which doesn't really cost anything), just you wait. Most of us here will not be able to afford these technologies, possibly ever.

That's why i suggest that anyone who's serious about extreme LE try and get wealthy. I'm not dreaming about an utopia; we do stand more chances if we are rich and powerful. So why complain about how the world is unfair and all that, instead of using this unfairness to your advantage and becoming rich while many are poor? Don't come with the "that's so selfish" whiny talk, because that's how the world works.

My gf pointed out a great flaw in the title of this thread: "Do you think you will make it?" Semantics or not, I think the point still stands, and to me, this speaks of a greater rift - as it should be "Do you think WE will make it?" If people honestly think our capitalist society (I'm using that as a fairly global term) is going to start giving handouts or making things highly accessible for those who can't afford it and "deserve it", gimme a break.

As i said before, extreme LE treatements will probably not be available to masses for a while, but instead of whining about it, we have to do something about it. And this is something individual; if most people won't be able to afford it, will YOU be one of them? You can't make everybody go into healthy diets and healthy lifestyles. You can't make everybody educate themselves in finances, so they can accumulate a good wealth. You can't help everybody, but you can help yourself. So i'm really asking a "YOU" question, and not a "WE" question.

[REGIMEN]

First, how old are you, liplex? Really, just out of sheer curiosity. I'm trying to see if there's any link between age and the belief that we won't ever going to achieve extreme LE in our lifetimes (and this doesn't only include yours, but also you think that no one else will). I did this question with others who had the same opinion you do, so it's really nothing personal.

I guess that most people don't like to "just roll" with whatever comes. We prefer to try to control our destiny than to just accepts whatever comes. But i understand you, maybe your way is one of the best ways to happiness, since whatever comes, is fine with you, isn't it?

(You were doing fine until you loaded the rest of that phrase with a smug condescension by uttering "isn't it?" at a meter flush with this recognition. IF I AM TOTALLY WRONG, THEN IGNORE THE REST OF THIS POST!!! Had to vent. Warm palm extended...I'm waffling, but your vagueness of conviction with ghostly barbs of implication could be called waffling, too. )

I only wrote the "isn't it" because i could be totally wrong. Rather than being condescending in any way, i was being humble enough to admit that my view of your post could be totally mistaken. And stop throwing complicated words to your post, english is not my native language so gimme a break

There is definition between "just rolling with it" and "rolling with what is available outside of magazine-grade sci-fi porn with decades long arrival projections". I don't see how "controlling my destiny" has anything to do with this topic as I do as much as anyone else does to make something of their life.

Not "just rolling with it" means that we can do something about the issue. We can help funding researches, or we can be scientists/researchers ourselves. I make the first choice; while my whole life won't gravitate around transhumanism, it is a part of my life goal to help LE researches and anything related to AI. I will first help myself by trying and getting rich (which i would do anyways, even if i were a deathist like you). Then i will help funding researches. Hopefully, i will be rich enough to be able to give major funds to these researches.

I "understand you" too. A religious fantasy of hope colors the empty spots in life pretty well. Go 'head and dream.

This is no "religious fantasy". The difference between us and religious people is that they have no doubt that their god is the only true one and that only they are right and others are wrong.
Now i do not have nearly any certainty that i will get to see extreme LE in my lifetime, but i think that my odds are good.
YOU are the one closer to the religious fundamentalists than us, because you, even not knowing the future is "absolutely sure" we won't get to extreme LE. How the hell do you know that? Do you have some kind of crystal orb?

What I don't understand is how a number of intelligent people need to couch their sentiments in this "Transhumanism" belief system; "we believe science...some day...will be able to make us live forever...I hate the idea that I may have to die...I am hopeful not for the future but for the elimination of my fear of dying". It's not much more productively involving than any religion. So "rolling with it" as I see it is more about creating value by developing tangible certainties which are actually available from a position of being incapable of offering science a helping hand.

Who said that you are not capable of giving science a "helping hand". You can fund researches. You can become a researcher yourself. If the world had only people like you, we would be still in the stone ages.

