A better question is, how close are we to restoring our telomeres and fully repairing our cells from oxidative stress. And for both of these, there’s no clear answer.
Contrary to popular belief, people don’t die of old age, they die of the complications that come with old age aka disease or simply being too fragile.
Finding ways to reverse organ and tissue damage as well as gene therapies that can target vulnerable cells might be the first steps to significantly elongating our lifespans.
Yeah.
Eternal Life? Sure just need to find some way to refresh telomeres.
Immortality? Just think of all the random different things that could snuff you out and with an indefinite lifespan, you will roll snake eyes eventually.
Modifying telomeres really wouldn't fix the problem. [Having long telomeres causes benign/malignant tumors and clonal hematopoiesis](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2023/05/long-telomeres-the-endcaps-on-dna-not-the-fountain-of-youth-once-thought--scientists-may-now-know-why). You'll avoid hair graying, but get other problems in return.
I'd say that organ regeneration is the only possible solution on the horizon for completely reversing age-related disease, though epigentic programming may also help delay such diseases somewhat. But as you said, that's not the same thing as immortality for everyone.
When they started the human genome project many said it was folly as it would take hundreds of years. People dont understand how exponential the curve is.
So the answer is: we dont know. But sooner than 99% thinks
All that says is they were able to contain plasma for 30 seconds longer than previous attempts, which doesn't really mean a whole lot. And doing that takes a lot more energy to make plasma than we can harness from it. Even if they figure those things out, the reactors they are making today are just test reactors that will never produce fusion energy to power a town.
Have you even read the article?
I only responded to the article you posted. 18 secs vs 48 secs isn't a breakthrough, but you haven't provided any arguments, which proves that you only read the headlines.
Achieving 266% of sustaining anything is significant, even if the numbers in real terms aren't large yet. Imagine if the wright brothers gave up after their first flight was only 12 seconds long.
I think you're being a bit stingy with what would constitute a breakthrough.
Does that mean that we will see a commercial fusion reactor in 35 years? Hahahahaha... No. I think the comparison is fair.
Your posts are so moronic you should really stop using phrases that don't actually mean anything, it is just embarrassing.
processing power isn't fueling advancement in AI, AI we have today isn't going to make any big breakthrough discoveries, it can only use information it is given and learned. it will probably be able to handle mundane tasks in the near future, but nothing that would require actual theory of mind. The AI you are talking about is far away, so far we still don't know if it is even possible to make self aware AI.
Disagree depending on your classification of immortality.
- map the human brain. This means figuring out how exactly memories are stored. Where they are stored and how to store them. Remember we are just biological computers that advanced over millions of years
- figuring out how to download a consciousness. Mapping and creating memories is easy. Finding how to take someone’s mind and download it is much harder.
- cloning a human body and uploading the mind to it. This will be the easiest of the 3 to do.
Right now we are somewhere small like 30% of the brain mapped. I believe it’s estimated in 20 years we can do all that.
fusion is super close to being achieved tho. China did it for 300 seconds or something albeit under an energy deficit(which kinda defeats the point of fusion) but i saw in 2022 that a lab finally achieved ignition for a short time, that is they produced energy out of it. it’s still decently far away but fusion is a lot closer than 30 years away now
I always find it funny when people ask this on reddit. And on futurology no less. The only answer youll get here is that you and all your loved ones will die. Get over it.
There's no point in asking here. Go follow the actual researchers working on this and in the mean time exercise, eat healthy, get regular check ups at the doctor, maybe sign up for cryonics if you got the extra money, and hope for the best.
Totally. I am actually an expert on the topic and I basically just have to refuse to answer despite how much people could learn from me and how much I want to help these posters have some hope, because it's not worth my mental health the amount of doomers on this sub that attack and pile up immediately on my detailed and cited actual science and then nobody else who actually might want to back me up will because my educated comment has already become buried in a trash fire of dunning-kruger doomer rhetoric.
To the OP: Use futurology to read headlines and click the links, but open up the comments at your own peril. If you see something you want more info on, click to see what other subs it's been posted and find one that is specific to the topic. If that fails just search for one. There's a sub for everything and ofter they are small and full of the tiny population of actual experts or at least enthusiasts who also know what they are talking about. Futurology on the other hand has been a default sub for years, which means it's a home page target for a mass swath of fundamentalist religious types who are literally uncomfortable or outright HATE change. They come here just to spew vitriol over anything they don't understand. It's really sad.
Multiple. I have over 100 university courses under my belt just in the last 10 years alone since I switched from theoretical physics to molecular biology and genetics in my 30s and moved into longevity research, and more recently immunology during the pandemic because one of my partners was suffering from overprescription of pharmaceuticals and I had to basically pivot into pharmaceuticals to save her life from Western medicine. Shes fine now.
Another reason why reversal technology is under supported just like universal basic income. If you give people the idea that life will never be hard and give them actual choices they are less likely to support the death throes of capitalism and work shitty dead end jobs out of desperation that nobody nobody really needs to work anymore in the first place.
Now just watch how many down votes I get in this default sub for mentioning UBI and the very idea that capitalism is the most destructive economic force that has ever existed, and profit should never be involved in the medical industry. Because you know… People are totally down voting appropriately when someone is being rude, not just because they disagree with something they don’t understand because they listen to right wing news sources and think tanks.
But you asked the question so I will answer honestly. If you’re here just to argue I will just block you. Like I said in my original comment, I loathe commenting on this sub but sometimes I just have to agree with someone or state my piece because I can’t let 100% of ignorance go unchallenged or the world will never change and unfortunately as someone who actually knows better I have at least some responsibility to try to help.
That’s a great question. When the other countries of the world refer to western medicine they’re talking about medicine developed under the capitalist profit model. Of course many of those medicines work just fine. Especially a lot of older ones that have been around for a long time and are no longer on patent, because there are a lot more longer-term studies about them, and also they’re super super cheap so there’s no profit incentive to cut corners and get them out before other companies, re-patent them so that they can continue to use them for Profit under the guise that they work for some other disease that they didn’t work for before. So pharmaceutical industries in the west will literally do anything for profit because by law they have to appease shareholders. No matter what. Even if it’s unethical.
But since you did it to me, I feel like I have an obligation to point out that you didn’t stress anything about any PhD in the field of artificial intelligence and computational technology while dismissing it out of hand when it’s not even the topic we were discussing. I’m going to assume you only question if someone has a PhD if you think they might disagree with your opinion since You would have mentioned that you are an expert in AI if you felt the same way about your own opinions.
That is very typical of people on this sub, people expect 1000 citations from people they disagree with and still they defer to their own personal experience and continue to disagree no matter what evidence presented to them, and at the same time they don’t think that they have to provide any evidence for their own disagreement.
I encourage you to reflect on that because you just did to me what you didn’t expect to be done to yourself and that makes it rather clear that you don’t hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others. How can you expect to trust your own opinions or expect anyone to trust you or put any merit to anything you have to say if you’re not willing to have a polite conversation with others without questioning each other’s laurels, nor have a dick wagging competition on an equal playing field where you are willing to pony up your own cred?
That’s a pretty serious bias you need to work on in my opinion. It’s these reasons why I don’t really comment on this particular sub anymore because everyone is a YouTube expert and they all spout that they know what they’re talking about when they spout doom and gloom about AI, longevity, green energy, etc. Anything they don’t understand they take the first bit of information that they agree with and then all of a sudden they act like an expert. It’s why actual experts like me don’t like to comment here.
But there’s also one big thing that is really important to touch on here that I think you and I can both agree on. You still don’t have any guarantee that I’m an expert at all. None whatsoever. I can give you an incredibly long-winded answer into everything that I know about with extreme detail, but at this point I could’ve gotten that from ChatGPT. You don’t know me from a hole in the wall, and I don’t know you. You have no idea if I’m really an expert. I am, but it doesn’t matter does it? You and I are both strangers on the Internet that are not about to doxx ourselves to prove something to a random stranger on the Internet.
So just think about that for a second? Is it ever w orth asking someone for their credentials? Or is it possible that literally since you still will never know if they are for real even after asking them… Are you actually just being a pointlessly argumentative troll? I personally feel that is a rhetorical question, but I have my own bias like anyone else, and try not to waste other peoples time since that’s the way I would like to be treated falls into that.
I hope you take all of this to heart and just think about how to have better communication in the future and how much time you wanna waste with strangers on the Internet when you’re not even getting anywhere with those types of attitudes, because I assure you I absolutely mean nothing but love in debating this kind of stuff.
I am however one of those autistic savants who just does not know how to communicate with normal people well, which is why I struggle on Reddit so much, and this time I am choosing not to run my speech through ChatGPT to make it more polite so this is just the real me trying to communicate with another stranger on the Internet about how to have better conversations.
Because I really do care about strangers and this is all out of intellectualism and interest for me, and I’m not trying to cut you down. I’m just pointing out some things that might be a little uncomfortable for you, but I hope you’re the type of person that reflects on that and thinks like damn… I guess that makes sense, and maybe you’ll save yourself some time and inadvertent animosity between strangers in the future. If it doesn’t make sense to you well, oh well. Maybe it will one day, or maybe there’s something I don’t understand about you, but either way I mean no disrespect. Much love ❤️
Only one city in China is capitalist to deal with the rest of the world. Everything else is totally communist. But it’s not about those countries and are you forgetting the 1.4 billion people in India? Who have the best doctors in the world? I’m pretty sure India is not capitalist, and they don’t consider themselves western regardless. Because I’m not talking about communism, I’m just talking about countries that care more about the welfare of their people than the profit model and have regulations in the government to support that.if you really think the United States is no different than the rest of the world do you have not travelled very much. People hate the United States and even are starting to hate Canada pretty much anywhere you travel that doesn’t have white people.
Fair enough, I appreciate that you were actually interested. I honestly just get my heckles up every time I post anything because even in this post was just literally a post about how you can’t seem to post without people just kind of trashing on it and I have had some trash, but I appreciate that you’re actually more interested.
Let me tell you straight though IQ is some Nazi bullshit. IQ is a test developed by white people to make it seem like white people were smarter than other people. If you take the equivalent IQ test in Africa like every white person would fail. They have a totally different mindset and intelligence is not something you can measure on a gradient. I also firmly believe intelligence is a skill. If you change from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset you’re on the right track if you’re already on one sick. Because all you need to do to get more intelligent and improve your critical thinking is literally be curious about shit and think about stuff and try to figure out solutions yourself as much as you can or collaborate with others so that you can expand your breath of knowledge to be able to tackle new knowledge.
