/sci/ - Science & Math

you wouldn't have been born because if people live forever then they will stop having sex purely for procreation and not pleasure

>>3492872
Using that logic, if we will ever have the technology to live forever, no one will have ever been born... troll harder.

>live forever
>perception of time gets more and more distorted
>go insane, can't die

SOUNDS GREAT OP SIGN ME UP

>>3492877
10/10. Made me think and reply.

>>3492886

>>3492872
This may shock you, but some people enjoy having children, and want to raise them. Those people with parents who didn't have a mistake would know this.

>>3492886
We won't be able to invent undying immortality. You just won't die of old age, or any of the diseases we cure.

immortality would be way, WAY out of your price range OP. If your not rich and/or famous you sure as hell would have to be super talented to get your hands on it.

>>3492886
>implying we won't invent capacity upgrades.

>>3492905
That depends on how it works. If the information on how to manufacture it were released, then competitors would create cheaper versions. Or people would "pirate" it.

>>3492902
>Stop dying from old age.
I dont think you understand how people die from old age.
You cant stop the body from aging with out stopping the body's rejuvenation factors.
If you want to prolong life your life for a very long time thats another story.

>>3492905
Why would rich or famous people get first dibs? Rich people I could understand because of money, but famous people? J-Lo living forever? An hero me now.

>claim to love science
>allow yourself to be conditioned into feeling strong emotions over pointless superstitious questions
Shut up.

>>3492916
Oh but we can. We change the way rejuvenation works.

>How would we do that?
Shit I don't know, this is a hypothetical
Also Magic.

We died that our grandchildren might live, OP.

We stayed upon this Earth that our grandchildren might venture to the stars.

We stood tall that our grandchildren might stand upon our shoulders, and see what we could not.

We suffered and toiled, sick and ignorant, not for ourselves, but for the future.

And in our spare time we whacked it to hentai.

>>3492972

10/10

btw... fucking captcha

>>3492927
Famous people tend to be rich people.

>implying The Singularity is anything besides mental masturbation

Who says we'll ever figure out immortality? Hell, even if we do, it'll end up causing wars for living space where you'll probably end up getting nuked or space-rayed to death or something.

>>3492972
>that

>>3492981
The majority of famous people aren't rich, though.

Don't worry, OP, humans will tire of immortality quickly. There comes a point in life where you have done everything there is to do, and you are competing with your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc for increasingly limited resources. We're starting to see this today. We live so long now, so quickly, we've overpopulated the planet in record time. So don't mourn the loss of immortality. Celebrate not being there when we finally really empty the planet because we're so fucking stupid.

>be immortal
>forbidden of making children because of overpopulation and no mortality
>be bored for 124411 years
>old people still old, babies stay babies
seems cool to me.

>>3492868
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

http://www.ted.com/themes/might_you_live_a_great_deal_longer.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/sierra-sciences-working-towards.html

http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3329065877451441972#

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

>>3492916
>You cant stop the body from aging with out stopping the body's rejuvenation factors.
[citation needed]

>>3493040
Babies and the resulting overpoulation aren't a spontaneous reaction. It's a choice. Accept immortality and a form of sterilization, or don't. And if you've picked the first option, you might be able to have a baby as soon as living space and resources are more abundant. I.E. space colonization.

>>3493056
Biological immortality via curing aging means that after puberty your body doesn't begin deteriorating. This doesn't mean old people stay the way they are permanently, rather it means to revert to something along the lines of their 25 y/o body.

In 1960s everyone thought that cryonics would cure death. People are pathetic always.

>born in 1990.
>live a long fulfilling life.
>attain wisdom.
>die in the 2060s.
>use state of the art cryo/preservative technology to suspend my body/brain.
>several decades later, I am revived.
>structure of my brain (and therefore information) is largely or totally preserved.
>medical technology grants me biological immortality and superhuman prosthetics.
>use implanted neural connection to transmit and receive information directly and wirelessly.
>spend the next several decades on 4chan.
>ect.

