Hang in There: The 25-Year Wait for Immortality

[MolecularMan14]

Very interesting...

Something called the M prize is grabbing the attention of scientists who seek to reach immortaliy.

 

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/space/hangintherethe25yearwaitforimmortality

 

Who lives and who dies? Will money or merit decide the immortals?

[GreenDestiny]

Very interesting...

Something called the M prize is grabbing the attention of scientists who seek to reach immortaliy.

 

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/space/hangintherethe25yearwaitforimmortality

 

Who lives and who dies? Will money or merit decide the immortals?

 

Hmm, interesting article... but I'm somewhat skeptical if that's really possible. At least 25 years sounds a bit too optimistic IMO.

 

Also, what would the world be like then? We already have overpopulation, but if many people should decide not to die - well, over the years it would become very crowded on Earth, I think.

 

But maybe it would really remain something which only the rich could afford. At least I would be surprised if people in the third world countries had access to it.

 

So all in all, I'm rather skeptical about this... but it's an interesting idea nevertheless.

[AzurePhoenix]

Only the greatest minds should be given the chance. Imagine if Einstein were still around to keep learning, theorizing, and helping out with every new step forward in physics.

[BenSon]

I totally agree with you only the greatest minds and me should be given the chance

 

~Scott

[AzurePhoenix]

Well, I suppose there's an exception to any rule, but you need to state your case, otherwise, why would we make you that exception, rather than say, a drunken monkey, or a potato?

[RedAlert]

Only the greatest minds should be given the chance. Imagine if Einstein were still around to keep learning, theorizing, and helping out with every new step forward in physics.

 

So AzurePhoenix should be counted out early on.

[J'Dona]

This sounds very interesting. You can bet I'd want it if it worked!

 

Anyone who could pay should be able to do it, as the more money they score from the process the more they can put into research and development, making it cheaper and more widely available for everyone. If the government wants to pay for certain valuable people to undergo the process (scientists and whatnot) they can take at least part of the money from their pension schemes.

 

As for overpopulation, I guess the only way to prevent that would be to restrict birth control until it was the same as the death rate due to accidents or incurable disease. It would be interesting in that case, having very few children and millions of experts in their fields. Children could have personal attention paid to their progress for the whole of their education up to and through university. Places used partly for education (universities) could be devoted almost wholly to research. Also, if the technology could be modified to work on other species, it could be used to, for example, sustain cows so that they could produce milk indefinately, or have chickens that never stop laying eggs.

[AzurePhoenix]

So AzurePhoenix should be counted out early on.

Excuse me, Chicken-boy, but would you verify if that was a freindly quip, or a hostile remark? Answer wisely....

 

 

Everything J'Dona said was very insightful, I'm shuddering with the possibilities. My question is, in such a society, would we have the proper incentive to advance quite as well as we might have in a war torn state (war always leads to scientific breakthroughs and advancements)

[GreenDestiny]

As for overpopulation, I guess the only way to prevent that would be to restrict birth control until it was the same as the death rate due to accidents or incurable disease.

 

But would that really be desirable? I think it's a basic human right to have children, that should not be controlled by the state. I think they have birth control in China and it's not very nice.

[J'Dona]

It wouldn't be very desirable at all. If it were restricted then the social impact would actually be worse than as in China now, as the period for which people are capable of producing children would have increased from some decades to an indefinate time. You'd have people who were only allowed to have one or two children over the thousand or more years of their life, which is only a tiny fraction. This isn't even considering the religious implications to some of controlling reproduction or unnaturally long life, and that some (most?) wouldn't want either. On the other hand, if there were no measures to reduce the birth date, then the human population would boom and become unsustainable, which is obviously unacceptable. It would take a lot of control on behalf of the people and the government not to let things get mad.

 

It seems to me that if clinical immortality was successfully developed and applied there would have to be some redefining of basic human rights and morals themselves. Euthanasia might become legal as a form of death for those who otherwise would never die.

[bascule]

The global consciousness will unite in 2012 and bring an end to existence as we know it anyway...

[Mokele]

What if it was simply mandatory to undergo sterilization at the same time as the immortality procedure? That way you could have your kids before you become immortal, then get the treatment. Those who don't agree with sterilization don't get immortality, period.

 

Mokele

[psi20]

Only some people will benefit from this; the rest will die off.

[AzurePhoenix]

Mokele, do you think it's a good idea to "castrate" the best of brains in the world? What if they have a lot to offer, gene-wise?

[J'Dona]

I don't know, in several hundred years' time producing an egg from the raw genes of two infertile humans and growing it out of the womb would be relative child's play, plus castration would mean no more undercover recreational activities (without mental drugs or apparatus anyway). :S Plus it would be better to have kids after the parents are already some centuries old, as they will likely be wiser and more able to spend time with their kids, making them better parents.

 

There are just too many factors to make a judgement about immortality and stuff. I'd still sign up for it though, despite whatever changes. I want to see the year 3000 and laugh at the new-fangled modern video games as I play on my NES.

[Mokele]

Mokele, do you think it's a good idea to "castrate" the best of brains in the world? What if they have a lot to offer, gene-wise?

