# Can Nanotech Cure Death?



## SG854 (May 2, 2018)

Lots of advancement in nanotechnology. There’s estimation that in the 2030’s all dieaseas, cancer, and obesity will be eliminated using nanobots.

And nanotech can even be used to cure aging and death.

Predictions by 2050 we can extend human life for another century. For us youngins this is within our life time. Maybe for some older people too. 

We could be the last generation to experience death or the first generation to become almost immortal. With only freak accidents and murder being able to kill us.

So do you guys think scientists can actually pull this off? 
How will this affect religious beliefs? People that believe in an after life? Or overpopulation? What are your thoughts about possibly being able to live longer?

Sources
Here, Here, and Here


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 2, 2018)

100 years isn't immortal


----------



## DBlaze (May 2, 2018)

Death and aging aren't diseases so it doesn't need curing.
To be honest, we shouldn't strive for immortality or extending mortality, because the wrong persons will get their hands on it.
It wouldn't help overpopulation either.

Other than that, it's impressive what scientists invent these days and i'm curious to see how it develops further


----------



## SG854 (May 2, 2018)

There is lots of funding to try to reverse the aging process. If they can stop aging and death then we can be very close to immortal. Living way past 100 maybe 200, 300+ yrs. I hope this tech can really do what scientist are saying it can do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DBlaze said:


> Death and aging aren't diseases so it doesn't need curing.
> To be honest, we shouldn't strive for immortality or extending mortality, because the wrong persons will get their hands on it.
> It wouldn't help overpopulation either.
> 
> Other than that, it's impressive what scientists invent these days and i'm curious to see how it develops further


Scientist are treating aging and death as a disease that needs to be cured.

Average life span of humans use to be in the 20’s. So our bodies never evolved to cope with aging past our late 20’s. That fact that we used science and tech to live up to our 70’s we are already extending human life.


----------



## Searinox (May 2, 2018)

The reversability of death is going to depend on the degree of data recovery possible from a dead brain. Even if you can reconstruct or replace neurons you might end up with individuals with partial or complete loss of memory, personality etc. otherwise even if you can fully restore a half-rotted corpse to full life it'll just not be "them" anymore. It's well within possibility but I don't know if nanotech will have biological application as early as 2050. It'll likely be getting its first PRACTICAL applications by then. What is likely is human lifespan extension by 10 maybe 20 years through other tech. When nanotech becomes biologically practical, maybe by the '70s or '80s, it'll for sure be a worldchanger eliminating almost all disease but I think life expansion will come primarily through gene therapy because it's easier to patch up what already works to improve it before integrating an entire secondary system built from scratch to coexist with our biology. By the way get ready to add lithium to your diet lol.


----------



## mikey420 (May 2, 2018)

I'd rather die....


----------



## kuwanger (May 2, 2018)

No.  We can't currently cure/vaccinate against the flu not because we can't build the proper molecule(s) but because we don't know what molecule(s) to build that will kill the flu and not kill you in the process.  Now, add in all diseases, long-term deformities, etc.  Even excluding accidents or new diseases that being to arise from longer lives, the challenge of trying to create technology that can sufficiently battle all diseases is really unrealistic.  We can't even make successful anti-virus software without false positives where the difficulty of catching, analyzing, and quarantining is near infinitely easier.

The most realistic path for immortality would be uploading our minds.  Of course, that would never be satisfactory because we'd never know if the results were truly successful and not merely seemingly successful--basically in analogy to the philosphical zombie--, it's not like that sort of answer is actually a particularly good one.  Nor does it resolve the long-term maintenance of those machines holding uploaded minds.  The journey, though, could be its own reward.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2018)

Nanotech of that order by 2030? Not seeing it. It is only a decade away and for it to happen there would have to be the materials, the power delivery, the computing and more all in place today for such a timeframe to occur. Outside shot for maybe 2060 from where I sit. Nanotech dressings, maybe things like stents for heart surgery, or indeed replacing it in many cases, maybe inbuilt nano clotting/tourniquet type things, possibly some eyes or frameworks, sure. The sci fi style swarm of mini general purpose robots that keep me in peak physical condition and borderline immortal... not so much.

There will be some serious advancements before then, most likely on the biological side of things (maybe generating non differentiated stem cells in adults, possibly some cryogenics, robotic replacements). Also outside chance someone does something really fun with biological causes of ageing like the telomeres or something.

My thoughts on living longer? All for it. Make it happen. Alas it is not my field so I shall have to content myself with building those that want that better machines to play with.

End goal for me would also be mind uploading. Possibly to then become a hive mind.

"religious beliefs"
Probably the usual
Few people declare it bad, possibly pointing to early things needing some refinement. It then becomes a point they are unwilling to shift on for some.
Most find it fine.
Some them claim to use them is the will of their divine beings.

I doubt there will be a truly considered opposition to such things from the religious zealots front. Basic economics would do them in, and if not then more targetted economics, some choice legal cases and some rifles will handle the rest.


----------



## Veho (May 2, 2018)

My money is on stem cells.


----------



## DinohScene (May 2, 2018)

I only ask for 3 simple things of this :c​


----------



## SG854 (May 2, 2018)

Searinox said:


> The reversability of death is going to depend on the degree of data recovery possible from a dead brain. Even if you can reconstruct or replace neurons you might end up with individuals with partial or complete loss of memory, personality etc. otherwise even if you can fully restore a half-rotted corpse to full life it'll just not be "them" anymore. It's well within possibility but I don't know if nanotech will have biological application as early as 2050. It'll likely be getting its first PRACTICAL applications by then. What is likely is human lifespan extension by 10 maybe 20 years through other tech. When nanotech becomes biologically practical, maybe by the '70s or '80s, it'll for sure be a worldchanger eliminating almost all disease but I think life expansion will come primarily through gene therapy because it's easier to patch up what already works to improve it before integrating an entire secondary system built from scratch to coexist with our biology. By the way get ready to add lithium to your diet lol.


Even if we can extend life for only 30-50 yrs past average life span that’s a lot of time for technology advancement. We can live long enough in the 70’s-80’s to see this technology really take off.



FAST6191 said:


> Nanotech of that order by 2030? Not seeing it. It is only a decade away and for it to happen there would have to be the materials, the power delivery, the computing and more all in place today for such a timeframe to occur. Outside shot for maybe 2060 from where I sit. Nanotech dressings, maybe things like stents for heart surgery, or indeed replacing it in many cases, maybe inbuilt nano clotting/tourniquet type things, possibly some eyes or frameworks, sure. The sci fi style swarm of mini general purpose robots that keep me in peak physical condition and borderline immortal... not so much.
> 
> There will be some serious advancements before then, most likely on the biological side of things (maybe generating non differentiated stem cells in adults, possibly some cryogenics, robotic replacements). Also outside chance someone does something really fun with biological causes of ageing like the telomeres or something.
> 
> ...


