/sci/ - Science & Math

Comp I & II is going to be a real challenge.

i fucking love cara

>>6645608
What?
>>6645617
It's not Cara though (I'm assuming you're talking about Cara Delevigne)

>>6645603
>can research, in our current state of knowledge, offer a viable way of attaining immortality within ten or so years?

No way.

>>6645635
Why? What are the limitations and issues we're facing?

>>6645603
>How achievable is immortality within the next decade?
At least 100 more years, if things continue this way.

>What are the most promising fields of research to get into for that?
Biology
Organic Chemistry
Computer Simulated Chemistry


Though things may change if we invent AI before that. But seeing how things are going, I don't think that AI will be reality within the next 100 years either.
Though I think it will be much more likely that we'll first get AI and then find a way to make our human bodies immortal.

>>6645659
That doesn't sound very optimistic, although I don't know much about the subject. Why 100? As I asked, what limitations are we facing?

If immortality is that much of a pipedream, what about extending youth/lifespan?

"Immortality is eternal life, the ability to live forever". Therefore, you won't find out if you are truly immortal until the end of time. According to current theories of time and space (including my smartphone calendar), the end of time is not scheduled to occur any time within the next decade.
And current theories about the long term future of the universe look pretty dim for all life on earth.

>>6645665

It is widely accepted that extending your lifespan is not a good idea as our bodies eventually degrade without control in one way or another.

The only way to avoid this would be to genetically modify our DNA to produce infinite perfect copies but that would require heavy experimentation on humans and talking about genetics it could lead to mutations and anomalies, we could even create new forms of illnesses that are so mortal they could wipe us out entirely, so logically, the only way to achieve Infinite durability is to store your conscious somewhere else that is not a frail biological body, but even if we manage to do that, there would be issues with money, so only the richest people in the world would have some use out of that and they could live for eternity while the others just die.

Let's not forget, death IS important and gives meaning to life, if we had infinite time we wouldn't care about anything and eventually become empty husks that do not find enjoyment in anything, we were designed by nature to have a beginning and an end, like ALL things, even our solar system will fade, even the entire universe will eventually either collapse or expand infinitely, so even if you were immortal by age you would probably die by other means, assuming that you stored your conscious in a data storage, and even if you survived, you could potentially float in space for eternity(for example) and die alone with only a pile of data about your past, that's not really great.

>>6645603
Immortality is unachievable. You won't ever know you have it until you don't have it anymore.

>>6645692
Dude, I think OP is just talking about anti-aging. You can still die from injury, disease, and starvation. Life wouldn't be meaningless until you're very old and are bored of life. We would need some common and accepted form of euthanasia though.

>>6645665
>As I asked, what limitations are we facing?
We don't really know what is causing the aging process. There are some theories but non of them seem to be sole cause.

We know a lot about the cellular structure, but it's just a small part of the bigger picture especially when it comes to eukaryotic cells.
It's still far to complex to understand and predict on molecular level.

We can't even predict how 2 proteins will interact without the help of a super computers or quantum computers.

>what about extending youth/lifespan?
Yeah it's possible but to a very limited extend. It's just not worth the effort.

>>6645665
>Why 100
because anon is kaku

>>6645699
This. I'm just talking about the body not aging, eg. staying 28 until you die of illness or of injury.

>>6645720
It was just a rough estimate. And I said at least 100 it may be more like 1000.

Immortality will never come about, and it's a stupid idea anyway. Death is good, it ends a persons waste output. If you live forever, you will waste so much more. You would end up being like those girls in that film where they get an immortality potion, because the Earth would die, or you'd die through injury. End.

>>6645692
>we were designed by nature to have a beginning and an end, like ALL things

I hate when people say stuff like this. That's like saying "organisms consciously evolve". Not that I don't agree with what you're saying overall, but we were designed from a bunch of molecules that randomly fit together in random perfect conditions and then randomly mutated. nature didn't have a plan for us; nothing did.

Who wants to live forever anyway?

>>6645751
He didn't word it perfectly but you can't get away from natural limitations. We're not "designed" to live for massive amounts of time just like we're not, say, "designed" to live a life of solitude without going nuts.

>>6645788
I wonder what will happen when we reach our memory capacity. Would we forget the memories we recall least or the ones that had less of an emotional impact.
I wonder how would it feel to not remember the names of your parents or to forget all of your childhood memories? How would this impact my behavior?

>>6645603
>How achievable is immortality within the next decade?
It's probably quite possible to freeze someone indefinitely with todays tech even without applying toxic antifreeze.

But living immortality is a bit trickier.

>>6645603
0% probability
Most promising fields?
Biomedical engineering with Neuroscience and Computing abilities.(Cyborg/consciousness replacement)
Biology.(cancer cure+bio-immortality derived from cure...endlessly reproducing cell lines)

>>6645810
Freezing destroys the cells, and I'm not really sure that all neural pathways remain in place after freezing.