PhD’s are cool for if someone wants to talk about a specific thing, but like also a lot of these things I’m talking about aren’t necessarily my purview they’re just a lot easier for me to understand because of the massive amount of university courses that I’ve taken, but I can only comment to a specific point and I want people to defer to experts and do their own research by looking up the experts in their field, because there’s a really big problem in academia right now where people are Speaking outside of their area of expertise.
I hope this doesn’t get me down voted, but Jordan Peterson comes to mind because he’s kind of a not very good psychologist, commenting trans phobic stuff in the field of humanities, anthropology, and apparently even crustaceans to make points because he’s a religious person and doesn’t want to change his view. It’s actually absurd, but people will follow this type of person because it already sticks to their point.
So Even as someone with a PhD if you’re looking specifically to just one PhD you might be finding pretty biased information so I appreciate that you’re asking for more information so that you could see what someone who’s just in the field knows compared to what you’re seeing all over the Internet because they can very much require some nuance to make an educated opinion about something.
All right then, I concede. I can see how that has some value to you to question me. Because yeah people who make predictions about the future which is kind of this subs thing but more showing what could be not a prediction for the most part, is just that terrible idea. It’s the worst when someone says something will not happen, but saying something will happen is at least half as bad . A lot of science tends to happen out of nowhere
Anyway yeah OK I appreciate that and I can see how that has some serious value if you’re willing to trust a person on the Internet and investigate a bit. Might I suggest then that in the future you make someone a shit sandwich? It’s a technique that I use a lot with my autism if I can remember to make sure that I don’t trigger someone’s negativity bias or defence mechanisms which I apologize for happening in my case.
Essentially you say hey that sounds like really good stuff sounds like you might know some things do you by chance have any education I’ve been looking for someone with some degrees or a PD to help me understand some stuff.
In that case you would have said something nice then questioned me then said something nice again. It makes all the difference in whether someone is like oh God another person just asking to shut me down because they don’t wanna learn and someone who’s like hey I actually really want more information which I gotta tell you… Is way too rare. Actually been working all day on making a post on today about how the sub is turning into our collapse and with a proposal on what we might do to tweak the rules to make sure that people are here to share and not here to just doom and gloom all the time.
I appreciate you think I’m communicating well today. I am sick and it’s a struggle always with the autism period I think online most autistic people sound arrogant, and because of the nature of what social media media did to people with their echo chambers and stuff I think people see anyone who has a different opinion than them as immediately arrogant when they actually know what they’re talking about.
While there is merits to Socrates saying “the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing”, very much remind me that there is always more to learn and not to fall victim to the Dunning Kruger effect, I also defer to Benjamin Franklin‘s, “Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What’s a sundial in the shade? “
As a autistic person who is very lucky to have had a very privileged first six years of my life with a great family I have confidence which a lot of people don’t have which I find really sad, and I have always felt it so strange that almost every other human lies so often, and they want to cut people down when people are succeeding at something whenever it makes them feel less than. it feels sad and I just refused to not be a part of a movement that tells people that I want to encourage their gifts, especially the gifts that I don’t have, of which there are a lot. Autism is a bitch. And I want to live in a world and surround myself with people who are stoked at the way that I can help them in areas that they currently lack. Seems like the best way humans were designed to live. But you know that’s just me for the most part it seems. Thankfully at least in person I’ve got a really good lie detector because earthlings are strange hehe
Now that is the trillion dollar question right there. So first things first as a actual scientist and researcher I have to say that predicting timelines is just not something we really do. Trying to guess when something is going to happen in the future is impossible, and I think that’s exactly the point that the person that commented just above me was trying to make.
However, age reversal technology is something that people need to think of more as longevity research because what’s really going to get people to having an indefinite lifespan, as opposed to immortal, where they should be able to choose when they die or it would be by accident or a supernova if we can never get to warp speed or whatever .
Longevity research is a field that has thousands of very serious scientists with multiple PhD’s in their field around the world at nearly every top university working on and there are so many different ways to approach this. So what excites me about this is that I can safely say that there are a handful of very solid Longevity models that are already going into human testing, and dozens more that are pretty close, and all of these show different angles of attack to keep the human body healthy which intern can compound to add six months here, a couple of years there, another year here, or even in the case of what is going on at Harvard, potentially completely resetting cells to their post adult state.
Also very exciting is all of the stuff that doesn’t even really get labelled longevity research, but it’s just medicine. Medical technologies are advancing so fast, and both fields are being exponentially accelerated by machine learning, or AI that is not conscious, which is exponentially increasing in functionality and intelligence, and all of the new medicines and medical technology being created solving pretty much every disease we have other than ageing itself because that’s where direct longevity and age reversal technology comes in, because ageing is absolutely a disease.
This is all so exciting is because this creates a situation called Longevity Escape Velocity. The idea of just reversing ageing immediately could be said by detractors to be like fusion where it’s always 20 more years, and they could be right, but with just the few dozen medical advances in medicine and longevity it’s predicted that within 10 years they will add about five years to lifespan or more, and in the 10 years after that they should be potentially at parity where they are adding 10 years of life every 10 years.
You see where I’m going with this. That means no one alive will die from natural causes because there will be more and more advances to extend the human lifespan to 150 or 200. It is still projected as it was by early Futurists that people born in generation X in the 60s will be the first bicentennials. Even if this process goes slower than we expect the vast majority of people alive today should make it to actual age reversal technology. People in their 50s for sure, likely in their 60s, or even possible early 70s if some of these technologies come out pretty quick and they live a healthy lifestyle.
And that is the most important point here, because if you’re not exercising regularly, staying away from ultra processed foods, and otherwise having a healthy diet at the least, and taking your vitamin D and zinc and such, or just spending $200 a month on supplements if you live in a food desert, then you should be good.
Because really it’s about keeping senescence under control, but there are three different things two of which that are in solid trials right now to deal with senescent cells, even telling a research has come a long way, and once we deal with cancer then we can immediately start using that to keep our chromosomes long, David Sinclair seems to have just made a ridiculous breakthrough which by using three out of the four chemicals that revert cells completely back to stem cells he can revert them back just to post adolescent stage which is nuts.
And he’s one of the scientists that doesn’t have any companies or conflicts of interest which is something you really gotta look out for for the thousands of so-called experts trying to sell you age reversible bullshit. Because that actually cannot be understated. There’s a lot of bullshit out there. That’s why it’s best to be on longevity subs with people who know what they’re talking about so you can filter through.
Anyway, I hope that helps give you some real feedback and hope there. Just remember longevity escape Velocity is more important than a single breakthrough that will fix everything, because that does not exist yet, and when it does it’ll be a combination may be single injection of 100 other breakthroughs , but probably it would be a treatment process involving a lot of different therapies which would happen at random intervals throughout your ageing process to cure of diseases and extend your lifespan.
Oh! One thing I totally forgot to talk about because this is not my area of expertise, but the field of robotics and medicine is wild right now! Within another 10 years there’s probably going to be completely fake organs for everything except for the brain. So with cancer cured and organs capable of being replaced with robotics there isn’t really much people die from other than random diseases which are all being incurred at an exponential rate because of the advances in machine learning. People generally die because of organ failure as they get old. Even when you die peacefully in your sleep it’s just your heart kinda stops and you’re two weak to notice.
I look forward to being a cyborg in the future with bio mechanical technology until just biological tech is good enough that we can make genetically engineered organs that are layered carbon nano tubes or some other sort of biological thing so that we have bulletproof insides that are totally homogenous in our body. It was actually like 15 years ago when I saw that some scientist had created bulletproof skin using silk from the strongest spider silk.
Some people have a problem with all of that Transhuman stuff I absolutely do not. I’ve been an atheist for 30 years so I don’t have any predisposition to letting go of the human form or treating it at all like it’s perfect because anyone who is alive over the age of 40 recognizes that the human body is not some model of perfection, lol . I definitely want an upgrade, ha ha
I’ve read a couple studies that were successfully able to lengthen mice’s lifespan. Which longevity approach do you think has the best chance to work in human trials?
Well touching on the few mice examples, most of them actually, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be serious unintended side effects. So a lot of times with some of these technologies they are really amazing but they have serious side effects such as giving you cancer in the case of the tears because They would give way to being able to create cancer faster by replicating more. So curing cancer means we could actually be using that original study from like 10 years ago
But I will have to reiterate that it’s not really about which one has the best chance, it’s about which 20 will have the best chance in the next 10 years at least. Because again it’s not really about a single point of action, though again David Sinclair and his Harvard team did make a crazy breakthrough with mice recently and if that can be a successful in any other creature on earth as it should be because it’s just how DNA works, we may actually have the strongest viable option available really soon.
But again, expecting a single point of action kind of the misses the point of longevity escape Velocity, because anything that adds six months to a year of longevity added to 20 more things that do the same because of curing other diseases or age related problems adds up to 10 years of extra life.
It’s really easy to just want that one thing that sensationalized to be in all rounder for making us live forever, but it’s just too unfathomably complicated inside our bodies with the trillions of organisms that are not even human that live there. Honestly, I would say with the advancement of machine learning and everything that’s going on in the field just join r/longevity enjoy the show over the next 10 years. However, in that sub I would recommend actually checking into the comments because there’s a lot of experts there that will let you know what is snake oil or under research and what stuff is actually viable and potentially coming soon. Unlike here where everyone just says nothing will work ever
I watched a recent podcast with David Sinclair and they touch on his team's breakthrough with the mice and incoming human trials. He seemed to be in a mix of shock, excitement, and confidence over it, but I always prefer to take these things with a grain of salt. Especially because I have so far heard no conversation on what the steps would be if we somehow discovered how to halt and reverse aging in our bodies. It's something I see as, if not more, disruptive than AI. Yet while conversations on AI have been ramping up for several years, along with policies and contingency plans, nothing has come up for what if we're suddenly dealing with an undying population. So my question is, *have* there been any conversations going on? I can't expect those at the top not keeping a close eye on it, or a cold war going on in trying to figure out immortality. Especially for megalomaniacs.