"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage. Even if you did live long enough to see it happen politicians would make certain to never allow an unwashed majority partake. Captains of multinational industry would live long enough to gather flawless nuanced data on the spending practices of a multitude of regular-length life arcs, "LE" down the ranks from the top only those "gifted enough", and at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries. Rolling with it, indeed. "Isn't it"....you speak as if you had the golden ticket already. Smug. And I was ready to let that image I painted linger on....

"at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries." You see, you think that death is good. There's no point in arguing further with you about the possible onset or not of extreme LE treatments, because you will either cast it as something impossible of happening in our lifetimes or as something that's going to be bad for humanity. When you belief death is good, you will rationalize every kind of argument against extreme LE, because you don't want it to happen. We should be arguing why you think death is a good thing, so we can go on to the next issues, like the ones we discussed about in these posts.

My age is as valuable to this issue as anyone's age between 0-80 years old since that's the margin of error for LE tech. projections.

No, I don't think death is good, I think it is what's in store. And if something does comes to pass it's as I already explained. Thing is, most of these "techniques" will need so many iterations to make a difference that it will be truly...truly for the rich. Look up the "Gini coefficients". If you haven't noticed the payouts executives get for just leaving a company after a couple of years or for managing the transaction of its sale, the rich really are getting exorbitantly richer even with inflation considered. More relevant, would be the animated graph in the middle of this page: http://imomus.livejo...com/283498.html
Just imagine how that shift would look if all the tycoons in the world grew the old age of 140+.

English not being your first language absolves you of any guilt for your first reply to me. But do realize your comment, "If the world had only people like you, we would be still in the stone ages.", is offensive and downright stupid. It wasn't LE-aggrandizers that got us farming, machining, weaving, mining, etc. There is a big divide between utilitarian innovation and whatever it is this forum berths as a breeding ground.

People that partake of religion can be called religious. So too can people lead by ideology or philosophy be called religious. Religiosity does not necessarily involve Religion. But, again, a snide apparition was created by your own admission of unfamiliarity of language. Perhaps there really aren't any fan-boys...

My crystal orb would say 'hi' but 'e was injured in a fall from my flying car as we took a joyride over our Italian Futurist-styled city without crime nor hunger.

Go ahead, "get rich". It must be so splendidly simple.

Edited by liplex, 13 December 2007 - 11:33 PM.

[forever freedom]

My age is as valuable to this issue as anyone's age between 0-80 years old since that's the margin of error for LE tech. projections.

No, I don't think death is good, I think it is what's in store. And if something does comes to pass it's as I already explained. Thing is, most of these "techniques" will need so many iterations to make a difference that it will be truly...truly for the rich. Look up the "Gini coefficients". If you haven't noticed the payouts executives get for just leaving a company after a couple of years or for managing the transaction of its sale, the rich really are getting exorbitantly richer even with inflation considered. More relevant, would be the animated graph in the middle of this page: http://imomus.livejo...com/283498.html
Just imagine how that shift would look if all the tycoons in the world grew the old age of 140+.

If you don't think death is good, what does this sentence mean: "at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries.". About rich people; generally, the more money you have, the more you can make. But it's also possible to start from scratch. It's amazing what compound interest can do for us. And if we had more time for our lives, it would be even easier to accumulate a lot of money. Sure the already rich would get a lot richer, but that doesn't mean that you can't accumulate a lot of wealth too.

But do realize your comment, "If the world had only people like you, we would be still in the stone ages.", is offensive (...)

It had the effect i expected then.


Do realize that your previous post also had offensive and stupid parts:"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage."

Go ahead, "get rich". It must be so splendidly simple.

Not simple. It's rather a long and sometimes painful proccess, but it can very well be done.

Edited by sam988, 14 December 2007 - 01:07 AM.

[REGIMEN]

My age is as valuable to this issue as anyone's age between 0-80 years old since that's the margin of error for LE tech. projections.