>It is widely accepted that extending your lifespan is not a good idea

Fallacy of Poisoning the Well

>our bodies eventually degrade without control in one way or another.

Begging the question; that is what we are discussing

>The only way to avoid this would be to genetically modify our DNA

Hidden premise is a straw man, a sort of argument from ignorance. "Its the ONLY WAY!!"

Follow along: behaviors change conditions for cellular processes. Those cellular pressures influence epigenetic methylation of DNA altering expression patterns. These inheritable expression pattern changes are passed on to daughter cells. Hence, behaviors change molecular adaptation at the cellular level. E.g. you have direct control over the adaptive expression patterns of your genome and thus longevity.

>infinite perfect copies...require heavy experimentation

The error correcting and fidelity of human polymerases do in fact create huge numbers of practically perfect copies. Statement is false.

>it could lead to mutations and anomalies
>we could even create new forms of illnesses

Straw man fallacy (Frankenstein variant), more variations on your Frankenstein fallacies follow:

>>6645813
>Freezing destroys the cells
Which is why antifreeze is employed by Alcor and the likes. However you can also prevent ice formation by "stirring" the water with an electric field when freezing and during the subzero storage. A very cold storage temperature may prevent crystallization too so it would only be applied during the freezing phase.

The tech is used commercially in food storage and to some extent in medical tissue storage.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0602/076.html


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224010000854
>Histological examination and the transmission electron microscopic image of cryopreserved tooth with a magnetic field did not show any destruction of cryopreserved cells.

>>6645822
>an electric field
Seems I'm unable to type properly today. A magnetic field not electric

>the only way... to store your conscious somewhere else that is not a frail biological body

The biological body is durable. The hidden argument here is simply that human bodies aren't durable. Your fallacy is you fail to present any evidence for this. I don't think I have to mount an argument as we all know completely average people who, without any effort, maintain a consistent state of low entropy in disequilibrium with the environment.

>there would be issues with money, so only the richest people ....

More fallacious BS.

>death IS important and gives meaning to life
>if we had infinite time we wouldn't care about anything and eventually become empty husks

Straw men

>we were designed by nature to have a beginning and an end

Ah ha! Intelligent design.

>even our solar system will fade

Unrelated straw man

>the entire universe will eventually either collapse or expand infinitely

Reductio ad absurdum- good job

> even if...

(a lot of stupid straw man BS deleted)

>...that's not really great.

Got it.

>>6645807
I don't think our memories can be overwritten like a hard drive. I think you'd hit the limit and that'd be it, you'd be like the guy in Memento, unable to make new memories but retaining your old ones.

>>6645603
Currently immortality is impossible in ten years or fifty, or one hundred years. The best you can hope for within your lifespan is to slow the aging process with antioxidants or to be cryogenically frozen.
I used to consider being cryogenically frozen but then I figured who wants to try to linger on by hangnail to life and live to see everything you love and care about die, rot, and go to ruin around you. It would be a miserable and lonely existence to be immortal.

>>6645833
That's not how memory formation work

>>6645845
>I used to consider being cryogenically frozen but then I figured who wants to try to linger on by hangnail to life and live to see everything you love and care about die
You'd neither live nor see anything. You'd just maybe wake up 2414

>>6645845
You can't freeze a brain and then expect it to work the same way as before. Your only hope is that someone will be reconstructing your brain. But who would want to do that? In 200 years or so, everyone would have forgotten you have ever existed. Just as nobody remembers your grand parents's grad parents anymore.
It would just be another name in your family tree.

Also a recent study shows that antioxidants promote tumor growth, so this won't work either.

If people don't die we have a big big problem. It means we need ever more and more energy. There is no corporation willing to finance true immortality. No government, just a bunch that will keep giving young people a reason to try to make something out of the mess we call society as it is today. A job and a goal will do.

>>6645879
>You can't freeze a brain and then expect it to work the same way as before.
Why not? And why can't we apply your argument to
>sleeping
>general anesthethics
>passing out from alcohol
>concussion
>fainting
And several other minor effects on the brain that often shows no noticeable neurological deficits.

>who would want to do that?
neuro-archaeologists?

>>6645969
Freezing destroys the protein structure within your cells. In all of the examples you provided, the cells are actively working. The only thing you loose in those cases is consciousness. If the cells die as in freezing, you'll just never wake up.

>neuro-archaeologists
If they are so advanced, they could just study your mind, without activating it.