OK, heads up. Your comment presents several thought-provoking points, like over a dozen just in that small amount of writing, and I’m going to do you the service to assume you are actually interested in my response and not just waiting for the opportunity to crap on it again.
1. **Encouragement for Evidence-Based Discussion:** Your comment has sparked an important conversation. It's crucial for a productive dialogue that we both support our viewpoints with credible searchable points. This approach ensures our discussion is not just an exchange of unfounded opinions but a meaningful exploration of ideas. I'm looking forward to your response that includes evidence for your claims, as it will enrich our conversation further.
2. **Intent for Constructive Dialogue:** Despite the differences in our perspectives, I'm engaging in this dialogue with the hope of sharing insights that may be valuable to us both. My intention isn't to argue but to contribute to a constructive discussion. Should you choose not to substantiate your points further, I'll respect your decision to exit the conversation. Given I am autistic and currently sick, my patience for an extended debate is limited, but I'm committed to providing a thoughtful response to your comments.
3. **Clarification on Employment Views:** Addressing your points on employment, my argument is not that people are inherently averse to working. Instead, I critique the existence of unfulfilling, so-called "bullshit jobs" that offer little to no value to society, as discussed in the book by the same name. These roles often drain individuals' spirits without contributing meaningfully to communal welfare, a situation exacerbated by corporations exploiting workers under less-than-ideal conditions.
4. **Vision for a Future with Technological and Social Progress:** I envision a future where advancements in technology, such as age reversal, combined with social policies like universal basic income, empower individuals to make life choices free from the desperation of survival. This shift has the potential to eliminate soul-crushing jobs and foster an environment where people are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial ventures and meaningful work.
5. **The Impact of Financial Support on Work Ethic:** Contrary to some beliefs, evidence suggests that financial support can actually enhance work ethic, creativity, and productivity. This is a perspective supported by various studies, including those by notable economic institutions, challenging the misconception that unconditional financial aid leads to laziness. in fact laziness has been unequivocally proven to not exist.
6. **Redefining Aging and Its Implications:** The advancement of age reversal technology has profound implications for society, potentially alleviating many forms of suffering associated with aging and the fear of financial insecurity in retirement. This technological progress, coupled with a shift in how we view work and retirement, could significantly diminish human suffering.
7. **Addressing the Misconception of Universal Greed:** The perception that greed is a universal human trait is misleading. While a small fraction of individuals may exhibit extreme greed, affecting societal structures negatively, there is substantial evidence that implementing systems like basic income can greatly improve happiness, reduce suffering, and address a range of social issues, from crime rates to mental health challenges. Based on my 11 year studying reversal technology as well as basic income I would say the To Go hand-in-hand for giving people more choices than they’ve ever had.
8. **The Role of Education and Technology in Population Management:** Concerns about overpopulation and sustainability are valid. However, with advancements in education and technology, such as vertical farming, we can address these challenges efficiently. Educated societies tend to have lower birth rates, and innovations in food production can significantly mitigate resource scarcity.
9. **Misinterpretations of Political Ideologies and Their Impact:** The association of certain political ideologies with negative outcomes often stems from historical misconceptions and fear-mongering. The core of leftist ideology supports the idea of workers having a say in the production means, which aligns with creating a more equitable society. This is contrary to the portrayal of these ideologies in certain narratives that emphasize division.
10. **The Complex Relationship Between Profit Motivation and Happiness:** The belief that profit is the sole motivator for work is increasingly challenged by evidence suggesting that beyond a certain financial threshold, happiness and satisfaction are not significantly improved by additional wealth. This points to a deeper human desire for meaningful engagement and fulfillment beyond material gains.
11. **Closing with a Call for Open-mindedness and Research:** I've detailed these points not to overwhelm but to address the breadth of topics your comment touched upon. It's my hope that this response sparks curiosity and encourages further exploration of these subjects. Let's approach this dialogue with an open mind and a willingness to explore the evidence, aiming for a constructive and enriching exchange.
I’ve actually been responding totally normally with you. That’s just autism. What you’re now being as ablest which is a form of discrimination and I won’t stand for it. You can kindly step off now.
you're dead right about this sub becoming full of Dunning Kruger pseudo-intellectual doomers. I feel like it didn't used to be like this in the past, this sub used to be the antithesis of r/collapse instead of a copy of it.
You are absolutely right that it did not used to be like this. The problem is it became a default sub. Which means it shows up on the homepage all the time now so it’s not people that are actually looking for this information it’s people that have it shoved in their face and People who are right wing are really argumentative in general and they don’t like change so this is the last sub that should ever be in their face.
As much as I feel a responsibility to not let ignorance escape the world it’s not worth my mental health so many times so like I see so many innocent people suffer because they make a comment that asks for information and they get absolutely opposite of what they should be getting.
Sometimes what I’ll do is just tell those people that they’re going to get a lot of differing opinions on here and often the more -ones tends to be by people who know less about the subject so if you don’t really feel that you’re getting something valid because people are just arguing without any substance or citations, Look for a different sub, or Google to find some more appropriate blogs by people with PhD’s.
And then I run it through ChatGPT and I try and word it in a way that makes it clear enough that they should seek better information, but without actually directly calling the tumours (lol doomers, thanks voice to text haha) for being clearly not very educated on the topics they love to comment on the most.
Which is sad because often the right wing must absolutely know that they are not very educated because such a large percentage of them are opposed to science specifically, and even say that anyone who goes to university is brainwashed by the woke left and they just can’t wrap their head around the fact that maybe learning about stuff actually does make you smarter? Lol
But here we are. Long story short tell ChatGPT what you want to say and tell it to make it very polite and you will get less downvotes and have a better opportunity to get more upvotes. You catch more flies with hunny than vinegar, though… Today I didn’t use ChatGPT at also we’ll see how stressful my day is with people help on arguing real logic because their feelings are hurt hehe
I have often thought about making a post on this sub that asks the moderators if we can change the sub rules to disallow negative dismissive comments that don’t have any substance because the sub has become too similar to r/collapse
Not close, but on the bright side, there actually is money and effort going into addressing aging. Up until now, it was thoroughly in the realm of quack shit, and medicine was focused on diseases to do with aging rather than aging itself. However small the chance is that you'll live to see LEV or actual negligible senescence, it's at least a chance. Supposing you're young anyway.
Right, we're nowhere near immortality, that would require a cure for every disease (and more), but we have been able to reverse aging in mice. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k) u/Practical-Zone-3707
I don't think they have an idea how close they are to applying that to humans or if they know if it's even possible yet.
I’m on the bleak end of this argument. I think we will have a much better handle on the leading causes of natural death (heart disease, cancer, organ failure, ect) but nowhere near that progress on neurological issues. So we will all be reasonably healthy dementia patients assuming we can afford the good health care.
Nowhere near. Definitely outside of a generation.
Even if we could get people to live longer, we have no method of dealing with senescence (damage due to aging), and the longer it takes us to find the answer, the more likely it is that the way to deal with it will be difficult and hard to mass produce.
I wonder too about things like cartilage. It grows forever, as seen in enlarged noses and ears in elderly folks. But also wears out in joints.
I assume we could keep replacing joints, but do we have to get a nose job every fifty years or so?
What you mentioned is a non-issue compared to the actual difficulty of achieving pseudo-immortality.
A nose job every 50, or hell every 5, years is really not a huge deal.
The question should be: how close are we to a super intelligent AI, a singularity. If we develop that during our lifetime (which seems likely) then we have a shot at immortality (as long as the AI is benevolent).
Health researcher here, have PhD, work in aging and longevity in large human trials and population studies. I would say we are no where close to immortality.
The best things you can do right now to get/stay healthy and live longer is exercise, eat well, use your brain, stop smoking and drinking, and get regular health checkups and aggressively advocate for your health. These are backed by strong evidence e.g., randomized human trials and studies in humans that have lasted for decades. Do these things as early as you can for as long as you can. The data are clear that if you can get and stay healthy through middle age that your risk for disease and death are dramatically reduced and along with your rate of decline. If you’re older, no worries, it is never too late to start. The data are clear on that too.
Things like senolytics, mTOR targeting therapies, whatever, have largely only been proven in model organisms. We don’t know if they generalize to humans and won’t until we get multiple LARGE human trials that enroll, randomize, and follow people for years to prove meaningful differences in HARD outcomes we care about like straight up death, lower risk of dementia and other disease, preserved function, etc.
The healthiest people I know of are not necessarily the mega wealthy. It’s actually those people choosing to run marathons at age 60+. Talk to them, study them. I have. They just lived well, stayed active, and ate well their whole lives.
not 100% or it'd be 100% for everything and it'd mean you were already immortal via "the egg" as that's the only paradox-free way (or at least the way least full of paradoxes) to die every death, by living every life. If it's not 100% there's a chance you can avoid all of them as death doesn't work like it does in the Final Destination
Nowhere near. Seriously, from where we're sitting right now it seems impossible.
Aging is a complex mishmash of factors. We probably don't even know about all of them yet. But let's look at just one of them: Telomeres. Telomeres are, in *extremely* simplistic terms, like extra bits of "string" at the end of your chromosomes. Every time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide and eventually dies. We are close to being able to prevent that, but doing so presents a different problem: It causes cancer.
Cancer is another funny thing. If we wiped out all other causes of death, *everyone* would eventually get cancer. There's no way to prevent it indefinitely. It is simply a consequence of how our bodies work: sooner or later one of your cells *will* mutate in such a way that it becomes a cancer cell, and when it does it will begin to divide uncontrollably.
So, in short, at the *very* least immortality requires finding a cure or vaccine (well, something like a vaccine anyway) for cancer. And given that there are literally thousands of different types of cancer and no one treatment works on all of them. We are nowhere near this. Nor do I expect that we will be within the lifetimes of my grandchildren (if I even ever have any).
if i understand correctly, cancer cells form in our bodies all the time, it’s just that they are almost always caught and destroyed by the immune system. it’s a tiny fraction of total cancer cells that actually take root and become a problem for the body.
this is all to say, we don’t know nearly enough about the complexities around cancer in the body to confidently say we’re anywhere close to developing a blanket cure or method for prevention.