This is how I see my future.

>>3493081
>stagnant society, imagine never getting new blood in government.

>>3493090
>implying anyone would want to resurrect you.
Here's how I see that going. "hey we found a cryotube"
"anyone cool in it?"
"nah just some neckbeard"
"oh well sell it to china"

>>3493081

>In 1960s everyone thought that cryonics would cure death.

No, they hoped it would preserve their bodies and brains in a way that future generations could restore to life. And they may yet be vindicated.

>>3493097
[citation needed]

I would argue that one becomes more creative and varied as time goes on if they have a healthy mind.

So what would you rather; a high death rate of about 100,000 per day, or a rapidly changing society [citation needed]?

>>3493107
they actually used the phrase "cure death", I'm aware of the premise of cryonics, and no it won't be vindicated.

>>3493113
[common sense]
Just look at the constant historical difference between the aged congress and the opinions of the ~20 year old sets, throughout time. And yes I'm fine with mortality.

I feel I was born too late. I'd love to have grown up in the 60s/70s. Great music, great vibe, actually have a fighting chance at getting a faculty position at some university.

>>3493113
a high death rate is useful.
To always remind politicians about their obejctives.
The purpose of society is survival of the masses.
If this purpose doesn't exist anymore...well, let's try it and see what happens.
Lulz will be had, garanteed

>>3493106

I'm pretty sure that the cryogenics facilities are legally required to revive you when/if it ever becomes possible. Not to mention that any family I had would probably help to look out for my interests.

And even if some freak situation like you described happened, I imagine that they'd thaw me out simply because there's no reason not to.

>>3493128
There aren't really any regulations governing cryogenic facilities, besides obvious handling corpses shit. And its pretty high hopes to think some random speculative business will survive long enough to cure the dead, considering the nature of the economy and the failure of science make any real progress on even reviving those without health problems.

>>3493128
They'll probably just wait till the laws change and confiscate your bank account.

I wouldn't trust any currently established cryogenic companies.

>>3493123
>[common sense]
Subjective

>Just look at the constant historical difference between the aged congress and the opinions of the ~20 year old sets, throughout time.
Oh well, i'll give you that. But my question is if you had complete dictatorial power over whether or not humanity can use a cure for aging, would you really wish to confine the hundreds of millions/billions to a unnecessarily premature death? Especially the ones that really really want it.

>And yes I'm fine with mortality.
Many aren't.

>>3493127
I've heard many express that they don't give a shit about climate change for it will not affect them in their lifetime. Long lived people think about long lived problems.

Nah dude, born just about the right time. We have a good chance to be immortal. Medical science will progress faster than the 'rate we are dying' so we will continuously be able to prolong our lives until eventually science finds a way to reverse the ageing process. Then just don't get hit by a truck or something for a few more decades, and boom, immortality starts becoming a reality. Just start saving, I have a feeling you will have to be rich for this to work.

Heaven and Hell are merely when you're born in time.

The better you are in THIS life, the further into the future you will be born in the next life.

The worse you are, the further back in time you're sent.

We are the angels.

We are the demons.

Make it count.

>>3493150
No, by definition of common.

yes

Fucking cowards.

>>3493164
>>3493150
Oh, also follow up, by definition of mature, a death from aging cannot be "premature"

>>3493164
A question, do you look both ways before crossing a street?

>>3493170
If there is a treatment that allows them to live at least dozens of times longer, I would say that my use of 'unnecessarily premature' was okay.

>>3493150
climate change doesn't exist, and even if it existed, it's obviously not the act of humans.

>>3493178
Yes, and there is a difference between being suicidal and recognizing the value in life being fleeting and that we are continuously raising new generations to inherit the world.

and no, you're use of premature was blibbering nonsense.

>>3493140
>>3493141

Yes, but I'm talking about doing this ~50 from now, by which time they'll hopefully be less primitive and unregulated.