>focus my studies...

you are wasting your time. When the time arrives, the only thing you'll need to achieve immortality is money.
And you can be sure there will be enough moral polemic to make sure no one actually gets it. Only moneyfags will secrettely buy immortality until it is socially acceptable.

fuck everyone who says something can't be done, all they're saying is that they have no idea how to do something.
1) Vampirism is real thing, young blood contains different proportions of specific compounds than old one
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20140505/young-blood-boosts-brains-of-old-mice
I've read about some old dude that after a car accident iirc got blood transfusion from someone like 24 and when he described experience he said he felt like he was young again for couple of days.
Ageing is strictly regulated by hormones (e.g. too early menarche connected with estrogenic compounds in food/environment) also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Greenberg http://katiecouric.com/videos/the-girl-who-doesnt-age/ her genome and blood have the answers
2) compounds that modify metabolism and stuff
http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/ageing-successfully-reversed-in-mice-human-trials-to-begin-next/
3) stem cells get used up
http://singularityhub.com/2014/02/24/stem-cells-repair-strengthen-muscles-in-aged-mice/
4) theres lots of compounds that improve body workings independently from hormone levels and stem cells like adaptogens (e.g. rhodiola rosea), nootropics(piracetam), antioxidants, phytonutrients and other supplements/stuff thats naturally in the
and then theres biotechnology, you could engineer organs to work in much more efficient way e.g. by changing metabolic pathways, synthesizing compounds that human body doesn't produce naturally.
5) Imagine the impossibilities!

ITT: Modern science.

>>6646028
>Freezing destroys the protein structure within your cells.
Primarily freezing ruptures the cell membranes, but this is due to ice crystal formation. You can "freeze"/vitrify objects without ice crystal formation(using techniques already mentioned in this thread)

Cold denaturation of proteins seem to be a thing too but given the frequent cryostorage of cells and other protein compounds this doesn't seem to be a very large effect.

> In all of the examples you provided, the cells are actively working.
How about hypothermic drowning then? The cells are metabolically turned off

Point is, if you can supress the crystal formation and avoid toxic antifreeze, what makes it so much different from passing through temporary hypothermic death and cooling down to -180 and storing you for a decade in a N2 vat?

>>6646066
damn it, wrong link under 1)
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/417249/young-blood-reverses-signs-of-aging-in-old-mice/

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists-say-young-blood-transfusions-reverse-aging-1571684662

ITT: Sexual fiends.

>>6646100
>You can "freeze"/vitrify objects without ice crystal formation(using techniques already mentioned in this thread)
Then why it has not been tested on mice or monkeys? Or maybe the tests failed? Don't be naive. Even with animals who undergo hibernation in frozen form, the cells are still operating.
And even if we could figure a way to mimic what hibernating animals do, there won't be an easy way to incorporate it in the genome of a full grown adult.
We are talking about decades of research and experimentation. You'd be dead long before that.

Just deal with your own morality.

>The cells are metabolically turned off
No they are not "turned off", they are working at a slower pace. That's why it takes longer for your brain to starve out of oxygen.

>Point is, if you can supress the crystal formation and avoid toxic antifreeze....
Point is lower temperature fucks up the protein structure in your cells and they can't be revived. This is a separate problem from water crystals destroying them.

>>6646066
>>6646102
Study was retracted, see http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101015/full/news.2010.544.html

>>6645603

you fear the ultimate destination!
what madness.

you sabotage yourself, fighting the tide...

learn to speak with -Him- and you will know in your heart that you never die.

>>6646125
right, because of putting wrong figure while editing, looks kinda like censorship

>>6646121
>Then why it has not been tested on mice or monkeys?
Hypothermic coma have been tried in lab animals and is since earlier this year undergoing clinical evaluation of human trauma victims that are considered too hopeless to recover with conventional tech. This is not freezing but a timesaving procedure.

Animals have been frozen for studies with anti-freeze compounds, the problem is that these are toxic and prevents effective rescucitation. But tissue samples analysis from these animals show no signs of cold damage.

Using magnetic fields to prevent ice crystal formation is a new technique for which no sub-zero animal coma studies have been made yet as far as I know.

>Even with animals who undergo hibernation in frozen form, the cells are still operating.
Some higher animals have active but suppressed metabolism.
Lower animals cease all metabolic activity, the only thing that differentiate them from a dead animal is that they can start living again when thawed and/or rehydrated.

>Point is lower temperature fucks up the protein structure in your cells and they can't be revived.
Except they can be revived, cryopreservation is routinely done for cells.

Given your blatant ignorance of the subject, why do pretend to be certain in your posting?

>>6646168
Believe what you want. There is no point in continuing this conversation. Look at the facts for yourself. I'm done explaining.

>>6646202
>I'm done with my opinions
good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1TcDHrkQYg

>>6646237

Some never achieve their potential

Some people learn and grow and get better and better.

Some people just can't untangle the threads - religion and become trapped in ignorance

Some people accrue great wisdom and then die and we lose all the benefit of that experience

Some people accrue no wisdom at all, remain in the dark and superstituous place illogic and cult religion binds them in.

Some people don't deserve to live

Some people do deserve to live

Some people will live a long time

Some people will not live to the end of this day.

>>6645603

Pardon my autism, but I'm going to pull some numbers out of my ass and guess at what the odds are that we've figured out immortality by a certain date:

2020: 0.1%
2030: 1%
2040: 5%
2050: 15%
2060: 35%
2070: 60%
2080: 80%
2090: 90%
2100: 95%

There's your answer.