Moore’s law on computing. And the internet has made tech advancement a lot quicker. They can communicate discoveries a lot faster and work together miles away.

And Deep learning A.I. can speed this up even more. It can be used in the medical and science field to make discoveries much faster and diagnose problems better than even the smartest Phd’s. It’s already out competing them. Technology will advance even quicker now.

http://fortune.com/ai-artificial-intelligence-deep-machine-learning/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futuri...that-can-learn-almost-as-fast-as-a-human/amp/


----------



## Viri (May 2, 2018)

I wonder if people in the 50's said the same thing about the 80's, and if people in the 80's said the same about the 2000's?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Even if we can extend life for only 30-50 yrs past average life span that’s a lot of time for technology advancement. We can live long enough in the 70’s-80’s to see this technology really take off.
> 
> 
> Moore’s law on computing. And the internet has made tech advancement a lot quicker. They can communicate discoveries a lot faster and work together miles away.
> ...



I am familiar with all of those.

The internet however has been available to researchers for decades now. Good stuff indeed but not seeing the potential for a huge leap beyond what has already been seen.

Moore's law is arguably coming to an end and I was factoring for expected increases if I am going for the 2030 marker you set.

Deep learning and computational research may give us some nice new drugs, protein analysis, genetic tests and the like in that timeframe but not quite mysteries of the universe, or indeed biology, yet.


----------



## leon315 (May 2, 2018)

yeah sure extend human life for another 100y? that means total destruction and  death for this planet, after we consume like a filthy leecher all resources and consumables, we start the war against each other to reduce populations, the a new spice of intelligent monkey will rises, they will push repels against human and push us to extinction!

I call Dawn of planet of Apes.


----------



## Viri (May 2, 2018)

leon315 said:


> yeah sure extend human life for another 100y? that means total destruction and  death for this planet, after we consume like a filthy leecher all resources and consumables, we start the war against each other to reduce populations, the a new spice of intelligent monkey will rises, they will push repels against human and push us to extinction!
> 
> I call Dawn of planet of Apes.


Well, hopefully we'll solve our energy needs by then via nuclear, solar or some other form by then. As for water, maybe by then we'll find an efficient way of turning salt water into drinking water. As for food, well, GMOs are making a lot of progress.  I guess all we can hope for is China, India, and pretty much nearly all of Africa to stop making so many babies!


----------



## leon315 (May 2, 2018)

Viri said:


> via nuclear, solar


use nuclrear to resolve constant increasing energy demonding, u can't be serious
solar? unless you cover the whole earth with solar panels otherwise it won't produce enough for everyone.


Viri said:


> turning salt


we have already found the most efficient way to convert it: rain.


Viri said:


> GMOs


they will make you lose ur sexual functions and you will become steril, so they are absolutely forbidden.


Viri said:


> China, India, and pretty much nearly all of Africa to stop making so many babies!


China 's communist regime forcely apply the ''one only child law'', Indie dunno, Afrika will continue to fight each other and certainly dive to extinction soon and we won't find anymore afros except the UK/USA afros.

The only conclusion is states shall keep selling firearms so whites and afros can keep killing eachother, and it leads USA into whole another level of civil wars, finally earth's biggest cancer will cure itself 

a note for mods: term ''afro'' is politically correct; those are just theory from gamers, so we shall call it game-theory


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2018)

A combined nuclear and solar/renewables approach could do well. Nuclear is pretty safe and clean when all is said and done.

Even assuming this batch of GMOs did that (they don't) then surely the solution is more science.

Rain is far from the most efficient means of desalination if you want to account for amounts produced and able to be collected, never mind it getting to where it is needed.

Equally as life gets more expensive then fertility rates (as in number of children per woman) tend to drop, or if you prefer see most rich countries. No need to enact policies.


----------



## Veho (May 2, 2018)

leon315 said:


> Viri said:
> 
> 
> > GMOs
> ...


They increase crop yield / solve food shortages _and_ solve the overpopulation problem? Sounds like win-win to me.


----------



## leon315 (May 2, 2018)

Veho said:


> They increase crop yield / solve food shortages _and_ solve the overpopulation problem? Sounds like win-win to me.


NOPE, u will feel soft like a piece of pudding at THE moment


----------



## x65943 (May 2, 2018)

It's all conjecture. This is like the people who said we'd all be in flying cars by 2015. 

It's fun to talk about, but there's certainly no indication that tech that doesn't even exist yet/possibly never will exist can change the world/life/death so extensively.


----------



## Subtle Demise (May 2, 2018)

I'd like to extend my life this way, but I probably would die before I could afford it anyway lol


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> but I probably would die before I could afford it anyway lol


That is a fun thing to consider, especially as I doubt we will get a kind of post scarcity civilisation going on before then.

I don't know what form the tech will take either, and given the... damn near universal applicability of the resulting thing I don't know what there would be to gain by gating it via patents and like for only the rich -- 99% paying $2K gets you more than the 1% paying 20k. Similarly the incentive to do black market versions of it are insanely high as well -- if I will spend a few hundred hours now pulling a game apart you can bet I will take months off to crack the nanotech or help someone with the machinery if it is a biological approach. I can't imagine the resulting thing is going to be too terribly person specific, at least not with what could be done with contemporarily common equipment.
That is also to say nothing of other countries -- China already does a nice line in illicit drugs and do you really think they would not get in on this? Similarly if borders are largely porous as it is and that is for substances the general public has been conditioned to look down upon what hope have you here?
Clinical trials would also be hard -- if word leaks, and I can't really envisage it not leaking, then every spy on the planet is probably going to be mobilised for this one.
For said trials a favourite video contemplating things

basically just handwaves it and says similar things to compassionate grounds would probably be enacted for said trial period -- if 50 something million die per year ( http://www.ecology.com/birth-death-rates/ ) then for the 3-8 year trial you would arguably have a kind of body count that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napoleon and Idi Amin combined would have to pause and take note of.

We could go another way -- pregnancy + childbirth + at least a decade and often more like two of school and childcare is an incredibly expensive hobby. Volunteer for a vasectomy or equivalent and it becomes far cheaper sort of thing, push your retirement for longer and same. Most such treatments will also go some way to reversing the effects of ageing as well in the longer term, stemming in the shorted, and that is a hideous drain on healthcare, be it government funded or private. Anybody then doing a cursory balancing of books would push it like they push preventative medicine today -- if your decades experienced workforce has the general health of 20-40 year olds then you bet people would be clamouring to keep them (if replacement costs when considering efficiency losses in 2014 was estimated to be some £30k http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hr-news/recruitment/it-costs-over-30k-to-replace-a-staff-member/50677 then that is another pool that opens up).