No, I don't think death is good, I think it is what's in store. And if something does comes to pass it's as I already explained. Thing is, most of these "techniques" will need so many iterations to make a difference that it will be truly...truly for the rich. Look up the "Gini coefficients". If you haven't noticed the payouts executives get for just leaving a company after a couple of years or for managing the transaction of its sale, the rich really are getting exorbitantly richer even with inflation considered. More relevant, would be the animated graph in the middle of this page: http://imomus.livejo...com/283498.html
Just imagine how that shift would look if all the tycoons in the world grew the old age of 140+.

If you don't think death is good, what does this sentence mean: "at the end of it all realize that life with death is much more profitable or negligibly different and also that people aren't any better for a lack of biological time boundaries.". About rich people; generally, the more money you have, the more you can make. But it's also possible to start from scratch. It's amazing what compound interest can do for us. And if we had more time for our lives, it would be even easier to accumulate a lot of money. Sure the already rich would get a lot richer, but that doesn't mean that you can't accumulate a lot of wealth too.

But do realize your comment, "If the world had only people like you, we would be still in the stone ages.", is offensive (...)

It had the effect i expected then.


Do realize that your previous post also had offensive and stupid parts:"Will I make it?".... Oh, will I? Will I, will I, will I? Will I meet grandma in Heaven? Will I get those virgins in Paradise? Will I get reincarnated as that fluffy puppy or that bottom-feeding crab? Will I really get in on an early waves of LE treatments priced for sub-millionaires out of the goodness of their hearts? Utter garbage."

Go ahead, "get rich". It must be so splendidly simple.

Not simple. It's rather a long and sometimes painful proccess, but it can very well be done.

Not offensive to just me but to (what could be argued) every last person that has ever lived. I could make the distinction between working class and the rest, but I'll emphasize(by only saying "emphasize", no rhetorical process) that it really is a stupid thing to say and think. I'm sure you've heard of that question children ask, "So everyone that lived before Jesus, and everyone that lived after but could have had no possible introduction to the Lord Our God...they're all in Hell?" So everyone that lived before the possibility of LE being branded and memed and all that horseshit were just cavemen rolling with it???? I can take a hint as to the division you probably meant (innovative action beyond the scope of obvious possibility = not rolling with it, controlling their destiny) so we'll end that topic here. You can thank me for pointing out what you should have.

"making millions from longterm interest growth"... you have to be joking. This method has to be the one most dependent on holding major funding prior to initiation. You'll get more blood from a stone if you're tossing your extra $2K/yr in that...if it's much higher then count yourself lucky...but still woefully far off from the prices these LE techniques will cost. They aren't going to make this cost less than a multi-organ transplant surgery. It's not going to be covered by your health insurance. You won't be able to pay with two dozen maxed out credit cards. It's most certainly not going to be a pack of gum you can pass around to your friends. Wake up. It will be a boutique procedure for people that already can afford to have seasonal plastic surgery and a private jet and even then it will be on an invitation-only basis. They'll figure that there's no reason to live forever if you can't live well and other exclusivity factors. They could even go so far as to sell the techniques affordably...but hey! What are you going to do on your deathbed at 107yo when they sold you the 180yo package? The company will be liquidated, you'll be dead, and years before that they'll have spent your money. So many possibilities. I could look for so many positive reasons to try to believe in some kind of LE-involvement in my life, but if and when they do come about there will be plenty more people looking for ways to block them, and "for our own good".

My comment has nothing to do with painting "death as good". Read it again, I am putting words into the mouths, or thoughts into the minds, of an assumed super-class fancifully created by the Liberal-no-Conservative-no-Liberal-etc Media. Us peasants ain't got no chance, right well now do we?

This whole Transhumanism thing is like some farm hick drooling over an international supermodel advert. Or a K-Mart employee longing for the Parisian haute couture in her fashion mag.

Edited by liplex, 14 December 2007 - 08:13 AM.

