/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10366907
Yes. All you have to do is accept Jesus Christ.

>>10366916
based

>>10366916
based and christpilled

>>10366907
Every time before, that was a ridiculous question. But now? I wouldn't bet on it, but it is at least possible. Due to limited writing space, the very bare-bones version is this:

For a variety of reasons it's basically a given that biological immortality isn't going to happen for a very long time. But a form of transcendence is definitely possible. Not likely, perhaps, but possible. Black Mirror has had a few episodes describing this, but not really the process of how we might get there. I've been discussing this IRL with a few colleagues and the main driving point here is that immortality itself isn't enough. There needs to be a reason for societies and companies to adopt it. So something that damages the society or was financially doomed would never come to pass, while the opposite also holds true. Theoretically, if transcendence was available, cost-effective, and could in fact increase productivity and the balance of societies overall, then it would be embraced quickly indeed.

That said, the most likely scenario is that if during the next 50+ years transcendence becomes possible, it would first be used by the rich and powerful, of course... but soon enough, it would become the most effective insurance / retirement plan ever devised by man. Once you could literally, factually, provide people with a near infinite perfect life, you could motivate them to do literally anything at all. Crime rates would plummet, productivity and general satisfaction would soar sky high. And as it is with technology, something like this would get more cost-effective with each year. Initially this life-cloud would take massive state of the art hardware halls with up to billions in costs. But even as more and more people would enter it, the costs of maintaining it would quickly drop to a fraction, similar to how a modern cell phone is aeons better than any supercomputer a thousand times its size 20 years ago.

>>10367022
>(...cont)
The question really is, what happens after? We can only guess, as a global transcendence would be intertwined with a global change in culture. And changes in culture are notoriously difficult to anticipate.

But here's a few guesses:
As always is, the societies and companies would look to maximize profit. Soon enough transcendence becomes a regular everyday part of life. It's no longer enough to work in real life to earn your place there. You need to work WHILE there, to keep earning your keep. This raises a lot of moral questions and potential for abuse.

But maybe we won't even get that far. Once transcendence is used on such a global level, we will already have AI and robotics far beyond anything we can even imagine now. The "work" of a human would be pointless, harmful even compared to what the machines could do. Like from some Unabomber manifesto, the ultimate power over our society would either be in the hands of but a few people, or a machine. Either way, they would have complete autonomy and independence, and could literally do whatever they wanted. Why would they bother keeping a billion billion digitized people around who no longer produce anything of any real value, and only take up resources? Even their entertainment or scientifi value (for some kind of psychological or biological study purposes) would have been used up a long time ago.

And here's the dilemma. Whether we speak of resources, risks, or security... or even something like basic space travel, biological humans are a waste of resources. Even our intellect will cease to matter. Yes at first AI will benefit from human guidance, but at some point it will not. We *will* be digitized, unless we blow ourselves up before it. But, after that I fear it's just a matter of time until we cease to be. Of course for digitized people, that time may well feel like billions of years and many if not most will at that point embrace true death.

>>10366916
fpbp

>>10366907
why dont you wait and find out?

>>10366907
Who knows? Have you considered signing up for cryonics in case it isn't?

>>10366916
Based and redpilled.

I found God by my study of molecular biology and chemistry. Only a God could program such physical laws that dictate our reality.

We'll never be able to say for certain that we've obtained immortality, only that we can keep humans alive for at least x long

Why do brainlets think they'll ever be allowed to be immortal?

Pecking order to who gets to live forever and who doesn't:

>rich people
>scientists
>highly skilled professionals

Everyone else will die.

by immortality do you mean not dying of old age anymore, or if you get shot in the head you still live?

>>10367206
I like how you think the rich people will allow anybody else to live forever

>>10366907
Immortality is an impossibility.
However, negligible senescence isn't, and is already present in some not-so complex, and some complex lifeforms.
Not only that, because through Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, we understand what needs to be done, all that remains is the technological limitation.
See here the list of treatments proposed:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence#Types_of_aging_damage_and_treatment_schemes
Not only that, but whilst many have criticized the idea, none have been able to offer enough proof to actually discredit the theory, and sizeable cash prizes have been offered for those that can:
>During June 2005, David Gobel, CEO and Co-founder of Methuselah Foundation offered Technology Review $20,000 to fund a prize competition to publicly clarify the viability of the SENS approach. In July 2005, Pontin announced a $20,000 prize, funded 50/50 by Methuselah Foundation and MIT Technology Review, open to any molecular biologist, with a record of publication in biogerontology, who could prove that the alleged benefits of SENS were "so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate."[37] Technology Review received five submissions to its Challenge. In March 2006, Technology Review announced that it had chosen a panel of judges for the Challenge: Rodney Brooks, Anita Goel, Nathan Myhrvold, Vikram Sheel Kumar, and Craig Venter.[38] Three of the five submissions met the terms of the prize competition. They were published by Technology Review on June 9, 2006. Accompanying the three submissions were rebuttals by de Grey, and counter-responses to de Grey's rebuttals. On July 11, 2006, Technology Review published the results of the SENS Challenge.[7][39]
Cont.