Regardless. I'm not counting on it being 100% guaranteed to work. Even a small chance is better than the alternative of decomposition and irreversible death.

>>3493188
That's nice dearie, go play with your special friends now

>>3493192
>Yes, and there is a difference between being suicidal and recognizing the value in life being fleeting and that we are continuously raising new generations to inherit the world.
That's the reason you find life precious. i find life precious for being alive and experiencing more and more the universe has to offer. Let's say a cure for aging was out on the market for $50. Would you completely deny it though many people get it?

>and no, you're use of premature was blibbering nonsense.
Whatever you say.

According to an article I read in "Time" the cutoff for immorality could be as soon as 2040. I'm just gonna be extra careful not to die in the meantime.

p.s. anyone who doesnt want to live forever plz kill yourselves bc youre all retarded

>>3493207
Not only that, I'd go jihad on the people manufacturing.

>>3493233
I look forward to standing on your decapitated head then.

>>3493040

how can you talk about immortality and finite resources as problem without even considering the fact that we live in a vast universe with ample resources. If we can figure out immortality and not figure out how to colonize more than one planet I'd be surprised. Poetic little sentiment but if we get that far we've got an entire universe to explore

>>3493278
Someone that gets it

To those saying that a cure for aging would be prohibitively expensive, consider that age-related diseases make up the overwhelming majority of medical costs. In an eternally young society, these costs would be eliminated. Healthcare would almost certainly be cheaper with a higher proportion of young people, which would benefit society as a whole. It's likely that in a post-aging society, universal healthcare would be even cheaper than it is today, even with the costs of providing anti-aging treatment to the population.

Also consider that any company producing a cure for aging as a product will want to sell to as many people as possible. It will be in their best interests to price it such that the maximum number of people will be able to afford it.

>>3493278

>>3492868
You might still be just on time, that is the first generation of humans which might end up being "immortal" (many people misunderstand full implications of the term, so I'm using quotes, despite being as good as it can possibly get).

If you think you're too late, just sign up for cryonics as an insurance policy.

>>3493297
I like your reasoning, but I would argue initially pharma lobbies would campaign against widespread anti-aging treatments as it may decrease their revenues. INITIALLY. I do think that eventually some government somewhere in the world would guarantee the anti-aging medicine and it would sweep across the rest of the world, however.

>>3493278

THIS.

We'll probably end up with anti-child laws and sterilization for those that choose/are allowed to stay on Earth. People that want children will have to wait for/earn a permit or move to an off-planet colony. It probably won't be that bad, actually, since the closest colonies will be within our solar system - a relatively short distance away - and they could still come visit Earth and give us their delicious tourist money.

>>3493327
>You can't have kids without a license
>but we're gonna revive these random frozen assholes who no one cares about and who would be completely out of touch if revived and have no resources to their name.
Makes perfect sense.

>>3493327
If I new I could live forever, I would be all to happy to move to an off planet colony. I know it would be the start of human colinization of the universe. I am optimistic that humans will eventually find the 'philosophers stone' if you will and colonize the cosmos.

>>3493367

Creation of life vs preservation of life.

If we can revive someone that already exists, we have a moral obligation to do so. I imagine that we would allow illegally born children to live, too.

And anyway, it's not like the number of people that could be revived would be anywhere near the number of babies that could be born. Revived cryogenics patients are nowhere near as much of a danger to overpopulation as billions of children.

>>3493367
At tops that's 1,000 people.

>>3493374
>>3493327
:)

>>3493403
>preservation of life
>dead frozen people
Makes sense to me, durrr.
It would be a case of giving corpses privilege over living people, its absurd.

