Support NeoGAF

[B.K.]

I don't believe it will ever happen. It if did though, only the elite members of society would have access to the technology. They wouldn't let the normal people like us have it.

 

[Shard]

I don't believe it will ever happen. It if did though, only the elite members of society would have access to the technology. They wouldn't let the normal people like us have it.

It is probably actually more cost-effective to grant access the general populace to these technologies then say having it age and continue to drive medical and heath care costs upwards.

 

[Eric C]

Immortality... I don't know if I'd want that. What will happen first the "Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy Collision" or will our Sun die before that? I guess an asteroid or meteor collision is most likely to cause a mass extinction before all that.

150-200 years would be great though. Or even just a normal lifespan without aging past your 30s or 40s would be fantastic.

 

[Chrono]

I don't believe it will ever happen. It if did though, only the elite members of society would have access to the technology. They wouldn't let the normal people like us have it.

Uh, no. Those 'elites' will be the first adapters that will be a major factor in bringing the cost down. And how the hell would they stop 'normal' people from having it? They're the ones who'll make billions selling it to the 'normal' ones. Technology will continue getting cheaper and cheaper, allowing more people to take advantage of it.

 

[Neo C.]

Kurzweil said this years ago, but in the last ten years I haven't seen any major life expectancy increase. And even if he's right with his claims, he won't have the chance to profit (he's a little bit over 30 years old. ).

Edit:

What would be scary is you'd know the only thing you could die of would be of a apocalypse (i.e. comet/asteroid hits the earth, supervolcano, massive earthquake buries you and it's too late after they recover your body), etc.

You can still die by a stupid accident (while being alone) or be killed by yakuza etc. The world is pretty dangerous.

 

[sinxtanx]

Immortality... I don't know if I'd want that. What will happen first the "Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxy Collision" or will our Sun die before that? I guess an asteroid or meteor collision is most likely to cause a mass extinction before all that.

150-200 years would be great though. Or even just a normal lifespan without aging past your 30s or 40s would be fantastic.

That collision will happen in approximately 3 BILLION years time.
I highly doubt that anyone living now, surviving to that moment would be bothered at all, since they'd be cozying it up in their spaceship watching the event as it unfolded over the millennia, contemplating whatever 3 billion years old people contemplate.

The sun will die in approximately 5 billion years.

I think that if you lived for a really long time you would get used to it and adapt to the new responsibilities that would come with it.

 

[Furcas]

The main criticism against the possibility of a huge increase in life expectancy in the next few decades is that the human body is so complex, and there are so many ways in which it can break down, that there's no way we'll have figured out a way to repair all those possible forms of damage in just a few decades.

IIRC, Aubrey de Grey's response to that criticism is that repairing damage is only one way to increase life expectancy; it's also possible to keep the body young enough so that it will never break down and thus won't need to be repaired (for most people, anyway; a small fraction will simply have bad luck). Stopping aging, if it's a relatively simple thing to do, would therefore allow life prolongation without having a full understanding of human biology.

 

[Veidt]

Sounds nice on the face of it, but where are we going to put all those billions of people who would supposedly live 1,500 years? Seems like life on Earth would get pretty uncomfortable.

Like Chappelle once said; " Mars bitches!"

 

[Sibylus]

Don't get your hopes up Gaf, you're all going to hell.

 

[Neo C.]

The main criticism against the possibility of a huge increase in life expectancy in the next few decades is that the human body is so complex, and there are so many ways in which it can break down, that there's no way we'll have figured out a way to repair all those possible forms of damage in just a few decades.

IIRC, Aubrey de Grey's response to that criticism is that repairing damage is only one way to increase life expectancy; it's also possible to keep the body young enough so that it will never break down and thus won't need to be repaired (for most people, anyway; a small fraction will simply have bad luck). Stopping aging, if it's a relatively simple thing to do, would therefore allow life prolongation without having a full understanding of human biology.

To stop aging, we need to repair every single cell in our body. In the end, we are still stuck in repairing damage.

 

[Vinci]

I read a book called Immorality Inc. when I was ten or something. I remember it really screwed with my head a bit, so...

Otherwise, interesting information. Looking forward to Einstein in a box.

 

[Furcas]

To stop aging, we need to repair every single cell in our body. In the end, we are still stuck in repairing damage.

The point is that a tactic that attacks the root of the problem is more efficient and requires less knowledge than a tactic that only deals with a near-infinity of symptoms.

 

[Neo C.]

The point is that a tactic that attacks the root of the problem is more efficient and requires less knowledge than a tactic that only deals with a near-infinity of symptoms.

Though aging is just part of the reason why our body eventually breaks down (or more exactly: I don't think aging is the root of the problem).

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Sounds nice on the face of it, but where are we going to put all those billions of people who would supposedly live 1,500 years? Seems like life on Earth would get pretty uncomfortable.

Space. We'll finally have the incentive to do it.

I was thinking about future technology the other day. They're working on augmented reality devices and also wearable contact lenses that act as displays right? Imagine the future of it: Completely cybernetic eyes (or implants/lenses) that can improve your eye sight a thousand fold, record photographs, videos and audio whilst also displaying electronic information about your surroundings. And how do you control that? With your mind. Using thoughts to control computer systems is already in development so in the future you'll be able to think about something and it'll happen. Take a photograph with a thought, upload it and share it with other people without a single word.

I could imagine that happening as it seems to be an extension of the type of social networking we see these days.

 

[PflargBlarg]

Sounds nice on the face of it, but where are we going to put all those billions of people who would supposedly live 1,500 years? Seems like life on Earth would get pretty uncomfortable.

Well, if you felt like actually finding out the answer to that question you could actually go to the website for the Life Extension Foundation and read the FAQ there. It addresses your concern as well as the ethical questions.

The answer to yours is something about mile high buildings housing the equivalent of the entire downtown of Chicago.