/sci/ - Science & Math

Don't be shy.

>1-Interstellar travel
-Likely
>2-Time travel
-Impossible
>3-Biological immortality
-Definite
>4-Transhumanism
-Definite
>5-Artificial Intelligence
-Definite
>6-First contact
-Likely
>7-Terraforming
-Likely
>8-World peace
-Definite
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
-Unlikely
>10-Getting laid
-Unlikely

>1-Interstellar travel
Unlikely
>2-Time travel
Impossible
>3-Biological immortality
Unlikely
>4-Transhumanism
Likely
>5-Artificial Intelligence
Definite
>6-First contact
Unlikely
>7-Terraforming
Unlikely
>8-World peace
Impossible (I'll make sure of this one)
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Definite, unless by "near future" you mean a very small time scale like a few million years. Organisms change over time, deal w/ it.
>10-Getting laid
Impossible

1. 1%
2. 0%
3. 0%
4. 0%
5. 100%
6. 0%
7. 0%
8. 100%
9. 100%
10. 100%

>>3559522

am i being trolled here

>>3559522
wtf are you me?
Exactly what this guy wrote.

Also state your age, gender,country and major and hobbies.
You seem like a smart guy.

>1-Interstellar travel
likely
>2-Time travel
unlikely
>3-Biological immortality
impossible
>4-Transhumanism
impossible
>5-Artificial Intelligence
impossible
>6-First contact
likely
>7-Terraforming
definite
>8-World peace
not sure
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
not sure
>10-Getting laid
unlikely

1-Interstellar travel
>only through cryogenic sleep
2-Time travel
>lolno
3-Biological immortality
>nope, lrn2entropy
4-Transhumanism
>very likely
5-Artificial Intelligence
>possible and likely
6-First contact
>never
7-Terraforming
>in 1 million years
8-World peace
>likely
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>not in the near future, but it will happen obviously
10-Getting laid
I'm pretty sure the number of how many people don't get laid atleast once in the world is less than 1%.
I say very likely.

Actual physicist and futurist.
Keeping in mind the "some time in the future" then:

1-Interstellar travel
>Likely
2-Time travel
>Impossible (as goes for traveling back to time)
3-Biological immortality
>Definite
4-Transhumanism
>Definite
5-Artificial Intelligence
>Definite
6-First contact
>At some point, sure.
7-Terraforming
>Surely doable in the future but probably wont be done, cause with immortality+transhumanism+virtual world= we woudln'd give a fuck about anything else.
8-World peace
>Sure definite
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>Almost impossible, despite the Hollywood retarded catastrophic mindset many people have.
10-Getting laid
>"at some time in the future".

1-Likely
2-Impossible (in its normally-used sense--time dilation due to relativity is possible)
3-Not sure
4-Unlikely
5-Definite
6-Not sure
7-Definite
8-Impossible
9-Unlikely
10-Impossible

>>3559551
22M, FR, Comp Sci, programming and literature.
>am i being trolled here

3-Biological immortality
nope, lrn2entropy
>Exactly, lrn2entropy, cause bio immortality is possible, moron.
6-First contact
never
>Clearly you dont know shit about biology.
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
not in the near future, but it will happen obviously
>Will not, unless you mean the death of the universe, excluding that human extinction is impossible, lrn2statisticalbiology.

CS major here, to all you nutheads believing any "real" artificial intelligence will happen any time in the future, go study what AI is all about and stop dreaming about R2D2's because it's impossible by any standard. All you can do with equipment is fucking program it.

1-Interstellar travel
>Definite
2-Time travel
>Definite
3-Biological immortality
>Unlikely
4-Transhumanism
>Impossible
5-Artificial Intelligence
>Definite
6-First contact
>Likely
7-Terraforming
>Definite
8-World peace
>Impossible
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>Impossible

>>3559587
>22M, FR, Comp Sci, programming and literature.
Am 22 male, IT, my hobbies are pretty much the same plus dozen of other things.

It makes sense why we have the same mindset, the best one.

>>3559605

It's the same with most of the things on the list.

It's just a bunch of dreamers here.