----------



## SG854 (May 3, 2018)

China’s 1 child policy will now be worldwide but a no child policy instead. Illegal to have babies?



Veho said:


> They increase crop yield / solve food shortages _and_ solve the overpopulation problem? Sounds like win-win to me.


Vertical farming yo, no soil and 95% less water. 

Nanobots can also be used to clean polution in the ocean. And clean the smell from your farts.

I’m thinking about marriages. Till death do us part. Are people willing to marry knowing they will be with them forever? I guess they can always get divorce like everyone does. No one stays married for too long nowadays.

I can imagine some crazy religious nutcase going around killing people thinking they are sending them to heaven and saving them from their “mistake” of choosing to live forever. 

Well at least people can now fulfill the long 100+ yr prison sentences. 100+ yrs of guarding that booty.


----------



## SG854 (May 3, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'd like to extend my life this way, but I probably would die before I could afford it anyway lol


In the video I linked they talk about it being expensive and not work really good when it first comes out. Just like all technology in the past.

Like Cell phones were bulky, didn’t make calls very good, couldn’t do what smart phones do nowadays, and were a lot more expensive when they first came out. But they got cheaper and work a lot better. You can now get one for less then $100.

Same with nanotech. Only rich people will afford it when it comes out and not work very good, but it will get cheaper and better, and be as easy as going to your doctors and getting the Flu shot.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 3, 2018)

Yup, lets all live forever! There's already far too many people on the planet to start with, now lets stop them from dying. Longer life will only lead to even wider spread poverty and poorer living conditions.


----------



## Searinox (May 3, 2018)

spinal_cord said:


> Yup, lets all live forever! There's already far too many people on the planet to start with, now lets stop them from dying. Longer life will only lead to even wider spread poverty and poorer living conditions.


Eventually someone will come along and wipe out the universe's population with the snap of the fingers.


----------



## Edgarska (May 3, 2018)

Can it? No
Could it? Maybe.
Will it? Probably not.


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2018)

I'm reminded of the immortal jellyfish.

Some significant life extensions might happen in the future. Less sure about forever tho. 


Veho said:


> My money is on stem cells.


Why not both?



spinal_cord said:


> Yup, lets all live forever! There's already far too many people on the planet to start with, now lets stop them from dying. Longer life will only lead to even wider spread poverty and poorer living conditions.


Well, even if this did happened "soon", you and everyone else wouldn't be forced to take it. Honestly, probably couldn't. At least not for now. I'm sure people in the future would just be given life extensions, if not already there, after birth.

As for overpopulation, things such as artificial islands and space colonization will also increasingly become a thing in the future. I'm pretty sure well off people are waiting longer to have kids, if any, anyway.


----------



## linuxares (May 3, 2018)

I mean, in theory it's totally possible. Since one of the most common reason why we pass is a organ failure. If nanotech/nanorobots can repair us faster than we break. We should be able to have a prolong life.

Death is according to me a disease that can be cured/prolonged. I for one would like to live forever since I want to see how far Humanity can go.


----------



## CancerKiller (May 3, 2018)

Relax! - Nanotech cannot make us Immortal, but I can - We Human can become Immortal in less than a month and live for thousands of years - I got the Key to Immortality - Staying Absolutely Healthy All The Time, for Infinite Health = Immortality (8,500 years guaranteed) - Everybody can become Immune To Any Diseases - By doing my Discovery (just an exercise for a minute a day), that cures and prevents any Diseases, known on Earth, even Aging and Radiation Disease, for every cell of our bodies is shielded 100% from any external/internal (genetic) detrimental impact - I will describe my Discovery to everyone, who sends me an E-check for one million US Dollars (money can be negotiated) - In less than a month everybody will become Infinitely Healthy, Radiation-Proof and Immortal - Like the Gods who created us humans.


----------



## Arcanuskun (May 3, 2018)

Humans shouldn't live for a long periods of time as this will create scarcity for natural resources. Look what overpopulation has done in the last century. Climate change, etc. What we really need is a culling. Though technological advancement is great as we are progressing with science but (near) immortality had little to no benefits to the future. It can only cause wars, famine, etc.


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2018)

No, thanks. I need to die. Dying is a very relevant part of life.


----------



## cherryduck (May 3, 2018)

My family has a genetic heart condition so I'm hoping to live long enough to see a cure.

In terms of mind uploading as some have mentioned, you realise the uploaded mind would be a copy? The current you, reading this, will have their subjective experience end if the body dies so it doesn't really count as immortality to me, it just means there would be a digital copy of me out there.

Of course if we do manage to prolong life or even "cure" death, overpopulation is going to get even worse which will lead to wars over dwindling resources and potentially a mass extinction event if we fuck the environment up enough. We'll need to populate other planets if humanity is to continue and you can bet we'll bring all our prejudices and conflicts with us.


----------



## linuxares (May 3, 2018)

Arcanuskun said:


> Humans shouldn't live for a long periods of time as this will create scarcity for natural resources. Look what overpopulation has done in the last century. Climate change, etc. What we really need is a culling. Though technological advancement is great as we are progressing with science but (near) immortality had little to no benefits to the future. It can only cause wars, famine, etc.


That's why we should colonize the solarsystem!


----------



## sarkwalvein (May 3, 2018)

cherryduck said:


> In terms of mind uploading as some have mentioned, you realise the uploaded mind would be a copy? The current you, reading this, will have their subjective experience end if the body dies so it doesn't really count as immortality to me, it just means there would be a digital copy of me out there.


That would rise a question about "what are you"?
What is the thing about you that makes you you?
Are you the same person from say 1 hour ago?
Or are you now a modified copy of that one?
What are you really? Just a complicated piece of software running in a complex biological computer, a software complex enough to gain some degree of self awareness, and a feel for information that we call consciousness, but just software anyway. What makes you say that this self-modifying software (as in synapse strength and connection reprogramming) isn't just a copy of the version in the past, slightly modified? Is that still you?


----------



## SG854 (May 3, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm reminded of the immortal jellyfish.
> 
> Some significant life extensions might happen in the future. Less sure about forever tho.
> 
> ...



Or some type of Atlantis city. I’m sure we can invent tech for that. If we can reach to type 1 civilization and have control of all of our planets recources and control weather than better. Increase survivability.