[forever freedom]

Not offensive to just me but to (what could be argued) every last person that has ever lived. I could make the distinction between working class and the rest, but I'll emphasize(by only saying "emphasize", no rhetorical process) that it really is a stupid thing to say and think. I'm sure you've heard of that question children ask, "So everyone that lived before Jesus, and everyone that lived after but could have had no possible introduction to the Lord Our God...they're all in Hell?" So everyone that lived before the possibility of LE being branded and memed and all that horseshit were just cavemen rolling with it???? I can take a hint as to the division you probably meant (innovative action beyond the scope of obvious possibility = not rolling with it, controlling their destiny) so we'll end that topic here. You can thank me for pointing out what you should have.

No i do not blame those who came before us. What i mean is that when there's something someone want and this person doesn't do anything to make it real, the person is just "rolling with whatever happens", without taking action. This isn't only for the LE field, but for any field. If you don't think that "death is good", as you say below, what are you doing to avoid it, now that we have possiblities of delaying age significantly? You're just going to "roll with whatever comes", or you're going to try to make extreme LE real as soon as possible, hopefully in your lifetime? Since you appear to choose the first possiblity, i won't refrain from saying again, "if all people were like YOU, we would be still in the stone ages". You consider it to be offensive? Poor whiny baby, once you take your arrogance and condescension tone out of your posts, i will consider being more educated with you.

"making millions from longterm interest growth"... you have to be joking. This method has to be the one most dependent on holding major funding prior to initiation. You'll get more blood from a stone if you're tossing your extra $2K/yr in that...if it's much higher then count yourself lucky...but still woefully far off from the prices these LE techniques will cost. They aren't going to make this cost less than a multi-organ transplant surgery. It's not going to be covered by your health insurance. You won't be able to pay with two dozen maxed out credit cards. It's most certainly not going to be a pack of gum you can pass around to your friends. Wake up. It will be a boutique procedure for people that already can afford to have seasonal plastic surgery and a private jet and even then it will be on an invitation-only basis. They'll figure that there's no reason to live forever if you can't live well and other exclusivity factors. They could even go so far as to sell the techniques affordably...but hey! What are you going to do on your deathbed at 107yo when they sold you the 180yo package? The company will be liquidated, you'll be dead, and years before that they'll have spent your money. So many possibilities. I could look for so many positive reasons to try to believe in some kind of LE-involvement in my life, but if and when they do come about there will be plenty more people looking for ways to block them, and "for our own good".

You can become a multi millionaire by investing the money you save every month. You think it's too hard? Then ok, just keep doing whatever you're doing and go die poor; i couldn't care less.

Edited by sam988, 14 December 2007 - 03:56 PM.

[marcopolo]

Thank you. This may have slightly more merit (though the attempt at an insulting post is indeed amusing).
First you do realize that your very same logic can be applied to quarantining, in that this may cause an even more deadly disease that can be transmitted further through the air. What is best is clearly allowing the human race to become like the bacteria and allow enough of us to die off so that we may develop natural defenses to these illnesses. (Wait a minute... can't bacteria evolve defenses against our own natural ones?)
(Also as an amusing side note: your proposal to weaken Asia through a virus, and using a vaccine on ourselves is perhaps a direct contradiction to this. No doubt that virus will mutate and kill us all...)

You are being far more insulting than I with your continued criticism of the most insignificant parts of my posts. How would quarantining lead to the evolution of more resistant strains? Once the people who are infected die, and their bodies properly disposed of, the pathogen will be gone forever unless a mistake is made. A pathogen which originally transmitted from person to person wouldn't be able to evolve into an airborne pathogen if it is completely wiped out with the proper sterilization and disposal of the infected corpses.

Your logic seems to be that the natural path is the best, yet there are countless examples where nature is less efficient then what we could do ourselves. Of course I'm not denying that nature does have many examples of excellent adaptation features, but rather that it is possible to do better then nature. If you say that it is impossible to do better then nature (please clarify this) then why are you a medical student (soon to be)? If you do agree to there being a possibility of us doing better then nature, then why stand in the way of advancement? (Please not again : cause we are creating the superkiller virus, because we have faced terrible illnesses before and if we had a chance to prevent one (the black death for example) would you not prevent it on the possibility of it creating a superblack death?)