>1-Interstellar travel
likely
>2-Time travel
impossible in the bill&ted sense
>3-Biological immortality
unlikely(possible but be serious what kind of society...)
>4-Transhumanism
likely
>5-Artificial Intelligence
...wut? you mean convincing artificial intelligence? definite
>6-First contact
unlikely
>7-Terraforming
we've been doing this for thousands of years faggot
>8-World peace
likely(in one way or another)
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
unlikely
>10-Getting laid
definite

>>3559605
Thats why you're wrong.
lrn2biology,mathematics,physics.

kthnxbai

>>3559605
>he don't know about technological singularity

1-Interstellar travel
>Not sure-Unlikely
It will require immortality or perfect hibernation and some really novel ideas for propulsion/travel.

2-Time travel
>Impossible

3-Biological immortality
>Likely
Yeah, really

4-Transhumanism
>Definite
Not sure this word means what you think it means. In a very strict sense a person with a pace-maker is already post-human.

5-Artificial Intelligence
>Likely

6-First contact
>Unlikely
The universe is a pretty huge place, and while this incredible size increase the chances for other sapient species it also decrease the chances of ever meeting them.

7-Terraforming
>Not sure
May turn out to be too long-term and to expensive for anyone ever to care to even bother.

8-World peace
>Not sure
Not likely unless we are in the global care of AI's.

9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>Likely-Definite
Yet again this depends on your definition of "human" and "human extinction".

10-Getting laid
>Definite
In about two hours when she gets home.

1-Interstellar travel
>Impossible, speed of light
2-Time travel
>Already exists: if you go to a place with your car you will go there sooner that with foot, so its a time device.
3-Biological immortality
>There is a jellyfish(no pun intended) that is immortal, google it.
4-Transhumanism
>It started few decades ago, it will only advance.
5-Artificial Intelligence
>Already exists, but we need bit more to reach lvl of a human.
6-First contact
>Statistically very possible if we take all the time of the universe.
7-Terraforming
>No point in doing that.
8-World peace
>yeah.
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>nope
10-Getting laid
>try a hooker

>definite
>definite
>definite

you people need to stop watching films

1-Interstellar travel
Definite
2-Time travel
Unlikely
3-Biological immortality
Definite
4-Transhumanism
Likely
5-Artificial Intelligence
Unlikely
6-First contact
Unlikely
7-Terraforming
Definite
8-World peace
Likely
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Likely-Definite
10-Getting laid
Impossible

I'm taking "definite" to mean "highly likely", rather than "certain", because there are no events about which complete certainty are possible.

>1-Interstellar travel
Definite, assuming we live long enough.

>2-Time travel
Impossible

>3-Biological immortality
Definite

>4-Transhumanism
Likely

>5-Artificial Intelligence
Likely

>6-First contact
Definite

>7-Terraforming
Likely

>8-World peace
Peace on a single world? Definite. Peace among all humans? Impossible.

>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Depending what you mean by near, I'd say very unlikely

>10-Getting laid
...Is there one less likely than "impossible"?

Computer science student

>1-Interstellar travel
-Low
>2-Time travel
-Low
>3-Biological immortality
-High
>4-Transhumanism
-High
>5-Artificial Intelligence
-High
>6-First contact
-Low
>7-Terraforming
-Low
>8-World peace
-Medium
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
-Low
>10-Getting laid
-Low-high

1-Interstellar travel
>Definite
2-Time travel
>very likely
3-Biological immortality
>impossible
4-Transhumanism
>impossible
5-Artificial Intelligence
>not sure
6-First contact
>likely
7-Terraforming
>definite
8-World peace
>impossible
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
definite
10-Getting laid
dunnolol

>Interstellar travel
Definitely. But unless we circumvent physics, it'll be at a snail's pace of 0.99c.

>Time Travel
Unlikely.

>Biological immortality
Definitely. What is medicine? What does medicine try to do? It seeks to improve quality of living, the function of your body as well as extending your healthy lifespan. And now Sierra Sciences and other groups such as the Manhattan Beach Project are taking on the cure for aging.

>Transhumanism
Definitely. Already happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoY1cItRiHA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ0iMulicgg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjEH2-uek8k&feature=channel_video_title

>Artificial Intelligence
Definitely. What is Toronto?

>First Contact
Likely. The universe is abundant in organic molecules and the existence of habitable worlds. The current estimate for worlds in the Goldilocks zone where liquid water can exist JUST FOR OUR GALAXY is 500 million. Then there are another 100 billion galaxies. however, now the challenge comes of actually MEETING an extraterrestrial lifeform, and those same numbers then become a reason against us making first contact.