 

Well, first, I didn't say "castrate". More on that later.

 

Second, If they want to have kids, they can do it before the treatment, just like anyone else. They can do their genetic duty ("Just lie back and think of the gene pool, dear") and *then* get snipped.

 

I don't know, in several hundred years' time producing an egg from the raw genes of two infertile humans and growing it out of the womb would be relative child's play

 

True, though I guess we could pass some laws about not using that on immortals or something.

 

plus castration would mean no more undercover recreational activities

 

Yes, but I never advocated castration, only sterilization. If I were castrated, I'd lose mini-Mokele and his two best friends, and have no sex drive. But, if I simply had a vassectomy, all the equipment would remain, as would my sex drive, but I'd just lose the ability to have kids. Tubal ligation would accomplish the same for females (though it's not as simple a procedure).

 

Mokele

[geistkiesel]

AzurePhoenix, How do you determione who has the "greatest minds"? I think Einstein was a clever fellow, but as a scientrist, he was best described as a jerk. Can you carry on a conversation on the subject of special relativity theory? Probably not, but you applaud Einstein without having a clue of what you are describing as so "good" such that it appears you belittlle yourself out of a sense of wanting to appear sincere humble and modest to the world around you.

 

How do you rate brilliance, by the level or degree that you are unable to understand the person?

 

Geistkiesel

[AzurePhoenix]

Would I choose? No way in hell. I know nothing about physics, and my own ethical stances would taint the choice-pool. It would need to be chosen in some logical, fair way that I can't imagine at the moment.

 

As for Einstein, my respect for certain people form the past, such as Galileo, Copernicus, DiVinci, and Einstein (I believe anyway), is that they leapt ahead of others, regardless of the consequences (at first at least) in the search for truth and understanding. Not just scientists, but leaders, and maybe some humanitarians.

 

And I don't want to "appear" anything. I joke, I mock, I ridicule, and I talk. I talk alot. That's who I am. Deal with it, or go choke on a pinecone.

[Kylonicus]

Alot of these "great leaders" or great scientist, were really heavily controlled by their environment.

 

If Einstein had been in public schools today, do you think he would have produced half as much valuable research as he did?

[Kylonicus]

I think that although genes have a heavy influence on genius, it takes a good environment to make a genius out of someone. However, genius is largely genetic.

 

I just think that a large number of people would get pissed off that some elites get privileges and they don't, like they do with everything else.

[RedAlert]

Excuse me' date=' Chicken-boy, but would you verify if that was a freindly quip, or a hostile remark? Answer wisely....

 

 

Everything J'Dona said was very insightful, I'm shuddering with the possibilities. My question is, in such a society, would we have the proper incentive to advance quite as well as we might have in a war torn state (war always leads to scientific breakthroughs and advancements)[/quote']

 

Woops! I forgot to add a smiley. That was not meant to be a hostile remark. I was just joking Miss. Yoda (you called me a chicken boy, had to call you something too ).

[AzurePhoenix]

I'd actually prefer "Mistress Yoda"

[AzurePhoenix]

Alot of these "great leaders" or great scientist' date=' were really heavily controlled by their environment.

 

If Einstein had been in public schools today, do you think he would have produced half as much valuable research as he did?[/quote'] I agree, which is why we don't work to create these "Great Minds" for the sole purpose of making them immortal leaders. We wait for the true ones to emerge, then grant them the privelage, if they so choose. Some sort of group of people would also have to decide, either a council or something, or acceptance by the people.

[Kylonicus]

I say make everyone immortal, make everyone simultaneously have an IQ of 230, and you'll end up with a solution for the problem immortality creates.

 

As we deplete our world of resources, we will go to another world.

 

I was thinking we would use pure fusion war heads, nuke mars, breaking down the iron oxide, releasing massive quanities of air and producing an atomosphere.

 

For water, we could break apart Europa, guide it by blasting nuclear explosions, have it collide into Mars. This would put a massive amount of water on mars.

 

Hopefully the combined masses of Mars, and the chunk of Europa that we blasted off, would be enough to allow Mars to have enough gravity to keep it's atomosphere.

 

Then we plant life there. We wait like 25-50 years, and then we begin shipping people to Mars.

 

 

I think there would be a million other solutions created.

[AzurePhoenix]

What if something's alive on Europa? Even Mars. There's no way in Hell we should disrupt another living world like we did ours. Even if all there is are exo-monerans or exo-protists.

 

And making everyone immortal will put a fundamental stop to our evolution, when we should be keeping it going at full speed. Death is necessary for change and advancement. Even keeping around the greatest minds around for too long might be a mistake. Without drastic change, minds, systems, and anything else grow stale, and eventually decay and grow cancerous.

 

If anything, the lifespan of the general populace should be reduced to a reasonable, functional age, unless we can find a way to ensure good health, mental-strength and the ability to work and function into our eighties.

 

Beside, high IQs equals poor social-skills in many cases (many, not all, not even most). Mine's only a comparatively poor 128 (low around here at least(as in this site)), and I'm already a psycho-human-hater with minimal abilities to function in unfamiliar social settings.