>>6645603
>life extension
A lot of work has been done by Peason (phys/bio, MIT) and Shaw (chem, UCLA) and other scientists, but most of it recently has been kept quiet to avoid the FDA.

>>6645603
exercise science

>>6645819
>You have direct control over the adaptive expression patterns of your genome and thus longevity.

No you don't.

>>6645603
>How achievable is immortality within the next decade? By that I mean, can research, in our current state of knowledge, offer a viable way of attaining immortality within ten or so years?

Far from likely.

>I'd like to focus my studies exclusively on life extension and "eternal youth". What are the most promising fields of research to get into for that?

Molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, if you want to actively research life extension. You could also make research on suspended animation / cryonics, but I'm not sure about the field you should go in.

If you want a rough estimate of the timeline, I do somewhat agree with >>6646325.

>>6645603
It could be a few years away.

FDA regulations will take 20 years.

>>6645603
Go into genetics and research telomeres. That's the most immortality-esque thing being researched at the moment

>>6647152

Best grad schools for bio-related research?

>>6645603

It is going to take much longer than a decade, but advancements are being made. Pretty quickly I might add. True immortality, let us just say, is not very relevant right now to the current goals of research. We still need to know more of how the machine that is our body, functions. It will require us knowing everything top down, and there is still many things to discover. We still do not know how the brain works completely and all of our efforts merely scratch the surface.

We can't even get cybernetic eyes to work correctly, at least the way our own eyes work. We do not know how everything is hooked up. The brain is also like a hard drive. It has a theoretical max capacity, and even if you live for a very long long time, you still will run into problems where brain function is concerned.

It will take a combination of both scientific and natural evolution until it even becomes remotely plausible. But, 150 to 200 year lifespans? That is most certainly plausible and might actually be on the way. Though the rich and socially connected will be the first and only people in the beginning to even contemplate access to this, more than likely.

Dirty peasants need not apply.

>>6647157
The one that funds you.

transcendexistence.org

>>6645603
.09 Viable without help. We are still in the infancy of implants and DNA, XNA programming.

>>6645819
>>6645829
You forgot to mention the obnoxious appeals to nature later on, and possibly a few is-oughts, but otherwise excellent job. You're far more patient than I am.

>>6646202
You haven't really provided anything that would qualify as a noteworthy counter argument yet.

>>6645603
Why do you want to be immortal?
Death is adaptive.
If we become immortal, our time as a species is short.

>>6645819

>The error correcting and fidelity of human polymerases do in fact create huge numbers of practically perfect copies. Statement is false.
>practically perfect

No, your statement is misleading. Our DNA replicates nearly perfectly but does make occasional errors. This means that mutations will occur, especially over a long lifespan. That even disregards damage from environmental factors such as radiation, and these mutations could be anywhere between beneficial and detrimental.

Source: http://m.jbc.org/content/279/17/16895

Furthermore, if we were to extend our lifespans natural selection would be disrupted and we would be begging for a disease to wipe us out faster than we could cure it or modify our immortal DNA enough to shield us from the disease. That is not my attempt at poisoning the well, that's a real fucking problem we would face as a species and it's something you should've learned in your introductory biology courses.

screw these dudes who say its impossible

i wish i could go back and study this field and devote myself to finding this "biological immortality" or life extension as it is the main logical thing that literally makes sense to do in life

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

also we can easily solve the problems that come from achieving this immortality

Would it be possible to retain a youthful appearance until you die? Increasing lifespan isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about purely "aesthetic" immortality (skin not wrinkling, hair not turning white, overall appearance staying identical).

>>6647254
>Our DNA replicates nearly perfectly but does make occasional errors.

It makes errors all the time.

Which is why you have things like, mitotic Checkpoints, DNA proofreading, DNA repair, apototic signals and an immune system that can verify the cell integrity via surface proteins.

It's not accumulation of DNA defects that makes us old or kills us.

>>6647616
>retain a youthful appearance until you die?
No, the deterioration of appearance goes hand in hand with the deterioration of the rest of the systems.

Of course you can plaster over this with makeup and the likes.

>wastes life trying to extend life
>dies without never really living

>/sci/

>>6647703
>wastes life doing X
>dies without never really living

>/retards/

>>6645603
if it was funded properly instead of "hurr durr death is natural" within 2 decades for sure.

>>6647616
somewhat.

I know several people that are in their 30's but look like they are in their teens. I myself look 16 and I'm 25. Searches show factors as being genetics and exposure to the sun. It's a little strange because most "young looking people" I've seen are from the middle east and most of them female.

>>6647616
your skin depends on immune system, hormonal system etc.

its probably possible to just clean up all the junk selectivly from your skin there are 50 year olds who look 20-30 and you only rally tell by their facial proportions(bigger nose/ears)with the right amount of genetics and medical intervention.

funny how the body itself doesn't really age aesthetically, a 50 year old who lifts can look swole, olympian bodybuilders are often in their mid 40s.


the real shebang is keeping the brain and joints healthy, thats number 1 and 2 causes of problems with age . and on top of this add cognitive enhancement by adding new circuits into the brain. only I believe that each individual must program his own cirquits on the low level of the hardware using his own knowledge or at least this should be the ideal.