>Terraforming
Definitely. I personally wish to get on the main Martian terraforming team.

>World peace
Not sure. If you mean by no more wars, then I'd say Likely.

>Human extinction (in the near future)
Unlikely. Asteroid impact or irradiating magnetar needs to roast us, as not even full deployment of nuclear arsenals on the most populated areas would eradicate us.

>Getting laid
Achievement Unlocked

>>3559651
>not sure
>not sure
>not sure
You need to watch more films.

>>3559671
Biological immortality is impossible. It'd require infinite energy to keep your body from deteriorating over time.

>>3559677

You clearly don't know what biological immortality means. It doesn't mean "will survive beyond the end of the Universe", merely "will remain alive until killed".

>>3559677
I'm not talking about living past 100 trillion years. Heat death. biological immortality =/= immortality.

>>3559621
>>3559611
There were no cellphones or internet 100 years ago. They sent letters.
How do you know how things will be in 3000 years ?
AI is theoretically possible so it will happen.
Especially since it's one of humanity's main goals.
Same thing for immortality. It's possible. Some organisms do it.
It also doesn't violate laws of physic. And everybody wants it.
So it will happen. Maybe in 5000 years.
World peace will happen as soon as there is a world government (which doesn't suck).

biological immortality means not to die by the age of 70.
It means you are able to live indefinitelly.
For 200 years or 2000 or 200000 etc.

>1-Interstellar travel
Slower than Light travel: http://projectrho.com/rocket/slowerlight.php
Relativistic Robots and the Feasibility of Interstellar Flight: http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm
Small Laser-propelled Interstellar Probe: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/laser.txt
Nanotechnology & Space Exploration: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/NSSNanoPosition.html
>2-Time travel
Nope
>3-Biological immortality
Don't have the bio knowledge to answer.
>4-Transhumanism
Quite likely. But it will all be done by the DIY bio folks, not the Bay Area transhumanists who do nothing but obsess over AI and uploading. Ugh.
>5-Artificial Intelligence
Not sure.
>6-First contact
Impossible to predict.
>7-Terraforming
Perhaps: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/9601-news.html#RTFToC53
>8-World peace
Not sure.
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Quite possible.
>10-Getting laid
No.

>>3559692

In which case, unless you really like being a flesher, you'll have to get rid of the bio parts.

Or modify them a bunch.

Interesting..Biological Immortality ranges from Impossible to Very Likely.
I'm very interested in this.
What did we define as 'near future'?

How do you know how things will be in 3000 years ?
The truth will be stranger than any fiction we can conceive.

>>3559722
I personally define it as 20 years.

>>3559726

We can, arguably, predict the near future or the "Plausible Mid-Future", but not the far future.

>>3559727
My god.
I'm pretty sure I have 20 years to go. Hopefully technology has advanced on this subject!
There is also a problem with ethics and all that, sadly.

I might even do it myself, researchwise.

>>3559731
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

Just a small collection of links about anti-aging

>>3559751
Whoa, thanks!
Going to check this out right now.

>tabloid "experts" say "new research" suggests immortality will be available in the next 10 years, when we'll also be living on Mars and traveling back in time
>OMG WE GON LIVE FOREVER ON MARS WITH THE OTHER ALIENS

None of the things on that list will happen, except human extinction. Sorry.

1-Interstellar travel: Likely
2-Time travel: Forward time travel likely, Backward time travel Impossible
3-Biological immortality: Already exists in certain species of jellyfish
4-Transhumanism: Unlikely
5-Artificial Intelligence: Likely
6-First contact: With an intelligent species, unlikely. Finding some microbial species, Likely
7-Terra-forming: Likely
8-World peace: Unlikely
9-Human extinction (in the near future): Unlikely
10-Getting laid: Definite

bump

1-Interstellar travel - Unlikely
2-Time travel - Impossible
3-Biological immortality - Impossible
4-Transhumanism - Impossible
5-Artificial Intelligence - Impossible
6-First contact - Unlikely
7-Terraforming - Unlikely
8-World peace - Impossible
9-Human extinction (in the near future) - Not sure
10-Getting laid - Not sure/Likely

>>3559872
I take it that immortality was meant for humans, so impossible.

I like how so many people said time travel is impossibru, gtfo my /sci/ and l2onlycisconstant.jpg

>>3559751
i have a couple more

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-biologists-yeast-cells-reverse-aging.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-dna-reverse-premature-aging.html

>>3559883
Explain.
>>3559769
lolno. That's the only thing that won't happen.