Immortality is the worst thing that can happen to humanity. I'd rather die and rot in the ground and be remembered rather than live a life where everyone doesn't die and population problems begin to rise.
Not to mention that our lives are motivated by death. We live to die and the only thing that motivates us is the fact that we want to live to the fullest before it all goes away when we die.
In a world where nobody will die, nobody will be remembered or honored for deeds or anything of the like.
But we could still die from fatal wounds and such. Not all hope is lost. Immortality will never happen because there are lots of people around the world that would rather die than live forever.

I didn't even know half what I was saying.

>>3492972
Inspiring words, Anon.

>>3493438
>I didn't even know half what I was saying.
(insert scathing pro-life extension comment here)

It'd take a full 20 years (or more depending on the standards of an immortal society) in order to raise a new generation to deal with unexpected issues. A plague kills a billion people, or a war, all of a sudden we have a sizable hole in the population for a full generation. Now we have a heavily dichotomous society between the large group of the young folk and the stagnant ancient people who will probably never really see them as adults. Society breaks down and everyone dies in violent power struggle.

>>3493438
>Implying you will be able to give a shit about people remembering you when you are dead.
>Implying they will even remember you.

Population control wont be a problem before we are able to start colonizing other planets. Plenty of the universe for us to live in. Humanities population may someday rise to hundreds of trillions, maybe more.

>>3493427

Theoretical babies were NEVER alive. They do not physically exist. They have no informational makeup.

A dead man, perfectly preserved, is a completely different matter. He physically exists. He's already here. The information that makes up his body and mind is intact. He still has his memory, his lifetime of wisdom and experience. All that's needed is a little nudge to bring him back to consciousnesses.

>>3493461
I'm not talking about the rights of babies, I'm talking about those living 1000 families or whatever who have their rights to raise a family superseded by corpses.

>>3493459

One problem is that if immortality does get reached soon, we'll may have reached it too soon, thus if made available to the public, it could pose problems if space colonization hasn't been established yet.

>>3493459
>colonizing other planets
You know 'Dune' isn't a documentary right? Shit colonizing planets isn't a fucking given just because you've read about it in sci fi. We don't know if there are good enough "earth-like" planets out there to just land on. As for long distant travel and the requisite "terraforming", especially regarding the possibility of extra solar colonies, there is no reason to think its even achievable.

>>3493466

Are you even listening to yourself? A corpse breaks down. If someone can be revived, they aren't really dead. You're talking about condemning all these frozen people to death just so that a few people can skip the line.

Fuck those people. They're immortal. They can stand to wait a few years to have a baby. Or, if they're not willing to wait, they can get the fuck out, move to the new world (literally), and raise their brood there.

>>3493481

We have the technology to establish permanent off-planet colonies within our solar system, but we don't have the motivation. NASA's tiny budget is all that's holding us back. Our moon, mars, and the moons of jupiter are all good candidates.

>>3493486
They're dead. They were dead when they were put in, they're dead until they're hypothetically revived. And the corpses can go on freezing indefinitely, the same argument as with hypothetical babies would apply to them. However no one cares about the popsicles, the babies would have families, in terms of utilitarianism the baby should be preferred, as giving it life provides good to the baby the parents, the friends of the family etc. Whereas the popsicle would just be one lone person in a world that's passed them by.

>>3493498
We don't have the technology to establish permanent off world colonies, at least at any useful scale, any colonies we would build would need heavy support from earthside as well. At best we could create colonies that would support life relatively short term, something enduring, and independent is far beyond us.

>>3493502

It would provide worth to the person that was revived.

We're talking about saving people's lives here. This is a moral no-brainer.

Anyway, I'm done arguing. We're far off-topic and you're an idiot. You can say you won if you want, I don't care.

Everyone in this thread is retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

Buy the book. Read it. Get mind fucked.

/thread

P.S. there's threads discussing the shit I just posted... redirect yourselves there. Thanks

>>3493541
I'm pretty sure every generation was convinced revolution was always right around the corner, at least going back to the 19th century.

So far, the optimists have not panned out.

