Support NeoGAF

[Fbh]

Just in time for the expiration day of your Ps Plus LIFE implant we remind you that starting in december we are increasing the price. So pay or die

Spoiler

I'd pay

 

[pestul]

I can't escape the thought of all the evil people in this world getting to live forever too. All the dictators and oppressors..

 

[Onemic]

I know but my point was we have had major tech breakthroughs before which have fundementally changed every facet of the world, and it was not hoarded by the rich or held back. Even when thought impossible, look at us now!

Oh, I guess I can see that. The problem is I dont think it will be even possible to create and mass produce this tech for a very very very very long time.

Every year we have some thread where a poster will claim that cancer is close to being cured or that we're gonna have the tech to live forever soon. Every year it turns out to be false hope.

 

[Smellycat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kNrIn8H32c

 

[Az987]

While it's not as exciting and exotic as nanobots, I read an article last year about a drug called rapamycin which is used mostly for organ transplants. It helps prevent your body from rejecting your new organ, but for some reason diabetics who were taking it actually lived longer than diabetics not taking it.

They've tested it on fruitflies, worms, mice, and currently dogs. If it works on dogs, humans will be next in the trials.

Mice being tested with it lived 9-14% longer and it didn't matter if they took the drug early in their life or in the middle of it.

Pretty neat stuff

Here's a recent article if anyone cares.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/aging-research-disease-dogs.html?_r=0

I'm cool with living to be 200. Why not?

 

[Ganzlinger]

I want to believe

 

[adj_noun]

Just in time for the expiration day of your Ps Plus LIFE implant we remind you that starting in december we are increasing the price. So pay or die

Reminds me of the concept for In Time.

In 2169, people are genetically engineered with perfect health and appearance. Each has a digital clock on their forearm; when they turn 25, they stop aging and their clock begins counting down from 1 year. When the clock reaches zero, that person "times out" and dies. Time has become the universal currency, and can be transferred between people or "time capsules".

I always thought paying for things with segments of your set lifespan was a cool idea.

 

[Aaronrules380]

1. I 100% believe radical life extension (125+) is coming sooner than we think. Kids born today will live to 110, and their kids will live to 150, and their kids will have the option of not dying.

2. I also believe it the very very wealthy will get it first and they will keep it for themselves as long as possible.

3. I tend to believe that radical life extension solves a lot of problems, beginning with how we're able to travel to other star systems.

4. RLE will instantly mean lower birth rates around the world. Rather than a never-dying population explosion, I think near-immortal humanity means people will just stop having kids.

5. The primary dilemmas as this technology becomes a reality: Who gets it? Should everyone get it? Should we reconsider the death penalty for near-immortal violent criminals? How will population and birthrate be managed and controlled so we don't end up with a planet full of 200+ year olds, no kids, and suddenly see the immortal-but-aging population exposed to something our technology can't yet address?

The idea that once we get immortality everyone will stop having kids is a bit ridiculous imo. Birth rates might go down, but probably less than you think because people will
1. Still want kids
2. Still have sex and not want abortions
3. Probably won't be any financial negatives to having kids that don't already exist in developed societies.

 

[half a moon]

I think bringing an ethical dimension into this is a mistake, because that will not be the primary argument for giving people long lives. History is full of primitive cultures being eliminated off the face of the earth in the name of progress, and an objective argument can be made that mankind is the better for it. The question isn't if you want to live a long life, the question is going to be if other people want you to live a long life.

This. And if other people don't want you to you won't. That's our reality. People want or let it happen every day.

 

[OmegaX]

That isn't garbage. Death is necessary or the world would overpopulate in a matter of years. There would have to be radical changes to rules and laws of child birth by limiting it substantially.

Sure, outlaw breeding or use young people in gladiator battles. I don' care. There is enough people already. If you want kids you have to commit suicide after they are old enough to replace you.

Spoiler

Just kidding but I do want to live forever and overpopulation would be a problem

 

[Team Alucard]

Fuck that.

I'm not sure if I even want to live beyond 30.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Enough time for Half Life 3 to come out then.

 

[Vault Dweller 111]

200 isn't enough.

I want to explore the galaxy.

 

[CloudyTuba]

I would like to be this optimistic but I generally assume that money and greed will slow practical progress down significantly compared to what is scientifically possible.

 

[Ishida]

Yeah, no fucking thanks.