>>10367244
>In the end, no one won the $20,000 prize. The judges felt that no submission met the criterion of the challenge and discredited SENS, although they unanimously agreed that one submission, by Preston Estep and his colleagues, was the most eloquent. Craig Venter succinctly expressed the prevailing opinion: "Estep et al. ... have not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion, but the proponents of SENS have not made a compelling case for it."[7] Summarizing the judges' deliberations, Pontin wrote that SENS is "highly speculative" and that many of its proposals could not be reproduced with the scientific technology of that period.[clarification needed] Myhrvold described SENS as belonging to a kind of "antechamber of science" where they wait until technology and scientific knowledge advance to the point where it can be tested.[7][8] In a letter of dissent dated July 11, 2006 in Technology Review, Estep et al. criticized the ruling of the judges.
So, it looks like a very real possibility, it just needs more research interest and funding.

>>10366907
just eat healthily and exercise a little each day. If you treat yourself well you'll live a while, if tech in the future can make you live longer this will make you a prime candidate also

>>10367022
>Black Mirror has had a few episodes describing this, but not really the process of how we might get there.
Dropped.
The minute you use a mediocre Netflix horror sci-fi series as your source material, I lose all faith in how rigorous your knowledge is.

>>10367054
>Once transcendence is used on such a global level, we will already have AI and robotics far beyond anything we can even imagine now. The "work" of a human would be pointless, harmful even compared to what the machines could do.
More bullshit, we aren't anywhere near sentient or innovative machines, if anything, we're nearer to "curing" natural aging than we are to sentient AI.

>>10367257
>...as your source material
Yes well, as was so blatantly obvious, I used Black Mirror as a relatable example of what a world with transcendence might look like, socially and culturally. Nowhere did I ever refer to it as a source.

I think the irony for such a massive failure in your reading comprehension while at the same time referring to issues with "how rigorous my knowledge is" didn't escape anyone save for yourself. Let me put it less eloquently: With your reading comprehension and obviously childish need to misunderstand on purpose, just so you can find an excuse to attack people and feel special about yourself, you really should address your own bias before looking for the same in others.

That said, my entire text was speculation. Nothing more. Peer group discussed, perhaps, but still just speculation. Which, again, should've been immediately apparent to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills. Next, then, you'll probably attack the necessity for such baseless speculation like your kind always do. Because if I don't have sources to cite then what's the point of saying anything at all? Right?

Go ahead. I'm heading for bed and used up my quota of arguing with autists for this week anyway, so the arena is all yours.

>>10366907
>I'm 21 give it to me straight /sci/, will Immortality be available in my lifetime?

NO! You are going to die.
Try to enjoy the few years left that you have.

>>10366916
this

>>10367054
I didn’t even read your posts because they smelled like lotion and kleenex

>>10367324
>Yes well, as was so blatantly obvious, I used Black Mirror as a relatable example of what a world with transcendence might look like, socially and culturally. Nowhere did I ever refer to it as a source.
Then don't mention it, describe what you mean. Don't rely on a crutch.
>I think the irony for such a massive failure in your reading comprehension while at the same time referring to issues with "how rigorous my knowledge is" didn't escape anyone save for yourself.
Oh tally-ho, my you are cheeky strumpet! Stop trying to sound like señor debonair.
>Let me put it less eloquently...
Ah, here we go again, here I'll open the tab for you:
>https://www.thesaurus.com/
Oh, might I also suggest a secondary source of elate titillation to whet one's aptitude for vexatious exhilaration through the communicative art of the diatribe?
>https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/
>With your reading comprehension and obviously childish need to misunderstand on purpose, just so you can find an excuse to attack people and feel special about yourself, you really should address your own bias before looking for the same in others.
You write so much, yet transfer such little information, try being more CONCISE. You aren't a Victorian.
>That said, my entire text was speculation.
"That said, I was speculating..."
>Nothing more.
Redundant.
>Peer group discussed, perhaps, but still just speculation.
You've mentioned speculation twice, redundant and repetitive and clearly not for rhetorical effect. Just clumsy usage. Oafish. Boorish. Philistinic.
Also, a tautology.
>Which, again, should've been immediately apparent to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.
Redundant repetition, yet again; filler.
>Next, then, you'll probably attack the necessity for such baseless speculation like your kind always do.
Empty, no information, just filler.
>Because if I don't have sources to cite then what's the point of saying anything at all?
Cont.