There's so much damn space in the universe, and yet you keep worrying about resources.
Yes, you should worry about exponential reproduction, but I think post-human solutions (either mind uploading, or optional upload/download later on) mostly solve this to some extent. There are also some unconventional solutions which also let you have the cake and eat it too (exponential growth without harming anyone in this universe), but while enough people understand them now, they're not really mainstream solutions (I expect them to be taken as the logical next step in a posthuman society), but there's no point in worrying about them in detail right now.

>>3493555
The problem is that most of that space is the universe is between us and those resources. That is to say, shit is spread out very sparsely.

>>3493547

Fool. When in humanity's history has there been such a great disparity of wealth and knowledge through time? You would only need to take back a handful of engineers from the early 1900s to the 1800s to retain a large amount of knowledge gained in that century. Try taking back a few engineers from the 2000s to the 1900s to explain all of the shit we have today. It wouldn't work. You would need to move HUNDREDS of people back in time just to retain all of the extra knowledge gained in a century.

No. Revolution is already here. The vast majority of people just haven't woken up to it yet. Give 'em a decade; there will always be skeptics.

>>3493564
No. Revolution is always here. Turns out it doesn't mean shit.

>>3493570

No. It hasn't been truly revolutionary until just recently. You're just a jaded faggot. We're entering a period of unprecedented growth.

>>3493563
Yes, but even in our solar systems, if we only limit ourselves to local rocks, it's really a lot of resources to last ourselves a lot of time, and we still have a lot on earth. Also, if you assume transhumanism or posthumanism, you have to assume they either have efficient mining systems (AGI or human built) and molecular nanotech allowing for rather easy construction of stuff outside of our atmosphere (could for example use it for huge solar power capturing).

>>3493577
No we're following the same damn memoryless growth curve. You're just over weighting recent changes, because that's what you see around you.

>>3493570
Nope, you're just a retarded faggot.
The amount of discoveries and inventions in the last 200 years overshadows those of the last 200,000 years.
Hell, the entire internet has grown from nothing in the last 40 years and completely connected billions of people.
Computers are constantly getting more powerful at an amazing rate which is needed for the simulation of things such as the genetic code.

Only idiots with no historical knowledge at all will compare bad predictions from people like Nostradamus to the factual evidence that the rate of scientific/technological revolution is increasing exponentially. There's nothing to be argued, not a single piece of evidence supports a dipshit who thinks development has been linear and can never pass some imaginary "learn genetics" mark.

And as soon as we learn genetics, aging is gone. All life on Earth is tightly interconnected, we're not hugely different from a tree and trees can live for 5000 years or longer. A few code changes and the variables of aging are gone.
Hell, there are already immortal jellyfish swimming in the oceans which can turn back into children if they feel the conditions aren't right for their adult self.

Anything one carbon-based lifeform can do with common chemical elements can be done by another with some alteration. Humans will never have a problem with alteration. The plants you eat barely resemble their past, the animals you eat are completely changed, it's a matter of time until normal people are completely changed.

>he doesn't know his consciousness will be resurrected in the heart of the age of aquarius and he will have eternal nirvana because of tecchnology his simple ignorant mind cannot even begin to comprehend

>>3493617

Thank you for explaining it in a better way than I did. =)

>>3493617
you should have said last 200 trillion years for more shock value

>>3493617

Inspiring!