>>6647760
Ohh I forgot to mention that this appearence is without the use of plastic injections or any type of surgery.

>>6647760
lolwut, people here look their age middle easterners often age horribly like gray in age 12 and stuff , maybe its a local perspective.

anyway based on 100s of graphs Ive seen there is only negliable aging until you are 40, thats where the accelerated aging starts to hit you on stuff like gray hair, skin thickness, cognition,joints, etc (talking about men here) wrinkles in <40 people typically are mostly from facial expresions and sun exposure
after that the skin actually gets rigid and thin.

the reason is beacuse thats the point where the balance between repair and damage shifts to creating surplus damage.

>>6645603
Impossible for any period of time, as you'd have to live forever to prove that you've achieved immortality.

>>6647766
thats not possible unless you intentionally cause it (some law by pro death government that still wants you to live well but thinks death is gd, probably easiest way to do it is time release cyanide at age 120, that will by one hell of a b-day party)

but well, if you aren't a sun dweller just use tretinoin, it sets you back some years and slows down further aging. but makes your skin a bit bitchy in the sun.

>>6647261
there should be some sort of network that issues small goals that small crews of hobbyists (read professionals on their weekend) can accomplish
its good publicity, and we all know publicity is the real bottleneck since research isn't done on the issue at anywhere near the rate it should be.

>>6647779
I've worked midnight shifts for 7 years.
>but makes your skin a bit bitchy in the sun.
yes very much so.

Dont wanna create a separate thread, so ask here.

Really weird question. Can you give an example of a set or, say, a space where no topology can be defined?

>>6647771
>>>/lit/

>>6647254
thats incredibly stupid, I hate it when biologists project prehistoric past into the near future. or the more retarded/pulicity seeking of them: the far future (example: the sun article about how humans will naturally evolve in 10,000 years using ofc technoloy from 2007 or so)

evolution is slow, science is fast. thats it.

>>6646121
when SENS compliant treatments is developed whoever is first in line won't have to deal with it
oh yeah it will take 784 years, just like they said the human genome project would take when they started it.

>>6647788
Bump my qeustion.

Pls guys

>>6646325
*10
*5
*3
*15/35

what kind of pattern does this mysterious function follow it doesn't look like anything I know of, maybe you should develop your ideas further and earn millions in tech stocks.

What about human enhancement? Wouldn't it be easier to stay young if we could replace individual organs with mechanical (or artificial in general) equivalents that would be immune or less prone to deterioration with time at the human scale? Would it be realistic to replace even skin, blood, bones etc that way?

>>6647788
COME ON GUYS PLS ANSWER PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE I BEG YOU

>>6647820
>Wouldn't it be easier to stay young if we could replace individual organs with mechanical (or artificial in general) equivalents that would be immune or less prone to deterioration with time at the human scale?

Yes.

>Would it be realistic to replace even skin, blood, bones etc that way?

Now, that's the problem you'd have.

>>6647800
>when SENS compliant treatments is developed

What's that? Genuinely interested

>>6647629

>Which is why you have things like, mitotic Checkpoints, DNA proofreading, DNA repair, apototic signals and an immune system that can verify the cell integrity via surface proteins.

... Which also make errors. That statement isn't counter to anything I said. When these errors are not accounted for weird shit happens. Whether or not this has an effect on aging is unclear at this juncture, but it seems to have some effect on debilitating conditions that correlate with an increase in age.

>>6647792
>thats incredibly stupid, I hate it when biologists project prehistoric past into the near future

Excuse you? I don't give a fuck or a shit about your opinion. Either explain how we would somehow not face existential threats with the near abolition of natural selection, or shut the fuck up. Death and sexual reproduction are what keeps the genepool in a state of constant change that allows us to proliferate so effectively.

>evolution is slow, science is fast. thats it.

You're slow. Blind faith in anything will not save you. Cures and treatments take years to R&D at a minimum, if not for an indeterminate time. If science is so fast at neutralizing fatal diseases, I'll eat my foot if you cure even just 33% of cancers within the year, disregarding the decades of research you have to help you.

>>6647822
There isn't. The trivial topology (set and void) can be defined over any space. The discrete topology (all parts are open parts) as well. So there are always two topology over any space, and those are not the same as long as there are two elements or more.

>>6647822
>>6647842
its like all over google
sens basically says rather then trying to slow aging by addressing every single error in metabolism in the human body , because there are only 7 types of damage finding ways to treat this kind of damage is the best way to clean out aging.

its kind of like how a car ages, you can look at every part and try to design it to be better(won't really work esp when you already got the built car) or you can remove the main damage to a car, lets say rust,stress creep,oil change,tuning etc.

its the way engineers do things, but obviously it gets a lot of fire from oldschool academics because they don't like the logistics or some other bullshit, they kind of humiliated themselves with this in 2005 on MIT technology review. after this sens has kind of gone mainstream.