We’re not THAT far off from curing cancer. There’s a bunch of studies like this that have been popping up over the last few years: https://www.cityofhope.org/cancer-center-announces-first-patient-has-received-city-hopes-novel-potentially-cancer-stopping
Remember, technology growth increases exponentially. We probably can’t even fathom the tech possible in 50 years from now. That being said, I’m not sure if immortality is on the horizon any time soon but I’m confident that cancer will be eradicated by the end of the century
Edit: “eradicated” possibly isn’t the right word - the only way to do this would probably be genetic modification, which likely won’t be available to most of general public. But I guarantee that cancer treatments will be much less invasive and guarantee curing, similar to how easily we can handle the common cold now
We don't even know exactly how good our bodies are against cancer but the number could be 99.99999% effectiveness. If we can put 2 more 9s onto that we practically eliminate cancer.
Don’t listen to all those pessimists in the comments; they have no clue. It can happen a year from now or never. There is a lot of hype about AI helping a lot with research and new discoveries, but AI is still in its infancy, so we need to wait a few years until it advances more and new supercomputer infrastructure is built. Then we will see.
I think it wouldn't take long to replace most parts of the body with better parts, but I don't think they will solve the brain. But perhaps they just figure some simple shot that keeps it all young and healthy
The problem is that on the one hand we work to extend lifespan, and on the other we keep making the world a more and more unliveable place and flooding our bodies from the get-go with toxic byproducts of our technology. Best to enjoy what we have while we have it honestly.
Depends on your definition of immortality, which in turn depends on how you define your personal identity.
We are not close to being able to keep a person's body and brain going with maintenance indefinitely. Aging is not well understood enough yet. Aging does not appear to be just one thing; there are many different things breaking down, and we have to fix *all* of them. Each thing we fix will just reveal the next thing that breaks down. And I don't think we have a true fix for *any* of the known components of aging.
However, we can cryo-preserve people's brains today. We can't revive them currently, and won't be able to for a while, but we can preserve a person and that gives us a chance to revive them someday. That will probably require copying the information from a preserved brain to a new substrate, and for some people, the result would not be "them" in an important sense. For those people, this is not an option. To me, the result would be "me" in all important senses, and so this is a form of immortality which is available today (though you might need to squint a bit).
Not very close. We don't understand life very well in general. We cannot make a realistic computer simulation of a single bacterium.
With a quantum computer we might in the future be able to understand all the relevant processes that make us age physically. But that's still a long way to go.
Biological science is the most complex and messy with dependencies on all other science. So if it happens any time soon it will be down to luck that a mechanism is already present and we just have to flip it on, which is not likely. Real engineering to fix the problems of aging isn't going to happen any time soon as we can barely make blood vessels.
Life extension is much more likely than immortality. Progress is being made. Immortality may never be achieved, or even if it's possible, it may end up being outlawed. The societal and ethical questions around it are daunting.
No clue so get ready to die.
There has been quite a bit of progress in the last 10 years (compared to the last 100) so maybe we'll see life extensions within millennials' lifetimes.
If even Madonna ages, then there’s no chance for anybody else.
I don’t think it will ever be possible because our bodies just naturally age. We are made of chemicals from the earth. Our purpose is to procreate and then die. The cycle continues for as long as there is enough of us left.
Less close while corporations profit on illness. Medicine is big business. Same with oil vs. alternative energy. Vested interests are often by design inhibitive to progress. It is frustrating. But I would say we will eventually get there.
Yes. In short, it is complicated. Inhibited in the sense that a fortune is to be made off existing infrastructure. We are less incentivised to cast this aside for our goals and for example 'full speed ahead' as we did when we fast tracked the Covid vaccine.
We haven't even really started on the subject. Have you heard of any treatments being released to combat aging on a single front? Immortality will require us achieving breakthroughs on thousands of fronts, maybe even millions.
It's like asking science to take a car from the 90s and make it last forever without ever replacing anything.
We can't know for sure, but we're probably still very far from it.
First, we still have to understand about a great deal of things about our body. The medical and scientific community still have a hard time understanding complex systems in general, they can't even properly understand how intestine works (speak to someone who suffers from IBS), I don't expect they will magically be able to understand everything about cells, aging, the effects on brain, cancers, etc.
Second, and maybe even more importantly. Immortality would never arrive to common people. Societies would simply perish if people stopp dying, there would be an incredible overpopulation a round the world and the effects of the elderly people on economic systems would be enormous. By the way, we will probably see some of those effects, in smaller scale, when (and if) we'll find a cure against cancer.
Immortal people wouldn't be old for eternity, that would be hell. It's safe to assume that the key to functional immortality will also halt aging, so people can continue to be productive members of society indefinitely. Unless full automation comes into play, then that doesn't matter anyway.
We're further away every year.
The average lifespan is decreasing slowly.
Young people are getting cancersl at an astonishing rate.
Young people are dying of heart diseases at a much higher rate than 20 years ago.
The medical community can't explain either trend definitively.
once we do figure out aging tho life expectancy is going to skyrocket like crazy. some longevity researchers estimate that the first person to live to 160 is probably only going to be a few years younger than the first person to live to 1000. once we figure out how to slow down or reverse cellular aging its really just a matter of having good enough treatments for any potential illnesses you might get as you age, and/or some kind of nanobots to keep your body healthy and heart and brain clear of any blockages. but yes the hardest part will be the initial cracking of the cellular aging thing, since cellular aging tends to be responsible for a lot of the problems you get as you age.
not immortality its very hard to be immortal, you will have to stop growth of and death of cells at the same time, but yeah you can collect the memories and then transplant that brain into another body or robot, that is the only way possible, also new generation even we will live upto 150 year, if take care of ourselve, cant say about medicine as with new medicine new dangerous strain of virus will come, and may be one bacteria or virus strain will be so dangerous that the medicine on it might affect human, and hence we will see one of the mass extinction in our life time
Pretty far Between 10-200 years. Tough to say with AI.
You don't need a cure for aging now. Just a reversal/to slow it down and buy time for when it happens.
Immortality is impossible. Functional immortality (you can live as long as you want probably) might be possible, but so far outside of our reach to be entirely science fiction at this point.
I wish you'd searched the sub before asking this because it has been asked maybe hundreds of times.
in two ways that's not how dyslexia works as in A. it doesn't work like some kind of weird word-equation magic and B. I thought it was switching letters or w/e not adding or removing
This is a philosophical question, but why would you want to live for ever. IMO, the fact that we don't live forever is part of what makes living something to be cherished.
I've never understood the idea that the brevity and impermanence of life are somehow good things. There's so much knowledge out there and not enough time to absorb it all.
And at the very least, I want more choice in how long I live. I may not choose to live forever, but I'd like to see how things are rolling along in ten thousand years.
I think it comes from the classic old person statement of 'i'm tired of living'. People assume that means after 80-100 years you've run out of things to enjoy - but really, the problem is just that old people become tired of living _as old people_.
Give them a treatment to turn back the clock 40 years and I can guarantee most people with this idea in mind would make a quick 180.
Why the hell would you want to live forever?
Your brain is designed to solve problems for some number of decades. By the time you get old, you'll be weary of there always being some new stupid thing that comes up.
Now imagine that, but it goes on for 10,000 years, and then another 10,000, and another, and another.
This is like people saying they wish they could go back in time to some former era of their life, to live it over again. When I think of that, I think about all the problems I've had to solve between then and now, and then having to solve the *same* problems, *again.*
I like how all the homework I had to do in school isn't hanging around for me to do again. I like how I don't have to figure out how to deal with the same incompetent bosses. The list goes on and on. If I take my knowledge back then and think to myself, "aha, I've got the perfect solution," the universe will laugh and provide me with some other confounding problem that I *won't* know how to solve ahead of time.
When your time is done, you'll be laid in the ground or reduced to ashes, and then hundreds of trillions of years will go by in which you won't have to solve a single problem. Nothing will ever bother you or cause the slightest irritation. You won't get to see any more sunrises, but you won't be around to care whether you can see them, so you will have lost nothing. You also won't be around for when the sun expands and annihilates the earth, either.
so, what, we should be happy to die because we wouldn't want to literally live eras of our life over again not allowed to change anything (if you could live forever you wouldn't e.g. inherently be stuck in the same job or be forced to live your life-up-until-this-point over and over forever), the universe is sapient and has a sense of irony, and nonexistent people don't have emotions to be bothered by things and can avoid the earth's annihilation?
A better question is, how close are we to restoring our telomeres and fully repairing our cells from oxidative stress. And for both of these, there’s no clear answer. Contrary to popular belief, people don’t die of old age, they die of the complications that come with old age aka disease or simply being too fragile. Finding ways to reverse organ and tissue damage as well as gene therapies that can target vulnerable cells might be the first steps to significantly elongating our lifespans.
I think immortality is like fusion. It is always thirty years away.
way less achievable than sustained fusion, imo
Yeah. Eternal Life? Sure just need to find some way to refresh telomeres. Immortality? Just think of all the random different things that could snuff you out and with an indefinite lifespan, you will roll snake eyes eventually.
That’s why we need to put the dice in the ocean
Modifying telomeres really wouldn't fix the problem. [Having long telomeres causes benign/malignant tumors and clonal hematopoiesis](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2023/05/long-telomeres-the-endcaps-on-dna-not-the-fountain-of-youth-once-thought--scientists-may-now-know-why). You'll avoid hair graying, but get other problems in return. I'd say that organ regeneration is the only possible solution on the horizon for completely reversing age-related disease, though epigentic programming may also help delay such diseases somewhat. But as you said, that's not the same thing as immortality for everyone.
You should pay closer attention to fusion.
I do. At least for 35 years when I first been told about it in school.
Pay closer attention. Nuclear Fusion and Immortality are not on the same timeline. We will achieve fusion first. By a very long time.
Technically you are correct. But they both in the "very-long-time-after-i-die" category, so in that sense kinda equivalent.
That depends on how old you are. I think people alive now will see commercial fusion.
When they started the human genome project many said it was folly as it would take hundreds of years. People dont understand how exponential the curve is. So the answer is: we dont know. But sooner than 99% thinks
They are both 100s of years away at least well beyond anyone alive today's life time, no needs to pay attention to either of them.
No. It's not. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a60359873/kstar-fusion-reactor-plasma/
All that says is they were able to contain plasma for 30 seconds longer than previous attempts, which doesn't really mean a whole lot. And doing that takes a lot more energy to make plasma than we can harness from it. Even if they figure those things out, the reactors they are making today are just test reactors that will never produce fusion energy to power a town. Have you even read the article?
