148 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

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

That is where we are different on opinions. Why do you think that we are on a mission right now to find other inhabitable planets when none of them would be nearly as convenient nor beautiful as Earth?

Edited by luv2increase, 18 December 2007 - 05:00 AM.

[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

That is where we are different on opinions. Why do you think that we are on a mission right now to find other inhabitable planets when none of them would be nearly as convenient nor beautiful as Earth?

I don't think that we are in a mission right now to find another planet to habitate. Actually, i said the exact opposite. I said that we have more important worries now other than how to handle a possible death of the sun. Worries such as ending poverty, achieving extreme LE, creating friendly AI, creating effective, non deadly nanorobots, and on and on... After we achieve what i just said, we won't need to worry about a possible extinction in a few billions of years since that will be a piece of cake to handle, if we don't destroy ourselves until then.

[luv2increase]

I don't think that we are in a mission right now to find another planet to habitate. Actually, i said the exact opposite.

You don't say??

[Luna]

By the next 100-200 years (if not alot less) we'll have unlimited (and I mean infinite) energy source which by that we won't have to worry about our sun "running out" or finding earth-like planets.

We'll just create them if we want to.

[william7]

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

Welcome to the Jungle!

Dig Slash killin em on lead guitar!

It's my hope to see the spiritual and technological revolution that will grant man the opportunity to live indefinitely. A whole lot of work needs to be done to put things in place to achieve such a lofty goal. This miserable world will need to be brought to its knees and completely change its way of thinking and doing things that's for sure. Christian communism is the only way to bring about the fundamental changes needed in my opinion.

[luv2increase]

By the next 100-200 years (if not alot less) we'll have unlimited (and I mean infinite) energy source which by that we won't have to worry about our sun "running out" or finding earth-like planets.

We'll just create them if we want to.

Oh my... Without the sun, it would be absolutely impossible to survive. I knew you didn't know much about physics and the like. I bet you could turn what you said into a purely science fiction book and/or movie

Edited by luv2increase, 23 December 2007 - 12:33 AM.

[forever freedom]

By the next 100-200 years (if not alot less) we'll have unlimited (and I mean infinite) energy source which by that we won't have to worry about our sun "running out" or finding earth-like planets.

We'll just create them if we want to.

Oh my... Without the sun, it would be absolutely impossible to survive. I knew you didn't know much about physics and the like. I bet you could turn what you said into a purely science fiction book and/or movie

I think that Winterbreeze is actually right, and you're underestimating our future technology, luv2increase. If we do achieve a positive singularity (one where we don't wipe ourselves out of existence), we will be able to do things unimaginable to our minds today. What would stop us from creating a sun? Or manipulating matter in a way where we can get energy out of it directly, without needing to create a sun first? There are countless possibilities, we don't necessarily need the sun once we get to a certain technological level (which may indeed take more than 100-200 years, but we will get there if, as i said, we don't destroy ourselves first).


I admit that i do not know much about physics either, but i don't think that this should impair me of doing any relevant prediction of what we're going to be able to do in the future.

[luv2increase]

I admit that i do not know much about physics either, but i don't think that this should impair me of doing any relevant prediction of what we're going to be able to do in the future.

I can see why you agree with winterbreeze. We can't live without the sun, end of story. Sure, maybe somewhere in outer space, but not here on this planet without a sun.

[forever freedom]

I admit that i do not know much about physics either, but i don't think that this should impair me of doing any relevant prediction of what we're going to be able to do in the future.

I can see why you agree with winterbreeze. We can't live without the sun, end of story. Sure, maybe somewhere in outer space, but not here on this planet without a sun.

Alright mr. know-it-all. I want to do a sincere question here, based on my ignorance on physics. Let's consider a super civilization, far beyong ours, technologically speaking. Isn't it possible for this civilization to use an "X" amount of energy to create an "Y" amount of energy, being Y>X, by using many different elements. An example could be taking energy out of the earth (not planet earth, the earth, literally speaking) or from rocks, or from gas; things that exist even in "dead" planets (where it isn't possible to live in with our current technology).

Don't forget to consider the technology that's far beyond our current imagination.

Edited by sam988, 23 December 2007 - 03:13 AM.

[luv2increase]

I admit that i do not know much about physics either, but i don't think that this should impair me of doing any relevant prediction of what we're going to be able to do in the future.