I’m sure they’ll be barriers prolonging nanotech. Religious people. Having to get approved by the FDA for medical use which can take yrs. I can see this slowing down release.



spinal_cord said:


> Yup, lets all live forever! There's already far too many people on the planet to start with, now lets stop them from dying. Longer life will only lead to even wider spread poverty and poorer living conditions.



Vertical farming can help with the food problem.



x65943 said:


> It's all conjecture. This is like the people who said we'd all be in flying cars by 2015.
> 
> It's fun to talk about, but there's certainly no indication that tech that doesn't even exist yet/possibly never will exist can change the world/life/death so extensively.


It’s not, This technology already does exists. And they are already testing it on cancer to see if it’ll be safe on humans. Curing cancer can extend many people’s lives.

https://www.nih.gov/research-traini...e-early-detection-treatment-colorectal-cancer


----------



## cherryduck (May 3, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> That would rise a question about "what are you"?
> What is the thing about you that makes you you?
> Are you the same person from say 1 hour ago?
> Or are you now a modified copy of that one?
> What are you really? Just a complicated piece of software running in a complex biological computer, a software complex enough to gain some degree of self awareness, and a feel for information that we call consciousness, but just software anyway. What makes you say that this self-modifying software (as in synapse strength and connection reprogramming) isn't just a copy of the version in the past, slightly modified? Is that still you?



There are some interesting philosophical questions about what makes me, me, sure. But my experience of say a destructive mind uploading would be, from the point of view of the entity typing this out, that I go in for the mind upload and then...nothing. End credits. There would then be a copy of me which would pick up where this version of me left off, and that copy would have all my memories and experiences. It's subjective experience would be of having lived my life and then gone in for the mind upload and now being "in the cloud". But the bit that really matters to this version of me writing this sentence is that my experience would end, and I would be dead.


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2018)

cherryduck said:


> In terms of mind uploading as some have mentioned, you realise the uploaded mind would be a copy? The current you, reading this, will have their subjective experience end if the body dies so it doesn't really count as immortality to me, it just means there would be a digital copy of me out there.


I mean, since we are talking about really far futurist stuff, actual uploading and not just making copies could very well be a thing.



cherryduck said:


> There are some interesting philosophical questions about what makes me, me, sure. But my experience of say a destructive mind uploading would be, from the point of view of the entity typing this out, that I go in for the mind upload and then...nothing. End credits. There would then be a copy of me which would pick up where this version of me left off, and that copy would have all my memories and experiences. It's subjective experience would be of having lived my life and then gone in for the mind upload and now being "in the cloud". But the bit that really matters to this version of me writing this sentence is that my experience would end, and I would be dead.


You are assuming there will be an "End credits" and not a continuous process.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 3, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Vertical farming can help with the food problem.



It's not just a food problem, we currently have plenty of food to go around, food is a political issue.
Overcrowding leads to reduced quality of every part of living, from job shortages to stupidly small houses, not to mention traffic and parking etc. There simply isn't the space on the planet to put everyone without completely destroying our vital natural resources.


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2018)

spinal_cord said:


> It's not just a food problem, we currently have plenty of food to go around, food is a political issue.
> Overcrowding leads to reduced quality of every part of living, from job shortages to stupidly small houses, not to mention traffic and parking etc. There simply isn't the space on the planet to put everyone without completely destroying our vital natural resources.


Forgot to mention. As for job shortages, as more jobs become autonomous, would be less need for people to work anyway.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 3, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Forgot to mention. As for job shortages, as more jobs become autonomous, would be less need for people to work anyway.



And where would people get money from in an increasingly capitalist world? where people currently do not get pay raises in line with inflation and can afford less and less with each passing year. Social funding is of less and less help as it is becoming more and more expensive to run countries, less of the tax money goes back to things like state pensions and medical. So once people get too old to work, they can not rely on their current social tax system to support them.


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2018)

spinal_cord said:


> And where would people get money from in an increasingly capitalist world? where people currently do not get pay raises in line with inflation and can afford less and less with each passing year. Social funding is of less and less help as it is becoming more and more expensive to run countries, less of the tax money goes back to things like state pensions and medical. So once people get too old to work, they can not rely on their current social tax system to support them.


Universal basic income is already being talked about. Probably mostly funded by the people who are benefiting the most from automation.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 3, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Universal basic income is already being talked about. Probably mostly funded by the people who are benefiting the most from automation.



I really can't see big business paying people to not work out of the profits they are making by not employing those same people.
Also, if profits are going to support people who aren't working, where does the new money come into the system from?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2018)

"where does the new money come into the system from?"
Probably the same place it does now
Some might say other countries (remittances and service based economies use that model for their local areas) but that is a bit small scale for this.
To that end pulling things out the ground (though maybe space in the future too) and using land that was not used before (and anything that was on that land before).

No doubt it will be a shift in economics and the philosophy thereof that will make the industrial revolution look like last Tuesday on the market (which is to say nothing of great interest at all). Depending upon what goes we are already seeing the start of something like it -- many tech companies today seem to be employing proportionally few people compared to even the factories or farms of old.
"Apple/Number of employees
123,000
2017
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+total+employees&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
People also search for
Google
73,992
Amazon.com
566,000
Microsoft Corporation
124,000"

How many billions do they all control as a relative percentage of the world's net worth? Apple then have a revenue of just north of 200 billion, US GDP is only 18.6 trillion ( https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US )
A Victorian factory owner, or even Rockerfeller would have killed for that kind of efficiency


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2018)

Amazon Go is just one example of where things are going. 


spinal_cord said:


> I really can't see big business paying people to not work out of the profits they are making by not employing those same people.
> Also, if profits are going to support people who aren't working, where does the new money come into the system from?


If they keep using humans for jobs, then they lose out on the efficiency of autonomous work other companies will be doing. If more companies are going for autonomous work, then they need away for everyone to be able to buy things. 

Not all their profits will go to the UBI. Some will go to the companies and some will go to the UBI. People buying things in general, will keep the money flowing.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2018)

I'm sure we'll find some way of keeping our DNA/cells young in the future, but I'm not sure I want to stick around for the fighting over increasingly limited resources.


----------



## dAVID_ (May 4, 2018)

We'll be immortal, which means that we can upload our mind and mine BitCoin without worrying about dying!


----------



## Taleweaver (May 4, 2018)

I'll go with "I hope it won't happen, but I fear it might".

