148 replies to this topic

[kismet]

Someone voted in the poll. Thread-resurrection in 3, 2, 1...

1. I think that anti-aging research will extend my lifespan, and I try to extend the degree of that extension.
2. I don't believe in immortality nor cryonics for me or my children.

This position is not proposed in the poll although I would guess that it is the main one in imminst (at least 1.)

Why don't you believe in cryonics? I'm amazed why you don't believe in cryonics for your children (a time frame of 50-100years!) I don't think robust cryonics is much more difficult to achieve than robust life extension or escape velocity. There are only two hurdles fracturing (probably solved soon?) and toxic cryoprotectants AFAIK. I don't believe in immortality, but quasi-immortality is feasible for sure.

[Luna]

Is quasi immortality that weird quantum philosophy? I don't believe in that if it is ^^

The reason people don't believe in cryonics is because no human was ever retrieved yet!
And anti aging.. well :D no need to explain!

[kismet]

Is quasi immortality that weird quantum philosophy? I don't believe in that if it is ^^

Quasi-immortality is to me "almost immortality" (i.e. as good as it gets based on our current understanding of physics). For example living until the heat death/proton decay of the universe or living a life span which seems almost indefinite by today's standards. The latter is a slightly fuzzy definition, though.

The reason people don't believe in cryonics is because no human was ever retrieved yet!


And anti aging.. well :D no need to explain!

No one should believe that today's cryonics is a completely safe bet (it's definitely better than dying), but we're talking about future cryonics. I believe in the prospects of tomorrow's cryonics.

Edited by kismet, 19 April 2009 - 07:20 PM.

[Luna]

The problem with Quashi immortality (if it is what I think it is) is that it just won't work :D
Just like you were the one to fall off the bicycles at your childhood and get a bruise, quasi immortality didn't pop you in an alternative universe because you got hurt, it won't do it if you die.

I might not know what you really mean by quasi immortality though

Edited by Winterbreeze, 20 April 2009 - 03:28 AM.

[AgeVivo]

hey kismet,
when i wrote "i don't believe in cryonics for me nor my children" i didn't mean grand grand children, but it is a non-educated opinion as i don't currently clearly see the remaining technical challenges for cryonics; when i take the time to read cryonics reviews i might change opinions.

I believe in the prospects of tomorrow's cryonics.

well said

Edited by AgeVivo, 14 May 2009 - 07:55 PM.

[.fonclea.]

option3

I won't be probably immortal and i don't wish but i think i will definitly extend my life of 20-30 years....
-The food is changed to be use for cure (alicament in french).
-In medecin we have done a lot the past years and researchers are constently improving our health.

The thing is we musn't expect a same quility of life:
-enviromental disaster: global warming, no more forests, no more fresh water, extinction of species,...
-lake of moral and value: family, solidarity, honesty, work,... and individualism, uniformity,...
-changes in diet because of the enviromantal problem
-loss of our tradition and identity... the Unecso talk about dozen of dilects extinguished every year.

The same shok if you were born in 1914 and you are still living now.
Our grand parents are the best exemple of how we will have to accent changes.

If you expect to live the same quality of life in 100 years, you are wrong and extension of lifespan or immortality is not for you.

[Mr. Jingles]

Indefinite life extension will eventually be feasible. We are lucky that this century will yeild advances in biotechnology and medicine comparable to the advances in computing in the 20th century.

The problem is that it is very likely that we will not have access to the technologies that make dramatic life extension possible. They will be purposely withheld from the overwhelming majority of people. Of that there is no doubt.

[Nootropic Cat]

I voted option 3: highly likely to make it, though 'highly' might be overstating the case. I really like the fact that the chances for biological immortality, uploading/cyborgism and cryonics are mostly non-overlapping and therefore additive. I'd probably give a minimum of 10% to each being really conservative but honestly I think it's a lot higher: at least 25% for cryonics alone. Plus I have a Messianic complex.

In all seriousness though, it's hard not to feel that it's somehow 'meant to be' that we are alive at this particular moment in history when we're right on the cusp of revolutionary breakthroughs in the paradigm of human life(span). Frankly it's just pragmatic to feel that way because the alternative is the ultimate horror of knowing that one was born just too soon. Late enough to know what was coming, but too early to reap the benefits. Kinda hard to find any meaning or purpose in life thinking that.

I do think we've got some tricky hurdles to navigate environmentally and socio-politically though. If scientific progress gets halted or reversed then we're in trouble.

[vog]

I voted option 3: highly likely to make it, though 'highly' might be overstating the case. I really like the fact that the chances for biological immortality, uploading/cyborgism and cryonics are mostly non-overlapping and therefore additive. I'd probably give a minimum of 10% to each being really conservative but honestly I think it's a lot higher: at least 25% for cryonics alone. Plus I have a Messianic complex.

In all seriousness though, it's hard not to feel that it's somehow 'meant to be' that we are alive at this particular moment in history when we're right on the cusp of revolutionary breakthroughs in the paradigm of human life(span). Frankly it's just pragmatic to feel that way because the alternative is the ultimate horror of knowing that one was born just too soon. Late enough to know what was coming, but too early to reap the benefits. Kinda hard to find any meaning or purpose in life thinking that.