I can see why you agree with winterbreeze. We can't live without the sun, end of story. Sure, maybe somewhere in outer space, but not here on this planet without a sun.

Alright mr. know-it-all. I want to do a sincere question here, based on my ignorance on physics. Let's consider a super civilization, far beyong ours, technologically speaking. Isn't it possible for this civilization to use an "X" amount of energy to create an "Y" amount of energy, being Y>X, by using many different elements. An example could be taking energy out of the earth (not planet earth, the earth, literally speaking) or from rocks, or from gas; things that exist even in "dead" planets (where it isn't possible to live in with our current technology).

Don't forget to consider the technology that's far beyond our current imagination.

Are you saying that the technology will be good enough to create a sun?

[forever freedom]

I admit that i do not know much about physics either, but i don't think that this should impair me of doing any relevant prediction of what we're going to be able to do in the future.

I can see why you agree with winterbreeze. We can't live without the sun, end of story. Sure, maybe somewhere in outer space, but not here on this planet without a sun.

Alright mr. know-it-all. I want to do a sincere question here, based on my ignorance on physics. Let's consider a super civilization, far beyong ours, technologically speaking. Isn't it possible for this civilization to use an "X" amount of energy to create an "Y" amount of energy, being Y>X, by using many different elements. An example could be taking energy out of the earth (not planet earth, the earth, literally speaking) or from rocks, or from gas; things that exist even in "dead" planets (where it isn't possible to live in with our current technology).

Don't forget to consider the technology that's far beyond our current imagination.

Are you saying that the technology will be good enough to create a sun?

Yes. Definitely.

Edited by sam988, 23 December 2007 - 05:45 AM.

[bacopa]

"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."

[REGIMEN]

"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.

Dr. Micro Economics: You can't boil LE treatment down to simply being a Product in a Market; it alters too much.

There, too, would be a violent polarization of inter-class attitudes because those that could afford it will literally move mountains, among other things, to insure with all certainty that some lollygagging monkey doesn't amble into their meatspace trajectory and accidentally(or intentionally) harm or kill them. "What if I lose my arm? Or get a scar? Must encase 'those against me' far away to keep me pristine 'til the end of time."
So you better be ready with that half a Bil' of liquid assets when the gun goes off or it will be pointed right at you. That or it'll pop up in the news, the process bought by a corporation or (group of) individual(s), and then pop up in the news again as a failure never to be heard of again.

Not everything is for sale to anyone with money, either. Intentions and connections will be further hurdles and cataracts for anyone capable of merely paying.

[JonesGuy]

Are you saying that the technology will be good enough to create a sun?

I figure that we'll actually be (eventually) dissassembling the sun in order to stop it from burning hydrogen so wastefully. We'll fuse the energy we need when we need it.

Currently we're using a forest fire to keep our cottage warm. If we get the right tech, we'd snuff out the forest fire and use our fireplace to keep us warm

[sUper GeNius]

Do I think I will make it? Not in this life... =

[Alien65]

I expect to live long enough to see "the end of the world as we know it". My guess is that 50 years from now there will be pockets of humans who have survived the pending ecological disasters and nuclear war. Hopefully, someone somewhere has the foresight and resources to safely protect our positive knowledge and technology. Otherwise, man starts all over again.

[Luna]

By the next 100-200 years (if not alot less) we'll have unlimited (and I mean infinite) energy source which by that we won't have to worry about our sun "running out" or finding earth-like planets.

We'll just create them if we want to.

Oh my... Without the sun, it would be absolutely impossible to survive. I knew you didn't know much about physics and the like. I bet you could turn what you said into a purely science fiction book and/or movie

I admit I have no degree in physics, but your attempt of being all-knowing is quite rude.
What does the usn do that let lifeforms live? it emits energy, that's all.
If you can replace the usn with another energy source, you don't need the usn.
All you need is a stable energy source, it dosen't have to be round and yellow in the top of the sky.

[Cyberbrain]

Winterbreeze does make a point, we don't actually need the sun if we can hypothetically sustain a stable energy source.

On the other hand, we could construct Dyson Spheres in order to utilize the power of the sun to its fullest.

But overall, we have billions of years before the sun goes supernova ... and frankly, a billion years is a VERY long time.

Within a billion years, not only would we have achieved immortality and the singularity, but we would have also colonized the entire galaxy and would be well on our way to a type III or IV civilization.