Let's start with the latter: I follow enough of technology to realize that the potential is certainly there. To stop _aging_, that is. That's a natural process, and I don't see why it can't be changed (I mean...rivers also have a natural process, but that doesn't mean we can't build dams).
"Cancer and diseases" are different, not only because there's a wide variety of them but also because they change. When antibiotics were new, it cured pretty much anything. The problem is in that "pretty much": that meant that the surviving viruses and bacteria's had a better chance of growing (and evolving in the process). My prediction is that every _current_ disease will be curable, but that that very same process will generate more diseases in the long run. The way the pharmaceutical industry works, that certainly won't change (as long as there's no money in preventing new diseases from popping up, they won't research much in that field).
Obesity is...well...stupid. Yes, there are people who get fat by a biological error (it's "schildklier" in Dutch, but I'm not sure if the translate "thyroid gland" means the same), but the far majority is just obese because they eat the wrong stuff. Besides...it doesn't take nanobots to fix obesity: there are operations that do that already. And even that is for people who lack the discipline to look into what they're actually eating.

But let's leave all that aside and assume it delivers all that's promised. It would be an absolute nightmare. Why? Because our society isn't equal. The "we can extend life" isn't going to be a "we". It's going to be overly paid (and highly advanced) scientists that help out the ones who can afford it.
Who will be the first ones to both try and benefit from it? The 0.1% richest of richest (yes, the 1% has a lot of power, but even within that group, wealth isn't  even slightly equal). We already see that group having an extended power because when they gain power, they gain it for longer than in the past because with power comes money, and with that comes the means to afford the best doctors to prolong that life and/or to look good at it (I hope nobody is stupid enough to think Trump is actually blond at his age). Infinitely prolonged life* will just increase the stranglehold that group has over the rest of the world. For starters, they'll be the ones making sure that this technology remains unaffordable to anyone, even if the ACTUAL cost to produce these things is next to nothing.

And believe it or not, it'll be even worse if it does become available for larger groups. Overpopulation is already an issue, and it'll quickly lead to critical heights if people died less often. With the richest group being able to protect themselves, this'll ultimately lead to provoked or even encouraged violence among the "poor" (meaning: everyone unable to afford nanobots).

There'll be another doom scenario on the ecological field, but the average temper shouldn't be worried about that: by the time the "immortals" have found out that they've exhausted the world of its natural resources (and they wasted these mostly to keep the others at their position), we'll all be dead.





*let's be honest: it's not eternal life if any severe injury can kill you.


----------



## KingVamp (May 5, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Obesity is...well...stupid. Yes, there are people who get fat by a biological error (it's "schildklier" in Dutch, but I'm not sure if the translate "thyroid gland" means the same), but the far majority is just obese because they eat the wrong stuff. Besides...it doesn't take nanobots to fix obesity: there are operations that do that already. And even that is for people who lack the discipline to look into what they're actually eating.


Nanobots could prevent obesity in the first place. Meaning, eating the "wrong stuff" wouldn't matter. Although, food in general will probably be more healthier in the future.




Taleweaver said:


> But let's leave all that aside and assume it delivers all that's promised. It would be an absolute nightmare. Why? Because our society isn't equal. The "we can extend life" isn't going to be a "we". It's going to be overly paid (and highly advanced) scientists that help out the ones who can afford it.
> Who will be the first ones to both try and benefit from it? The 0.1% richest of richest (yes, the 1% has a lot of power, but even within that group, wealth isn't  even slightly equal). We already see that group having an extended power because when they gain power, they gain it for longer than in the past because with power comes money, and with that comes the means to afford the best doctors to prolong that life and/or to look good at it (I hope nobody is stupid enough to think Trump is actually blond at his age). Infinitely prolonged life* will just increase the stranglehold that group has over the rest of the world. For starters, they'll be the ones making sure that this technology remains unaffordable to anyone, even if the ACTUAL cost to produce these things is next to nothing.


Well, places (by places, I mean the world in general) already got systems in place, so that one person or group of people don't hold on to power "forever". Even if the systems aren't perfect. The younger generation will eventually overtake the older one, with or without these nanobots. Not ever society is built on specific people trying to screw the people under them. Also, while it would be unfortunate if it gets to that point, a item like this will probably just end up being a big target of being stolen, if kept from everyone for too long. I don't believe in the doomsday scenario of technology like this never reaching the masses.



Taleweaver said:


> And believe it or not, it'll be even worse if it does become available for larger groups. Overpopulation is already an issue, and it'll quickly lead to critical heights if people died less often. With the richest group being able to protect themselves, this'll ultimately lead to provoked or even encouraged violence among the "poor" (meaning: everyone unable to afford nanobots).
> 
> There'll be another doom scenario on the ecological field, but the average temper shouldn't be worried about that: by the time the "immortals" have found out that they've exhausted the world of its natural resources (and they wasted these mostly to keep the others at their position), we'll all be dead.
> 
> ...


If people lived longer, people will probably reproduce less often. Besides that, then it doesn't matter either way, if they can't solve overpopulation issue. This doomsday scenario will happen one way or another. So, why not let people enjoy living longer for the finite amount of time they have? Not as if the rich people are invincible, so they will eventually run out of resources too. If every basic need was fairly met for the "poor", I doubt most people would be fighting each other over nanobots or any thing really. The frustration would be targeted at the people who are purposely holding technology back. Not everyone wants to live longer anyway. If people basic needs wasn't met, nanobots would be the last thing that the people would be worrying about. 


The world is already moving towards renewable resources and clean energy. Also, space mining is already being looked into. 

Anyway, this doom scenario relies on humans running out of and the poor use of resources or room for people. In that case, it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not. If they do solve those issues,well, once again it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (May 5, 2018)

Death cannot be cured, because it isn't a disease. We can extend our life but this isn't the purpose of our existence: we don't live to live for long but to find a meaning of our life


----------



## Deleted User (May 5, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I'm sure we'll find some way of keeping our DNA/cells young in the future, but I'm not sure I want to stick around for the fighting over increasingly limited resources.


Hope we will find a way to travel dpace in a fast enough way that many colonists will be needed


----------



## Naderino (May 5, 2018)

If this was metal gear, then absolutely


----------



## Deleted User (May 5, 2018)

EmanueleBGN said:


> Death cannot be cured, because it isn't a disease. We can extend our life but this isn't the purpose of our existence: we don't live to live for long but to find a meaning of our life


Why, why are you telling me the purpose of my existance? I dont belive that whst you said is true. I think that longer life is good. I dont think you can just tell people the purpose of their lives...
We can all think about ''why we shouldnt do that'' but if you see that its already happening then theres no point to talk about that imo, its like talking about if we should make an AI while google and friends are making (or made) one already.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 5, 2018)

Even if it were to happen, regular people will never be allowed access to it.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 5, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Nanobots could prevent obesity in the first place. Meaning, eating the "wrong stuff" wouldn't matter. Although, food in general will probably be more healthier in the future.