>>10367324
>>10367349
Quite so, at least you've a modicum of self-awareness.
>Go ahead. I'm heading for bed and used up my quota of arguing with autists for this week anyway, so the arena is all yours.
I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Not only did I rout your troops, dupe your dukes and seize your salubrious wit, but I also did the KINDNESS and delivered a coup de grâce, as any gracious host would.

Most likely no. Not even talking about immortality. If you really wanna live longer, eat right and work out. I wouldn't be to mad about it or anything. We have a very long time before radical life extension is a thing. Look on the bright side. Think how mad the people that are born a generation or two away from it will be.

>>10366916
Amen

>>10366916
I'm not sure if all the comments to this are serious or not, but it sure cheer me up a bit

>>10367349
Hah, yes well you won that one. No arguments here. I'm quite proud of my English vocabulary considering it's my third language, but I'm also man enough to admit when I've lost. Your wit was highly appreciated however. :)

Reminds me of V. What a marvelous movie.

>>10367206
>>10367235
If immortality is available and not granted to all people the common man will manifest an insurgent Will and make sure that no one can have it if they can't. Clearly this will not go over well for the rich/people with high status. What will more likely happen is that immortality would be given under certain conditions that benefit those at the top of the hierarchy, which will still not go over well for them or anyone else.

>>10366907
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/transhumanist-techs/

>>10366907
The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased. Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred-year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

>>10366916
>>10366928
>>10366994
>>10367071
>>10367202
>>10367330
>>10367826
>>10368249
You have to be retarded to still believe in cuckstianity. Considering that according to Christianity, earthly life makes up 0% of your total existence, statistically you should already be in either heaven or hell. The fact that your current observer moment is being on earth is statistically almost impossible.

Something like reincarnation or quantum immortality being true, on the other hand, seems far more plausible. Assuming that there are an infinite number of realities and that closed individualism is true, this means an infinite number of chances for your consciousness to come back into existence. Even if the chance of your consciousness being recreated is small, the probability should approach 1 given enough chances. If your consciousness managed to come into existence once, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again. Thus, in the event of death, it is likely that you will experience being reborn in a subjective instant, even though potentially billions of years had passed.

>>10369185
yeet

Ok let me first start by listing the options you have RIGHT NOW.

Intermittent fasting, General Risk reduction, vitamin supplements, Varied diet, Limited but high intensity exercise.

Doing all of these things together could give you an additional 20% extra lifespan compared to your genetic maximum. This could be 8-20 years extra for you to get lucky with the state of technology.

The technologies we have right now for "immortality":

>Cryonics
Cryonics, believe it or not is actually in a very advanced stage already. Especially in the last 20 years massive leaps have been made primarily due to the organ donation industry finding ways to cool organs without ice crystals forming in cells and destroying them. This means that we can effectively store a dead body indefinitely without doing any more damage than they had at the moment of freezing.

The problem with cryonics is that we don't have the technology to repair people yet and there is no guarantee that this will ever be developed. The second and honestly bigger problem is that there is a fundamental limit or "expiration date" to cryonics. Your body can only survive a certain radiation exposure. You have a lot of radioactive materials in your body mostly in the form of a carbon isotope. If you freeze your body these isotopes will continue radiating radiation and damaging your cells over time. And because you are frozen your cells don't do any repair mechanism. This means that you have about 200-1000 years max before your body receives a lethal dosage that will be irreparable as the future machine won't be able to know what your original state was with the damage done to repair it towards your original state.

So with cryonics you have to hope that the technology to revive you is developed within 200 years of you being frozen.

>CRISPR
CRISPR is unavailable on a large amount of cells it has a 99.99% success rate. But this still means that 1 in 100,000 cells will mutate. This mutation then has the chance of becoming cancerous or ending in cell death. You have trillions of cells in your body so you could end up with thousands of tumors in your body. This is also an inherent success rate within the process of CRISPR itself. Therefor it will only be successfully done on embryos and some minor stem cell tissue targetting for specific diseases within adults.

