/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11123130
Bump ffs

>immortality
Probably not, not really any research into permanent life sustainability
>crispr
Probably much more after ethical/social boundaries are crossed

>1)Immortality ?
nope, entropy. you can't unscramble an egg and all that

>2)Crispr on an high level?
probably for the elites, ivf is too burdensome for regular people not concerned with status maxxing

4)AGI?
too hard

6)Interstellar travel?
too hard, as evinced by no one having visited us/sent a message

>>11123310
>>11123346
What about techs you rwo didn't mention?

>>11123130
Immortality meds almost exist for humans if you're referring to eternal youth.

>>11123130
Once literally everyone has a smartphone and they've installed Google echo microphones and cameras in every residence, the goal of technological advance will pretty much be realized and will thereafter stagnate.

>>11123130
>1)Immortality ?
possible though unlikely

>2)Crispr on an high level?
probably

>3) Automation where's everything automated?
probable

4)AGI?
3 requires 4, so this is also probable

5)Fusion energy?
improbable. i don't know of any significant developments in the last 50 years

6)Interstellar travel?
interstellar, meaning "between stars" meaning "we visit another star" within 30 years. effectively zero.

>>11123130
>3) Automation where's everything automated?
kys commie

>>11123130

Biometrics will likely extend lifespan 200 years by being able to constantly detect your body and detect cancer and other disease earlier.

>>11124941
That's actually wholesome af tyvm

>>11124931
Naw, working is just draining

Finna live on gov payments

>>11123130
>1)Immortality ?

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/aubrey-de-grey-getting-more-optimistic-on-life-extension/

>Worth noting that he is getting distinctly optimistic about timelines for mouse rejuvenation and has (for the first time that I am aware of) started attaching probability distributions to various scenarios – 80% of achieving longevity escape velocity if you are currently aged 25.
>By February 2018, he had given a 50% chance of RBM (Robust Mouse Rejuvenation) in about half a decade.
>Now, he believes it is just 3 years away:
>He now places Robust Human Rejuvenation at 2037.

>>11123130
>1)Immortality ?
30%
>2)Crispr on an high level?
70%
>3) Automation where's everything automated?
85%
4)AGI?
>45%
>5)Fusion energy?
50%
>6)Interstellar travel?
0%

>>11124931
>I like having to bust my ass at work everyday so that I can make more money for Mr. Goldberg

>>11125825
based

>>11123130
2) already happening my friend. There is recent research that reduces off target mutation occurrence from crispr modulated genomic lesions (aka “gene deletes” and subsequent repair mechanisms which introduces unwanted, dangerous mutations). I can’t speak to whether that brings us closer to therapy but it does seem that we’ve made progress on a long-standing obstacle.

>in 20-30 yrs
1, 4 and 6 are <0.00001%

And wouldn't 3 imply that 4 was already developed anyway

>>11123310
>>immortality
"Full nutrition" is a rarity amongst diets (some 1%) and scholarly articles.

Furthermore is – with specifics such as heights most correlating to protein intakes (and, obviously, other nutrients), omega 3s benefiting telomere lengths (evidencing a role in building up cellular environments / youth), "all vitamins and minerals", the mediocre ORAC of most antioxidants, and how effective OTC substrates of neurochemicals (L-DOPA for epinephrine and dopamine; 5-HTP for melatonin and serotonin) are for positive mood (etc.) – "the plausible greatness of humans".

>>11123346
>entropy. you can't unscramble an egg and all that
Humans are way more complex. The more reasonable analogy is "self-repairing robots".

There are zero genes associated with producing negative aspects of aging. In fact, simply getting proper nutrition is a *very* logical, simple method of eternal youth.

PS: Some specific boundaries of common understanding are how much of and what exactly is (all of) vitamin C, and other vitamins and minerals; returning GULO functionality ..

>>11125898
Made my fyckung day

Tyvm sir

>>11123130
Compact *fission* reactors are going to be a major boon for us soon enough, as for fusion, it seems farther off, but not impossible. We will have to wait and see.

Generation IV fission reactors are something to be proud of as well, they could be the only hope we have currently in clean, reliable power, so do not worry. In time great advances will be made.

>>11123130
1) impossible
2) 15%
3) impossible
4) 20%
5) 50%™
6) <0.0001%

>>11123130
1) Nill
2)High level in a lab? 100%, on the US market? 5% (getting it into cells in the problem)
3)Nil, humans are cheap and effective. There will always be jobs for them
4) True AGI? Nill an AI that can learn many task a human can do? 100%
5)Fusion energy? As in reliable scalable power plants ready to be built? Nill. Fusion energy as in ways to get energy out of fusion? we've had that since the 50's.
6)Nill, unless you count sending an object like voyager and waiting for eons. Then 100%

>>11126312
Nill?

>>11123130
>1)Immortality ?
Digital brain uploads: 1/1000 Biological:1/10000
>2)Crispr on an high level?
Single gene edits in the germ line in humans have already happened. Probably won't get super crazy though. Crispr will be used a lot in gene therapies for cancer etc though.
>3) Automation where's everything automated?
Everything? No
>4)AGI?
1/100
>5)Fusion energy?
Break even: 1/2 Commercial: 1/20 ITER may be finished by then, but nobody will want to build expensive commercial fusion. Solar will be too cheap.
>6)Interstellar travel?
Not in your wife's son's lifetime.

>>11123130
>Odds of seeing those techs in 20-30 yrs?
>1)Immortality
too hard
>2)Crispr on an high level?
we will see
>3) Automation where's everything automated?
no
>4)AGI?
lmao no
>5)Fusion energy?
maybe
>6)Interstellar travel?
lmao

>>11125830
If you have good fusion energy you pretty much have interstellar travel. We aren’t talking other side of the galaxy but proxima centari within a human lifespan isn’t unreasonable.