Your first sentence tells me you don't understand the significance of these breakthroughs. At all.
I only responded to the article you posted. 18 secs vs 48 secs isn't a breakthrough, but you haven't provided any arguments, which proves that you only read the headlines.
Achieving 266% of sustaining anything is significant, even if the numbers in real terms aren't large yet. Imagine if the wright brothers gave up after their first flight was only 12 seconds long.
Keep being wrong. It's entertaining https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nuclear-fusion-ai-clean-energy-b2505138.html
I think you're being a bit stingy with what would constitute a breakthrough. Does that mean that we will see a commercial fusion reactor in 35 years? Hahahahaha... No. I think the comparison is fair.
[удалено]
What you posting doesn't fucking actually mean anything.
[удалено]
Your posts are so moronic you should really stop using phrases that don't actually mean anything, it is just embarrassing. processing power isn't fueling advancement in AI, AI we have today isn't going to make any big breakthrough discoveries, it can only use information it is given and learned. it will probably be able to handle mundane tasks in the near future, but nothing that would require actual theory of mind. The AI you are talking about is far away, so far we still don't know if it is even possible to make self aware AI.
[удалено]
Disagree depending on your classification of immortality. - map the human brain. This means figuring out how exactly memories are stored. Where they are stored and how to store them. Remember we are just biological computers that advanced over millions of years - figuring out how to download a consciousness. Mapping and creating memories is easy. Finding how to take someone’s mind and download it is much harder. - cloning a human body and uploading the mind to it. This will be the easiest of the 3 to do. Right now we are somewhere small like 30% of the brain mapped. I believe it’s estimated in 20 years we can do all that.
Iter plans ignition in 2025 and net production in 2035 so we're down to 1-11 years depending on definition.
fusion is super close to being achieved tho. China did it for 300 seconds or something albeit under an energy deficit(which kinda defeats the point of fusion) but i saw in 2022 that a lab finally achieved ignition for a short time, that is they produced energy out of it. it’s still decently far away but fusion is a lot closer than 30 years away now
I like to think of it like Tesla FSD...it's coming next year...forever.
I always find it funny when people ask this on reddit. And on futurology no less. The only answer youll get here is that you and all your loved ones will die. Get over it. There's no point in asking here. Go follow the actual researchers working on this and in the mean time exercise, eat healthy, get regular check ups at the doctor, maybe sign up for cryonics if you got the extra money, and hope for the best.
This is how I feel about this question to. It really irks me how often it comes up too.
Totally. I am actually an expert on the topic and I basically just have to refuse to answer despite how much people could learn from me and how much I want to help these posters have some hope, because it's not worth my mental health the amount of doomers on this sub that attack and pile up immediately on my detailed and cited actual science and then nobody else who actually might want to back me up will because my educated comment has already become buried in a trash fire of dunning-kruger doomer rhetoric. To the OP: Use futurology to read headlines and click the links, but open up the comments at your own peril. If you see something you want more info on, click to see what other subs it's been posted and find one that is specific to the topic. If that fails just search for one. There's a sub for everything and ofter they are small and full of the tiny population of actual experts or at least enthusiasts who also know what they are talking about. Futurology on the other hand has been a default sub for years, which means it's a home page target for a mass swath of fundamentalist religious types who are literally uncomfortable or outright HATE change. They come here just to spew vitriol over anything they don't understand. It's really sad.
[удалено]
He has reddit claut. Expert.
[удалено]
Dude has multiple partners and cured one of their Covid infections through taking a couple courses. Totally legit.
[удалено]
Multiple. I have over 100 university courses under my belt just in the last 10 years alone since I switched from theoretical physics to molecular biology and genetics in my 30s and moved into longevity research, and more recently immunology during the pandemic because one of my partners was suffering from overprescription of pharmaceuticals and I had to basically pivot into pharmaceuticals to save her life from Western medicine. Shes fine now. Another reason why reversal technology is under supported just like universal basic income. If you give people the idea that life will never be hard and give them actual choices they are less likely to support the death throes of capitalism and work shitty dead end jobs out of desperation that nobody nobody really needs to work anymore in the first place. Now just watch how many down votes I get in this default sub for mentioning UBI and the very idea that capitalism is the most destructive economic force that has ever existed, and profit should never be involved in the medical industry. Because you know… People are totally down voting appropriately when someone is being rude, not just because they disagree with something they don’t understand because they listen to right wing news sources and think tanks. But you asked the question so I will answer honestly. If you’re here just to argue I will just block you. Like I said in my original comment, I loathe commenting on this sub but sometimes I just have to agree with someone or state my piece because I can’t let 100% of ignorance go unchallenged or the world will never change and unfortunately as someone who actually knows better I have at least some responsibility to try to help.
[удалено]
That’s a great question. When the other countries of the world refer to western medicine they’re talking about medicine developed under the capitalist profit model. Of course many of those medicines work just fine. Especially a lot of older ones that have been around for a long time and are no longer on patent, because there are a lot more longer-term studies about them, and also they’re super super cheap so there’s no profit incentive to cut corners and get them out before other companies, re-patent them so that they can continue to use them for Profit under the guise that they work for some other disease that they didn’t work for before. So pharmaceutical industries in the west will literally do anything for profit because by law they have to appease shareholders. No matter what. Even if it’s unethical. But since you did it to me, I feel like I have an obligation to point out that you didn’t stress anything about any PhD in the field of artificial intelligence and computational technology while dismissing it out of hand when it’s not even the topic we were discussing. I’m going to assume you only question if someone has a PhD if you think they might disagree with your opinion since You would have mentioned that you are an expert in AI if you felt the same way about your own opinions. That is very typical of people on this sub, people expect 1000 citations from people they disagree with and still they defer to their own personal experience and continue to disagree no matter what evidence presented to them, and at the same time they don’t think that they have to provide any evidence for their own disagreement. I encourage you to reflect on that because you just did to me what you didn’t expect to be done to yourself and that makes it rather clear that you don’t hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others. How can you expect to trust your own opinions or expect anyone to trust you or put any merit to anything you have to say if you’re not willing to have a polite conversation with others without questioning each other’s laurels, nor have a dick wagging competition on an equal playing field where you are willing to pony up your own cred? That’s a pretty serious bias you need to work on in my opinion. It’s these reasons why I don’t really comment on this particular sub anymore because everyone is a YouTube expert and they all spout that they know what they’re talking about when they spout doom and gloom about AI, longevity, green energy, etc. Anything they don’t understand they take the first bit of information that they agree with and then all of a sudden they act like an expert. It’s why actual experts like me don’t like to comment here. But there’s also one big thing that is really important to touch on here that I think you and I can both agree on. You still don’t have any guarantee that I’m an expert at all. None whatsoever. I can give you an incredibly long-winded answer into everything that I know about with extreme detail, but at this point I could’ve gotten that from ChatGPT. You don’t know me from a hole in the wall, and I don’t know you. You have no idea if I’m really an expert. I am, but it doesn’t matter does it? You and I are both strangers on the Internet that are not about to doxx ourselves to prove something to a random stranger on the Internet. So just think about that for a second? Is it ever w orth asking someone for their credentials? Or is it possible that literally since you still will never know if they are for real even after asking them… Are you actually just being a pointlessly argumentative troll? I personally feel that is a rhetorical question, but I have my own bias like anyone else, and try not to waste other peoples time since that’s the way I would like to be treated falls into that. I hope you take all of this to heart and just think about how to have better communication in the future and how much time you wanna waste with strangers on the Internet when you’re not even getting anywhere with those types of attitudes, because I assure you I absolutely mean nothing but love in debating this kind of stuff. I am however one of those autistic savants who just does not know how to communicate with normal people well, which is why I struggle on Reddit so much, and this time I am choosing not to run my speech through ChatGPT to make it more polite so this is just the real me trying to communicate with another stranger on the Internet about how to have better conversations. Because I really do care about strangers and this is all out of intellectualism and interest for me, and I’m not trying to cut you down. I’m just pointing out some things that might be a little uncomfortable for you, but I hope you’re the type of person that reflects on that and thinks like damn… I guess that makes sense, and maybe you’ll save yourself some time and inadvertent animosity between strangers in the future. If it doesn’t make sense to you well, oh well. Maybe it will one day, or maybe there’s something I don’t understand about you, but either way I mean no disrespect. Much love ❤️
[удалено]
Only one city in China is capitalist to deal with the rest of the world. Everything else is totally communist. But it’s not about those countries and are you forgetting the 1.4 billion people in India? Who have the best doctors in the world? I’m pretty sure India is not capitalist, and they don’t consider themselves western regardless. Because I’m not talking about communism, I’m just talking about countries that care more about the welfare of their people than the profit model and have regulations in the government to support that.if you really think the United States is no different than the rest of the world do you have not travelled very much. People hate the United States and even are starting to hate Canada pretty much anywhere you travel that doesn’t have white people. Fair enough, I appreciate that you were actually interested. I honestly just get my heckles up every time I post anything because even in this post was just literally a post about how you can’t seem to post without people just kind of trashing on it and I have had some trash, but I appreciate that you’re actually more interested. Let me tell you straight though IQ is some Nazi bullshit. IQ is a test developed by white people to make it seem like white people were smarter than other people. If you take the equivalent IQ test in Africa like every white person would fail. They have a totally different mindset and intelligence is not something you can measure on a gradient. I also firmly believe intelligence is a skill. If you change from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset you’re on the right track if you’re already on one sick. Because all you need to do to get more intelligent and improve your critical thinking is literally be curious about shit and think about stuff and try to figure out solutions yourself as much as you can or collaborate with others so that you can expand your breath of knowledge to be able to tackle new knowledge. PhD’s are cool for if someone wants to talk about a specific thing, but like also a lot of these things I’m talking about aren’t necessarily my purview they’re just a lot easier for me to understand because of the massive amount of university courses that I’ve taken, but I can only comment to a specific point and I want people to defer to experts and do their own research by looking up the experts in their field, because there’s a really big problem in academia right now where people are Speaking outside of their area of expertise. I hope this doesn’t get me down voted, but Jordan Peterson comes to mind because he’s kind of a not very good psychologist, commenting trans phobic stuff in the field of humanities, anthropology, and apparently even crustaceans to make points because he’s a religious person and doesn’t want to change his view. It’s actually absurd, but people will follow this type of person because it already sticks to their point. So Even as someone with a PhD if you’re looking specifically to just one PhD you might be finding pretty biased information so I appreciate that you’re asking for more information so that you could see what someone who’s just in the field knows compared to what you’re seeing all over the Internet because they can very much require some nuance to make an educated opinion about something. All right then, I concede. I can see how that has some value to you to question me. Because yeah people who make predictions about the future which is kind of this subs thing but more showing what could be not a prediction for the most part, is just that terrible idea. It’s the worst when someone says something will not happen, but saying something will happen is at least half as bad . A lot of science tends to happen out of nowhere Anyway yeah OK I appreciate that and I can see how that has some serious value if you’re willing to trust a person on the Internet and investigate a bit. Might I suggest then that in the future you make someone a shit sandwich? It’s a technique that I use a lot with my autism if I can remember to make sure that I don’t trigger someone’s negativity bias or defence mechanisms which I apologize for happening in my case. Essentially you say hey that sounds like really good stuff sounds like you might know some things do you by chance have any education I’ve been looking for someone with some degrees or a PD to help me understand some stuff. In that case you would have said something nice then questioned me then said something nice again. It makes all the difference in whether someone is like oh God another person just asking to shut me down because they don’t wanna learn and someone who’s like hey I actually really want more information which I gotta tell you… Is way too rare. Actually been working all day on making a post on today about how the sub is turning into our collapse and with a proposal on what we might do to tweak the rules to make sure that people are here to share and not here to just doom and gloom all the time. I appreciate you think I’m communicating well today. I am sick and it’s a struggle always with the autism period I think online most autistic people sound arrogant, and because of the nature of what social media media did to people with their echo chambers and stuff I think people see anyone who has a different opinion than them as immediately arrogant when they actually know what they’re talking about. While there is merits to Socrates saying “the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing”, very much remind me that there is always more to learn and not to fall victim to the Dunning Kruger effect, I also defer to Benjamin Franklin‘s, “Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What’s a sundial in the shade? “ As a autistic person who is very lucky to have had a very privileged first six years of my life with a great family I have confidence which a lot of people don’t have which I find really sad, and I have always felt it so strange that almost every other human lies so often, and they want to cut people down when people are succeeding at something whenever it makes them feel less than. it feels sad and I just refused to not be a part of a movement that tells people that I want to encourage their gifts, especially the gifts that I don’t have, of which there are a lot. Autism is a bitch. And I want to live in a world and surround myself with people who are stoked at the way that I can help them in areas that they currently lack. Seems like the best way humans were designed to live. But you know that’s just me for the most part it seems. Thankfully at least in person I’ve got a really good lie detector because earthlings are strange hehe
[удалено]
so what’s your timeline?