They could, but I doubt people would do it. I don't know the English word for "maagverkleining", but it comes down to an operation that diminishes the stomach. It's already possible, so why don't we do that on our children? Answer: because we don't believe we should push these things on healthy beings in the first place. And by the time we're old enough to make these decisions ourselves, we postpone it until we're actually obese.

It's of course a matter of belief, but I think food won't be healthier in general. There's simply too much profit in selling food that makes us fat. I mean...the best things we could eat (fruit, vegetables, water) are around for millennia. Why isn't that our most common meal?



KingVamp said:


> Well, places (by places, I mean the world in general) already got systems in place, so that one person or group of people don't hold on to power "forever". Even if the systems aren't perfect. The younger generation will eventually overtake the older one, with or without these nanobots. Not ever society is built on specific people trying to screw the people under them. Also, while it would be unfortunate if it gets to that point, a item like this will probably just end up being a big target of being stolen, if kept from everyone for too long. I don't believe in the doomsday scenario of technology like this never reaching the masses.


Those systems exist in politics, and even there, they're mostly symbolic. In business, the main reasons the top management swaps places is because someone gets too old (again: a factor that is about to be taken out) or the company gets involved in a scandal. The latter will still happen, but even there, they are more likely to be overtaken by a company with experienced competitors than by young ones.



KingVamp said:


> If people lived longer, people will probably reproduce less often. Besides that, then it doesn't matter either way, if they can't solve overpopulation issue. This doomsday scenario will happen one way or another. So, why not let people enjoy living longer for the finite amount of time they have? Not as if the rich people are invincible, so they will eventually run out of resources too. If every basic need was fairly met for the "poor", I doubt most people would be fighting each other over nanobots or any thing really. The frustration would be targeted at the people who are purposely holding technology back. Not everyone wants to live longer anyway. If people basic needs wasn't met, nanobots would be the last thing that the people would be worrying about.


very good points. I admit I can't argue with that.




KingVamp said:


> The world is already moving towards renewable resources and clean energy. Also, space mining is already being looked into.
> 
> Anyway, this doom scenario relies on humans running out of and the poor use of resources or room for people. In that case, it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not. If they do solve those issues,well, once again it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not.


This is somewhat true as well. To my idea, the push to clean and renewable isn't going fast enough, but I admit I don't know enough on the matter. Up until recently, I would've thought moving into space was a pipe dream. But just yesterday I read that Bezos (the richest guy in the world) seriously wants to push this. And...well, if someone like that goes that direction, that certainly makes a difference.

So...let's hope so.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (May 5, 2018)

natanelho said:


> Why, why are you telling me the purpose of my existance? I dont belive that whst you said is true. I think that longer life is good. I dont think you can just tell people the purpose of their lives...
> We can all think about ''why we shouldnt do that'' but if you see that its already happening then theres no point to talk about that imo, its like talking about if we should make an AI while google and friends are making (or made) one already.


Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
Look how many old people have the _senile dementia_ 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.


----------



## Deleted User (May 5, 2018)

EmanueleBGN said:


> Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
> I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
> Look how many old people have the _senile dementia_ 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.


K, if thats what you think...
I make things because a. I enjoy it, b. I wanna know more and c. I wanna help humankind. I dont see death in this list. It might be subconscious but I dont see how it would change anything here. You say suicide. While I dont think its the right choice, when people say that suicide will rise when bio immortality will be introduced- I could say that it is an option for people who dont want to live longer and it can somewhat help with overpopulation. Suicide isnt the no.1 reason why ppl die, cancer is. If you say we should adress suicide I say we should adress cancer (or any other biological crap) first.

Edit (pressed submit by accident)-
Nihilism is a false philosophy- whats false about it? Does it have any inherent falsehoods? You cant just say that some school of thought is ''false''- nobody believes it because they are forced to, people find some of the core ideas to be true and continue to think like that later... you dont have to think like that but like anything in philosophy there's nothing wrong with it and some find it apealing because it represents what they think about life. Sorry for drifting far away from the main subject...

What you say sounds very religious to me. I myself am not religious because to me, a religion is just a bunch of people with some holy texts who try to give others a meaning for life, based on what they think to be true. Thats cool and all but even tho religious people might be happier (I think I read a study somewhere), not everybody who knows this fact is religious because for some living by the ideals that they dont agree with is worse then sadness. In other words, giving a false meaning to life (false here means something you dont agree with) is wrong, and wont help anybody.

About high quality etc- yes , money and power etc doesnt necessarily mean happiness, and while thats true, I think living in a non-poor society, where food isnt a problem, is better then the opposite.

About ''senile elders live longer then they should''- who said how long you should live? If its nature then you should die at an age below 50. Its the nature that gave people dementia. Nature makes some of us short- sighted, deaf etc. We can, and sometimes we do, fix those mistakes. We understand that tho nature gave this to us- we should not accept it as a present but fix it as a problem. We should fix dementia as it is a problem, not an indicator about how long we should or shouldnt live. Who cares about how long you ''should'' live. We should be the masters, nature done some great stuff but we shouldnt accept it's limitations.

The fact you live longer doesnt have to change your behaviour. You can live like a normal person until you're 40, 50 or 70 (as you wish, a good life, exactly like now) and when you ''become bio immortal'' then who cares what changes, everything from now on is just a bonus. If this sci fi future is so close, we *are* living a normal life rn, without knowing if we'll become immortals or not...

Then again, if you find this life to be too long or living too long to be wrong, you can always suicide after a certain age. Nothing will stop you from dying if.you really wish that. If there will be a pill you drink to become immortal and you dont take it when you are about to die then how different that is from committing a suicide after you take the pill?

Not gonna stop anybody from not tsking the pill- after all, when it will be avaliable, resources wont be so abundant...


----------



## KingVamp (May 5, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> They could, but I doubt people would do it. I don't know the English word for "maagverkleining", but it comes down to an operation that diminishes the stomach. It's already possible, so why don't we do that on our children? Answer: because we don't believe we should push these things on healthy beings in the first place. And by the time we're old enough to make these decisions ourselves, we postpone it until we're actually obese.


I believe that's bariatric surgery, which is used when stopping obesity is already too late. Apparently, bariatric surgeries are used on child. That said, I'm sure there will be people that wouldn't take nanobots, just like how everyone isn't taking vaccines. Doesn't mean no one will. 



Taleweaver said:


> It's of course a matter of belief, but I think food won't be healthier in general. There's simply too much profit in selling food that makes us fat. I mean...the best things we could eat (fruit, vegetables, water) are around for millennia. Why isn't that our most common meal?