>>6647848
>not face existential threats with the near abolition of natural selection
just what the fucking fuck?
explain why religion X isn't true, I like proofs.

there is no reason to assume your particular kind of natural selection you learned in school is important.
if you can't understand why evolution is slow that brings down the level of this thread by a nice margin.

your problem if it will arise will be cured like it was always cured, by having sex and making babies if a better way won't be found.

you seem to be of the crowd that thinks that natural=good

>>6647820
human enhancement will happen hand in hand

obviously the more data we could take and integrate into conclusions the faster we will acquire knowledge , the way research is done now is rather error prone, expensive and doesn't translate to actionable results.

this is mostly because academia is stuck up on methods from the 19th century, obviously every now and then a project comes out that blows it out of the water by people who it right, but the 'system' is resistant to change

thats why we get those opinions that curing aging is impossible , it is with their methods just like how writing is impossible for chimps

>>6647861

>there is no reason to assume your particular kind of natural selection you learned in school is important.

Top kek. If you're not joking already outlined it.

>if you can't understand why evolution is slow that brings down the level of this thread by a nice margin.

If you can't understand that letting the genepool stagnate would put a halt to random mutations that could prove beneficial hundreds or thousands of years in the future, you are ignorant and have nearly zero analytical ability. This was the case with alternate blood cell receptors that prevent people with HIV from developing AIDS, only one example of a seemingly useless and undetected mutation that has very real yet delayed benefits.

>your problem if it will arise will be cured like it was always cured, by having sex and making babies if a better way won't be found

Ye of so much faith.

If the genepool has already been stagnant for hundreds or thousands of years having a last minute fuckfest will not help. Sure it'll be fun, but it won't save our species.

Maybe life extension could be viable in the future, but with it comes a whole new set of problems. Ignoring these problems for the sake of argument is fucking ignorant, unproductive, and dangerous. I'm all for life extension, but not on blind faith that it'll just work out and that humans will never bite off more than they can chew.

when will humans finally be able to completely redesign themselves with little risk? how can we revolutionize plastic surgery?

>>6647820

Yeah, as soon as Luddites accept, legalize, and find stem cell research. Industrial biotechnology will also play a key part in replacing vital proteins. As the biotech field grows more efficient (less costly) methods will be developed and available to the general populace.

distractingly cute pic - get rid of ma front page already.

>>6648141
even if everyone accepted biotech tomorrow, immortality still wouldn't happen in our lifetime

>>6648288

No, but quality of life would improve significantly. I can't believe that there are people who would deny a war vet a new leg he lost to an IED or deny someone with CF the protein they need to fix Na/K pumps to make breathing easier, just because the methods used are supposedly unnatural.

The current method is to suck it up and take painkillers, but there are better ways to make living less painful and make people functional for longer.

>>6646138
I'm more afraid of the trip than the destination.

>tfw 30, single and with no prospects of ever finding love again, and have the knees and physique of a man 10+ years older

>tfw won't live forever

Death is extremely necessary.

Imagine a dictator, oligarch, or malevolent businessman never relinquishing control.

Imagine some place like North Korea force-feeding their inmates immortality pills to fulfill "1000 years of hard labor."

>>6648487
>technology shouldn't exist because it can be misused

This is a little off-topic, but I think there are enough singularity threads already.
How likely are we to live to see a world where life wouldn't suck? The only pretext I have for not an-hero'ing is this vague and unfounded hope that some miracle might happen that would somehow make the future better, like in David Pearce's utopia. It would have to be so good as to justify plodding through decades and decades of a shitty life, while fending off the urge to get the fuck out.
Believing this not only makes me feel like an idiot but also prevents me from gathering the courage to do it. I'd like to know what I can realistically expect.

>>6648801
it will never happen

>>6648487
You also believe in hell, right?
>>6645603
As stupid as it sounds, but we have to first understand why we age. Not the "what-is-it-good-for" why, but the "how-is-it-encoded" why.

>tfw the day i die they will implement immortality

its not

fair

fucking

fuck

FUCK

>>6648494

Yes. Science is as amoral as a hammer. You can build or destroy, ethics and morality are what guides the hand.

>>6649601
I feel like this is what will happen to our generation lol. We'll all be the Mr. Nobodies of the 2070's/2080's (sci-fi film about the last mortal)

>>6645692
Why do you have to make me remember of my mortality?

>>6645603
Not within the decade. Earliest results should come out within 20 years, when real headway has been made into the subject. I would imagine that we will get to the point where we can double or triple the average human lifespan within 30-40 years.

Also, I think the people being overly critical of immortality do not fully understand the implications and societal change that would naturally follow. Stopping human aging is going to be the biggest catalyst for long-term space travel and colonization.

