/sci/ - Science & Math

i had already lived thousands of lives, through anime and vidya games.

>>4406648

And that is just the beginning, my friend.

There's no reason to think they'll solve the problems of aging in the next 80 years.

I want to beleive.

>>4406655

Perhaps, but even if we fall short of the mark we should be able to increase our life spans by a few decades by the end of this century. This should then be able to buy us enough time until the development of second generation rejuvenation technologies and so on until aging is finally curable.

It's possible ... my genetics can technically carry me to my 90s, that will cover the work span of 3 more brand new generations of scientists and decades of exponential technological progress

so assuming that nothing cataclysmic happens, I just need to get filthy rich to be able to afford THE cure, because I don't think they're gonna be giving it away to people for nothing

I wish i was born a bit later though (for many reasons)

>>4406671
Yeah, it's not like there will be no progress in medicine whatsoever until the cure for aging is found. I'm pretty sure we'll soon be able to grow spare parts for our bodies and whit like that.

If we cure aging it will have to come with nutering. Will sex change? Also, by the point that we have anti-aging technology hopefully money will be a thing of the past.

I wonder if Moore's Law will hold long enough to really see continued exponential growth.

No you wont, life extension will be anything but accesible to the avergae joe. Enjoy your riots and dystopia

Don't worry guys, I'll create medical nanobots in 20 years

We got this

We will all be dead in a hundred years. Many of us much earlier. Many of us desperately grasping for breath while they feel sleepiness and weakness overcome their bodies, IF THEY ARE LUCKY.

If I feel it coming, I hope somebody will have the mercy to put me out quickly and painlessly.
Being dead is not terrible, it feels the same like the time before your were born, when you sleep a dreamless sleep or when you fall unconscious.
Terrible is being afraid of this state of being (or rather not-being), not the state of being itself.

Also, the "getting there" is what worries me a bit. But not too much. I am very good at suppressing uncomfortable facts of life.

>>4406710

Well, most expensive things tend to get cheaper and more widespread as time goes on (see - computers, mobile phones, cars, internet etc.)

If you're truly concerned about this, take a look at Sonia Arrison's book 100+. She addresses most of these pro-aging arguments fairly well.

No thank you, 30 has been boring enough.

>>4406734

I agree that death isn't as horrific as religion and society make it out to be, however the process of dying most often is.

That being said I'm not too afraid of death however I'd like to avoid it for as long as possible (or until I am "ready").

>Pic related

Instead of hoping for the future, why don't you work on life-extension solutions. Even curing diseases falls under this header to an extent.

>>4406758
This. 4406734 here.

Sorry if I implying dying is cool for me just because "being dead" itself is not horrible. But in contrast, being alive is so much better.

I only lived 23 years on this earth, it had ups and downs and also flats, but overall, I enjoy every effing minute of life.

As I said, I generally suppress the thought of not being able to think and feel anymore, because it gets me down.
When the time comes to part ways with this world (depending on how much pain and suffering involved with it), I will cling with fingernails and teeth to every bit of life inside me.

obviously I'm alone in feeling this, but I'll be happy to die.

all that matters to me is for my child, who I will raise as the best possible version of myself, will have the chance of long life.

>>4406760

I most certainly am. I'm currently doing a biochemistry/ochem major after which my goal is to be accepted into a combined MD/PhD program.

I'm struggling to decide on whether I should do research, or pursue a higher paying profession so that my family and myself can be among the first to benefit from the procedures.

>>4406784

do what you will enjoy. trust me when I tell you that if the elixir does come, even celebrities and poloticians will not learn of it

>>4406776
> effing

>>4406829
>the elixir
>Not invasive treatments and surgeries and whatnot
Ha.

>>4406760
>>4406784
Me too, but in neuroscience. I want to do neuroprosthetics and saving memory via technology.

>>4406776

I agree with you completely, however for your own sake you should try not to regard death with overly negative emotions. Do everything in your power to avoid it for as long as you feel that this is the right choice, but in the end acknowledge that change is a natural and unavoidable part of our existence.

I wish I could extend this response but it's difficult providing any advice on something nobody has experienced.

>>4406779

That's a noble gesture, however there's no need for you to die when you can both live. There's no "happiness" in dying, since your consciousness most likely ceases to exist at this point. For your child's and for your own sake, try to stay alive for as long as possible.

>>4406837

Invasive surgeries? If it comes to organ replacement, perhaps. I believe it should be possible to deliver most therapies orally/intravenously considering that most, if not all aging damage happens on a cellular level.

some food for thought on this topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ

>>4406842
>implying instincts won't make you hold onto every second

>>4406784

As someone who's already been down the path you look to be follow (20 years ago) I can say only this. Death, while a sad event to those who love and care for us, is wholly natural and inevitable part of our existence as human beings.