Companies also make money off making people healthy too. That's why we have stuff like lab meat. If lab meat can taste as good, yet be healthier than regularly meat. People will eventually move to it. 



Taleweaver said:


> In business, the main reasons the top management swaps places is because someone gets too old (again: a factor that is about to be taken out) or the company gets involved in a scandal. The latter will still happen, but even there, they are more likely to be overtaken by a company with experienced competitors than by young ones.


Not everyone wants to work at the same company or position, well, "forever". Not to mention, companies like to have "new blood" in the system for different ideas and POVs, not simply because other people are getting too old. I mean, this is true even now, yet young companies can still make it big and maybe even beat out some older companies. Kind of reminds me of how Netflix beat out BlockBuster. 



EmanueleBGN said:


> Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
> I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
> Look how many old people have the _senile dementia_ 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.


Living for the sake of living, could very well be their purpose and people can find a purpose without the threat of death. People can also have a long life and be happy. Not dying and happiness is simply not mutually exclusive.

Senile dementia is the problem, not simply because they live too long. What's stopping people from both trying to cure diseases and stop aging?


----------



## arra (Aug 6, 2018)

There was obviously lot of buzz about that mice longevity experiment when they gave them fullerene (_deleted_ stuff) and they lived twice as long. I believe that you can build in nanomaterials in your body that are going to renew your cels and help you prolong your life. Only problem would be that to reach immortality you would probably have to wipe up your brain every now and then.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 6, 2018)

arra said:


> There was obviously lot of buzz about that mice longevity experiment when they gave them fullerene (_deleted_ stuff) and they lived twice as long. I believe that you can build in nanomaterials in your body that are going to renew your cels and help you prolong your life. Only problem would be that to reach immortality you would probably have to wipe up your brain every now and then.


bump


----------



## Maq47 (Aug 6, 2018)

Searinox said:


> Eventually someone will come along and wipe out the universe's population with the snap of the fingers.


I see what you did there...  _Thanos_


----------



## tinysolderingguy (Aug 6, 2018)

>freak accidents and murder
id rather die normally than live wayy longer and die from either


----------



## Vieela (Aug 6, 2018)

It's really weird seeing people wanting not to die. Not being sarcastical at all, it's kind of just natural and programmed to be like this ever since the start. I think living on the same life for way too long might get boring. Maybe stopping aging or at least making it slower would be interesting, as it would allow us to live better lifestyles at older ages, but having eternal life really sounds boring round' here.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

Vieela said:


> It's really weird seeing people wanting not to die
> it's kind of just natural and programmed to be like this ever since the start



That does not make for a good argument. We have twisted and changed the world beyond anything that likely would have happened by chance, or indeed any one thing would have happened by chance, which is to say nothing we have now is natural, not even close.

If living the same life would get boring then change -- if you have effectively infinite time then you can happily afford to do that.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Aug 7, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> 100 years isn't immortal


Functional immortality like it probably would happen is that we'd extend our lives by a certain amount, and during that time, we'd refine the technology again and again, and essentially never reach the death point. Say we extend our lives by a century. In that century, more effective anti-aging would be invented to make you even more resilent to time, and more, and more, essentially making you immortal.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 7, 2018)

I'd want to live forever. I would like to see what the future has in store for us. If anything I would end up becoming some kind of historian as a result.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> That does not make for a good argument. We have twisted and changed the world beyond anything that likely would have happened by chance, or indeed any one thing would have happened by chance, which is to say nothing we have now is natural, not even close.
> 
> If living the same life would get boring then change -- if you have effectively infinite time then you can happily afford to do that.


The concept I was offered was: imagine deciding to change careers without the weight on time on your shoulders, being able to study for a decade and get really good at another field and reach a high level in it.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 7, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> Functional immortality like it probably would happen is that we'd extend our lives by a certain amount, and during that time, we'd refine the technology again and again, and essentially never reach the death point. Say we extend our lives by a century. In that century, more effective anti-aging would be invented to make you even more resilent to time, and more, and more, essentially making you immortal.


And since people are extending their lives there will be veterans in the field using that experience to create even more advance technology than a human with a 76 average life span can. Think of what 300 yrs of expertise can do. 

Combine this with the Intelligence Race we are in right now pretty soon the average person will have IQ's greater than Einstein. Think of how fast technology will progress when everyone has Einsteins intelligence and even more people will be smart enough to work in the Scientific Field.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Aug 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Think of how fast technology will progress when everyone has Einsteins intelligence and even more people will be smart enough to work in the Scientific Field.


Might need to give it a century for the "don't want no govvermat in mah head" types to die off.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 7, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> Might need to give it a century for the "don't want no govvermat in mah head" types to die off.


Embryo selecting for high IQ's will soon to be a thing. People will have ethical issues with it. But countries that don't do this will be left behind in the technological race, when other countries are making more progress and are becoming more prosperous. That will force countries to give up their beliefs and join in the IQ selecting to be able to have a chance to compete economically.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 7, 2018)

Darth Meteos said:


> Functional immortality like it probably would happen is that we'd extend our lives by a certain amount, and during that time, we'd refine the technology again and again, and essentially never reach the death point. Say we extend our lives by a century. In that century, more effective anti-aging would be invented to make you even more resilent to time, and more, and more, essentially making you immortal.


So your saying everyone will live in constant fear of death, instead of accepting it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Embryo selecting for high IQ's will soon to be a thing. People will have ethical issues with it. But countries that don't do this will be left behind in the technological race, when other countries are making more progress and are becoming more prosperous. That will force countries to give up their beliefs and join in the IQ selecting to be able to have a chance to compete economically.


I think we will find that it doesn't make that much of a difference.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Aug 7, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> So your saying everyone will live in constant fear of death, instead of accepting it?


Preferable to actual oblivion. I am all that is in my universe, everything comes through these eyeballs. If I die and am destroyed, it defeats the purpose of learning and living. Limited or not, immortality should be the primary goal of the 21st century, since we finally are reaching the technological state where it's feasible.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Average life span of humans use to be in the 20’s. So our bodies never evolved to cope with aging past our late 20’s. That fact that we used science and tech to live up to our 70’s we are already extending human life.


Ok, there's a misconception here you need to understand; that average doesn't exist because people _only_ lived into their 20s and then keeled over, it's because a comparatively small percentage lived into their 70s and 80s while many didn't even survive infancy. It's not lifespan necessarily that's improved over the years, it's instead reduced mortality rates reducing the lower "outlier" in the average


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

Some of the same technology that's going to be use to extend lives, are also going make existing humans smarter and stronger.  

If it gets to the point where everyone is learning things quickly through technology, a 300 years old wouldn't necessarily be anymore skilled or smarter than someone younger than that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> a 300 years old wouldn't necessarily be anymore skilled or smarter than someone younger than that.


