Ray Kurzweil Predicts Human Immortality in 20 Years
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, and I also noticed on the article that he displayed these theories to The Sun.....once again, nuff said. xx
you should all read at least the wikipedia article about this guy, he´s a true genius. he has succesfully predicted future developments in humanity through statistics and is actually taken very serious amongst fellow scientist. it is also said that he succeeded to virtually halt the aging of his own body by a strict diet, sport, and the use of a selfdeveloped vitamin-cocktail until the point where doctors found that his body is by all means is really getting younger again. he´s also one of the leading scientists in artificial intelligence, friends with stevie wonder and invented the synthesizer for him.
#1: This sounds a hell of a lot like the artificially-enhanced-blob-of-organs theory I posted on one of the few dozens of evolution threads here, though reverse aging sounds a little farfetched to me. Are they going to fix our telomers?
#2: Unless these enhancements come with a whole lot of wisdom, maturity, intelligence, good taste and a better ability to predict it's long term effects, immortality is a very, very, very, very, VERY bad idea.
#2: Unless these enhancements come with a whole lot of wisdom, maturity, intelligence, good taste and a better ability to predict it's long term effects, immortality is a very, very, very, very, VERY bad idea.
you ever heard of the "grey goo"-disaster?SinisterDeath said:
it´s a scenario that describes a fatal nano-technological accident that wipes out humanity and all life with it. it goes like this:
imagine a supertanker gets shipwrecked at a coast following a black tide. now you want to use nano bots that basically clean the water. these nanobots are selfreproductive. you set em out doing there thing. now a failure in their programming makes em consume everything inheriting carbon. this would be no problem if they don´t selfreproduce. as they do, they will most likely reproduce until they have consumed all carbon on earth which means they will consume all life on earth as it is all carbon-based. this would happen within one day from the point the bots are set out to clean the sea. so it would most likely happen too quick to react. and the only way to stop them would be some kind of antibots. so everything would be really fucked. a true worst case scenario.
Pfft like we scientists want to give the drunk drivers the ability to fly...Cajt said:
Due to current accidents etc. the average lifespan would be around 2000years when you take away all of the good old age related deaths.
Like the earth's population needs any more help in addition *rolls eyes* more like exponential equations.
Am I the only one who thinks that immortality is a "fate worse than death". I mean, moreso if you were the only one with it and had to wath everyone you cared for die, but with everyone...? First, there's alot of people who probably don't deserve to live, let alone forever, and secondly, with more and more people being immortal we'd use up this planet very quickly in terms of space and resources, meaning we'd have to expand to the rest of the universe with our never aging bodies to take up more room and more resources...
Talking out of your ass doesn't require homework or research. And there are plenty of ways nanotechnology can go wrong. Think borg and replicators.hermes200 said:
Addendum:
Wow, got the marriage plans in place yet? Need any groomsmen?iamthehorde said:
no sorry, i just broke up with my girlfriend, but thanks.samsonguy920 said:
seriously, kurtzweil is not mad(at least not totally, just the right amount for a guy like him). he also doesn´t claim that it will be exactly the way he says. his predictions are based on lots of data he collects and in the past 20 or so years he was right in many ways. kurtzweil has a big understanding of what could be possible and what the outcome is, and he is not promoting the use of nanotechnology to enhance the human body. he just says that it most likely will happen if we have the technology and he believes we will have it then because he has analysed technological development in the last centuries and saw that processor power grows exponentially which means that technological development is basically accelerating all the time. for obvious techno-afficionados like us this should be perfectly logical and comprehensible. you can´t compare his outlooks to the ones of those 100 years ago that thought we would live on the moon by now. he´s probably one of the smartest men in the world right now and a highly respected scientist. just because he´s also a futurist or a visionary doesn´t automatically mean he´s a misguided dork. as i said, any of you who never heard of him and call bullshit on him because of this escapist article should inform themselves about him first, then judge.
That sounds a little bit optimistic, just like almost every other future prediction I've heard made up by experts. In reality even if this is accurate, it may only mean that the understanding of the science will reach an appropriate level in 20 years. That means at least another 10 years of research and preferably another 50 of testing.
I don't think it'll come soon enough to let anyone alive now live forever.
I don't think it'll come soon enough to let anyone alive now live forever.
And then the EMP bomb went off, destroying millions.
YOUR PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE TERRORISTS HANDS, SCIENCE!
Serious note: Immortality would be fucking bad. It would lead to a complete cultural paradigm shift. Initially, it would only be availible to the super wealthy naturally, immediatly creating a volitail rift between the haves and the have nots as mans relationship with death is disturbingly unsettled. I portend mass riots as people demand to have the same health and immortality as the wealthy, cultural and religeous extremists holding terrorist attacks to stave off what they see as the end of the world, a real time clash of human instinct with human intellect.
Assuming we survive long enough to retain peace and everyone aquires these immortalizing nannites, we face another problem. Reproduction. Overpopulation.
Human beings screw- we screw ALOT. With immortality, reproduction becomes redundant or unnecessary. The world would either quickly become overpopulated without people dying, or we would stop reproducing causing genetic decay and homogenity- or both. Let us not also forget death is a very nice and convenient way of getting rid of horrible people with horrible idea's, had this technoligy existed in the 50's the people with the mentality that kept aparthied or segregation alive would be as well, as would those institutions likly. Culturally speaking, humanity EVOLVES from generation to generation. Example, the death of racism is a GRADUAL process that occurs as people raise their children in a progressivly open minded manner. Changing the mind of an immortal adult is far more difficult, possibly impossible.
Immortality is a horrible goal.
YOUR PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE TERRORISTS HANDS, SCIENCE!
Serious note: Immortality would be fucking bad. It would lead to a complete cultural paradigm shift. Initially, it would only be availible to the super wealthy naturally, immediatly creating a volitail rift between the haves and the have nots as mans relationship with death is disturbingly unsettled. I portend mass riots as people demand to have the same health and immortality as the wealthy, cultural and religeous extremists holding terrorist attacks to stave off what they see as the end of the world, a real time clash of human instinct with human intellect.
Assuming we survive long enough to retain peace and everyone aquires these immortalizing nannites, we face another problem. Reproduction. Overpopulation.
Human beings screw- we screw ALOT. With immortality, reproduction becomes redundant or unnecessary. The world would either quickly become overpopulated without people dying, or we would stop reproducing causing genetic decay and homogenity- or both. Let us not also forget death is a very nice and convenient way of getting rid of horrible people with horrible idea's, had this technoligy existed in the 50's the people with the mentality that kept aparthied or segregation alive would be as well, as would those institutions likly. Culturally speaking, humanity EVOLVES from generation to generation. Example, the death of racism is a GRADUAL process that occurs as people raise their children in a progressivly open minded manner. Changing the mind of an immortal adult is far more difficult, possibly impossible.
Immortality is a horrible goal.
I agree that technology is reaching a point where we will be embracing the next new thing, and nanotechnology will play a part, though a part of me feels it won't be to even close to the degree that Kurtzwell is remotely estimating(guessing). For us to utilize nanotechnology to the degree that he is thinking, it is going to require a lot of openmindedness from the majority of the public. And so far the track record for openmindedness of the public isn't so good. While I think the example that is given in Ghost in the Shell is fricking awesome, it is going to open a whole new scale of dangers that possibly haven't even been imagined yet.iamthehorde said:
That's how Jack Thompson gets his claim to fame. Oh wait, I mentioned JT didn't I? Dammit.hermes200 said:
