Eradicating aging as a cause of death

[K1ngN0thing]

We Earthlings may well have our "Zephraim Cochrane" moment in some years, and find "warp drive" a reality.  Maybe not.  Maybe we meet some benevolent "Little Gray Men" who gift us the technology so we don't kill ourselves off on our one tiny rock.  Who knows?  We won't have those billions of years to do it.  We will eventually either die off like the dinosaurs, due to catastrophe or changing Earth conditions, or we evolve into something "beyond Human".
If we do discover the mythical "Well of Eternal Life", will it benefit all mankind, or be given only to the rich and powerful?  Our historical record on such advances is not good.  And should it require a major change in lifestyle, how many would make the change?  People are inherently lazy and resist change.  "Eternal Life" will never be a commodity to be purchased by way of the EBT card.  The poor will still die, as will the Middle Class.   Some may see a slight increase in average age.  But eradicate "Death" itself, save accident or murder.....?  I don't expect to see it.

We probably do need to get off of Earth well before the sun expands on us. Even a few hundred million years is plenty of time to accomplish sustainable living on interstellar spacecraft. We'll have 3D printers in space constructing the components, probably to be assembled on mars or the moon, which takes care of the energy that would be required to get them into orbit.

I'd argue so many people are resistant to change because they're aware of how little time they have on this planet. In the face of the looming spectre of death, keeping things simple and routine provides comfort. I'd also argue that we'd see less greed in the world, and more humanitarianism. People will be less concerned with making the most for themselves with their slice of time and instead seek to better humanity.

What makes you think it'll be so expensive? The technology required to implement these therapies, once they work out the details, already exists. I could see this being subsidized via taxes to be made available to everyone. People wouldn't stand for this kind of medicine to be held back from the public. The research would be be public.

I don't expect death itself to be eradicated either (barring a scenario in which we're able to upload our consciousness). However, these therapies would do more than to slightly increase the average age. They would keep us biologically as young adults indefinitely if it all goes right. Even on the extremely conservative side, we should at least double our lifespans. here's a short TED talk that goes into a little more detail.

 

[Wabbit]

With the transhumanism trend, we will be cyborgs before long. Soon after that, the central brain that controls us all will be hacked and then the $hit will hit the fan and we will all be robot zombies!!!! Except for the New World Order Illuminati Elite Bankers, they will have Xbox controllers that will be able to control us like puppets and they will make us do tuuurible, tuuurible things!!!

 

[Seraphim]

Well, yeah. Assuming everything else goes right, the sun will still kill us in billions of years, which is why I said we had billions of years to figure it out. Again, you're outlook for humanity comes off as extremely pessimistic. If you're not hopeful then what's the point?

In about 5 billions years the sun will expand into a red giant, at which point the earth will be engulfed. Nothing it does before then is going to cause global drought. What does cause the earth to warm is the greenhouse effect, which developing technologies and better decisions from humanity as a whole will work to take care of. It's likely we'll probably do more damage than is necessary before everyone realizes the severity of the problem though.

You bring up sustainability as if overpopulation is a guarantee. We've still not hit the maximum number of people the earth can support with our current food production and technology. There are already people today who opt out of child-rearing in response to fears of overpopulation. The severity of this issue is blown out of proportion. If it comes down to it, all it would take is a law to limit the number of children per family, either in a lifetime or per century. Maybe to even match the death count. These are simple mathematical problems.

Actually, I'm just trying to be realistic. It's all hypothetical for you and I, hopefully.

There are just too many factors necessary for humanity's continued survival. Despite your allegations, we are over consuming our resources by 130%. These are not replaceable. Technology depends on about 8 or 10 rare earth metals. Ill see if I can find the report, but the most liberal forecasts I've seen give those 40 years maximum before they run out. Since food production is so great, Why are people across the globe living in poverty and starving? IT only takes one of the many.  

If you feel these are 'simple mathematical problems', then you don't really understand people. Stop and think about trying to create laws in the US limiting children. Just looking at the conflict between abortionists and pro-lifers, the contraception battle going on with ACA, do you really think a law would get passed limiting children? How would you enforce it - mandatory abortion. Sterilization? Now forget the U.S., consider the muslim world, and the importance of large families and sons. Or will only the poor be sterilized, and the wealth given special dispensation?  There was a passage in the articles about that, as well. Who will be the first on the spaceships to get off a dying planet? 

Nothing about people is a simple mathematical problem lol. If it were, the world be a peaceful place.

'if I'm not hopeful, what's the point?'  What's the point - of what?  Your question is too vague. What's the point of living? Please rephrase the question. What's the point of humanity?  The point of humanity is the same as any other species - to propagate itself. Most species live in balance with their enviroment. We destroy the enviroment to suit our comfort. Look up the definition of parasite - I meant the use of the word in the clinical sense.  We are certainly not in a symbiotic relationship with the earth. We offer it nothing it needs. With embalming practices, most of us don't even go 'dust to dust'. Our desire for the appearance immortality is so great we preserve our cadavers against decay; the one manner in which we could offer something to the planet. But even if we didn't embalm ourselves, the offering would not balance the scales for what we have, in self serving arrogance, destroyed. So I'll give you back the same question - what's the point? Why is it so important to YOU humanity should live forever? Despite your original question, which all this talk of space travel has deviated from, you and I are not going to be here to see what happens.

Or is it possible - and this is a serious question - you need some personal guarantee that your 'line' will continue forever; that, perhaps on a subconscious level, you need some personal guarantee of immortality?  An interesting psychology question. But, on the slim possibility it were true, when it comes time for that 'mathematical solution', would you be first in line to be sterilized, for the sake of humanity?

Just pondering...

 

[Seraphim]

And your response about over population only addressed - I sufficiently - one of the dozens of general factors arguing against humanity's survival. Overpopulation was one of the lesser concerns, f you studied the charts.

 

[Seraphim]

Interesting topic of conversation BTW

 

[Seraphim]

I'm also curious about your rebuttal against the historical accounts of previous geological/stellar extinctions - five IIRC - and the possibilities of another. Everyone is aware of the dinosaur's extinction, scientifically blamed on an asteroid strike, but there were others: from solar anomalies to volcanism. The details were in one of the articles I mentioned.

And I will admit I have no overwhelming confidence that science will provide all the answers, as you seem to indicate. Weighing the balances, I suspect it has done more to propagate the destruction of the human race than its survival. Another topic to be researched and debated, as well.

 

[K1ngN0thing]

Actually, I'm just trying to be realistic. It's all hypothetical for you and I, hopefully.

There are just too many factors necessary for humanity's continued survival. Despite your allegations, we are over consuming our resources by 130%. These are not replaceable. Technology depends on about 8 or 10 rare earth metals. Ill see if I can find the report, but the most liberal forecasts I've seen give those 40 years maximum before they run out. Since food production is so great, Why are people across the globe living in poverty and starving? IT only takes one of the many.  

If you feel these are 'simple mathematical problems', then you don't really understand people. Stop and think about trying to create laws in the US limiting children. Just looking at the conflict between abortionists and pro-lifers, the contraception battle going on with ACA, do you really think a law would get passed limiting children? How would you enforce it - mandatory abortion. Sterilization? Now forget the U.S., consider the muslim world, and the importance of large families and sons. Or will only the poor be sterilized, and the wealth given special dispensation?  There was a passage in the articles about that, as well. Who will be the first on the spaceships to get off a dying planet? 

Nothing about people is a simple mathematical problem lol. If it were, the world be a peaceful place.

'if I'm not hopeful, what's the point?'  What's the point - of what?  Your question is too vague. What's the point of living? Please rephrase the question. What's the point of humanity?  The point of humanity is the same as any other species - to propagate itself. Most species live in balance with their enviroment. We destroy the enviroment to suit our comfort. Look up the definition of parasite - I meant the use of the word in the clinical sense.  We are certainly not in a symbiotic relationship with the earth. We offer it nothing it needs. With embalming practices, most of us don't even go 'dust to dust'. Our desire for the appearance immortality is so great we preserve our cadavers against decay; the one manner in which we could offer something to the planet. But even if we didn't embalm ourselves, the offering would not balance the scales for what we have, in self serving arrogance, destroyed. So I'll give you back the same question - what's the point? Why is it so important to YOU humanity should live forever? Despite your original question, which all this talk of space travel has deviated from, you and I are not going to be here to see what happens.

Or is it possible - and this is a serious question - you need some personal guarantee that your 'line' will continue forever; that, perhaps on a subconscious level, you need some personal guarantee of immortality?  An interesting psychology question. But, on the slim possibility it were true, when it comes time for that 'mathematical solution', would you be first in line to be sterilized, for the sake of humanity?

Just pondering...

Your argument is based on two assumptions: overpopulation and the rest of our technology never advancing past its current stage.

We could do a lot better to recycle obsolete electronics. We can mine asteroids for rare earth metals. The longevity of these resources is a problem regardless of whether or not we fix aging.

Overpopulation: Most of the US population lives along the borders. There's still plenty of room in the middle, and along the borders with more efficient housing structures. As for curbing it, there's a possibility sterilization may even be a side effect of these therapies. If not, sterilization can be incentivized. People have kids because they want their lineage to continue. There's less incentive to do so when you're not going to die any time soon. We will eventually have a global government. This is inevitable. We've gone from small tribes to countries. We've connected these countries with boats, then planes, and now we're all meshing faster than ever thanks to the internet. For the first time in human history ideas and policies can rapidly evolve as they're subject to the conditions of global scrutiny. Your arguments miss the bigger picture.

The US throws out something like 40% of its food. It's a distribution and infrastructure issue. Business are too concerned with lawsuits to allow people to dumpster dive perfectly good food, so they'd rather throw it in a compactor or lock it up. We could feed our poor twice over. As for other countries, infrastructure needs to be built, but we can't just build it for them. We need to build them up as a people and help them develop the skills needed to continue to maintain the infrastructure. Education is a major issue. With the recent ebola outbreak, people didn't understand why they shouldn't be kissing and handling the deceased.

Yes, we preserve our dead and it makes no sense, but it only delays the rate of decay. And even if we didn't, how exactly do we use more than we give back when we die? Does it teleport somewhere off-planet? This is such a non-issue that it seems you're now grasping at straws.

Yes, I do want to live forever/as long as possible. Miraculously, most people have convinced themselves that they want to grow progressively weaker and sicker as they age. It makes sense from a psychological standpoint. One would go insane if they kept the understanding of what it truly means to die in their conscious minds. We bury it deep. It's a psychological defense, and it's stronger than any other. I'd happily be sterilized in exchange for undergoing these therapies, though I never planned on having kids in the first place. I'm only 24, so going by the predictions made by SENS, I've got about 35 years before I miss the boat. For every day we're alive, our life expectancy increases by something like 7 hours. That's how fast technology is now improving. This exponential growth has only just begun, and nobody can predict what breakthroughs will be made. And if I don't make the cut, I'll be cryogenically preserving my body as a backup plan. There's nothing selfish about wanting to live forever. The unborn are not waiting in line. Curing aging is as natural a pursuit as curing infectious diseases that used to kill us before our 30s. We've already more than doubled the average lifespan. Curing aging is an inevitability. I'd rather it happen sooner than later.

Your reasoning comes down to this: Society will have to restructure itself in the face of this new technology. When has this never been true in the past? It's clear our societies will have to restructure regardless of whether or not this technology is developed.

 

[Seraphim]

My argument is not based on two assumptions - I do not assume over population, and I have no doubt technology will progress. Read the articles and pay attention; and you have truly discerned nothing about 'my reasoning'. You are trying to channel all the arguments into two issues, which you feel you can address; thus ignoring all the others. And your arguments all hinge on the fantasies of humans living indefinitely and developing warp drive.


And the argument that people 'want to grow progressively weaker and sicker as they age' is so incredibly ignorant as to not even warrant notice.

It's also not about food production. Yes, we throw away a lot of food. We could give it to those in poverty, but we don't. We throw it away. That begs the question, 'Why?' The answer to 'Why?' hits upon one of the key reasons I think humanity will fail. When in Peru for an international adoption, we'd eat out, then take our excess food and give it to someone living on the street. The restaurant manager always scowled at us, because he planned to sell our leftovers to those homeless for a few extra pennies. He would have thrown it out rather than give it away.

Technology is not the answer. How mankind uses technology is the (possible) answer. Historically, it has always been easier to use technology to destroy than create. And when technology does provide something useful, who benefits - the average person or the person who controls the technology? The first dangerous colonization experiments to space - should they ever occur - will be populated by those society considers expendable. If the outcome is desirable, berths on those vessels will be sold to those who can pay the most.

The weakness of your arguments is that you expect people and society to change. Society has not 'adapted' to technology; they have let technology make their lives easier while simultaneously allowing it to eliminate jobs, and permitting the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. The rich grow richer, and they control technology. Giving away food offers them no profit.. Cheaper to throw it away than preserve and ship it where it's needed.

Society has effectively not changed: whatever format there is the wealthy few who control resources - including technology - and everyone else. Go back (historical wise - I don't believe we'll achieve time travel either) 2000 years to Rome. Keep going back as far as you can. Society has basically been run the same. Wealthy few in charge, controlling resources, providing enough for the masses to be content. And the masses go along with it. They are content.

You expect miraculous change, but the most unlikely change you assume is that the basic human nature of people will change. Or that some government will gain enough military control to force people to sterilization. At least, sterilization of the masses. Military governments require financial backing of the wealthy, as well. You would effectively force your perception of how things should be on the worlds population - doing it for their own good, of course. Essentially a dictatorship - you'd be forcing everyone (of the lower classes at least) to participate, whether they like it or not.

Why? So YOU can live longer. Remember my 'self serving' comments?

The big wrench in all these plans, however, is still the one factor in which you have neither experience nor understanding: people. You still haven't perceived that my biggest argument is people are the biggest barrier to humanity's survival.

Even if none of the dozen or so crisis listed in the articles occur to start humanity on the downward spiral to extinction - and the odds are pretty go one or more of these conditions will - man will always be his own worst enemy. There are good people in the world, but en masse, they will always put their own welfare above the common good. You, for example, want to live forever, and are willing to sterilize away future generations that you might do so, and force others to give up children and family they desire, as well. There are many people who will fight against this, prizing family and other rewards above immortality. But if they don't cooperate - or are forced to cooperate - your plan fails.

You say society will have to restructure itself. It won't. People will never sufficiently agree on 'what's best' for everybody, because they'll have their eye on what's best for them.

But back to the original intent of the thread: I think we've passed the trigger point of effectively keeping the enviroment in the narrow band of conditions best suited for human survival. Even without the destruction we've precipitated, we could not hold off environmental change forever. I hope all your fantasies about indefinitely extended life and living in spaceships comes true for you. At least, I hope you and every one who wishes to do so gets cryogenically frozen so you can impose yourselves on future generations. I certainly have no plans for being there - nor desire to be there, either.

Curing aging is inevitable? I'm sorry, but I find that arrogant as well as amusing. But, again, I hope it happens for you and everyone else. Now THAT might be a reason to want to continue: I think I would find the results amusing.

And I neither want nor enjoy growing old and losing capabilities. But thankfully, I can a stop to that any time I wish. I don't have to wait for fantasies...

 

[Seraphim]

Oh - and to clarify my beliefs on technology, if you've not figured it out. I absolutely DO believe technology will progress - quite possibly to the point it's easier for us to destroy ourselves - or for it to destroy us (read the articles).

 

[K1ngN0thing]

I said nothing about forced sterilization. If I willingly sterilize myself, how am I having a worse impact on the future than someone who has 2+ kids today?

There has always been wealth imbalance, yes, and even if it does continue, I don't see how that's an argument against developing this technology. One of the major reasons the wealth gap is so large is because we don't have free, universal health care or basic income wages for every citizen. With health care being as expensive as it is, you need a job. This job might be minimum wage and barely enough to get by, but you have no choice because you need the health benefits. Basic income and free health care will give people the time to pursue what interests them, leading to an overall benefit for humanity. This will take care of the food/homelessness problem. Other countries already have these things, as well as caps on CEO salaries.

Your view on human nature is just different than mine. I'd argue age has something to do with it. You've spent a lifetime seeing the bad in humankind while I've just gotten my legs and am not yet quite as jaded. As time goes on, humanity becomes less violent. We're saints compared to the savages we used to be (come nations unfortunately still are). The world seems worse than it used to be only because everything is recorded and broadcast. It's a less violent place, but we're now acutely aware of every tragedy.

Society is already restructuring itself. Look at the legalization of marijuana. All it takes is for one country/state to do something experimental for the world to see the benefit, and it reverberates. Societies have been undergoing gradual refinement ever since Hammurabi's code, and will continue to do so. It HAS to restructure itself because the variables will change. An organism that doesn't adapt to its environment dies out. It doesn't require a group of people to agree on "what's best."

Of course we're our own worst enemy. We're the only ones who can kill us. As for technology making it easier to destroy ourselves, we jumped well past that threshold when we learned how to split the atom. Some would argue that the presence of such a powerful destructive force is actually beneficial (Dr. Strangelove).

And even if it does all go to hell, I still don't see how that's an argument against developing this technology. If it's all going to hell anyway, then there's no point in doing anything, so we might as well do as much as we can.

You find the inevitability of curing aging laughable because it's been this way for as long as we've been around, but that's the case with any technology until it's invented. This is the first time we've had a clear plan of how to approach the problem, and given the iterative nature of scientific progress, I don't see how you can deny its inevitability. At the VERY least, if we don't achieve biological immortality, we'll see life extension well into the triple digits, or even breaking into 1000. Even in this case, the same arguments apply.

 

[akrvbob]

Most of us have fallen under the illusion of science fiction. there has been very little genuine "miracle" type progress in technology.

In the 1700s the industrial revolution began with the miracle of coal-fired steam engines. They burned fossil fuels. In 2015 the Industrial Reoloultion continues by doing exactly the same thing-- Burning fossil Fuel. Much of it is still steam driven

Sure the engines are better and more efficient, but they still burn fossil fuel--there are no miracle advances at all since 1700, simply refinements. Our gas and diesel engines are simply refinements of engines that are 100 years old. They aren't a miracle. In fact I'd argue they peaked in 1990s when cars that got 50 mpg were routine. Are there any 50 mpg cars available today?

Same with space travel. We are less able to travel through space than we were in the 1960s. We still use the same essential rockets to get us to space. In fact it seems like they blowup more often. Solar power was discovered in the 1800s, and simply refined today. Ever heard of "rockets red glare"? That's from rockets in the 1700s and invented by the Chinese long before then.

There were miracles of communications at the beginning of the 20th century, I'd argue most of the thing we are so impressed now are just refinements of the telephone and radio waves. No real advancements since then.

We're doing everything we can to harm the earth and all counting on the next big miracle of technology to save us. There haven't been any big planet-changing miracles in a long time. I think that's a ridiculous hope.

Of course there is nuclear power. One could very easily argue that was not an advancement at all but a tremendous tragedy. As we accumulate more waste and have to deal with and more aging plants that are in disaster zones, our opinion might even get lower about it. We certainly are not in the clear of nuclear war on a large or small scale. Can we honestly talk about a small scale nuclear war?

bob

 

[K1ngN0thing]

Most of us have fallen under the illusion of science fiction. there has been very little genuine "miracle" type progress in technology.

In the 1700s the industrial revolution began with the miracle of coal-fired steam engines. They burned fossil fuels. In 2015 the Industrial Reoloultion continues by doing exactly the same thing-- Burning fossil Fuel. Much of it is still steam driven

Sure the engines are better and more efficient, but they still burn fossil fuel--there are no miracle advances at all since 1700, simply refinements. Our gas and diesel engines are simply refinements of engines that are 100 years old. They aren't a miracle. In fact I'd argue they peaked in 1990s when cars that got 50 mpg were routine. Are there any 50 mpg cars available today?

Same with space travel. We are less able to travel through space than we were in the 1960s. We still use the same essential rockets to get us to space. In fact it seems like they blowup  more often. Solar power was discovered in the 1800s, and simply refined today.

There were miracles of commuications at the beginning of the 20th century, I'd argue most of the thing we are so impressed now are just refinements of the telephone and radio waves. No real advancements since then.

We're doing everything we can to harm the earth and all counting on the next big miracle of technology to save us. There haven't been any big planet-changing miracles in a long time. I think that's a ridiculous hope.

bob

Elon Musk is doing some fine work in making rockets better. As for living on giant spaceships, we'd have to build them in space. They'd require an impossible amount of energy to get into orbit and would likely be impossible to construct under the earth's gravity.

How are these rejuvenation technologies not simply refinements or our existing medicine? I urge everyone to give this a watch before they start making claims about its impossibility

50mpg cars: http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...t-average-50-mpg-or-better-on-the-highwa.aspx

I don't see how the above argument really applies to rejuvenation medicine. There's only so much energy you can extract from a gallon of dead dinos. These are intrinsic limits, while the problem of solving aging is mechanical, logistical if you will. The analogy to make is how with regular maintenance, a car built in the early 1900s can remain fully operational today even though it was designed to last no more than a decade or two. The SENS approach (which again, is a recent paradigm shift in how we approach this problem) takes the maintenance approach, treating the human body like the biological machine it is. It's broken down into 7 types of damage outlined in the talk, or on the wikipedia page if you want to google it. This list has remain unchanged for 13 years, which is a good sign we've got a comprehensive understanding of the types of damage that accumulate, and there are strategies on how to deal with each time. These require separate treatments. There will be no magic pilll that just stops us from aging. People will have to keep their maintenance up by going in for these various therapies every decade or so.

It's really fascinating stuff. I'm making my way through "Ending Aging" which goes into even more detail. There are biological machines within our mitochondria that work exactly like a turbine, funneling electrons. We're just complex, physical machines and there's no reason to think we won't eventually be able to extend our lives more than we already have, and eventually make aging a thing of the past. The reality is that it could be a lot sooner than anyone had ever previously though.

 

[K1ngN0thing]

gsfish says: Mars One project claims it will launch a human crew to Mars in 2024, nine years from now. They will arrive with a remotely constructed habitat waiting for them (first launch in three years). I would be willing to wager that none of this is accomplished. Any takers? ........... Anyone? Actually I would love to be wrong on this one, I was even a member of the Planetary Society back in the day. BILLIONS!!
http://www.mars-one.com/

Just the way that I view it. I've seen a few things over the years, Apollo launches, ECHO, live TV from the moon. Back when space exploration was interesting to the general public.

Guy

2024 does seem a little soon, but I doubt it's off by more than 2-3 decades. The general public IS becoming more interested in space in large part due to Elon Musk's efforts. Like all visionaries, it takes a little time for the effects to be felt, and he's only just begun working on this problem. There's also a LOT of money to be made mining asteroids, which will attract the funds of those motivated by nothing other than the almighty dollar, and once that happens, we'll see this technology develop even more rapidly.

 

[Seraphim]

You have a lot to learn.

You can sterilize yourself. That does no good unless everyone else does as well. That won't happen. You won't even get a majority.

Wealth imbalance has nothing to do with free health care. Get a degree in Economics before you go there.

As time goes on humanity gets less violent? Lol Get out of your basement. At least follow the global news closely. We are as violent as ever, if not more, and we have better means of killing more more people more quickly thanks to technology.

Marihuana legalization is not 'restructuring society'. You haven't gotten back to the history lessons as I suggested.

