/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12106736
>The easiest way to make a human biologically immortal would be at the embryo as there's only one cell and DNA set to modify

ok you just stated that with no proof and moved on

>>12106740
Anon, I'll be gentle for you. What's easier: modifying one cell, or modifying all the cells in the human body?

PK is a disgusting pedophile, who has two husband's (who are also both pedophiles) and live in squalor and cat shit
She also isn't that good of an artist

>>12106736
It may be easier, but that's only if you already know that what you're doing will actually work.
Test anti-aging on an unborn, and you're not going to have measurable results for 30 years, and it's really bad if anything goes wrong since you may affect their development and they've got their whole life ahead of them, and of course they didn't consent.
Test anti-aging on an 80 year old, and you've got data pouring in almost immediately, as a lot of the changes would be short-term.
Even if you had to wait an extra couple of decades to modify a whole human instead of an embryo, you'd still get results faster that way. It's definitely not worth trying to make an immortal embryo as an experiment.

As for how you'd modify an entire human, I imagine white blood cells would be easy to modify, and they can access all our cells. Human cells could be modified so that their membrane contains information about what iteration of DNA they're on, and white blood cells will copy their DNA to any cell on a lower iteration or lacking any indication of iteration.

>>12106736
We can't be immortal because we need to die so others can live.

>>12106736
And yet here I am, posting on /b/

>blah blah blah gilgamesh bullshit

>>12106736
Assuming you need to rewrite DNA.

>>12108092
Or I could just not tell anyone that they already are immortal and laugh at the humans that I've trapped into a spiral of mortal anxiety until I run out of breath, and then when I've recharged wake up and do it all over again.

>laughing until I pass out.

>>12106736
I'm not really interested in immortality, but living maybe 300-400 years would be kinda sweet, which is more likely to happen in my lifetime anyway.

>>12106736
Shit man, I'm just trying to not blow my brains out for today. I'll worry about immortality later

>>12108402
holy cope batman

>>12106736
Listen, buddy: IMMORTALITY IS A BAD IDEA.
Why?
>1. The Rich would hide the secret for themselves
You think many rich people are garbage human beings? Evil? How would you like it if some of them never died, ever?
>2. Eventually, everyone gets sick and tired of the same old shit, decade after decade, century after century
You'd eventually either kill yourself, or turn into a monster.
>3. Overpopulation
The only way it would be even remotely feasible is if it made you sterile at the same time. Otherwise 7 billion people would be nothing compared to a few hundred years in the future, where there might be 70 billion. We'd run out of resources. There would be WARS. In the end it would all be self-defeating, as we'd kill ourselves off in wars over dwindling resources.

I don't even think we should extend our lifetimes past, say, 100 years.
Everything has to have LIMITS. You remove the LIMITS on things, you have problems.

>>12109819
The bottom two are completely garbage reasons. Overpopulation is a fearmongering tool, easily regulated by legislation.

And no, people wouldn't just get bored. If they did, who cares? Suicide is their own decision, no one is forcing you to kill yourself.

The only decent point is the first one, but even that is mostly unrealistic. It's like saying only the king gets to drive a car, when everyone would benefit from having a car, ESPECIALLY the King, whoms nation is now fantastically wealthier than before.
In the modern world, no elite wants to rule over trash. It's a reflection of themselves to have the fanciest nation, most developed.

>>12109911
I disagree with your criticisms in the strongesst possible terms. You haven't 'debunked' anything, all you've expressed are opinions without facts, and they essentially amount to trolling.

The BRILLIANT thing about immortality is that it would allow suicide and child porn to co-exist as economic factors!

>>12106736
>me welding cloned pieces of myself to myself
YOU MAY SAY THAT AND YET...!

>>12106736
>Not using nanomachines to alter/replace cells in real time

You're fucking retarded, son.

Depends on how it works. If it's brain uploading or nanomachines it would be easier for adults than babies.
> the new generation of bright minds won't bother trying to cure mortality for those already born
People today spend a lot to keep their parents alive for just a couple years. You seriously think people won't want to keep their parents alive forever?

>>12110037
The thing made of food that was birthed from something that ate food which eats food in order to communicate with other morphological expressions of food says what now?

>>12107515
>you're not going to have measurable results for 30 years
We can wait.
>it's really bad if anything goes wrong since you may affect their development
If it does, try again.
>of course they didn't consent
Nobody asked to be born. Tough shit.

>>12106736
DNA will still be replicated, errors will still compound over time, entropy will still make it impossible to fix all the errors faster than the errors are being replicated.
There is a reason death + reproduction was favored over immortally + maintenance for complex life.
The same might even apply to societies, and might partially explain why the US was so successful early on - birthing a new England might simply be a more efficient strategy than trying to indefinitely maintain the old one as the number of laws, etc scales beyond our capacity to debug them.