At some point I will get tired of the world and its people, and I will wish for the sweet release of death.

 

[Onemic]

Fuck that.

I'm not sure if I even want to live beyond 30.

wat

 

[Mindwipe]

Radical life extension is probably coming, but not in time for people alive today. As a 200 year prospect? Sure.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Lol what is this garbage? Just because this is your philosophical stance on death doesn't mean that this is the way it has to be for others.

He is kinda right. Life and death are the natural intervals. If a high food chain predator for example lived forever, it would wreak havoc on the ecosystem. The earth is balanced BECAUSE things live, die. and are recycled. It isn't really philosophical as much as it is accepting of the way things are and why they are balanced so. There is nothing wrong with Death. Death is noble. Through Death you make space for another life to have a chance at this experience.

 

[DarkKyo]

That isn't garbage. Death is necessary or the world would overpopulate in a matter of years. There would have to be radical changes to rules and laws of child birth by limiting it substantially.

Nobody says death is necessary except for you. Humans will find a way around overpopulation. There are tons of solutions for it, both short term and long term.

 

[half a moon]

Nobody says death is necessary except for you. Humans will find a way around overpopulation. There are tons of solutions for it, both short term and long term.

People that can choose will want death to be involved :/ They don't value the majority of people's lives.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Another huge issue is that even if we take aging and disease out of the equation, there's still the issue of food and resources, which are finite. Even with the current population this is an issue and plenty of people starve while wealthier people eat like kings. But part of the problem is that I have to imagine any theoretical nanobot solution to death and aging would require energy, which would probably have to come from the host. In other words, not only are you increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also the necessary number of calories to continue functioning. Furthermore, since these hypothetical nanobots would probably have solutions to weight gain and overeating, it might lead to the wealthy eating more and more without fear of health implications, leading to further supply issues and possibly even a drastic increase in the price of food, which would have major implications for the less wealthy

 

[half a moon]

Off topic edit

 

[Ishida]

Nobody says death is necessary except for you. Humans will find a way around overpopulation. There are tons of solutions for it, both short term and long term.

Agreed. You can always trust humans to deal with such issues. Remember when we completely stopped global warming?

Another huge issue is that even if we take aging and disease out of the equation, there's still the issue of food and resources, which are finite. Even with the current population this is an issue and plenty of people starve while wealthier people eat like kings. But part of the problem is that I have to imagine any theoretical nanobot solution to death and aging would require energy, which would probably have to come from the host. In other words, not only are you increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also the necessary number of calories to continue functioning. Furthermore, since these hypothetical nanobots would probably have solutions to weight gain and overeating, it might lead to the wealthy eating more and more without fear of health implications, leading to further supply issues and possibly even a drastic increase in the price of food, which would have major implications for the less wealthy

Exactly. I wonder if people actually stop to think about the issues this would bring, instead of just "eh, we will deal with it".

 

[DarkKyo]

He is kinda right. Life and death are the natural intervals. If a high food chain predator for example lived forever, it would wreak havoc on the ecosystem. The earth is balanced BECAUSE things live, die. and are recycled. It isn't really philosophical as much as it is accepting of the way things are and why they are balanced so.

Yeah I'm sure it was natural for humans to pump trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and copious amounts of pollutants into the ocean. It was natural for us to leave Earth and walk on the moon too. Also it's so natural for us to be able to talk to one another while being on opposite sides of the planet.

What does natural have to do with humanity? That's why this argument is garbage. Death is natural but that doesn't mean shit when it comes to social evolution and scientific progress. Death is only the accepted inevitability because there's no alternative at the moment.

 

[rjinaz]

Hell yes. My life isn't even all that, but fuck dying. I want to exist.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Another huge issue is that even if we take aging and disease out of the equation, there's still the issue of food and resources, which are finite. Even with the current population this is an issue and plenty of people starve while wealthier people eat like kings. But part of the problem is that I have to imagine any theoretical nanobot solution to death and aging would require energy, which would probably have to come from the host. In other words, not only are you increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also the necessary number of calories to continue functioning. Furthermore, since these hypothetical nanobots would probably have solutions to weight gain and overeating, it might lead to the wealthy eating more and more without fear of health implications, leading to further supply issues and possibly even a drastic increase in the price of food, which would have major implications for the less wealthy

I've just come to conclusion that people who say, "I want to live forever" haven't REALLY thought it through all the way. When you really contemplate existing forever you start to see underlying reasons for why you aren't satisfied right here right now.