If we leave the possibility of life extension to one side, there are considerable moral and social issue that would result from a significant increase in the average lifespan. I personally feel that having knowledge of and eventually coming to accept our own death is part of what makes humans unique among all of the species on this world.

On the subject of life extension, I'm not against it in principle, however I feel that treating disease and improving the living standards of people who live to what is currently accepted as 'old age' is a far more noble and satisfying goal.

>>4406851
Your claim was "not even politicians/celebrities will know about it".
And it is impossible.

Well, if de Grey suddently mysteriously disappear/die after slipping in the stairs, we can begin to put the tinfoil hat on, but not before.

>>4406870

hehe that's *following

>>4406870
Fuck. You.
I could developpe my argument if you wish.

>>4406870

This is nonsense. How do you think various species of animals come to have "graveyards"? Many pack animals get themselves out of the way before they die from degradation or are removed from their societies forcibly.

The unique thing about humans is that we seek to change our circumstances.

>>4406862

You're absolutely right. I most definitely do not wish to die any time soon and I will fight to stay alive until the very end. This is not due to a fear of death, but a love for life.

>>4406870

I agree with your first two paragraphs. (I am the OP and >>4406842)

The reason I'd rather pursue a cure for aging is that firstly, quite a number of these diseases are side-effects (or are aggravated) by aging, (i.e. a failing immune system, or the accumulation of junk inside/outside cells). Thus, curing aging will most likely also solve many of these problems. On the other hand, research for diseases such as cancer/aids are already adequately funded and supported by a far larger number of brilliant scientists than anti-aging research.

>>4406857

Thanks, it's getting really late over here so I'll take a look at the video tomorrow.

>>4406857

>>4406870
And this is why longevity is not as big a research field as it should be. People give up and "accept death".

No person should peacefully accept the fact that they could simply cease to exist. Not wanting to change this is what differentiates somebody who wants to live, learn and experience the universe from somebody who is just waiting to die

This is far too optimistic for a /sci/ thread.

>HURR DURR, THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL ADVANCEMENTS, ALL NEW THEORIES ARE UNPROVABLE

>You'll live to see the 3000's

from above...

Realising you are likely to die in the near future is the same as knowing of it's significance, decades ahead of time.

I doubt many adolescent elephants contemplate the 'darkness to come' with the same zeal that seems to be innate to our own species. This isn't really the crux of my argument, so I'll agree to disagree.

>>4406920

A false dilemma. Accepting the inevitability of death is a far cry from waiting to die. Knowing that you'll die doesn't mean that you're compelled to be preoccupied with thoughts of your own demise.

If life extension implied that the cognitive decline was averted and that disease was less frequent, then perhaps there's an argument for research, but the idea that death isn't inevitable, is amusing to me, I'd love for anyone who criticises that position come forward and support the opposing concept with evidence that 'immortality' is around the corner, or is even desireable.

>>4406965

"ahead of time?" Some assembly required, sorry about that.

>>4406965
>If life extension implied that the cognitive decline was averted and that disease was less frequent, then perhaps there's an argument for research

That's the whole point of the research, what are you, stupid?

Are you really claiming that death is inevitable just because you don't have any proof that 'immortality' is around the corner? Do you expect us to have proofs that scientific breakthroughs are going to happen before we invest time into the field?

What is talked about is that medical science is advancing at a fast pace, together with nanotechnology, pharmacology and electronics. These are carrying life expectancy with them, and claiming that these advances will stop at some point is simply unjustified denial

>>4406707
>If we cure aging it will have to come with nutering.

I don't think that's true. I think the birth rate would fall dramatically regardless, with biological clock urging people to have children while they still can.

>>4407001

*with NO biological clock

Some trolls you just can't help but respond to.

>>4406992

Stupid, no, but I am a realist. There are many ways in which living longer doesn't allow for a better quality of life. Just look around you. The average lifespan of people has increased significantly in the last 100 years, due to medical intervention, better nutrition etc, this has significantly reduced the impact of diseases which have had a signigficant contribution on mortality in the elderly population.

We have also seen increases in cognitive decline among the elderly, this may be considered a disease state, but then we're not really sure that these aren't inherent genetic factors that we cannot simply treat as we would cancer or diabetes.

Unjustified denial? I'd rather think of it as a realistic portrait of how events have unfolded since life began. You talk about this form of science as if it can advances proceed unimpeded and without challenge for the duration, and ultimately that the culmination of these ideas will have infinite potential to satisfy our desire. Using your imagination to conjure up a utopian future is wonderous, it allows the mind to be stretched and I've no doubt, it allows for the perception of novel avenues of investigation. What it usually fails to do is offer evidence of efficacy, or sustainability to the idea.

You are criticising me because I have asked you to show me evidence of how these fields are pushing life expectancy.

F

>>4407041

Feel free to prove me wrong by showing me how gene therapy has cured the plethora of diseases that that were promised, or how use of nanotechnology in medicince is currently any more complex than a mechansm of drug delivery. You seem uable to do this, so what you do instead, is tell me about how things will be in the future, based solely upon a perception of events which haven't even occured yet.