>>3559903
Thanks, saved.

>1-Interstellar travel
Likely
>2-Time travel
To the past? Unlikely
>3-Biological immortality
Not Sure, don't give a fuck
>4-Transhumanism
Not sure, don't give a fuck
>5-Artificial Intelligence
Definite
>6-First contact
Not Sure
>7-Terraforming
Not Sure
>8-World peace
Unlikely
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Likely
>10-Getting laid
Definite

>>3559919


>3-Biological immortality
Not Sure, don't give a fuck
>4-Transhumanism
Not sure, don't give a fuck

It seems you don't care at all about your/someone else's body haha

>>3559921
Immortality does not interest me.

1-Interstellar travel
>impossible
2-Time travel
>impossible (in b4 pedantic autistic faggots say "we're traveling through time right now)
3-Biological immortality
>unlikely
4-Transhumanism
>unlikely
5-Artificial Intelligence
>unlikely
6-First contact
>not sure, unlikely
7-Terraforming
>impossible
8-World peace
>impossible
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>unlikely, barring impact events and stuff
10-Getting laid
>definite, I'm married

>>3559932
1-Interstellar travel
>impossible

Why impossible?

>>3559926
Why? I'm really interested in people who'd rather knock off extra potential years. The only response i've gotten so far is 'Life sucks, and someone's gotta pay my pension I don't want to work for thousands of years.'

>>3559939
Along with transhumanism I think that some reasonable progress should be made. It's really taking the human body to the next level. Improving the human body, making your own body, there is natural reason not to do it. It would almost be a sin not to, you're wasting chanches, yourself away.

We only need to solve the social and economic problems to implement it.

>>3559939
Chasing immortality seems like a frivolous pursuit to me. It's greedy to want to live forever. If one generation lives forever, that means either a) no newer generation and no new innovation or b) massive overpopulation. Either way, immortality leads to bad things. We need fresh talent and new insight, not the same old hags comprising all of humanity.

1-Interstellar travel
>likely
2-Time travel
>impossible
3-Biological immortality
>likely
4-Transhumanism
>likely
5-Artificial Intelligence
>definite
6-First contact
>likely
7-Terraforming
>likely
8-World peace
>unlikely
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
>unlikely
10-Getting laid
>impossible

>>3559952
This is the fucking truth, though I'd love to live for a few thousand years, and maybe after that even longer. FOREVER.

>>3559939
Plus, it's not life without death.

>>3559952
Those are indeed problems we need to solve, and we really haven't found a definite solution. But you're really saying 'we don't know how to use it properly so let's not use it at all.'

>>3559948
I'd say that the sudden availability of such treatments would be the very thing that causes massive social change.
'Well since we have these many people all young and living for hundreds of years we need to change food production, energy...' etc.

>>3559952
>It's greedy to want to live forever
Not to mention impossible, due to heat death and random accidents.

>If one generation lives forever, that means either a) no newer generation and no new innovation or b) massive overpopulation.

This is my argument;
a) As you age with a healthy mind of a ~25 y/o, I would argue that you get MORE intuitive and creative, with more ideas to add.
b) Space colonization. Today, a dream. Soon, a reality.

>>3559936
Impossible because the universe is too big, we are so small, the distances are so great, we have short lifespans, and are limited by a speed which matters less and less the bigger the universe gets.


The only reason people believe in ridiculous stuff like time travel and interstellar travel is because of science fiction.

>>3559722
40-60 years.

>>3559965
No, I'm saying there isn't a way to "use it properly". The main catalyst for scientific progress is human mortality. Out with the old, in with the new. Do you think science would be where it is today if we had the same scientists now as we did hundreds of years ago? We need young people to innovate. We do NOT need old people stuck in old ways.

Even if it were possible to live happily for thousands and thousands of years (it's probably not), it still shouldn't be desirable for the whole of humanity. You, as a singular person, may want to live forever, but that is greedy. You have to look at the big picture: that your death allows for new life. No sane person wants to die, but only greedy people think they deserve to have eternal life.

>>3559983
Try to stop me from getting the treatment and imposing your definition of a proper lifespan, I'll kill you.

