i read that they already found i jellyfish that lives forever, it works like a butterfly, with the butterfly it starts as a catterpillar, then turns into a cacoon and becomes a butterfly, in contrast this jelly fish turns from its first stage, to a cacoon, to the third stage, but when it's about to die it goes back into it's cacoon and turns back into it's first stage again. we might end up just going from baby to on our death bed, then going in reverse, back to on our death bed, repeat. as for overpopulating the earth, well think about this, all we have to do is make sure our smartest people don't die, and they could work on the same project literally forever, noone would think twice about devoting their life to something if they can do it an unlimited amount of times. would probabally stop war too, who would want to die a painful death over something when they have virtually forever to find an alternative.
The Manhattan Beach Project to 'End Aging by 2029'.
- Thread starter Liberaliter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I couldnt have said it better myself, the evolution of thecnology is just to awesome right now and I want to see where its heading.SpiderJerusalem said:
1. Your body might not age, but you won't remember much. THe brain can only hold so much information in it and you'll have the same issues that people with photogenic memories get: They forget. Their brain begind to re-write over itself like an RW DVD.Liberaliter said:
2. Arn't world experts screaming already about birth rates and how we'll be over populated, and they want to make sure that people can't die of old age? How crowded will the planet become in two or three generation alone?
3. Following to the point above, how are we supposed to keep our carbon footprint down with twice or three times the population?
4. Stopping the process of aging qwill not stop a weak heart from giving out. Someone with a defective heart will always have a defective heart. That defect might take a greater toll over time. Possibly it won't kill us, just put us into extreme agony. The effect are unforseeable as to how diseases and defects will be affected.
5. Who will be allowed to get this? I can see rich families lining up their sons and daughters are the ripe age of 18 and 19. You would have no true "Age" anymore. Want to know if someone is 40 years old and mature, or 18 years old and just got the anti-aging process? how are you supposed to tell the difference.
This is why you're wonderful. So smart and articulate!Labyrinth said:
But yeah, I can't imagine an enlongated lifespan being not painful, with all the science they'd have to put in you. In many ways, I think it might be better if we just figured out, as a species, to come to terms with death.
This also raises the question of if this would cause things to be like the Galaxy Express 999, with the unaltered humans living a life of destitution and misery while those able to buy immortality live the high life, separated by a huge social class gap.
Except without cyborgs and space trains.
I remember reading somthing about stoping aging, I belive the ideal conditions would be that you stoped physically aging (I.E muscles, Organs, physical appearence), but as your brain degrades, you still inevitably die, but it is usually quick and efficient. So essentially dying would be people who appear to be in their twenties and thirties (who are really 80 or 90).
While actually stoping all aging sounds cool, I do wonder what consequences it might have on our planet. Still would be awsome in my opinion.
While actually stoping all aging sounds cool, I do wonder what consequences it might have on our planet. Still would be awsome in my opinion.
Actually, here's some bits from the website about how they believe this will not be the case.Ekonk said:
Here's how exponential growth works
"Let's say you start with one grain of sand and double it every day. After five days, you'd have 32. Hardly noticeable! In five more days, you'd have 1,024. Well that's more, but not even a teaspoon full. In ten more days, you'd have over a million. Ten days after that you have 1.1 billion. And the next day, 2.2 billion. Five days later, you're up to your neck in 53 billion grains of sand. And so on. The first five days took you to 32. Now, in one day, you're choking on 53 billion extra grains. The next day an additional 106 billion!
This is exactly what's happening today with knowledge and technology. You hardly notice the growth at first. Just like with cancer research so far. Then suddenly it seems to explode. Are you aware that the power of technology per dollar doubles every twelve months, and that the rate of growth is accelerating? This means our tools could be over 1000 times more powerful in just ten years ? and a billion times more powerful in twenty-five years.
Now stop and let this sink in for a moment. Look back on the entire twentieth century and mentally calculate what 1000 times more progress would equate to. Imagine what effect having tools a billion times more powerful could have on aging research. This is an incredible, world-changing concept that will impact you more than anything else you have ever experienced. Almost all the old rules and restrictions are tossed out. "
A real life example - the Human Genome Project
"This project was controversial in 1990, just like extreme life extension is today. With our best scientists, Ph.D. students and our most advanced equipment, we managed to sequence (or roughly map) only 1/10,000 of the genome by 1989. Then, halfway through the fifteen-year project, 1% of the human genome was sequenced. An outside observer might think we had to accomplish 100 times as much
But if you double 1% seven times, you reach your goal of 100%, and that is exactly what happened. Contrary to many experts' expectations, the Human Genome Project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Just when it looked hopeless, progress seemed to explode for no apparent reason. Where others saw little progress, where they saw only a 1% gain on the goal after 7½ years, the researchers knew they were half-way there.
