[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 104 KB, 475x435, awesome_mrmen.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1661085 No.1661085 [Reply] [Original]

Who wants to live forever?

Why aren't we spending every waking minute attempting to make our lifespans indefinite? Even those among us who are striving for newton/galileo/da vinci style fame and scientific endeavour, why are we going for such pointless short term goals when there's a huge one almost within our grasp?

I'm a very short time away from making this my serious life goal, and why not? All great achievements past and present have been done by men and women not unlike ourselves. Believing something is unattainable by yourself is confining yourself to the mundane, all the great people in history have had one thing in common; a belief that they can do what they want to do. No great endeavour has been made accidentally by a meek office worker who can't account for what he did, it takes someone to make that push forward.

The purpose of this thread is half as a serious attempt to gain ideas and possibly colleagues, but also as just an interesting conversation.

>> No.1661103

>why aren't we spending all of our time on something stupid that wont work?

>why hurr we durr all derp hurr durr?

>> No.1661105

>>1661103

Are you happy with your life?

>> No.1661118

>>1661105
Nope, and why would more of this make me want to live longer?

>> No.1661117

If the technology was created, it would have to be destroyed for the good of mankind. Mankind cannot progress without the cycle of life and death.

>> No.1661121

>>1661117

We're not relying on evolution for progress anymore, I'm not sure if you got the memo.

>> No.1661124

>>1661118

I think that wraps up our conversation nicely.

>> No.1661131

>>1661121
I'm not talking about evolution. Aside from overpopulation problems. Without the old scientists and artists dying out, no progress is made. You need constantly new blood. People get ingrained in their patterns.

>> No.1661137

>>1661131

I disagree with you. I don't think creativity would be stifled at all.

>> No.1661138

>>1661131
>implying it would be bad for Einstein and Tesla to still be alive

>> No.1661145

Immortality already exists.
http://www.dopotopa.com/lang1/news-2.html

>> No.1661157

>>1661138
>Implying Einstein wasn't in a dead-end rut for the last 30 years of his life.
>Implying Tesla wasn't batshit insane.

>> No.1661165

>>1661157
>Implying tesla's insanity was a bad thing

>> No.1661167

People are working on extending human life span or projects which have that same effect.

However humanity isn't ready for it yet even if it was available tomorrow, there's too many fuck offs.

>> No.1661187

In actuality we may be virtually immortal if science progress increases life expectancy faster than we age.

>> No.1661198
File: 57 KB, 188x220, rimkpl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1661198

>All great achievements past and present have been done by men and women not unlike ourselves
>great achievements done by women

ahahaha

....hahaha

>> No.1661205

implying we want your worthless ass around. If they develop the technology to extend your life, I will personally destroy it.

>> No.1661206

I like your thinking OP. Good post.

>> No.1661207

>If the technology was created, it would have to be destroyed for the good of mankind. Mankind cannot progress without the cycle of life and death.
>However humanity isn't ready for it yet even if it was available tomorrow, there's too many fuck offs.
[Citation Needed]

Personally i'd love immortality, no stress for any fucking thing. I could study for 20 years, work 20 and then study for another ten. No fucking expenses on retirement funds or medicare for the elderly, our economy would boom, people would be extremely educated and hopefully they'd realize to make their own life comfortable instead of spawning children and hoping they achive something.

Of course, immortality should be cheap and availible for all, that would also discourage mohammad from loading his pants with dynamite and blowing himself up. There's a good fucking more virgins availible in an immortal life on earth than the 72 in the durkha durkha heaven.

>> No.1661210

>>1661198

Marie curie? Ada?

>> No.1661217

>>1661207
Are you out of your mind. Resources would quickly become insuficient to feed everyone, and life would be a living hell. There would be no retirement, because no one would be able or willing to support you. People will never stop having children, it's a hard-wired desire.

>> No.1661223

>>1661217
BIRTH CONTROL, MOTHERFUCKER CAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

>> No.1661225

>>1661217

As soon as the technology is out, anyone who procreates outside of a certain time period is illegible for the treatment. Mandatory sterlisation for all who undergo the treatment. Yes I realise this would create a huge black market, but it's not like we don't have bigger problems than that right now.

>> No.1661250

>>1661207
>people would be extremely educated and hopefully they'd realize to make their own life comfortable instead of spawning children and hoping they achive something. [citation needed]

Meanwhile in reality humanity splits into:
*Religion fags who think living forever is wrong and will kill you to save your soul.
*Naturalistfags who insist it's wrong and will kill you for being an abomination.
*Fuck ups who become immortal so they can shag bitches forever/protect their wealth/etc
*People who simply wanted to live forever, to learn and do more than what they could in one life time and to be a living account of history for future generations.

>> No.1661258

Every known living being dies.

Every last one.

Therefore, death is adaptive.

Why try to subvert the force of evolution?

>> No.1661262

>>1661223
>>1661225
>sterilization

Until humanity gains some self-control yes that will be neccessary.

>> No.1661269

>>1661262
1. Make some gas that makes people sterile
2. Drop lots of it on poor countries
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

>> No.1661272

>>1661250
Nobody, and I mean Nobody, is good enough that humanity can tolerate them being around forever. I would definitely war against such technology.

>> No.1661276

>>1661131
I agree with this anon. It would be the cultural death of the species. Then we would end up with a bunch of sterilized immortalfags. When the eventually die by accident or end their lives themselves, which they will inevitably do, it will be the literal end of the species.

Meanwhile there is no possible benefit to the species from this.

>> No.1661290

>>1661258
>Why try to subvert the force of evolution?
Dunno, maybe you should ask EVERY FUCKER IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE, because that's what medicine have been about since FOREVER.