Evolution has a 4 billion year track record of producing organisms best adapted to their environments - this involves the continual annihilation of the inferior generations and their replacement by improved versions. Thus evolution is perfection over time, not perfection at the moment.

I haven't read through all the argument posts yet but I want to point out a couple of things. First, you seem to have no regard for individual human life, trumpeting evolution as the ultimate ideal. I will take this opportunity to point out that this viewpoint is little different from social Darwinism, an ideology that many people consider to be evil, and in fact one that Hitler used to justify his actions in the name of "survival of the fittest".

It also seems highly unlikely that even a superbug will 'completely wipe out humanity' because of the very natural selection you seem to support

Edit: Elrond! You beat me to the punch... essentially I'm saying the same things...

It can if the pathogen has no history of ever infecting humanity such as the untreatable H5N1 and SARS viruses. Evolution would only occur if by chance a resistant mutant individual or population exists. Unfortunately they dont because of artificial human preservation of the status quo through interbreeding. All humans can be killed by H5N1 and the other anti-biotic resistant fatal strains and this necessarily rules out the chance for evolution.

Or course SARS and H5N1 are anti-biotic resistant because they are not bacteria, they are viruses. The only way we can at present stop them is by quarantine, which is what you suggest anyway, therefore your argument that these pathogens are a result of antibiotics has not merit. You are studying to be a physician and you don't even know the difference between a virus and a bacteria? Good luck on your test.

"making millions from longterm interest growth"... you have to be joking. This method has to be the one most dependent on holding major funding prior to initiation. You'll get more blood from a stone if you're tossing your extra $2K/yr in that...if it's much higher then count yourself lucky...but still woefully far off from the prices these LE techniques will cost. They aren't going to make this cost less than a multi-organ transplant surgery. It's not going to be covered by your health insurance. You won't be able to pay with two dozen maxed out credit cards. It's most certainly not going to be a pack of gum you can pass around to your friends. Wake up. It will be a boutique procedure for people that already can afford to have seasonal plastic surgery and a private jet and even then it will be on an invitation-only basis. They'll figure that there's no reason to live forever if you can't live well and other exclusivity factors. They could even go so far as to sell the techniques affordably...but hey! What are you going to do on your deathbed at 107yo when they sold you the 180yo package? The company will be liquidated, you'll be dead, and years before that they'll have spent your money. So many possibilities. I could look for so many positive reasons to try to believe in some kind of LE-involvement in my life, but if and when they do come about there will be plenty more people looking for ways to block them, and "for our own good".

My comment has nothing to do with painting "death as good". Read it again, I am putting words into the mouths, or thoughts into the minds, of an assumed super-class fancifully created by the Liberal-no-Conservative-no-Liberal-etc Media. Us peasants ain't got no chance, right well now do we?

This whole Transhumanism thing is like some farm hick drooling over an international supermodel advert. Or a K-Mart employee longing for the Parisian haute couture in her fashion mag.

That last sentence if fairly offensive IMHO, so expect the same from others. First, let me say that I am not a big fan of some of the things that corporations do, or the rich being totally selfish with their money. That being said, you don't seem to understand how capitalism works do you? How do you know how expensive treatment will be? You are just pulling this stuff out of your...hat as far as I can tell. First, it is highly unlikely, at least in a capitalist economy, that the elites are going to keep this from the masses, for the simple reason of demand. Virtually everyone will want this treatment, regardless of what they are saying now. I bet even Bill McKibben and Tom Cruise will want it. Precisely because everyone will want it, to say there is lots of money to be made by anyone offering the treatment is a given.