[forever freedom]

Within a billion years, not only would we have achieved immortality and the singularity, but we would have also colonized the entire galaxy and would be well on our way to a type III or IV civilization.

I think that within a billion of years, we will already be a post type IV civilization... according to lost of specialists, in 100 years at most we will become a type 1 civilization, able to manipulate everything on earth. Once we get there or maybe even sooner, we will advance technologically in amazing rates, making our civlization get to these type II, III, and IV levels much sooner than a lot of people would expect. Although i don't think it will be so fast as Kurzweil would predict.

[Kallazze]

Yeah, Baby! Let's do this! Get happy and research living forever, or at least indefinately! I think I'll make it!

[Ethan]

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.

I find it astonishing that a person who took such great offence at, apparently, being patronized by another memember for tacking on "isn't it" to the end of a relatively innocuous sentence would make such lordly and holier-than-thou comments such as these, aimed at nearly everybody on this board.

To speak to your analogy, I date a model. I also come from a part of the world you would probably refer to as a "farm hick drolling" area. How did I achieve this? Two words, optimism and persistence. I run a company. It is not large, but we are successful. I have surrounded myself with equally optimistic, opportunistic and persistent people and together we have achieved impressive things.

Life Extension will function in a similar manner. Those who believe they can help the cause can and very well may. Do I think I will make it? Probably not. But that is not what this is about for me. In the words of Dylan Thomas, "Do not go gently into the night." I, proudly, am never going to just "roll with it."

Lastly, your note to "Dr. Micro Economics" is paranoid. You seem to be suggesting that the super wealthy are going to be able to alter the nature of capitalism and democracy so that they are able to get exclusive rights to to the technologies that will emerge out of the U.S, China, Japan, India, Europe. Companies will make LE products, compete with each other and prices will come down. That is the history of capitalism. Your outlook looks like a failed James Bond screenplay. Democracy and the market should keep the evil nemisis SPECTRE from running our planet from their underwater headquarters.

[Benedictus]

Voted the first option. I will definitely make it, but in my opinion it had to be extended with "providing that natural, cosmic, or other disasters are entirely disregarded as an option".

The only true enemies of it all are cosmic, natural, nuclear or bio-chemical disasters of a mass-scale. If we are lucky enough to not experience those, and maintain some level of sustaining energy and resources, "in a few decades" is much too far away!
I predict cell-regeneration (regardless of what type) will revolutionize the world by 2014 already. We will see at atto level pretty soon. I think many underestimate the rate at which developments are accelerating.

http://www.ted.com/i...lks/view/id/227

[JohnDoe1234]

I voted "Highly likely" and "My best hope lies with cryonics"

So, my view is that if for some reason in the next 70 years I think I can live without radical extension technologies we don't see some radical advancement. I am fairly confident undergoing cryonic suspension would achieve my goals.

[Ben Simon]

I voted "Highly likely" and "My best hope lies with cryonics"

So, my view is that if for some reason in the next 70 years I think I can live without radical extension technologies we don't see some radical advancement. I am fairly confident undergoing cryonic suspension would achieve my goals.

Why the pessimism about life extension Joseph. Your towards the younger end of the scale!

Any specific reasons why you don't think it'll be ready in time?

[Ben Simon]

Wait. Sorry. Ignore me.

You said highly likely. I misread your post.

Edited by ben, 14 May 2008 - 07:57 AM.

[mike250]

I choose option 3.

[VictorBjoerk]

I choose option 3 I think,the majority seems to think so. I don't know the age distribution here but most people here are quite young and could therefore be able to wait half a century or so.........

[HereInTheHole]

I picked: "I don't think there's much hope for me." Medical science is progressing faster and faster, but there still might be a long way to go. I'm being conservative because some problems, seemingly small at first, can take forever to solve.

That doesn't mean I'll just lie down and take it. I live like there's hope, but I believe like there's not. Being an atheist, death depresses the crap out of me. Damn it, though, if I won't give the bastard a struggle.

Edited by NarrativiumX, 06 August 2008 - 08:02 PM.

[AgeVivo]

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.)

[forever freedom]

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.)

Well the equivalent of your option #1 would be the polls option #3, only without the cryonics.

Unfortunately its hard to lay every single option each person may have.



By the way, why don't you believe in immortality and cryonics. Some religious belief? Just curious.