 

[Doc Holliday]

My body is ready! I want to live damn it!

 

[D1renegade]

This thread is a god send after having to read the one about accepting death

 

[LookAtMeGo]

 

[DarkKyo]

Agreed. You can always trust humans to deal with such issues. Remember when we completely stopped global warming?

Nobody is saying that humans, collectively, are good at crisis prevention. That's still not a good enough reason for billions of people to die if it's a preventable condition.

 

[Team Alucard]

wat

30+ is generally when the dumb fun of youth stops and your fulfillment from life comes from starting a family and having kids or from building your career.

I can't have children and I can't envision a scenario where I find myself slavishly devoted to the rat race and still be happy, especially given that I don't care much for my field of study.

 

[Fou-Lu]

Another huge issue is that even if we take aging and disease out of the equation, there's still the issue of food and resources, which are finite. Even with the current population this is an issue and plenty of people starve while wealthier people eat like kings. But part of the problem is that I have to imagine any theoretical nanobot solution to death and aging would require energy, which would probably have to come from the host. In other words, not only are you increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also the necessary number of calories to continue functioning. Furthermore, since these hypothetical nanobots would probably have solutions to weight gain and overeating, it might lead to the wealthy eating more and more without fear of health implications, leading to further supply issues and possibly even a drastic increase in the price of food, which would have major implications for the less wealthy

Which is why we need more research into sustainable living as well as an equivalent contribution to space exploration so that we can find more resources and liveable space. Increasing our lifespans seems the only logical way to go for me if we want humanity to matter on a galactic scale.

Also, talking about the natural order being life and death is just appealing to nature, and therefore is a fallacy.

 

[cloud_sleep]

Nah, People may live a bit longer but everyone is still gonna die. Science is really nowhere close to curing death and it's not going to happen in your lifetime. Get used to it. I'm looking at you, Ray Kurzweil.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Nobody is saying that humans, collectively, are good at crisis prevention. That's still not a good enough reason for billions of people to die if it's a preventable condition.

Everyone will die eventually regardless. Extending lifespans and eliminating diseases is good to an extent, but eventually it gets to a level that puts the entire planet at risk

 

[ChouGoku]

For the last year ive been saying of I live the next 15 years I'll probably live forever. With advancements in genetic editing and eventually nanobots I will have multiple ways of living forever. Of course that has made me extremely scared to die now because dying right before immortality would suck

 

[Aaronrules380]

Which is why we need more research into sustainable living as well as an equivalent contribution to space exploration so that we can find more resources and liveable space. Increasing our lifespans seems the only logical way to go for me if we want humanity to matter on a galactic scale.

Also, talking about the natural order being life and death is just appealing to nature, and therefore is a fallacy.

Sustainable living ultimately still has limits due to the fundamental principle of entropy. And space exploration is a useless alternative unless we can discover a way to travel faster than light, which by all current knowledge is completely impossible for anything to do

 

[Bisnic]

This will end like that Doctor Who episode where the old dude who returned to his young self suddenly turned into a Resident Evil monster right?

 

[cloud_sleep]

It's probably a good thing for the species that the old die and get out of the young's way. We'd still be wearing top hats otherwise.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I have already attained immortality from my GAF posts.

 

[Onemic]

30+ is generally when the dumb fun of youth stops and your fulfillment from life comes from starting a family and having kids or from building your career.

I can't have children and I can't envision a scenario where I find myself slavishly devoted to the rat race and still be happy, especially given that I don't care much for my field of study.

That's a pretty narrow minded view of what 30+ entails. It is what you make of it.

You'll turn 30 soon enough and will see for yourself.

 

[Already Torn]

Let me off this ride when it is my time. Fuck this stuff.

What an odd thing to say. I'd still be pissed if it was "my time" to get tuberculosis and would seek treatment.

 

[Fbh]

Reminds me of the concept for In Time.

Such a good concept for a story, but the movie itself was rather bad.

Anyway, I think it might not be that crazy. Imagine someone comes out with a technology to keep us alive. It might need maintenance and updates and stuff.
What is keeping them from just pricing it as they want

 

[Razorback]

All of you better not change your minds the day these treatments become a reality. From the comments in this thread I'm expecting not to have to wait too long in line.

