/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10173100
>pathetic escapism
This. Haven't you ever seen the /sci/ aging threads If the outlook of /sci/ is at all representative of reality, these headlines are just a way to offer comfort to people who can't handle reality.

>>10173100
>no known limit
>what is the Hayflick limit
>the beggar eating in the dumpster behind the mall is a scientist who says things now

>>10173100
>Is immortality a reality
no. There is nobody immortal.
>pathetic escapism
also no.

imagine it's 1600
>Bird wings
>Flying machines
>Rockets
>Levitation

Is flying a reality, or pathetic escapism?

>>10173110
>pathetic escapism
This. Haven't you ever seen the /sci/ flying threads? If the outlook of /sci/ is at all representative of reality, these headlines are just a way to offer comfort to people who can't handle reality. Humans can't fly.

The physical universe is an illusion. Why would you want to trap yourself forever in this box? Your awareness is more fundamental than this. When you die, you'll just get out of the box.

>>10173118
Or be reborn as someone/something else somewhere else or as your exact self yet again. Back in the box you go.

>>10173101
I often think about Moore's law and whether that holds any merit. I'm fairly young, so I'd like to believe my chances are
good, if there are any chances at all. At the same time, the escapism angle doesn't apply to me, I feel, because I use the
notion of future immortality as a drive to do well in life and earn myself a spot up front when people line up at the clinic :^)

>>10173110
>nobody is immortal
I'm not referring to now, as in the present, but if people living today will eventually become modified in a way that stops
ageing or the breakdown of the body as cells replicate, or whatever they do that causes the molecular break down.

>>10173125
That only happens if you die with religious expectations ("You'll be guided by angels") or atheist expectations ("Nothing will happen")

In the first case, you'll trust the first entity to talk to you into reincarnating.

In the second case, you'll be so shocked that you'll trust any entity that talks to you.

You need to be ready: Never, ever, talk to any entity. Refuse all offers of help. Never consent to anything once you're out of the box. Don't be fooled by "old relatives". Don't be fooled by illusions of hell. They'll get tired and let go once they realize you will never consent.

>>10173127
I don't see a reason why people shouldn't be able to overcome death by old age eventually. Several animals are capable of this

>>10173118
>>10173132
I don't think buying into immortality, or becoming immortal means you give up on physical death, and some kind of spiritual awakening. If I were to get tired of life, I'd kill myself. It just so happens I'd rather do that in a thousand years when I'm tired of life, instead of in 70 years approx.

>>10173133
Well research is already being done with like, the kinds of lobsters and jellyfish that life forever, so I'd say we're on the right track.

>>10173100
Won't your brain still deteriorate? Replacing parts of it is basically killing yourself piece by piece.

>>10173154
I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain all cells deteriorate in the same manner, given enough time. When cellular regeneration is on the table, it encompasses all cells in the body, including those of the brain. If not, there's always the digitalization(?) route

>>10173127
>I use the notion of future immortality as a drive to do well in life and earn myself a spot up front when people line up at the clinic

You may actually be retarded.

>>10173100
Universe will heat death, humans will survive...

Well... Consistency #1

>>10173127
Bullet in head is probably going to kill them too.

Why should we want people to live forever? Boomers have already lived fucking long enough.

>>10173100
>scientists say

>>10173127
Moore's law is ending.

>>10173418
I don't like the appeal to authority, but it's the best thing to rely on when done right, and when you're not invested in the development itself

>>10173421
I don't believe in Moore's law fully, considering it's not exactly measured in a very effective or inclusive way, but I would venture to say it's logical to assume technological progress makes it easier for people who progress technology to make the progressing go faster. It's a positive feedback loop.

>>10173101
>You were born too late to live out your threescore years and ten in peaceful ignorance.
>You were born too early for effective longevity treatments.
>You are born just in time for medical science to prolong your dying agony through grossly unnecessary end-of-life care.
The future's so bright, you won't even need eyes to see it.

>>10173127
>I use the notion of future immortality as a drive to do well in life and earn myself a spot up front when people line up at the clinic :^)
me too :^)