1-Interstellar travel - likely
2-Time travel :
Forwards - likely
Information backwards - unlikely
Physically backwards - impossible
3-Biological immortality - likely
4-Transhumanism - whatisthisidonteven.jpg
5-Artificial Intelligence - likely
6-First contact - not sure
7-Terraforming - definite
8-World peace - unlikely
9-Human extinction - unlikely
10-Getting laid - unlikely

>>3559999
>Try to stop me from getting the treatment
The treatment that doesn't exist and mot likely won't exist during your lifetime? Enjoy chasing an empty dream, you selfish fool.

>>3559983
I bet you haven't thought that you and your notion of immortality problem is "old" man talking.

>>3560034
You selfish prick, kill yourself. You're taking up precious resources that could be used for newer generations.

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/catalog/stpky.html

>>3560041
Interesting point, except I'm not an old man. And even though it may be a "young" idea, that doesn't mean it's right. You have to look at the actual problems with the idea. And the main problem is that it would halt human progress.

I'm not interested in stagnating intellectual progress, regardless of whatever rewards it may give me. I would rather die to ensure innovation than live in a perpetually static society.

>>3560062
>thinks newer generations can flourish if no one ever dies
>thinks remaining mortal for the good of humanity is selfish

>>3560068
What if you're wrong?
What if you just sacrificed yourself into the void, while human innovation continued to skyrocket even if life extension was ubiquitous?

>>3560078
It seems unlikely that that would happen. The young scientists tend to be innovative and open to new ideas. Old scientists tend to be strict reactionaries.

>>3560071

HOW is biological immortality going to halt human progress? I never understood this.

If you're talking from an evolutionary standpoint, then we stopped evolving the moment we developed cell theory, and you should have the same negative outlook on all forms of modern medicine. In which case, please kindly get the fuck out of the way of human progress.

>implying that when biological immortality hits the shelves, we won't find a way to keep our brains young thus effectively eliminating "old people"
>mfw

>>3560097
That has nothing to do with immortality.
It's a problem of society that places any kind of value into age and allows old men to hinder progress.
Once that's dealt with, young innovative scientists could do whatever they want, while at the same time we won't be losing geniuses to old age.

>>3560099
Intellectual progress has little to do with biological evolution. If immortality is achieved, one of two things will happen:
1. Newer generations will be rare/nonexistent. This leads to almost zero new ideas, thus halting scientific progress.
2. Humans will continue reproducing, and overpopulation will skyrocket out of control, making life generally shitty.

Science builds on itself. If you have nothing new to add, then science is halted. It's very simple.

ITT: Wahhh my life is more important than human progress

>>3560113
I take issue with your second point. Babies don't spontaneously generate whenever two humans touch. If the treatment was given, it should be under the specification that they are sterilized if they accept it.

>>3560124
So immortal people will be sterilized? Refer to point 1, then.

>>3560113

Your first argument boils down to, "We shouldn't become immortal because you can't teach an old dog new tricks." You also assume that just because somebody is immortal that their innate desire for offspring will go away. Paradigms don't work that way, that's why religion is still around despite how radically we've changed as a species.

Which brings me to point two, which flies in the face of the adage of "Necessity is the mother of invention". If overpopulation becomes a problem, then science will be the one to solve it. Most likely by doubling our efforts to colonize other worlds and previously uninhabitable parts of Earth. Last I checked, that was considered "progress".

As you said, science builds on itself. And the more scientific minds we have, the better. Those who can't adapt to new ways and newly discovered proven methods and theories will get ridiculed out of the field, just as they always have been.

>>3560132
I've already made my position clear on that.

>>3559967

>>3560145
>sure immortality creates a long list of problems, but we'll deal with those later

lolwut.jpg

I'm skeptical about immortality because of the immune system. The antibodies you have are largely made when you are a baby and before you are born. The vast variety is selected through by adaptive immunity and exposure to pathogen. If you don't have the antibody you die easily, but you usually have the antibody bar any immune disease. This immune system is highly mutable and prone to adaptive evolution even in a handful of generations. If one being stayed alive for a a long long time while pathogens around them kept evolving, eventually the immune system would hit it's limit and everything would kill us. Unless there would be some amazing advances in medicine (vaccines wouldn't work in this situation and antivirals and antibiotics only go so far -you'd need like stem/marrow surgery with bioengineered antibodies or something). It would be the rate of scientific manufacturing of antibodies against natural rates of evolution of harmful microbes. But then what if like a virus affects normal microbiota in the body, hell, how does the body even handle that if it does at all.