In my mind, discussions which heavily rely upon poorly understood future technology, may as well be files under M - for magic.

but forreal guys i start at ucf in the fall for my masters in materials science and engineering...scholarships nigga

>>4407041
>living longer doesn't allow for a better quality of life
>The average lifespan of people has increased significantly in the last 100 years, (...) significantly reduced the impact of diseases

...what?

>>4407041

>We have also seen increases in cognitive decline among the elderly
Since they are now able to get older at all without dying, of course we're seeing more cognitive decline, but that's not a bad thing at all. You just can't expect the entirety of medicine to advance at the same pace, and even still the neural degeneration due to old age is being researched and dealt with. Claiming this is a point against longevity is just plain silly. It's like claiming that we shouldn't build more complex electronics because they break in more complex ways.

>this may be considered a disease state, but then we're not really sure that these aren't inherent genetic factors that we cannot simply treat as we would cancer or diabetes.
Oh god there's so much wrong with this. First of all, diseases are diseases. They all have different mechanisms and different ways to be treated. Claiming they are genetic in nature really doesn't make it "technology proof", this is not even an argument.

What you are is an old man claiming that you can't fight viruses before penicillin was discovered. These arguments come from people who have convinced themselves that technology only develops in a way that they understand, and are not only wrong, but very sad in nature

>how gene therapy has cured the plethora of diseases that that were promised, or how use of nanotechnology in medicince is currently any more complex than a mechansm of drug delivery.

Can you even say anything else? You're claiming that these fields will never produce anything useful because they haven't fixed EVERYTHING yet, while they didn't even EXIST 40 years ago.

From your arguments and the way you write it seems you're too old to understand scientific progress. I hope this never happens to me

_stop bitching

:you all are gonna die tomorrow or in 70 years from now

>>4406655

Really? Are you that much of an idiot?

Nanobots.

My body is ready.

...well, my mind is at least.

... well, it won't be in 60 years. So better hurry the fuck up, because once my brain will start to degrade with age I'll be pretty sad, and if I will be sad, then bad (read-thermonuclear) things will happen.

The potential for technological immortality brings up interesting questions. Could it be that only those who will be physically immortal are experiencing consciousness at this moment? That everyone who dies is a mere illusion?

Irrelevant thoughts but fun to think about.

>>4407122

I see we're just picking holes now eh? People wear out, this is largely due to accumulated mutation via natural processes such as telomere shortening and oxidative stress, there's a name for that, we call it aging. It's not generally considered a disease.

Let's just make sure my elderly brain understands. You're suggesting that because of slow a progression of events which is increasing lifespan, this will lead toward a future free of disease and with extended lifespans?

You havent even looked at the implications of longevity on resource availability, or you might have a different take on the matter. Maybe you think we'll all fly off into outer space, or colonise Mars, before that point.

You are making some significant assumptions about the level of complexity provided by studying biological systems and i'd suggest that you have overestimated our ability to fully understand them, in the short to medium term.

Arguing that one day we'll understand enough to answer all the big questions, is fine, surely its a goal of all scientists?

I'd suggest that the key is discussing how we'll get there from our current model of understanding, not just claiming that an arbitrary number of years from now, all these things will be obvious.

Hahaha, jokes on all of you nonsmokers. Cancer will be cured before alzhrimers. Enjoy your immortal bodies with rot te d minds.

>>4406643
eh, whats that 3000 you say? No I was born in the 19something-or-others, what ever it's not important just go back to your nuralsims, you kids will never appreciate mumble mumble mumble...

not sure if frog is happy or sad

>>4407311

nothing lasts forever, everything breaks down and changes

the you of 10 years ago is a totally diffferent person than you today, consciousness changes from moment to moment, continuity is an illusion, you have already died thousands of times

None of us will. We'll die in our 70's-90's just like our grandparents. So will your kids and their kids. No one will ever live to even see 200. If I'm wrong I give permission for any of your great-great-great(etc) children to shit on my grave

Imagine a grid computer of rat brains, which I overclock, then I upload my own consciousness to the rat brains to go online and post on sci. Damn the future sounds good.

>>4407329
No deal. Becauae if you are wrong, you wont have a grave.

I've heard they still have no idea what causes ageing, our body just 'stops' making new bits.

>>4408213

Preprogrammed aging, DNA damage, Protein damage and autophagy, oxidative damage, energy metabolism.

That's the four hypotheses that I'm aware of. There's probably a component of at least the first three in the big picture of aging.

>>4406710
like in 40k only the wealthy and those like inquisitors could afford to live to be 300 years old everyone else was normal.

>>4407329

I'll personally see to it that this is done. If you're still alive by the time somebody reaches 200 I'll be satisfied with merely shitting on you while you sleep.