Basic income will give people time to pursue... There's another problem you haven't considered. What are people going to do with thousands of years of time? When things starting losing their interest - their appeal. Good lord, we have that problem when people hit 50. Many old folks won't retire merely because they'd be bored. Go back to my post about why I wouldn't want to live indefinitely. You are young. You haven't experimcd the sensation of having 'been there, done that' , I'm tired of doing that, isn't there anything more? I'd wager my portfolio humanity would devolve into a race of doped couch potatoes. Yes, you think people will spend eternity accomplishing great and wonderful new things! Some will, for awhile. The mind grows weary, in a way which has nothing to do with age.

We jumped past the threshold of destroying ourselves when we split the atom? That's a belly laugh! We are no more mature now than we were then we learnd no new lessons, except that we could destroy two cities and and an entire society in three days - BECAUSE we learned to split the atom. Want to talk about restructuring a society lol. Study Japan's society before and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pray to God ISIS does not get hold of nuclear warheads. Do you believe THEY are beyond the threshold? I repeat - you know nothing of people.

Only people can kill humanity? Go back and read the articles. I suspect you haven't bothered.

I never argued against developing the technology - go ahead and develop it. Beware of its implementation, however. That's what you don't appear to be understanding. Technology is neither inherently good nor bad. Neither is a gun. Both can be used for good or ill. Worshipping technology and not understanding the very real dangers is foolhardy.

Same arguments apply? You've made none - none of a true scientific basis and none which demonstrates any knowLder. You have your own shining vision and will not let reality interfere in ay way.

 

[Seraphim]

And one more question – suppose this technology is developed? What makes you think you'll have access to it?

 

[Seraphim]

BTW King - when I laugh, I'm in no way laughing at you. You remind me very much of myself when I was in high school; nor do I intend that as a back handed compliment. Growing up and in high school, I was rather advanced and spent most of my time studying and learning. A geek. As such, I never learned all the little social skills, and certainly didn't understand the thinking and behavior of my peers. That caused me a lot of grief, because my peers certainly didn't understand me, and took my solitary nature as something else entirely. For which I was regularly punished. I spent my college years getting a degree, essentially, in Understanding people and spent subsequent years in my career learning through experience and putting my acquired understanding of people to work.

I just didn't want you to think I'm making fun of you. I'm not.

 

[Seraphim]

Nor am I 'jaded' *grin*

 

[K1ngN0thing]

You have a lot to learn.

You can sterilize yourself. That does no good unless everyone else does as well. That won't happen.  You won't even get a majority.

Not everyone needs to, just a certain percentage. You say it won't happen, I say it will or we're all doomed, and people will realize this. There is evidence on my side (Japan, South Korea) when you have nothing but a pessimistic assumption.

Wealth imbalance has nothing to do with free health care.  Get a degree in Economics before you go there.

So because I haven't learned what other people say is the case, then I'm incapable of having insight.

As time goes on humanity gets less violent? Lol Get out of your basement. At least follow the global news closely.  We are as violent as ever, if not more, and we have better means of killing more more people more quickly thanks to technology.

We're resorting to personal insults now? Does that mean I win?
In civilized societies, violence is on the decline. Back in our tribal days we killed each other for simply being of a different tribe. The death tolls of today's wars are dwarfed by those of the past. War will turn into a "game" fought with unmanned machines, and eventually may be entirely virtual.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en

More violent than ever? Do you see another holocaust on the horizon?

Marihuana legalization is not 'restructuring society'.  You haven't gotten back to the history lessons as I suggested.

But it is. Do you know how many non-violent drug offenders populate our sardine-can prisons? These prisons are privately owned. They make a LOT of money when they're full. These things will change as drugs are decriminalized in the coming years. It also opens up new business opportunities. Colorado is making so much money they might have to give some of it back.

Basic income will give people time to pursue... There's another problem you haven't considered.  What are people going to do with thousands of years of time?  When things starting losing their interest - their appeal.  Good lord, we have that problem when people hit 50.  Many old folks won't retire merely because they'd be bored.  Go back to my post about why I wouldn't want to live indefinitely.  You are young. You haven't experimcd the sensation of having 'been there, done that' , I'm tired of doing that, isn't there anything more?  I'd wager my portfolio humanity would devolve into a race of doped couch potatoes. Yes, you think people will spend eternity accomplishing great and wonderful new things! Some will, for awhile. The mind grows weary, in a way which has nothing to do with age.