I do think we've got some tricky hurdles to navigate environmentally and socio-politically though. If scientific progress gets halted or reversed then we're in trouble.

Excellent positing. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. This paragraph:?In all seriousness though, it's hard not to feel that it's somehow 'meant to be' that we are alive at this particular moment in history when we're right on the cusp of revolutionary breakthroughs in the paradigm of human life(span). Frankly it's just pragmatic to feel that way because the alternative is the ultimate horror of knowing that one was born just too soon. Late enough to know what was coming, but too early to reap the benefits. Kinda hard to find any meaning or purpose in life thinking that." really says a lot. I only hope we were not born too soon!

[DairyProducts]

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

As much as I would like to believe that a lot of this transhumanist and immortality stuff is possible, I have a feeling that running out of oil/environmental disasters are going to put a wrench in all of that. I really hope I'm wrong. At least this site can teach me how to live well until impending doom.

[Berserker]

I voted for "I will probably not make it, neither with new treatments nor with cryonics. But i think my children/grandchildren will."

I dont think i will make it, and i just 19 years old, however maye my granchildern will have an option, as they will live probably to the 2150s...

[FatalDesire]

It's not that I will make it, it's that I have too. I don't see any point living for a 100 years, studying, working, retire and just wait for your time bomb to explode. It's just like all that hard work and intellect gathered will just end one day. Even worse is that a huge majority of the current population is currently so horribly useless, it's just like once you're born, you're just waiting to die. I rather die by a faulty experiment than go through the natural process, seriously.

[chuckb]

Why don't you believe in cryonics?

Whoever you asked that of doesn't matter. People need to understand:

It isn't a question of belief. Belief is a personal conviction that does not need evidence.
Yet the evidence for cryonics being a viable working technology in the short term future is very clear.

There was loads of evidence that a supersonic passenger plane was viable - that's why they built the concorde.
= Science.

There is loads of evidence that aging will be defeated through life extension and/or cryonics.

There is no question of belief. There is only an estimate of time, linked with the interfering factors: politics/global disaster, both affected to whatever degree by religious-based 'decisions'.
If freedom is protected and restrictions are not imposed upon research (like a religious president did) then we will have it sooner.

The sooner the better. I'm not getting any younger. Yet.
Dammit.

Edited by chuckb, 22 March 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[CerebralCortex]

option3

I won't be probably immortal and i don't wish but i think i will definitly extend my life of 20-30 years....
-The food is changed to be use for cure (alicament in french).
-In medecin we have done a lot the past years and researchers are constently improving our health.

The thing is we musn't expect a same quility of life:
-enviromental disaster: global warming, no more forests, no more fresh water, extinction of species,...
-lake of moral and value: family, solidarity, honesty, work,... and individualism, uniformity,...
-changes in diet because of the enviromantal problem
-loss of our tradition and identity... the Unecso talk about dozen of dilects extinguished every year.

The same shok if you were born in 1914 and you are still living now.
Our grand parents are the best exemple of how we will have to accent changes.

If you expect to live the same quality of life in 100 years, you are wrong and extension of lifespan or immortality is not for you.

No offense .fonclea. but you're view is quite myopic. You're making the classic mistake of thinking that alongside exponential growth in longevity therapies (Methuselarity) that the current problems we experience are going to be exacerbated with time and not at all mitigated by increasing technological development (Singularity). That's naïve!

Personally I think I will make it without cryonics excluding other risks like accidents.

[brokenportal]

It doesnt work to think that it happen in 20 years, or 40 years, or 150 years or something like that. It happens in direct proportion to the collective speed that the world goes to make it happen. If we polled the world right now we would probably find something like .002% of people know about this cause, and maybe 15% of people that would say they think it might be possible to stay healthy and live indefinitely in our physical form. That leaves a lot of world to be getting through to. Thats a lot of support (percentage-wise) yet to get behind this cause. When we do then the speed picks up dramatically. Thats what we need to focus on, getting through to the world, not finding the best and most comforting prediction that will just change with the amount of world support we get anyways.



Here is one topic that talks about this a little bit.

[BrandonKing]

I will definitely make it. In a few decades, treatments needed to extend my lifespan dramatically will show up.

i chose that because unless i die in some freak accident(really hoping i dont) i still have another 70-80 years left before i die of old age and since we know the problem its only a matter of time(im guessing a few decades) until we find a solution

[Antonio2014]

I think cryonics is mature enough now, so I voted for the first option. Also, I think we will achieve escape velocity in this century, probably before 2050. Also, I can't imagine any mankind-killing disaster that can happen any time soon. The human race is pretty good at surviving.

Edited by Antonio2014, 23 March 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[corkobo]

I probably won't make it but my children will.

 

I expect I'll live another 20 years or so and I don't think by then bio-medical advances will be good enough, or at least not good enough for old people. 