You can basically write off CRISPR for life extension.

>Mind Uploading
We have absolutely no idea how the human mind works but we could in theory simulate every single neuron one by one until you have an exact replica brain being simulated in exactly the state that it was in when your brain got scanned.

The main problem with this is that we don't even come close to the computing power to do this and Moore's Law is rapidly coming to an end. We use silicon transistors right now. The Silicon atom is about 1.1 nanometers in size nm.

The reason our computer technology increased in speed so rapidly the last decades is because we shrinked down the size of the transistors each time so we could fit more in the same space doing more calculation.

We are now at 7nm transistors. In 2022 we will be at 5nm in 2024 we will be at 3.5nm in 2026 at 2.7 then in 2028 then 2 in 2030 then 1.6 in 2032 and then 1.1 in 2034.

This means we will reach the fundamental limit of the Silicon atom in 2034 this is the absolute limit transistors can shrink to unless we find some magical material like graphene to replace it.

From 2019 to 2034 we will at maximum experience a 100x increase in computing power. While we need a 10^21 increase in computing power to accurately simulate a brain neuron from neuron and simulate their interactions with neurotransmitters, ions and everything to have a real digital brain instead of just a loose approximation.

Basically this happening within the ~100 years time you have left on Earth if you are extremely healthy is dubious at best. But honestly this is your best chance.

Aim to be as healthy as possible with cryonics as your plan B. But aim for Graphene processor computers being able to completely simulate your brain, that's our only choice.

Nanotechnology has proven to be nearly impossible due to the heat of their motion causing them to quickly fall apart and this is a fundamental physics problem, not an engineering problem meaning nanotechnology is off the table for immortality.

>>10369185
Hahahahaha
>cuckstianity
HAHAHAHHAHAHA
Anon please, your parents were just trying to be faithful and raise you in the Lord, don't be so angry that they didn't let you keep in on Sundays.

>>10369327
Not him but the religion is literally how some whore woman made up a story how she got pregnant without sex to explain away her infidelity. And then she keeps insisting so hard that her cuck baby gets considered a prophet because she said god is her father to avoid telling she fucked the neighbor.

The entire story is literally about cuckolding. I think the name is fair.

>>10366907
Aubrey de Grey puts the odds at 50/50 for people who are currently middle aged, if I call correctly. Also it's not exactly what you are asking, but here's a calculator I found to estimate the chance of cryonics working and successfully reanimating you.

https://www.cryonicscalculator.com/

>>10369459
*recall

>>10366907
Available? Maybe. Available to you? lol no.

You're gonna die either way, dude.

>>10368881
>Hah, yes well you won that one. No arguments here.
I'm glad.
>I'm quite proud of my English vocabulary considering it's my third language, but I'm also man enough to admit when I've lost.
I would be too, if I were you. Your command of both grammatical and rhetorical forms, aswell as your vocabulary are admirable for a non-native speaker.
I'm also impressed that you are magnanimous in defeat, many aren't.
>Your wit was highly appreciated however.
Likewise, it is rare here to participate in a worthwhile VIQ joust. I normally find such sport on /lit, but I'm no big fan of fiction, so don't really fit in.
>Reminds me of V. What a marvelous movie.
It is, though sad it is becoming prophetic with the censorship of speech in the United Kingdom, and pushing for Articles 13 and 11 via the monolithic edifice that is the European Union.

>>10369142
So many meme words in one meme.

>>10369517
>Likewise, it is rare here to participate in a worthwhile VIQ joust.
Please, you really give me too much credit. I lost the moment you decided to put in even a modicum of effort. But I do appreciate your grace. Really. This was one of the best and most entertaining internet conversations I've had in a very, very long time.

>>10366907

Nope, it won't be available until just after your lifetime.

I probably shouldn't tell you this but that's in about 5 years. Nothing personnel, kid.

>>10367349
You know, if you're trying to prove you're not a reactionary Autist, you're going about this in the worst possible way.

>>10369707
>Please, you really give me too much credit.
I don't think I am, considering this is your third language. Few people put in such effort, normally only enough to be "functional".
>This was one of the best and most entertaining internet conversations I've had in a very, very long time.
Certainly, 4chan is rarely pleasant experience, I mostly keep posting out of habit.

>>10369731
>... reactionary...
I don't think you know what this word means.