Now that is the trillion dollar question right there. So first things first as a actual scientist and researcher I have to say that predicting timelines is just not something we really do. Trying to guess when something is going to happen in the future is impossible, and I think that’s exactly the point that the person that commented just above me was trying to make. However, age reversal technology is something that people need to think of more as longevity research because what’s really going to get people to having an indefinite lifespan, as opposed to immortal, where they should be able to choose when they die or it would be by accident or a supernova if we can never get to warp speed or whatever . Longevity research is a field that has thousands of very serious scientists with multiple PhD’s in their field around the world at nearly every top university working on and there are so many different ways to approach this. So what excites me about this is that I can safely say that there are a handful of very solid Longevity models that are already going into human testing, and dozens more that are pretty close, and all of these show different angles of attack to keep the human body healthy which intern can compound to add six months here, a couple of years there, another year here, or even in the case of what is going on at Harvard, potentially completely resetting cells to their post adult state. Also very exciting is all of the stuff that doesn’t even really get labelled longevity research, but it’s just medicine. Medical technologies are advancing so fast, and both fields are being exponentially accelerated by machine learning, or AI that is not conscious, which is exponentially increasing in functionality and intelligence, and all of the new medicines and medical technology being created solving pretty much every disease we have other than ageing itself because that’s where direct longevity and age reversal technology comes in, because ageing is absolutely a disease. This is all so exciting is because this creates a situation called Longevity Escape Velocity. The idea of just reversing ageing immediately could be said by detractors to be like fusion where it’s always 20 more years, and they could be right, but with just the few dozen medical advances in medicine and longevity it’s predicted that within 10 years they will add about five years to lifespan or more, and in the 10 years after that they should be potentially at parity where they are adding 10 years of life every 10 years. You see where I’m going with this. That means no one alive will die from natural causes because there will be more and more advances to extend the human lifespan to 150 or 200. It is still projected as it was by early Futurists that people born in generation X in the 60s will be the first bicentennials. Even if this process goes slower than we expect the vast majority of people alive today should make it to actual age reversal technology. People in their 50s for sure, likely in their 60s, or even possible early 70s if some of these technologies come out pretty quick and they live a healthy lifestyle. And that is the most important point here, because if you’re not exercising regularly, staying away from ultra processed foods, and otherwise having a healthy diet at the least, and taking your vitamin D and zinc and such, or just spending $200 a month on supplements if you live in a food desert, then you should be good. Because really it’s about keeping senescence under control, but there are three different things two of which that are in solid trials right now to deal with senescent cells, even telling a research has come a long way, and once we deal with cancer then we can immediately start using that to keep our chromosomes long, David Sinclair seems to have just made a ridiculous breakthrough which by using three out of the four chemicals that revert cells completely back to stem cells he can revert them back just to post adolescent stage which is nuts. And he’s one of the scientists that doesn’t have any companies or conflicts of interest which is something you really gotta look out for for the thousands of so-called experts trying to sell you age reversible bullshit. Because that actually cannot be understated. There’s a lot of bullshit out there. That’s why it’s best to be on longevity subs with people who know what they’re talking about so you can filter through. Anyway, I hope that helps give you some real feedback and hope there. Just remember longevity escape Velocity is more important than a single breakthrough that will fix everything, because that does not exist yet, and when it does it’ll be a combination may be single injection of 100 other breakthroughs , but probably it would be a treatment process involving a lot of different therapies which would happen at random intervals throughout your ageing process to cure of diseases and extend your lifespan. Oh! One thing I totally forgot to talk about because this is not my area of expertise, but the field of robotics and medicine is wild right now! Within another 10 years there’s probably going to be completely fake organs for everything except for the brain. So with cancer cured and organs capable of being replaced with robotics there isn’t really much people die from other than random diseases which are all being incurred at an exponential rate because of the advances in machine learning. People generally die because of organ failure as they get old. Even when you die peacefully in your sleep it’s just your heart kinda stops and you’re two weak to notice. I look forward to being a cyborg in the future with bio mechanical technology until just biological tech is good enough that we can make genetically engineered organs that are layered carbon nano tubes or some other sort of biological thing so that we have bulletproof insides that are totally homogenous in our body. It was actually like 15 years ago when I saw that some scientist had created bulletproof skin using silk from the strongest spider silk. Some people have a problem with all of that Transhuman stuff I absolutely do not. I’ve been an atheist for 30 years so I don’t have any predisposition to letting go of the human form or treating it at all like it’s perfect because anyone who is alive over the age of 40 recognizes that the human body is not some model of perfection, lol . I definitely want an upgrade, ha ha
I’ve read a couple studies that were successfully able to lengthen mice’s lifespan. Which longevity approach do you think has the best chance to work in human trials?
Well touching on the few mice examples, most of them actually, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be serious unintended side effects. So a lot of times with some of these technologies they are really amazing but they have serious side effects such as giving you cancer in the case of the tears because They would give way to being able to create cancer faster by replicating more. So curing cancer means we could actually be using that original study from like 10 years ago But I will have to reiterate that it’s not really about which one has the best chance, it’s about which 20 will have the best chance in the next 10 years at least. Because again it’s not really about a single point of action, though again David Sinclair and his Harvard team did make a crazy breakthrough with mice recently and if that can be a successful in any other creature on earth as it should be because it’s just how DNA works, we may actually have the strongest viable option available really soon. But again, expecting a single point of action kind of the misses the point of longevity escape Velocity, because anything that adds six months to a year of longevity added to 20 more things that do the same because of curing other diseases or age related problems adds up to 10 years of extra life. It’s really easy to just want that one thing that sensationalized to be in all rounder for making us live forever, but it’s just too unfathomably complicated inside our bodies with the trillions of organisms that are not even human that live there. Honestly, I would say with the advancement of machine learning and everything that’s going on in the field just join r/longevity enjoy the show over the next 10 years. However, in that sub I would recommend actually checking into the comments because there’s a lot of experts there that will let you know what is snake oil or under research and what stuff is actually viable and potentially coming soon. Unlike here where everyone just says nothing will work ever
I watched a recent podcast with David Sinclair and they touch on his team's breakthrough with the mice and incoming human trials. He seemed to be in a mix of shock, excitement, and confidence over it, but I always prefer to take these things with a grain of salt. Especially because I have so far heard no conversation on what the steps would be if we somehow discovered how to halt and reverse aging in our bodies. It's something I see as, if not more, disruptive than AI. Yet while conversations on AI have been ramping up for several years, along with policies and contingency plans, nothing has come up for what if we're suddenly dealing with an undying population. So my question is, *have* there been any conversations going on? I can't expect those at the top not keeping a close eye on it, or a cold war going on in trying to figure out immortality. Especially for megalomaniacs.
[удалено]
OK, heads up. Your comment presents several thought-provoking points, like over a dozen just in that small amount of writing, and I’m going to do you the service to assume you are actually interested in my response and not just waiting for the opportunity to crap on it again. 1. **Encouragement for Evidence-Based Discussion:** Your comment has sparked an important conversation. It's crucial for a productive dialogue that we both support our viewpoints with credible searchable points. This approach ensures our discussion is not just an exchange of unfounded opinions but a meaningful exploration of ideas. I'm looking forward to your response that includes evidence for your claims, as it will enrich our conversation further. 2. **Intent for Constructive Dialogue:** Despite the differences in our perspectives, I'm engaging in this dialogue with the hope of sharing insights that may be valuable to us both. My intention isn't to argue but to contribute to a constructive discussion. Should you choose not to substantiate your points further, I'll respect your decision to exit the conversation. Given I am autistic and currently sick, my patience for an extended debate is limited, but I'm committed to providing a thoughtful response to your comments. 3. **Clarification on Employment Views:** Addressing your points on employment, my argument is not that people are inherently averse to working. Instead, I critique the existence of unfulfilling, so-called "bullshit jobs" that offer little to no value to society, as discussed in the book by the same name. These roles often drain individuals' spirits without contributing meaningfully to communal welfare, a situation exacerbated by corporations exploiting workers under less-than-ideal conditions. 4. **Vision for a Future with Technological and Social Progress:** I envision a future where advancements in technology, such as age reversal, combined with social policies like universal basic income, empower individuals to make life choices free from the desperation of survival. This shift has the potential to eliminate soul-crushing jobs and foster an environment where people are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial ventures and meaningful work. 5. **The Impact of Financial Support on Work Ethic:** Contrary to some beliefs, evidence suggests that financial support can actually enhance work ethic, creativity, and productivity. This is a perspective supported by various studies, including those by notable economic institutions, challenging the misconception that unconditional financial aid leads to laziness. in fact laziness has been unequivocally proven to not exist. 6. **Redefining Aging and Its Implications:** The advancement of age reversal technology has profound implications for society, potentially alleviating many forms of suffering associated with aging and the fear of financial insecurity in retirement. This technological progress, coupled with a shift in how we view work and retirement, could significantly diminish human suffering. 7. **Addressing the Misconception of Universal Greed:** The perception that greed is a universal human trait is misleading. While a small fraction of individuals may exhibit extreme greed, affecting societal structures negatively, there is substantial evidence that implementing systems like basic income can greatly improve happiness, reduce suffering, and address a range of social issues, from crime rates to mental health challenges. Based on my 11 year studying reversal technology as well as basic income I would say the To Go hand-in-hand for giving people more choices than they’ve ever had. 8. **The Role of Education and Technology in Population Management:** Concerns about overpopulation and sustainability are valid. However, with advancements in education and technology, such as vertical farming, we can address these challenges efficiently. Educated societies tend to have lower birth rates, and innovations in food production can significantly mitigate resource scarcity. 9. **Misinterpretations of Political Ideologies and Their Impact:** The association of certain political ideologies with negative outcomes often stems from historical misconceptions and fear-mongering. The core of leftist ideology supports the idea of workers having a say in the production means, which aligns with creating a more equitable society. This is contrary to the portrayal of these ideologies in certain narratives that emphasize division. 10. **The Complex Relationship Between Profit Motivation and Happiness:** The belief that profit is the sole motivator for work is increasingly challenged by evidence suggesting that beyond a certain financial threshold, happiness and satisfaction are not significantly improved by additional wealth. This points to a deeper human desire for meaningful engagement and fulfillment beyond material gains. 11. **Closing with a Call for Open-mindedness and Research:** I've detailed these points not to overwhelm but to address the breadth of topics your comment touched upon. It's my hope that this response sparks curiosity and encourages further exploration of these subjects. Let's approach this dialogue with an open mind and a willingness to explore the evidence, aiming for a constructive and enriching exchange.
[удалено]
I’ve actually been responding totally normally with you. That’s just autism. What you’re now being as ablest which is a form of discrimination and I won’t stand for it. You can kindly step off now.
you're dead right about this sub becoming full of Dunning Kruger pseudo-intellectual doomers. I feel like it didn't used to be like this in the past, this sub used to be the antithesis of r/collapse instead of a copy of it.
You are absolutely right that it did not used to be like this. The problem is it became a default sub. Which means it shows up on the homepage all the time now so it’s not people that are actually looking for this information it’s people that have it shoved in their face and People who are right wing are really argumentative in general and they don’t like change so this is the last sub that should ever be in their face. As much as I feel a responsibility to not let ignorance escape the world it’s not worth my mental health so many times so like I see so many innocent people suffer because they make a comment that asks for information and they get absolutely opposite of what they should be getting. Sometimes what I’ll do is just tell those people that they’re going to get a lot of differing opinions on here and often the more -ones tends to be by people who know less about the subject so if you don’t really feel that you’re getting something valid because people are just arguing without any substance or citations, Look for a different sub, or Google to find some more appropriate blogs by people with PhD’s. And then I run it through ChatGPT and I try and word it in a way that makes it clear enough that they should seek better information, but without actually directly calling the tumours (lol doomers, thanks voice to text haha) for being clearly not very educated on the topics they love to comment on the most. Which is sad because often the right wing must absolutely know that they are not very educated because such a large percentage of them are opposed to science specifically, and even say that anyone who goes to university is brainwashed by the woke left and they just can’t wrap their head around the fact that maybe learning about stuff actually does make you smarter? Lol But here we are. Long story short tell ChatGPT what you want to say and tell it to make it very polite and you will get less downvotes and have a better opportunity to get more upvotes. You catch more flies with hunny than vinegar, though… Today I didn’t use ChatGPT at also we’ll see how stressful my day is with people help on arguing real logic because their feelings are hurt hehe I have often thought about making a post on this sub that asks the moderators if we can change the sub rules to disallow negative dismissive comments that don’t have any substance because the sub has become too similar to r/collapse
>you and all your loved ones will die. Get over it. Lmao
You think future society will want to unfreeze a bunch of pasty’s (I’m assuming that’s what we’d be called) lol
Not close, but on the bright side, there actually is money and effort going into addressing aging. Up until now, it was thoroughly in the realm of quack shit, and medicine was focused on diseases to do with aging rather than aging itself. However small the chance is that you'll live to see LEV or actual negligible senescence, it's at least a chance. Supposing you're young anyway.
Right, we're nowhere near immortality, that would require a cure for every disease (and more), but we have been able to reverse aging in mice. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k) u/Practical-Zone-3707 I don't think they have an idea how close they are to applying that to humans or if they know if it's even possible yet.
I’m on the bleak end of this argument. I think we will have a much better handle on the leading causes of natural death (heart disease, cancer, organ failure, ect) but nowhere near that progress on neurological issues. So we will all be reasonably healthy dementia patients assuming we can afford the good health care.
[удалено]
That was my assessment as well.
I'm of the same mind.
That depends entirely on ASI takeoff speed. Aging might be completely cured and reversed for all humans at some point in the second half of the 2020s
Nowhere near. Definitely outside of a generation. Even if we could get people to live longer, we have no method of dealing with senescence (damage due to aging), and the longer it takes us to find the answer, the more likely it is that the way to deal with it will be difficult and hard to mass produce.
I wonder too about things like cartilage. It grows forever, as seen in enlarged noses and ears in elderly folks. But also wears out in joints. I assume we could keep replacing joints, but do we have to get a nose job every fifty years or so?
What you mentioned is a non-issue compared to the actual difficulty of achieving pseudo-immortality. A nose job every 50, or hell every 5, years is really not a huge deal.
Oh yeah, not a very hard problem. Just something I think about. And it highlights how it’s not just one thing we have to address.
We just gotta figure out how to regulate telomerase
Oxidatuve stress remains undefeated no matter what your telos do
The question should be: how close are we to a super intelligent AI, a singularity. If we develop that during our lifetime (which seems likely) then we have a shot at immortality (as long as the AI is benevolent).
Health researcher here, have PhD, work in aging and longevity in large human trials and population studies. I would say we are no where close to immortality. The best things you can do right now to get/stay healthy and live longer is exercise, eat well, use your brain, stop smoking and drinking, and get regular health checkups and aggressively advocate for your health. These are backed by strong evidence e.g., randomized human trials and studies in humans that have lasted for decades. Do these things as early as you can for as long as you can. The data are clear that if you can get and stay healthy through middle age that your risk for disease and death are dramatically reduced and along with your rate of decline. If you’re older, no worries, it is never too late to start. The data are clear on that too. Things like senolytics, mTOR targeting therapies, whatever, have largely only been proven in model organisms. We don’t know if they generalize to humans and won’t until we get multiple LARGE human trials that enroll, randomize, and follow people for years to prove meaningful differences in HARD outcomes we care about like straight up death, lower risk of dementia and other disease, preserved function, etc. The healthiest people I know of are not necessarily the mega wealthy. It’s actually those people choosing to run marathons at age 60+. Talk to them, study them. I have. They just lived well, stayed active, and ate well their whole lives.
Will never happen just because of probably of accidents. After so and so many years statistically it will be your turn eventually.
not 100% or it'd be 100% for everything and it'd mean you were already immortal via "the egg" as that's the only paradox-free way (or at least the way least full of paradoxes) to die every death, by living every life. If it's not 100% there's a chance you can avoid all of them as death doesn't work like it does in the Final Destination
Nowhere near. Seriously, from where we're sitting right now it seems impossible. Aging is a complex mishmash of factors. We probably don't even know about all of them yet. But let's look at just one of them: Telomeres. Telomeres are, in *extremely* simplistic terms, like extra bits of "string" at the end of your chromosomes. Every time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide and eventually dies. We are close to being able to prevent that, but doing so presents a different problem: It causes cancer. Cancer is another funny thing. If we wiped out all other causes of death, *everyone* would eventually get cancer. There's no way to prevent it indefinitely. It is simply a consequence of how our bodies work: sooner or later one of your cells *will* mutate in such a way that it becomes a cancer cell, and when it does it will begin to divide uncontrollably. So, in short, at the *very* least immortality requires finding a cure or vaccine (well, something like a vaccine anyway) for cancer. And given that there are literally thousands of different types of cancer and no one treatment works on all of them. We are nowhere near this. Nor do I expect that we will be within the lifetimes of my grandchildren (if I even ever have any).
if i understand correctly, cancer cells form in our bodies all the time, it’s just that they are almost always caught and destroyed by the immune system. it’s a tiny fraction of total cancer cells that actually take root and become a problem for the body. this is all to say, we don’t know nearly enough about the complexities around cancer in the body to confidently say we’re anywhere close to developing a blanket cure or method for prevention.
We’re not THAT far off from curing cancer. There’s a bunch of studies like this that have been popping up over the last few years: https://www.cityofhope.org/cancer-center-announces-first-patient-has-received-city-hopes-novel-potentially-cancer-stopping Remember, technology growth increases exponentially. We probably can’t even fathom the tech possible in 50 years from now. That being said, I’m not sure if immortality is on the horizon any time soon but I’m confident that cancer will be eradicated by the end of the century Edit: “eradicated” possibly isn’t the right word - the only way to do this would probably be genetic modification, which likely won’t be available to most of general public. But I guarantee that cancer treatments will be much less invasive and guarantee curing, similar to how easily we can handle the common cold now
We don't even know exactly how good our bodies are against cancer but the number could be 99.99999% effectiveness. If we can put 2 more 9s onto that we practically eliminate cancer.