>>6649627
Still can't understand why he was still mortal though. Shit, wasn't him already 135 or something?

>>6649660
>him
he

>>6649660
he was 118 or 113 I think. My guess is that he benefited from some of the early therapies that were available during his lifetime, but they weren't enough and eventually he passed a point where he got too old that nothing could save him

>>6649651
>>6649651
>>6649651
>>6649651
this
at age 200, I might actually start really caring about going to jupitar or something.

>>6649670
Hopefully there will be good suspended animation by then, though.

>>6645619
who is it?

>>6645603
Eventually you'll understand that the fact that life is limited is what makes it special. If we lived forever nothing we did would have meaning. Not to mention, your brain has limitations and you would probably become comatose within ~200 years.

>>6649804
>only one possibility
>it is the one that makes things special
how enlightened of you

>become immortal
>live life and watch all those close to me die
>eventually, I can't take it and hope I can still kill myself
>jump off brooklyn bridge
>extreme pain! mangled body punctured lungs, the works
>still can't can't die, continue this torture until river dries out
>upon rover drying out I see that the earth is no longer habitable and I'm forced into a different kind of torture for the next couple million years
>eventually float the universe as mangled corpse with a now mangled brain feeling the extreme pain of not being able to breath and having my head explode but still being alive

Wheredoisignup.png

>>6649814
Death will get you whether it be 60 years from now or 360 years. I think death has become very much a taboo subject in the past few years, leading to people not understanding and fearing it rather than embracing it as an inevitable event.

>>6649818
That was both retarded and not funny, did you really have the urge to write that?

Protip: l2troll

>>6649818
>unadaptable
you need to be culled from the gene pool, before you are able to pass on your genes for the next million years

>>6649819
>I think death has become very much a taboo subject in the past few years

You think wrong, now more than ever people feel reassured both by religion and by new age MUH QUANTUM BUZZWORDS LIFE NEVER ENDS websites

>Death will get you whether it be 60 years from now or 360 years

Baseless assumption

>than embracing it as an inevitable event.

Same as above.

>>6649823
I thought it was pretty accurate

>>6649829
Oh no!

>>6649830
Even assuming that you find a way to somehow extend you life indefinitely, how do you propose stopping something like >>6649818 or the heat death of the universe (ie entropy) from happening?

If life extending biology is truly your passion, then sure, study it and do as much research as possible. But if you're only doing it because you feel like life is too short, or because you fear what happens after you die (be it absolute nothingness or some sort of afterlife) then I can safely say there are better things you could be doing.

It's very similar to undergrads who choose to go to med school for money or prestige rather than because medicine is what they enjoy. Once they realize that they don't actually enjoy it, it's too late and they're 4 years in with several hundreds of thousands in debt.

>>6649819
>embracing it as an inevitable event
>when there's no other possible outcome, people find ways to justify its existence as a good thing rather than bad.
I didn't see that coming at all.

>>6649841
I never said that the fact that you die makes life great. You can live a shitty homeless, AIDS ridden life. You'll still die. Death isn't good or evil, it just happens.

>>6649844
>it just happens
and water is wet. news at 10

Let's say a life extending technique is developed where your old faulty organs are somehow replaced with new ones. At what point is it still "you" that is living? When 100% of your body is composed of replicas, have you died?

>>6649850
Your body already doesn't contain the same atoms that you were born with.
care to try again?

>>6645650
Well if you're serious, cancer is a major one. That and a wide variety of heart issues and heritable progressive diseases like Alzheimer's that lead to death.

>>6649851
Not him but how does this work when the sun explodes or the universe collapses or a nuclear bomb is dropped directly above you. If there's a way around all those things immortality is still open for discussion. If not, then not. I see no reason to believe there is a way to get past that. This is just your theory so what's it's answer to that

>>6649839
>Even assuming that you find a way to somehow extend you life indefinitely, how do you propose stopping something like >>6649818

There is a finite amount of possibilities that can lead to your physical death. I can't predict the future, but eventually we will be capable of elminating all of them.

>or the heat death of the universe (ie entropy) from happening?

This is a more difficult problem, indeed. In the next centuries we'll find out what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, and if there's some way to escape it. We have some 10^x years to think about it. If we cannot, mass suicide will be the way.

Anyway, I don't understand why the heat death, which is often brought on when we talk about these topics, should be a reason not to start doing anything else. It's like saying that building a house it's worthless cause Earth will be eated by the Sun in 5 billions years.

>>6649847
If biological restraints don't get you, your brain's limitations will. If you manage to escape that, sheer probability dictates some sort of accident happens to you. After all, you'll be living for a long time. Even if you manage to avoid all that, entropy will eventually get you, no matter how long it takes. When it comes to physical things, there is no "forever".

>>6649858
what does living much much longer than ~100 years have to do with being able to withstand the sun exploding in our faces?