>>3493617
What does "learn genetics" mean? DNA is chaotic as hell, but luckily it's still possible to work with it as it's not impossibly large, but anything that is product of natural evolution is bound to be a mess (like DNA is). Of course, I do assume that we will eventually find ways to improve/fix cell and DNA repair mechanisms to such a level that aging would be obsolete, just I don't expect it will be that easy/fast. I would personally prefer the different mind substrate scenarios as they are the ones with most possibilities (not just immortality, distribution across universe, copies, merging, conversion between various AGI types, upgrading/downgrading (see previous), telepathy (see previous), direct thought/feeling sharing, varied forms of virtual and physical embodiment, extending the neural architecture by adding new senses to the neocortical hierarchy(can we see in 4D, 5D,+?; could we sense code?), maybe hiveminds, finally messing with qualia and neural correlates of consciousness directly, being able to test the CUH(computational universe hypothesis, or basically a weaker ultimate ensemble) and even set yourself up as a literal "deity" which has unlimited computational resources, and many other general self-modifications), and it's always easier to improve what is designed (VR body, robotics model, ...) as opposed to what is evolved (physical body). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to be able to cheaply switch substrates between biological and digital, but I don't expect that to come that much sooner after uploading is feasible, and there's always the possibility that people would lose interest in doing that.

I wish we'll be able to experience such glorious times.

>>3493723
> continued
>>3493438
Who cares when you can just play with your motivations, meta-motivations if current ones are unsuitable? I don't even consider most of the things you listed as ever been anything close to my motivations. I see why some people would dislike such things, and they're free to stay behind unmodified if they wish, but the rest of us would love be able to finally answer some very interesting questions that have bothered humans for a long time, I am most certainly eagerly awaiting that as opposed to actually caring about personal fame or finite lifetimes (which immortality actually guarntees as you between every 100 subjective years would probably be unrecognizable to the first you, unless you toy heavily with motivation to allow for slower transitions).

>>3493617
>there are already immortal jellyfish swimming in the oceans which can turn back into children if they feel the conditions aren't right for their adult self.

Really?

>>3493727

>Really?

Yup. Pic related. "But exploring the ocean is a waste of money", they said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4357829/Immortal-jellyfish-swarming-across-the-world.html

>>3493723

Do you herp before you derp?

"We don't need a deep sea research station. It would be expensive, and there's no way you'll find anything living down there that justifies the expense. I mean it's not like you'll find an immortal jellyfish or something."

>>3493822
You could find Cthulhu. And that would be bad.

i was hopeful about a huge discovery being made in my lifetime.

but how large of an impact will the impending economic collapse and WWIII have?

probably just a setback of a few decades right? but that'd be enough to make prolonged aging just out of our reach.

>>3493900
Actually WWII gave us huge advancements in technology. If we stick to not using WMDs then wars will just give us more advancement.

Spoiler: We've known the secrets to immortality for years but only the super elite at the top of the hierarchy have access to such information.

After over 150 years of living without the effects of aging, humans would never tire of life. Quite the opposite would happen. Humans would become addicted to living in the same way an MMO addict is addicted to MMO's. We'd know its detrimental and only causing us despair but keep going regardless from fear of the loss of our conscientiousness. Eventually we'll tire of life to the point where we lock ourselves in virtual worlds, but we'll never want (or have the mental strength) to conscientiously end it.

>>3492972

>And in our spare time we whacked it to hentai.
Fucking lost it.

>>3492868
Don't go all sadfrog yet, OP.
Take care of your body.
I'll say it again: TAKE CARE OF YOUR BODY.

you could be among the first Immortals.

>>3493931
>the same way an MMO addict is addicted to MMO's
Umm.. no. In MMO being killed is no big deal. You can't say the same about real life. Immortal people would be safety freaks.

>>3493944
you forgot to add
>and aquire LOTS of money

>>3493945
You weren't even close to the analogy I was trying to make.

OP, all you've done is admit you're just another ignorant human who allows emotions to overpower their thoughts. You sit there dreaming about science yet do not even lift a finger to accomplish anything, just sit in your own faeces and urine crying like a little bitch because no one has come to lick your ass clean.

Seriously, I'm all for logic but this isn't logic. I'm prescribing a heavy dose of MAN THE FUCK UP with a dash of humility. Obviously you never said to yourself "well I am sapient but the machine that supports me is a naturally evolved fleshbag, I must endeavour to change this", you lack the temperament and consciousness to do anything about your predicament and I think it goes without saying you lack the intelligence just for arriving at this point in the first place.