This means that the only limiting factor will be finite resources and fixed overhead costs. Otherwise it will be subject to economies of scale. This means that the more a product is mass produced, the lower the price will go as long as there is still a profit to be made. If more units can be sold at less profit for sale, but significantly more total sales, then the price point of the product will be lower. You will make more money selling 100 million widgets at a $1 profit each then you will selling 10,000 widgets at $9000 profit each. When large numbers of this service are sold, the cost per treatment(before profit) will also likely go down because it is cheaper to mass produce something, whether it is a product or training or a combination of the two, then it is to produce small amounts of that same product/service.

Of course, in a country like Cuba, your pessimistic scenario will probably be more likely. Since there is no market incentive, only the elites like Fidel Castro will keep it for themselves and let the proletariat die of old age.

Edited by marcopolo, 15 December 2007 - 06:32 AM.

[marcopolo]

Oh, almost forgot, I voted no idea. I would like to think that technology will advance before I get too old and die, but it seems so far away and different from our present condition that it is sometimes difficult to believe psychologically that it will happen in my lifetime. I am not going out without a fight, I figure if I sign up for cryonics, even on my deathbed I will have some solace in knowing that there is at least still a chance. If I live as long as most of my grandparents that means I have until about 2060-2070 for them to figure it out, unless I am so old in 2069 it is too late for me anyway, even if I am still alive then. OTOH, I could walk outside the door and get hit by a truck or something.

[bio123]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

I always thought Nature just wants to kill us and eat us.

[luv2increase]

We will never get to be able to life indefinitely. We will most likely destroy the environment/ourselves first.

This is the one I voted for. I think something needs to be added to the end though. It should read ...the environment/ourselves first or the environment destroying itself, thus killing us in the process.

I believe our Earth goes through cycles. One of those uninhabitable cycles could destroy mankind. Another thought would be the 'fact' that our sun will burn out one day. We had better get our asses in gear to figure out where else to inhabit; otherwise, there will be billions of immortalists dying. I do, however, believe we are currently doing all we can to conquer this dilemma. Only time will tell though, and hopefully we will all have a lot of that on our hands.

Edited by luv2increase, 16 December 2007 - 07:06 PM.

[brokenportal]

[/quote]
Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.
[/quote]

Thats a simple way to say it, and what Ive been trying to say to all these people that try to twist some kind of "nature" arguement in there.

On the vote, I voted I just dont know.

Ide like my gut feeling to tell me I know but I just dont. If I had the resources to go full steam ahead with all the advertising projects I think will make a difference and I felt like I was doing all I could then Ide probably go with an option that includes thinking therapies will get here in our life times. Until I gain confidence in my own ability to make a difference Im finding it hard to be confident that the rest of the world who isnt currently doing much or anything for life extension will.

Maybe if we outline through advertising, some stratagic ways to show the public they can help in a variety of ways, that it will give them some sort of confidence that the world can help and will allow them to accept life extension more easily. I dont know, just a thought.

[JonesGuy]

I just want to summarize and see what are people's opinions here. I hope each one explains why he believes this or that so we can get better explained points of view. I think i basically covered all opinions i remember of having heard. I probably missed some; if your opinion isn't there just check the one that sounds more like you the most between these 9.

And one last question. What do you guys think are your particular odds of making it?

I'm confident I'll make it. I'm mostly concerned that others will too, because I have a long time to feel bad about not being proactive enough.

My internal caveat is that I'm wildly optimistic. Heck, I've bought 2 lottery tickets this year.

[forever freedom]

I believe our Earth goes through cycles. One of those uninhabitable cycles could destroy mankind. Another thought would be the 'fact' that our sun will burn out one day. We had better get our asses in gear to figure out where else to inhabit; otherwise, there will be billions of immortalists dying. I do, however, believe we are currently doing all we can to conquer this dilemma. Only time will tell though, and hopefully we will all have a lot of that on our hands.

Shouldn't this be the least of our worries? I mean, i'm completely sure that if the human race is still alive after a few billions of years, by the time the sun runs out of gas we will definitely have the means to do something about it. Probably most humans won't even be here on planet earth anymore.

There are more immediate problems for us to handle