They understood exponential growth. They know that going from mapping 1/10,000 of the genome to 1/100 was a 100-fold gain. They knew they just had to keep up that pace to get to 100%. "
It's easy to make the body last forever. It's a great deal harder to make the mind last forever. Alzheimer's already plagues people in their elder years. I doubt most human minds can even make it past 120. And honestly... Why would you even want to? Imagine how absolutely BORED you would be with EVERYTHING. There would be no surprises, nothing new, nothing exciting. And you'd probably be hated by all of the people that wouldn't be able to afford the procedure. Hell, you'd be an abomination. I wouldn't want that. Life is great, but what is it without an end...?
Eh count me out, I have aspirations!icyneesan said:I'll probably die alone in my room from watching to much anime and touching myself to much. Like majority of the Internet
[small]Honest...[/small]
I presume you've seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?sooperman said:Cracked.com has a lot to say about the topic [http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html], though they also say your memory can be tricked. [http://www.cracked.com/article_18704_5-mind-blowing-ways-your-memory-plays-tricks-you.html] Personally, I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to induce amnesia at regular intervals to reduce the effect of your mind aging without your body.
If so, think of how many jobs that would create. There would be an industry devoted to removing old and obsolete memories and information from people's minds. It would be sweet
Plus I doubt people would want to do something that personally invasive. After all, if they can tamper with your memory, what's to stop them from remaking you entirely.
Exactly, screw the inevitable moral problems. I just want to have a body of a 40 year old and 80.FaceFaceFace said:
It wouldn't be much more of a change than the impact of modern hygene. We already live many many times longer than during the dark ages, and even a fair bit longer than we did in the civilisations preceding the dark ages (Roman, Greek empires, where their knowledge of medicine and surgery was nothing to be scoffed at).
In every culture - with no exceptions - as the expected lifespan has increased, birthrates have decreased. That's why the nations with highest life expectancy have the lowest birth rates, and for the most part have shrinking populations. It stands to reason that the end of aging wouldn't lead to increased overpopulation, but rather a massive drop in reproduction, keeping population pretty much in check.
Look it up yourself - the nations with longest lifespans have shrinking populations. No, it would not be a problem at all for overpopulation.
As for the philosopical issues - surely that's something for the individual to contemplate in conjunction with his/her loved ones and advisers.
What it WOULD lead to is a new life stage, where you've raised your children and now have the financial means to pursue your life goals without the burden of familial responsibilities. Except people to have very few children, and then spend the rest of their lives aiming to become authors, artists, travellers and so on; living their dreams without the repercussions of responsibility.
Frankly (so long as our history-lond trend of increased lifespan leading to decreased reproduction keeps functioning), it seems like the recipe for a new human golden age - the means of actually ACHIEVING the enlightment project of the 1700-1800s, except now with our knowledge of cultural diversity and respect of indigenous cultures. We could actually take up the reigns of the old enlightment philosophers, this time untethered by greed and the insecurities of mortality (plus we'd have to take responsibility for the future effects of our choices upon the environment and the economy).
I have my doubts about whether that could ever be possible, but I sure hope that I live to see that day.
In every culture - with no exceptions - as the expected lifespan has increased, birthrates have decreased. That's why the nations with highest life expectancy have the lowest birth rates, and for the most part have shrinking populations. It stands to reason that the end of aging wouldn't lead to increased overpopulation, but rather a massive drop in reproduction, keeping population pretty much in check.
Look it up yourself - the nations with longest lifespans have shrinking populations. No, it would not be a problem at all for overpopulation.
As for the philosopical issues - surely that's something for the individual to contemplate in conjunction with his/her loved ones and advisers.
What it WOULD lead to is a new life stage, where you've raised your children and now have the financial means to pursue your life goals without the burden of familial responsibilities. Except people to have very few children, and then spend the rest of their lives aiming to become authors, artists, travellers and so on; living their dreams without the repercussions of responsibility.
Frankly (so long as our history-lond trend of increased lifespan leading to decreased reproduction keeps functioning), it seems like the recipe for a new human golden age - the means of actually ACHIEVING the enlightment project of the 1700-1800s, except now with our knowledge of cultural diversity and respect of indigenous cultures. We could actually take up the reigns of the old enlightment philosophers, this time untethered by greed and the insecurities of mortality (plus we'd have to take responsibility for the future effects of our choices upon the environment and the economy).
I have my doubts about whether that could ever be possible, but I sure hope that I live to see that day.
Wait, this thing is real? Sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel. The Wanting Seed, anyone?
I'd never want to do something like this. It's wrought with ethical flaws.
I'd never want to do something like this. It's wrought with ethical flaws.
This whole article as well as your comment made me think of Bilbo Baggins, and the effects the Ring had on him.ChromeAlchemist said:
"Like butter, scraped over too much bread."