>>6649865
Kek. The question is immortality I.e eternal life.
As has been said many times, life extension is likely possible. Immortality requires the inability to die. Not the same thing

>>6649859
I think the main gripe people in this thread have is the fact that we aren't allocating enough resources towards life extension. I agree that if we were to focus solely on the task, we could probably raise the average lifespan to over 100 within the decade. But the problem is urgency. In society's eyes, resolving problems such as disease, war, and poverty have a precedent because of the suffering associated with them. Death has been happening since the beginning of time, so it isn't seen as something quite as terrible. So unless you can convince the world that you dying of a heart attack when you're 80 is more important than ending the various genocides going on in the world, not much is going to change about that.

>>6649875
immortals of legend could be killed too, you know.

>>6649882
Then they weren't immortal

>>6649885
yes they were, because they couldn't die by natural means.

Realistically, life extending technology won't significantly affect the lives of anyone alive today. If you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's ok to waste away your current life because you're sure immortality is just around the corner, you're just as bad as the dipshits who believe they'll be reincarnated into the spiritual essence of a rainforest or float up into the cloud world to hang out with jesus and the angels for the rest of time.

>>6649891
>all this projection

>>6649900
I dunno, I used to think that no matter how great my life was, it would never live up to my expectations. Then half my family died and now I'm really, really ok with dying no matter what kind of life I had.

>>6649891

>>6649906
The truth hurts doesn't it? Or are you going to continue holding on to your scientific equivalent of a deity's false promises?

>>6649908
>Or are you going to continue holding on to your scientific equivalent of a deity's false promises?

You are the one spreading "absolute truths", not me.

>>6648112
bump

>>6645603
>How achievable is immortality within the next decade?

well we don't even have a 100% acne cure yet so there's no chance in 10years we'll be immortal.

also you can't be immortal in this universe, for obvious reasons.

>>6650558
>well we don't even have a 100% acne cure yet

Sure we do, we just don't give it out to plebs.

>>6645603
>Become cancer
>Live forever
>???
>Profit

>>6650558
>also you can't be immortal in this universe, for obvious reasons
I think that's generally acknowledged. OP may be confusing immortality with radical life extension which is the slightly more reasonable goal

>>6649265
Well, fuck.
Would anyone care to elaborate? What is the main problem, sandnigger mythology? Or that it's just impossible?
If this is the case, trying to extend our life expectancy is complete nonsense. It's much better to do "research" on how to make poisons that kill painlessly with everyday ingredients.

>>6650760
mainly because
>muh religion
>muh death is necessary

>>6650568

Implying being immortal in this universe wouldn't be awesome.
>Staying alive and watching the heat death of the universe in a trillion years.
> watch the birth of a new universe

>>6650825
not saying it wouldn't be awesome, but true immortality (if even possible) would require much more significant advances in medicine and technology than radical life extension

>>6645603
That is a fake ass smile.

"We" as humans will not achieve it, but the superior life forms we will create will live on in our place.

I think that becasue they will not be strictly human we may begrudge them their immortality and try to squish and/or delete them.

>>6646276
*tips fedora*

>>6645692

I would rather take that risk thank you very much. Immortality is not impossible, it is merely out of our reach until we completely understand the machine that is our bodies. From the smallest inner workings to the largest noticeable outer workings.

You have to learn to walk before you can run. At best, you will see life extension in the upcoming decades. 150 to 200 years is actually quite a realistic goal. But there is still much to learn. I would love to live forever, but I know that as of now this isn't possible. Though, to live to see us advance, to learn and witness wonders of the Universe yet unknown. That would be glorious.

It will take knowledge in genetics. Maybe even some cybernetics. Especially for dealing with the "theoretical memory capacity". We are on the way to growing potentially comparable replacement organs. Ones that will evade rejection. Our knowledge in the way the brain works is growing, and allowing for advances in artificial limbs. There is no set clock, there never was. We live longer when conditions get better. It is all about wear and tear and our ability to repair and maintain ourselves. Fate is an obsolete concept.

And death? Death is for the young and inexperienced. That unfortunately means us. One day though, if our luck holds for us as a species. We will eventually learn all the secrets our machines of flesh hold. I just won't be alive to see it.

Cap: rgodkil received

>>6650847
That is a fake, ass smile.
I hate you munroe

>>6650875

But he's right though.

>>6649818
>become immortal
>everyone else is immortal
>die when you're bored via giant slingshot into the sun from an asteroid

I want a new heart that's lab grown or something. What are the odds of reaching immortality before being able to do that? Is that going to happen in 10 years because I fucking hope so.

Lol

>>6649858
By the time the sun explodes I'll be living in Gliese 581g

>>6645603
Cybernetics, biology, magic. time travel to the point where some degree of immortality exits.

On an infinite timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

This dude makes some good point in the video about the current state of anti-aging research and what we can do about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ylnol4eqVA

and here's a shit ton of resources he put together:
http://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/2b0ey2/longevity/

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
— Susan Ertz, "Anger in the Sky"