Our fundamental understanding of things is severely retarded at this time and immortality I foresee will stay science fiction for centuries to come.

I'm skeptical about immortality because of the immune system. The antibodies you have are largely made when you are a baby and before you are born. The vast variety is selected through by adaptive immunity and exposure to pathogen. If you don't have the antibody you die easily, but you usually have the antibody bar any immune disorder. This immune system is highly mutable and prone to adaptive evolution even across a handful of generations. If one being stayed alive for a a long long time while pathogens around them kept evolving, eventually the immune system would hit its limit and everything would kill us -unless there are some amazing advances in medicine (vaccines wouldn't work in this situation and antivirals and antibiotics only go so far -you'd need like stem/marrow surgery with genetically engineered antibodies or something). It would be the rate of scientific manufacturing of antibodies against natural rates of evolution of harmful microbes. But then what if like a virus affects normal microbiota in the body, hell, how does the body even handle that if it does at all.

Our fundamental understanding of things is severely retarded at this time and immortality I foresee will stay science fiction for centuries to come.

It is greedy to want to live forever.
But I have long since accepted my greed, so bring on that fountain of youth.

1-Interstellar travel -- Likely
2-Time travel --- impossible
3-Biological immortality impossible
4-Transhumanism likely
5-Artificial Intelligence Unlikely
6-First contact Unlikely
7-Terraforming Unlikely
8-World peace -Impossible
9-Human extinction (in the near future) Unlikely
10-Getting laid Unlikely

>>3560124
That was my first thought as well, but then I followed that reasoning along further.

If sterilization is mandatory for any who choose not to age (that itself might be tricky, as you have to ask yourself how much medical treatment does that mean refusing. We do things now that greatly extend people's life, so it may not be as simple as a one time "immortality procedure" that you take and...now I'm going off on another subject...) then eventually the entire human race will be sterile. It's a simple matter of statistics, with the one who don't aging and dieing off, and the remainder outliving them, and growing in numbers.

And since not aging doesn't mean not dieing, once everyone is "immortal" and sterile, we start going extinct.


Therefore, the key issue is to keep the birthrate down to keep up with the dropping death rates. My current thought is that sterilization could end up being like the draft, or jury duty. When we need less people, they start pulling up names to take out of reproductive circulation.
Obviously having some sort of application process to breed would help too, but you aren't going to stop people from fucking wildly.
And yes, still encourage people to take sterilization voluntarily, we just can't make it mandatory for an entire group.

>>3561758

Immortality would be shit, eternity is a long time, having fucked every pussy on the planet for the 1000000000000000 time you might actually find yourself growing weary of it.

1-Unlikely
2-Impossible
3-Likely
4-Likely
5-Definite
6-First contact
7-Likely
8-Unlikely
9-Not sure
10-Impossible

>>3561836

People still die by accident.

Biological immortality != look at me mommy i cheat entropy forever

>>3561825

So medical science has advanced to the stage of immortals but sterilisation stops you making babies
I don't think so tim.

>>3561836
Eternity is a long time no matter what happens to you (Heaven, Hell, purgatory, nothingness), and any idea of eternity sounds pretty terrible to me.
An eternity of life is just one of the less shitty ones.

(also, not aging doesn't mean never dieing, but even if it did the above argument stands)

>people thinking biologically immortality = cheating entropy

protip : immortality doesn't refer to living for 9999999999 billion years, it refers to stopping the aging process.

as long as you eat and breath and shit you're not cheating entropy at all

9 is Definite (wishful thinking)

All the rest is impossible (cold hard facts)

>>3561863

what if hypothetically you could erase your memories and start a new life every 1000 years?

>>3561862
So you say we sterilize everyone right off the bat, and have a baby-making factory ready to copy/paste a newborn out to replace anyone who dies?

>>3561861

I am sure by the time medical science has advanced to creating immortals that the perils of slipping on a banana skin shan't be so daunting

1-Interstellar travel
Definite
2-Time travel
Unlikely(kind of hold a little hope, but I would say it would be a 2.31x10^(-4798) chance of happening.
3-Biological immortality
Likely
4-Transhumanism
Definite(I am a transexual, so why not)
5-Artificial Intelligence
That exist already you fucktard, it is just not on the level of you or I.
6-First contact
Not sure( Well I do believe other intelligent life exist, we(humanity as a whole) could very well die way before meeting them.)
7-Terraforming
Likely
8-World peace
Nope.avi
9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Unlikely
10-Getting laid
Definite:As a straight mtf, I must say people stalk me for sex. I still have some issues to work out before I am ready. Maybe in a few months when I feel a little better with my body.