I don't necessarily see how a person's worth should be tied to their intelligence or skill level, though


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> [IQ races]
> I think we will find that it doesn't make that much of a difference.


Because computers will take over?
Most fields of human endeavour these days seem to be if not intelligence driven then massively aided by it and I see no great reason, other than some kind of computer driven utopia, for that to stop.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't necessarily see how a person's worth should be tied to their intelligence or skill level, though


That's not what I meant by that. Wasn't saying anything about worth. 

Just going against the idea that someone who lives longer doing and learning something, would necessarily be more smarter or more skill than the ones around them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

If we have the kind of tech that makes people "live forever", especially if it is the nanotech type stuff rather than something like "protein which disables ageing mechanisms", then we surely have the ability to... I guess it would be uplift the legacy humans if they fall behind in the tech curve. Substantial changes in living organisms has traditionally been hard but it is less of an issue today (CRISPR being a nice jumping off point) and will presumably be less of one still in a world where becoming outdated is a real concern.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 7, 2018)

Shouldn't we worry about the survivability of our planet BEFORE our own?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> That's not what I meant by that. Wasn't saying anything about worth.
> 
> Just going against the idea that someone who lives longer doing and learning something, would necessarily be more smarter or more skill than the ones around them.


Oh, I see. So like in terms of societal advancement there's no point in living past a certain point?


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh, I see. So like in terms of societal advancement there's no point in living past a certain point?


If I understand this correctly, I don't think that's true either. A lot of, if not most things, are invented in a group. Not literally the smartest or most skill person.


----------



## bennyman123abc (Aug 7, 2018)

Honestly, why would you WANT to live longer? I'm one of those people who are dreading the possibility to live into my 90's and 100's and deal with more pain than I already do at 16..


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> Shouldn't we worry about the survivability of our planet BEFORE our own?


Assuming it is a problem of such dire and likely potential then would you not want some people with centuries of experience in things helping you out?



bennyman123abc said:


> Honestly, why would you WANT to live longer? I'm one of those people who are dreading the possibility to live into my 90's and 100's and deal with more pain than I already do at 16..


For myself I quite enjoy this learning and existence lark. The opportunity to do more of it then seems desirable.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok, there's a misconception here you need to understand; that average doesn't exist because people _only_ lived into their 20s and then keeled over, it's because a comparatively small percentage lived into their 70s and 80s while many didn't even survive infancy. It's not lifespan necessarily that's improved over the years, it's instead reduced mortality rates reducing the lower "outlier" in the average


I know how lifespans work. And I know about infant mortality rates bringing down life expectancies. And it doesn't mean live till 20's and death. My comment was what Ray Kurzweil said. Animals used to live short lives and evolution never caught up with these longer life spans for some animals except for like some Turtles.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ericthegreat said:


> So your saying everyone will live in constant fear of death, instead of accepting it?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It will. Humans and Chimps had a common ancestor. And look at the different paths we took and the Mental Capabilities between Humans and Chimps.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Assuming it is a problem of such dire and likely potential then would you not want some people with centuries of experience in things helping you out?


Honestly? In this case I don't think centuries of experience are better at all. Saving the planet is above all changing our way to live. Something that gets exponentially harder as you age.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> Honestly? In this case I don't think centuries of experience are better at all. Saving the planet is above all changing our way to live. Something that gets exponentially harder as you age.


I say more science will solve the problems faced more than training new people to be hippies or something.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Aug 7, 2018)

I've heard the arguments, and read the papers that say things like. "If you're alive in the 30 years, you'll be alive in 3000." Seems unlikely. Will someone make it to 150 thanks to modern medicine and technology? Probably, but it will happen long after I am dead and forgotten.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I say more science will solve the problems faced more than training new people to be hippies or something.


You don't need to get to such extremes, but even getting some (young) people to not throw used batteries in the trash is a challenge, and it's even harder to make them change when they get older.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

bennyman123abc said:


> Honestly, why would you WANT to live longer? I'm one of those people who are dreading the possibility to live into my 90's and 100's and deal with more pain than I already do at 16..


If you mean physical pain, ideally you would live healthier as well. Not just longer.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 7, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> Shouldn't we worry about the survivability of our planet BEFORE our own?


Nano Tech might be used to repair the Ozone Layer

And it will give better Chemotherapy treatment for cancer to target only bad cell and not good ones.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> You don't need to get to such extremes, but even getting some (young) people to not throw used batteries in the trash is a challenge, and it's even harder to make them change when they get older.


So make a robot that sorts batteries in the rubbish.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> So make a robot that sorts batteries in the rubbish.



While it would be certainly possible, I'm not for giving people even more excuses to be lazy and selfish. If they can't take a few steps towards preserving what we have I don't think it'll get better even when they can live forever.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Assuming it is a problem of such dire and likely potential then would you not want some people with centuries of experience in things helping you out?
> 
> 
> For myself I quite enjoy this learning and existence lark. The opportunity to do more of it then seems desirable.


Me too. I enjoy life a lot. Theres so much I want to do. So many hobbies I want to get into. Extending life will be great.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 7, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> While it would be certainly possible, I'm not for giving people even more excuses to be lazy and selfish. If they can't take a few steps towards preserving what we have I don't think it'll get better even when they can live forever.


We appear to be heading towards rather different places than the topic really started as, though I am going to shoulder some blame as I quite like pondering techno utopia where this might be before that truly comes to pass. That said I would still say you are overestimating the threats faced by the planet at this point.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> We appear to be heading towards rather different places than the topic really started as, though I am going to shoulder some blame as I quite like pondering techno utopia where this might be before that truly comes to pass. That said I would still say you are overestimating the threats faced by the planet at this point.


I hope you're right


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

Physical items might decrease in general, as VR advances and more people goes towards it.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 7, 2018)

Replace my human heart with a much better robot one when?


----------



## DavidLiam (Sep 20, 2018)

*Every year is worse than before.*


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 20, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Replace my human heart with a much better robot one when?


Why not replace, well, everything with something better?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Why not replace, well, everything with something better?



*( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)*


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2018)

I'm sure the lifespan of the human body can be extended through better living conditions, medical therapies and interventions, and breakthroughs like that proposed by the OP, probably at least to an average 150 years. Not indefinitely though. Living is a terminal illness. I don't see that changing until we figure out a way to transplant our consciousness, intact, to another carrier, natural or artificial. And if we ever get to that point, we will lose our 'humanity' despite whatever we may gain.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 20, 2018)

humanity is overrated. Give me a 10 inch  *( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)*


----------