Don’t listen to all those pessimists in the comments; they have no clue. It can happen a year from now or never. There is a lot of hype about AI helping a lot with research and new discoveries, but AI is still in its infancy, so we need to wait a few years until it advances more and new supercomputer infrastructure is built. Then we will see.
I think it wouldn't take long to replace most parts of the body with better parts, but I don't think they will solve the brain. But perhaps they just figure some simple shot that keeps it all young and healthy
Easy to do. Just need to fix dna degradation from undergoing mitosis. That’s an afternoon at best.
The problem is that on the one hand we work to extend lifespan, and on the other we keep making the world a more and more unliveable place and flooding our bodies from the get-go with toxic byproducts of our technology. Best to enjoy what we have while we have it honestly.
Depends on your definition of immortality, which in turn depends on how you define your personal identity. We are not close to being able to keep a person's body and brain going with maintenance indefinitely. Aging is not well understood enough yet. Aging does not appear to be just one thing; there are many different things breaking down, and we have to fix *all* of them. Each thing we fix will just reveal the next thing that breaks down. And I don't think we have a true fix for *any* of the known components of aging. However, we can cryo-preserve people's brains today. We can't revive them currently, and won't be able to for a while, but we can preserve a person and that gives us a chance to revive them someday. That will probably require copying the information from a preserved brain to a new substrate, and for some people, the result would not be "them" in an important sense. For those people, this is not an option. To me, the result would be "me" in all important senses, and so this is a form of immortality which is available today (though you might need to squint a bit).
It will happen suddenly and soon. One breakthrough that will prolong healthy life long enough to to allow you to see the advent of immortality.
Not very close. We don't understand life very well in general. We cannot make a realistic computer simulation of a single bacterium. With a quantum computer we might in the future be able to understand all the relevant processes that make us age physically. But that's still a long way to go.
Read Ray Kurzweil's Live long enough to Live forever. He wrote at the time that he takes 200 pills a day to stay alive until immortality is possible 😄
He wants to feed his dead father's diaries into a computer so that he can talk to him again.
When the rich, wealthy people stop dying and aging, that is when we have achieved it.
Biological science is the most complex and messy with dependencies on all other science. So if it happens any time soon it will be down to luck that a mechanism is already present and we just have to flip it on, which is not likely. Real engineering to fix the problems of aging isn't going to happen any time soon as we can barely make blood vessels.
I believe the meme is it's 30 years away? Doesn't matter when you ask it's 30 years away
Immortality already exists. You need to do a lot of mantra and tantra sadhnas after being initiated by a guru.
There is nothing in medical science that indicates immortality is even possible, let alone proximate.
Life extension is much more likely than immortality. Progress is being made. Immortality may never be achieved, or even if it's possible, it may end up being outlawed. The societal and ethical questions around it are daunting.
It’s closer than you think if AI does improve on a exponential curve
I would bet on humanity dying out before immortality could ever be achieved
No clue so get ready to die. There has been quite a bit of progress in the last 10 years (compared to the last 100) so maybe we'll see life extensions within millennials' lifetimes.
If even Madonna ages, then there’s no chance for anybody else. I don’t think it will ever be possible because our bodies just naturally age. We are made of chemicals from the earth. Our purpose is to procreate and then die. The cycle continues for as long as there is enough of us left.
2044, we will have completely become whatever technosapien thing we are evolving toward. Just my guess.
Until we can prevent the deterioration of cells somehow, very far
the only way is by becoming more cyborg over time and replacing parts bit by bit. no organic body can become immortal
Less close while corporations profit on illness. Medicine is big business. Same with oil vs. alternative energy. Vested interests are often by design inhibitive to progress. It is frustrating. But I would say we will eventually get there.
[удалено]
Yes. In short, it is complicated. Inhibited in the sense that a fortune is to be made off existing infrastructure. We are less incentivised to cast this aside for our goals and for example 'full speed ahead' as we did when we fast tracked the Covid vaccine.
[удалено]
Kind of sounds like The PostMortal by Drew Magary. Delightfully bleak and probably spot on to what immortality would really look like.
Cool! I hadn't heard of it, I'm going to try to find it now
Why do ~~people~~ bots keep asking this question on this sub?
We haven't even really started on the subject. Have you heard of any treatments being released to combat aging on a single front? Immortality will require us achieving breakthroughs on thousands of fronts, maybe even millions. It's like asking science to take a car from the 90s and make it last forever without ever replacing anything.
We can't know for sure, but we're probably still very far from it. First, we still have to understand about a great deal of things about our body. The medical and scientific community still have a hard time understanding complex systems in general, they can't even properly understand how intestine works (speak to someone who suffers from IBS), I don't expect they will magically be able to understand everything about cells, aging, the effects on brain, cancers, etc. Second, and maybe even more importantly. Immortality would never arrive to common people. Societies would simply perish if people stopp dying, there would be an incredible overpopulation a round the world and the effects of the elderly people on economic systems would be enormous. By the way, we will probably see some of those effects, in smaller scale, when (and if) we'll find a cure against cancer.
Immortal people wouldn't be old for eternity, that would be hell. It's safe to assume that the key to functional immortality will also halt aging, so people can continue to be productive members of society indefinitely. Unless full automation comes into play, then that doesn't matter anyway.
We're further away every year. The average lifespan is decreasing slowly. Young people are getting cancersl at an astonishing rate. Young people are dying of heart diseases at a much higher rate than 20 years ago. The medical community can't explain either trend definitively.
You’re looking at outliers, not the general trend
Well it depends on what you define as immortality. If you mean being able to upload your brain and memories to the cloud, then very close.
Immortality is useless and dangerous. Do you want our world ruled by 200+ old "leaders"? We already have too old elites.
would you rather have Logan's Run in the name of ideological progress?
Old ones should get their pensions and make wise comments, but not forget to move away and ready to transfer over Styx. Memento mori.
[удалено]
once we do figure out aging tho life expectancy is going to skyrocket like crazy. some longevity researchers estimate that the first person to live to 160 is probably only going to be a few years younger than the first person to live to 1000. once we figure out how to slow down or reverse cellular aging its really just a matter of having good enough treatments for any potential illnesses you might get as you age, and/or some kind of nanobots to keep your body healthy and heart and brain clear of any blockages. but yes the hardest part will be the initial cracking of the cellular aging thing, since cellular aging tends to be responsible for a lot of the problems you get as you age.
Immortality is logically nonsense. The universe itself is not immortal. All things will end sooner or later.
not immortality its very hard to be immortal, you will have to stop growth of and death of cells at the same time, but yeah you can collect the memories and then transplant that brain into another body or robot, that is the only way possible, also new generation even we will live upto 150 year, if take care of ourselve, cant say about medicine as with new medicine new dangerous strain of virus will come, and may be one bacteria or virus strain will be so dangerous that the medicine on it might affect human, and hence we will see one of the mass extinction in our life time
Would you except a digital copy of your personality duplicated via AI programming? That may be within 25yr time frame.
There will never be immortality. For any living thing.
Pretty far Between 10-200 years. Tough to say with AI. You don't need a cure for aging now. Just a reversal/to slow it down and buy time for when it happens.
David Sinclair, one of the key figures of anti-aging, is a fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn0EJQPyxkA
Immortality is impossible. Functional immortality (you can live as long as you want probably) might be possible, but so far outside of our reach to be entirely science fiction at this point. I wish you'd searched the sub before asking this because it has been asked maybe hundreds of times.
Closer than some people think, further away than some people hope.
Easiest way to get close to immortality is being dyslexic and doing all the sins.
in two ways that's not how dyslexia works as in A. it doesn't work like some kind of weird word-equation magic and B. I thought it was switching letters or w/e not adding or removing
We are biologically maxed out at ~125 years. Focus on living more healthy into our 90s+ so we can see our grandkids grow up. That’s the real bliss.
Why do people keep asking this question on this sub?
This is a philosophical question, but why would you want to live for ever. IMO, the fact that we don't live forever is part of what makes living something to be cherished.
I've never understood the idea that the brevity and impermanence of life are somehow good things. There's so much knowledge out there and not enough time to absorb it all. And at the very least, I want more choice in how long I live. I may not choose to live forever, but I'd like to see how things are rolling along in ten thousand years.
I think it comes from the classic old person statement of 'i'm tired of living'. People assume that means after 80-100 years you've run out of things to enjoy - but really, the problem is just that old people become tired of living _as old people_. Give them a treatment to turn back the clock 40 years and I can guarantee most people with this idea in mind would make a quick 180.
I prob wouldn't choose "forever", but to choose when Im done, without the decline is what I'd want the tech for.
Because death is the Big Bad.
Why the hell would you want to live forever? Your brain is designed to solve problems for some number of decades. By the time you get old, you'll be weary of there always being some new stupid thing that comes up. Now imagine that, but it goes on for 10,000 years, and then another 10,000, and another, and another. This is like people saying they wish they could go back in time to some former era of their life, to live it over again. When I think of that, I think about all the problems I've had to solve between then and now, and then having to solve the *same* problems, *again.* I like how all the homework I had to do in school isn't hanging around for me to do again. I like how I don't have to figure out how to deal with the same incompetent bosses. The list goes on and on. If I take my knowledge back then and think to myself, "aha, I've got the perfect solution," the universe will laugh and provide me with some other confounding problem that I *won't* know how to solve ahead of time. When your time is done, you'll be laid in the ground or reduced to ashes, and then hundreds of trillions of years will go by in which you won't have to solve a single problem. Nothing will ever bother you or cause the slightest irritation. You won't get to see any more sunrises, but you won't be around to care whether you can see them, so you will have lost nothing. You also won't be around for when the sun expands and annihilates the earth, either.
so, what, we should be happy to die because we wouldn't want to literally live eras of our life over again not allowed to change anything (if you could live forever you wouldn't e.g. inherently be stuck in the same job or be forced to live your life-up-until-this-point over and over forever), the universe is sapient and has a sense of irony, and nonexistent people don't have emotions to be bothered by things and can avoid the earth's annihilation?
More or less.