>*Religion fags who think living forever is wrong and will kill you to save your soul.
>*Naturalistfags who insist it's wrong and will kill you for being an abomination.

How the fuck will they know i'm immortal, and would not their human instincts want immortality for themself too? When you get your first age-related back pain, or shit yourself in a public place because of anal incontingence you'd probably get in line for the back-to-twenty-years-old-sex-every-day treatment

>> No.1661297 [DELETED] 

ITT: Hardline tr00 athetist Dawkinsfags attempt to justify their overriding fear of death by imagining that it is inevitable.

The simple fact is, some people today will end up being immortal. In fact, the cryogenically frozen brains in the Alcor facility will likely be resurrected and returned to function some day, that's for sure.

As technology beats back the power of micro-organisms to determine the fate of us awesome macro-organisms, and we learn how to replace organs, humans will beat aging (immortality being effectively impossible - you can still die in an accident, and even if you had an improved accident resistant body, you could still be abducted and fired at the fucking sun by a space troll).

The arguments about needing a cycle of life and death is as retarded as the most dualistic of arguments for the human spirit. A mind is just an elaborate intelligence engine. It does not suddenly stagnate - and if it does, we will eventually learn of its structures and functions, then modify to our desires.

Birth rate can easily be controlled even by social policy - look at the China 1-child policy. In any case, economically developed nations reproduce less so the over-population argument isn't based upon facts.

It's a matter of time.

>> No.1661298

>>1661269
>sterilization gas

I shouldn't have to tell you why that's a bad thing... had you said spiking relief food with something to sterilize them I would have agreed though.

>>1661272
What are you basing that on? On the fuck ups?

I would become immortal given the choice, not because I have any ambition for it. I only wish to observe.

Even without immortality though I'd still observe... even as you wage a war against what people doing things to themselves.

>>1661276
What do you base that on? Humanity has changed because of new ideas not because of new people.

The only hindrance to it has been the close-mindedness of people conditioned into being close-minded.

>> No.1661299

>>1661297
With immortality religion will naturally disappear because we won't need it.

>> No.1661302

>>1661297
> frozen brains
Nitpicking: they are vitrified, not frozen as frozen implies the formation of destructive ice crystals.

>> No.1661306

>>1661297
>The simple fact is, some people today will end up being immortal.
LMAO

Your entire post is ridiculous. This is the sum of my contribution to this thread.

>> No.1661307
File: 244 KB, 377x417, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1661307

>Notice interesting topic on /sci/
>Open thread
>Bunch of uneducated responses
>Hurr Durr-ing
>>>1661297 Only person over the age of 13
>Damn you /sci/

>> No.1661311

>>1661307

I'm convinced I know who that post was from

It was well written, and long, I think it was that immortality researcher with the beard

>> No.1661312

>>1661290
Yes medicine has been undermining evolution for a long time now, people don't seem to realize it though.


I find it odd that I need to tell you this since you have the clarity of mind to know the above but talking about human instinct is like talking about human gravity. It's too small and insignificant to matter.

And people would find out the same way pro-lifers find out about abortions and abortion doctors. Plus unlike abortion it'll start to be pretty obvious after about 10 years.

>> No.1661315

>Why aren't we spending every waking minute attempting to be happy?

fixxd

>> No.1661327

>>1661298
>What do you base that on? Humanity has changed because of new ideas not because of new people.

Not true. New ideas don't catch on with the old people. There's a great quote, I thought from Bohr about this. That the great and self-evident ideas never catch on with the old scientists, but the new generation of scientists never doubt them in the first place, and this is how scientific progress is made. I'll keep looking for the quote.

>> No.1661329

Of you young people who think you want to be immortal, 95% of you will change your mind by age 60.

>> No.1661330

>>1661315
Obligations in order to keep yourself alive largely. Yes I'm saying your job, which most of use hate, but gotta pay those bills so those rich fat fucks don't have to work. It consumes half or more of the time people have available to them and exhausts them physically and emotionally.

Also there's a manipulation of 'what you should be doing/what you should enjoy'. As opposed to people thinking about what it is they themselves actually enjoy.

>> No.1661332

>>1661312
>human instinct is like talking about human gravity. It's too small and insignificant to matter.

Every single sexual crime ever comitted have been because of human instincts, what instinct is stronger than the sexual drive? The survival drive.
People would go to great lengths to achive immortality, especially when their weakening and failing body starts to remind them of their mortality. Of course, there would probably be some violence, but if i could sell you a $50 a month immortality treatment you'd see a massive mainstream adoption of it, anyone opposing it with violence would be a terrorist, but when have terrorists ever won something? They can inflict marginal damage but they can't destroy a society.

>> No.1661337
File: 358 KB, 700x670, buddha_big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1661337

If you live the absolute moment, there is neither life nor death. As D. T. Suzuki explained it, the question is not “to be or not to be.” It is “to be and not to be.”

>> No.1661338

>>1661332
Sexual drive is stronger than survival drive. In women, the drive to have offspring is stronger than either.

>> No.1661340

>>1661327
>New ideas don't catch on with the old people.
Prove it to be true then.
You're not allowed to use any social mechanic or reason, it must be 100% genetic.
History is not valid evidence.

>> No.1661358

Found the quote. It was Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And Planck himself served as an example of the truth of this, as various incorrect ideas of quantum physics only died when the older pioneers of the subject such as he and Einstein died.

>> No.1661365

>>1661332
>sexual instinct causes rape

No, just no. I have never heard any valid evidence for anything of the sort barring a medical abnormality.

More important is the survival instinct which is what we were talking about. Why do healthy people allow themselves to be killed for any reason if the instinct to survive is as all consuming as you're making it out to be?

>>1661358
I can easily put forward they simply died before they were able to accept the ideas.