>turn off cell death
>congrats you are now immortal (aka ageless)

>>3561875
That may very well happen on average anyway, depending on how many memories the mind can actually hold.

But no, I wouldn't want to do that. What's the point of stopping the aging process if you're just going to go for reincarnation?

>>3561881

People can still be murdered.

Can never be too safe.

>>3561876

No I am saying sterilizing people will not stop them from reproducing when science has advanced to the stage of making us immortal,

Artificial wombs etc

>>3560200
I don't understand what you're talking about. People who lived for a long time would keep producing new antibodies. Antibodies are not genetically encoded anyway but rather produced anew throughout life. Of course, the immune system would need some form of renewal along with the rest of the body, but it's not really special.

This is part of a general pattern wherein people with high school level biology knowledge invent spurious, exaggerated or nonsense "issues" with medical technology.

>>3561892
Eh. artificial womb, baby factory, same difference.

>>3561912

A poster said sterilise everyone who becomes immortal to control population, I said sterilizing won't work as sexual intercourse in the missionary position won't be the only way to make babbies.

You agreed on the babby factory part but implied babbies would only be produced upon the death of an immortal and thus also controlling population , this I disagree with.

Woman want babies and if they can't pop one out the will grow one in an artificial womb in their attic, sterilization will not control population

Baby factory would be trouble. Why not just use machines? (unless you are in the matrix. but still, they couldn't figure out how to get above the clouds?)

I would speculate the 'immortals' would have a high suicide rate due to the fact they outlive their relatives and friends.

Frankly, I find immortality a scary thought in the long run.

1-Unlikely
2-Impossible
3-Likely
4-Likely
5-Definite
6-Impossible
7-Unlikely
8-Impossible
9-Likely
10-Impossible

>1-Interstellar travel
Definite
>2-Time travel
Definite. In a very very far future.
>3-Biological immortality
Impossible.
>4-Transhumanism
Unlikely
>5-Artificial Intelligence
Already happening, but not as pictured as in movies
>6-First contact
Already happened
>7-Terraforming
Likely
>8-World peace
Unlikely
>9-Human extinction (in the near future)
Unlikely
>10-Getting laid
Impossible

>>3561926
So in this new hypothetical, we'd need a department of population control to make sure death stays balanced.

>>3561941
was i asleep? when did we make first contact with aliens?!

1. Likely
2. Define "time travel". To the future? Proven definite. To the past? Unlikely/impossible
3. Likely
4. Definite
5. Likely but nowhere near as close in the future as most sources would claim. Current AI is trash. Far future.
6. Not sure
7. Definite. We already know it can happen without our help.
8. Define world peace. There will always be douchebags trying to abuse their power.
9. Not sure
10. hurr durr

>Turn off cell death
>You are now cancer
>Consciousness ceases but your body can be kept alive on life support forever.

>>3562014
not cell death

the thing that makes cells age

it's where the end of the something something moves down and it slowly decreases with time which is the biological origin of aging

>>3562020
Telomere

I'm sure we wouldn't introduce immortality to every single person if there was an issue of overpopulation at the time.
Also, innovation is largely due to young people because that's just how the brain evolves, and old people become more stubborn and unwilling to learn. This would be easily remedied at some point using technology to enhance our own thinking processes. Everybody would have so much stored in their brain due to a more enhanced memory recall, and improved pattern recognizing, that innovations would most likely increase if anything. One immortal individual with the thinking power of our entire human race combined (at whatever point in the future) would hardly be stubborn and talk about the good old days when reagan was president.

imagine a world where the greatest scientists and mathmaticians of all time were still alive

>probability of the following events occurring some time in the future as:
>some time in the future
Provided we don't destroy ourselves, either definite, impossible, or impossible to guess on all counts.

"impossible to guess" being by far the most common. Too many factors, too many known unknowns and an unknown amount of unknown unknowns.

>thinking hard AI is more likely to happen than world peace
you faggots don't know what you are talking about

>>3559952
innovation is boring
i could play halo 3 for 10 straight years and still not be bored of it

you are just a lazy faggot that can get bored easy