If people feel they've experienced everything they want to in life, they're free to die. I'm willing to bet there will come a point when we can put ourselves into a state of suspended animation, going to sleep and waking up in an instant to find decades have passed.

You can't separate the body from the mind and say it grows weary in a way that has nothing to do with age. They are intrinsically linked. For some it may come when they're young, but it's still a result of their physical pathology. LSD would do well to revitalize some of these people's appreciation for life, and I'm sure there will be plenty of new drugs developed, both therapeutic and recreational, to address this. Even so, weary minds who feel they've had enough are free to end their lives. And if they choose to be nothing more than couch potatoes, so what? We've always had those and always will. To suggest that someone will turn into one once a certain amount of time has gone by, I don't buy it. Without having to work 40 hours a week, and with hundreds of years to look forward to, people will be able to travel the world, create art, do science, and enrich each other's lives.

We jumped past the threshold of destroying ourselves when we split the atom?  That's a belly laugh! We are no more mature now than we were then we learnd no new lessons, except that we could destroy two cities and and an entire society in three days - BECAUSE we learned to split the atom. Want to talk about restructuring a society lol. Study Japan's society before and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pray to God ISIS does not get hold of nuclear warheads. Do you believe THEY are beyond the threshold?  I repeat - you know nothing of people.

I mean to say we've already passed the point of no return in that regard. ISIS aren't going to get nukes. They don't have those kind of resources and are already being slaughtered. As for major governments, it's safer if everyone has nukes. Mutually assured destruction. Of course, we'd sleep more soundly knowing they didn't exist in the first place, but as I've said, we passed that threshold.

Only people can kill humanity? Go back and read the articles. I suspect you haven't bothered.

Maybe you can boil it down for me. It all seems to be based on the assumption that we'll continue to consume the planet's resources at an unsustainable rate. If you're talking about weather fluctuations, ice ages, we can survive these things with technology. My point was that we're the only things that can wipe us out for good, with nukes, before the sun goes red giant or an asteroid takes us out before we develop adequate defense systems.

I never argued against developing the technology - go ahead and develop it.  Beware of its implementation, however.  That's what you don't appear to be understanding. Technology is neither inherently good nor bad. Neither is a gun. Both can be used for good or ill.  Worshipping technology and not understanding the very real dangers is foolhardy.

Same arguments apply? You've made none - none of a true scientific basis and none which demonstrates any knowLder. You have your own shining vision and will not let reality interfere in ay way.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You just have less faith in our species than I. Again, if it's all going to hell, as you say it is, there's no point in trying to achieve anything. Things are only getting better. You've shown nothing to disprove this. There are ups and downs, but on a timescale greater than any one life (for now), the trend is one of improvement.

And one more question – suppose this technology is developed? What makes you think you'll have access to it?

Well one thing's for sure, if it's NOT developed, I certainly won't.

 

[Seraphim]

You might like the "Caves of Steel" series, a science fiction work by Asimov - who was also a brilliant scientist - which touches on this topic.

 

[K1ngN0thing]

BTW King - when I laugh, I'm in no way laughing at you. You remind me very much of myself when I was in high school; nor do I intend that as a back handed compliment.  Growing up and in high school, I was rather advanced and spent most of my time studying and learning. A geek. As such, I never learned all the little social skills, and certainly didn't understand the thinking and behavior of my peers. That caused me a lot of grief, because my peers certainly didn't understand me, and took my solitary nature as something else entirely. For which I was regularly punished. I spent my college years getting a degree, essentially, in Understanding people and spent subsequent years in my career learning through experience and putting my acquired understanding of people to work.

I just didn't want you to think I'm making fun of you. I'm not.

I appreciate that. My social skills are admittedly unrefined. I often don't grasp the nuances of interactions until later reflection. No worries.

You might like the "Caves of Steel" series, a science fiction work by Asimov - who was also a brilliant scientist - which touches on this topic.

I recently read "The Last Question" and based on that I think I'd enjoy the rest of his work. I'll give it a look.