[Droplet]

I probably won't make it but my children will.

 

I expect I'll live another 20 years or so and I don't think by then bio-medical advances will be good enough, or at least not good enough for old people. 

There are ways that you can make it more likely that you will make it. Firstly, there's looking after your own health and secondly, there's helping to further the cause of life extension by helping organisations such as Longecity.

[JamesX]

Hi

 

Well I'm all ready to go, I have all the medical gear to perform a proof of concept blood plasma transfusion over a 1 month period from young person to older recipient which I believe will reset DNA Gene expression to that of a youthful state and hence revert the older recipient to a youthful state again.

 

The only missing link is finding a young donor, it seems I have no end of older recipients wanting to join and have started a separate post about this subject which is very informative, but young people just aren't interested or can't grasp the concept; I was actually very shocked after spending many months of research and spending thousands on medical supplies and equipment thinking this would be quite an easy trial as its basically just plasma transfusion which is done all the time... only to be thwarted at the last moment by the fact that young people just don't get it when I discuss the project.

 

I think medical students and intellectuals would grasp this and it would be a no brainer, but wow yeah I am shocked at how hard it is to get a young donor on board... I think for older recipients the attraction is of course to be young again and have a method going forward of being able to always revert ones age to a younger state when the time comes round again... but for younger plasma donors with lack of life experiences and knowledge the only attraction would perhaps be money.

 

I'm 41 years old and look great and very fit but am aware that old age is approaching so have this proof of concept trial plan, but to be honest even though I'm quite the intellectual type I'm not sure how I would have reacted to someone approaching me when I was young for such a trial, maybe I would have thought it would be great to prove it works so I don't get old but I think at that point in my life I would have been attracted by money as I was working very hard when younger.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

James...

[Astreon]

I voted for the 1st option: I will definitely make it. In a few decades, treatments needed to extend my lifespan dramatically will show up.

 

I like Ray Kurzweil's concept of bridges:

 

http://link.springer...90-481-3999-6_1

 

The Future of Aging
pp 3-22
Date: 25 May 2010
Bridges to Life
Ray Kurzweil , Terry Grossman

Abstract

The future of aging and human life extension begins today, using presently available tools, but will be increasingly shaped and accelerated by ongoing breakthroughs in biotechnology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence in the years ahead. These developing technologies should allow many to journey over what can be seen as three bridges to ever-improving life and health expectancy, such that some who survive as a result of “bridge one” may be able to benefit from “bridge two” and even from “bridge three.” We begin our perspective on the future of aging with a brief overview of a sampling of present approaches to life extension (“bridge one”) and then explain why biotechnology (“bridge two”) and nanotechnology plus artificial intelligence (“bridge three”) might allow many of us to benefit from remarkably extended lifespans in the future.

 

Edited by Astreon, 07 January 2017 - 12:32 AM.

[ceridwen]

No

[Tony Rantala]

I'd be positively suprised if there were two billion people alive by the end of the century. The world is not a march of progress from 'bad things' to 'good things'. We have destroyed the primary resources that allow our societies to exist, and this will cause the destruction of the world system and plunge us into a dark age. Interesting times ahead.

[Granite Ghouls]

I want to live long but I feel I cannot make it further to 80'ish... Still hoping to see my grand grand children 

[mcmp]

At 57 I think I don't stand a chance, not only of not reaching eternity but also of benefiting of any life extension therapies that will be discovered in the future. I personally think we're very far from that stage yet and I don't think anything significant will be discovered in the next 15, 20 years, which is all I got.

 

Maria

[Fafa]

David Sinclair has recently asserted that genetic research within his own lab is already only a couple of years away --at most-- from a complete understanding of the process of "aging," though I don't believe that this represents the whole story.

 

My personal experience supports the proposition that the deterioration of cellular communications is initiated at the molecular level with the incursion of nanobacteria, both internally and externally to cellular structure. And this sets in motion an entropic feedback loop of accumulative cellular inefficiencies. Now having said that, I also believe that DNA is implicitly equipped with the means to deal with the resulting imbalances, implying that, strictly speaking, relative physical immortality is humanity's birthright. 

 

However, this potential is inoperable unless there is sufficient energy flow, because in the final analysis, it's really all about physics. This is why the entire body would experience the simultaneous death of every single cell if the mitochondrial production of ATP were to suddenly stop; and this is why NMN should be central to anyone's diet, because it's all about electron transport at the cellular level. And you know what? As a species, we already fully understand the physics of electromagnetic interactions and wireless energy transfer... 

 

This is why I chose option #1. I think that a convergent understanding is about to precipitate a longevity revolution in the very near future. 

 

 

 

 

[Olivia Fair]

At the moment, cryonics is basically just a fancy way to kill yourself. Current procedures destroy the body on a subcellular level. Which means that all that makes you you, the structure of your neural pathways, has been lost. You can't reconstruct the information lost from that.

 

This means it's highly unlikely that any current subjects could be revived regardless of future advancements, so until the technology improves the risk seems pretty high compared to the likelihood of no reward.