But I understand the cynicism. It's a simple case of it sounding too good to be true. But if you bothered to read up on the subject you would more easily see through the cognitive bias and realise it's more plausible than you think.

 

[ChouGoku]

Only the rich and affluent will ever get access to this tech. If available.

You want Donald Trump to live forever?

Im sure people said the same thing about computers

 

[Az987]

Why is it hard to think that if science could literally cure people of aging, other areas wouldn't advance at that same pace?

Food production increased as the population increased which was greatly enhanced by technology increasing life expectancy. Why would it be any different with this?

If we're talking about nanobots keeping us from aging wouldn't that same technology be applicable to the areas people are saying wouldn't be able to handle the increase in population?

Overpopulation going by just the amount of space would be an issue but not as fast as a few years.

131 million people are born every year and only 55 million people die. Sure, overpopulation issues would be here quicker but it would still take decades for us to be like oh crap, there's no room.

 

[Kimawolf]

Sustainable living ultimately still has limits due to the fundamental principle of entropy. And space exploration is a useless alternative unless we can discover a way to travel faster than light, which by all current knowledge is completely impossible for anything to do

Lots of advances in that field too. It is possible for space itself to move faster than light. Thats the entire idea behind "warp" engines. Its a,engineering and manufacturing problem atm. Nothinh which is not insurmountable for an advanced enough civilisation.

Which is why we need long life extension/immortality. As for the nature debate, we already left nature behind. We humans can do what we want with this world. For better or worse, and we are the only speices currently who can.

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Another huge issue is that even if we take aging and disease out of the equation, there's still the issue of food and resources, which are finite. Even with the current population this is an issue and plenty of people starve while wealthier people eat like kings. But part of the problem is that I have to imagine any theoretical nanobot solution to death and aging would require energy, which would probably have to come from the host. In other words, not only are you increasing the number of mouths to feed, but also the necessary number of calories to continue functioning. Furthermore, since these hypothetical nanobots would probably have solutions to weight gain and overeating, it might lead to the wealthy eating more and more without fear of health implications, leading to further supply issues and possibly even a drastic increase in the price of food, which would have major implications for the less wealthy

If we're going to make up imaginary superpowers for nanobots, why can't appetite control be one of them?

 

[Pamplemousse]

Yeah I'm sure it was natural for humans to pump trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and copious amounts of pollutants into the ocean. It was natural for us to leave Earth and walk on the moon too. Also it's so natural for us to be able to talk to one another while being on the other side of the planet.

What does natural have to do with humanity? That's why this argument is garbage. Death is natural but that doesn't mean shit when it comes to social evolution and scientific progress. Death is only the accepted inevitability because there's no alternative at the moment.

Yes, those things aren't natural and look where they've gotten us. The world is literally rotting and telling us that what we're doing is wrong. Denying natural processes by attempting to exert control over them is a losing battle that just leads to needing to exert more and more control to correct for the consequences of the initial attempt at control.

And what did astronauts do when they got to the moon? They looked back at the Earth and were in awe of its beauty. We don't exist without it.

"Nature" isn't battling us. Life isn't a race for "progress." There is no life without death. You cannot live without also dying.

Besides, if everyone stopped dying, the world would descend into total chaos. No organism, planet, star, etc. exists eternally.

Furthermore, to what end? If everyone lived forever or even just for 200 years, we would quickly need multiple other Earths to live on. If life is a race for "progress," as you seem to think it is, then what is at the finish line?

 

[Fou-Lu]

Sustainable living ultimately still has limits due to the fundamental principle of entropy. And space exploration is a useless alternative unless we can discover a way to travel faster than light, which by all current knowledge is completely impossible for anything to do

Alpha centauri is about 4.367 light years. We don't need to go faster than light to start exploring other solar systems, we just need to go much faster than we can now. Which is perfectly possible within science.

 

[DarkKyo]

Sustainable living ultimately still has limits due to the fundamental principle of entropy. And space exploration is a useless alternative unless we can discover a way to travel faster than light, which by all current knowledge is completely impossible for anything to do

As far as we know entropy is inescapable. As far as we know. But we don't even understand the nature or purpose of the universe. We understand so little, so yeah, in our current state there is literally no way to survive entropy.

Chances are humanity will be gone long before then(at the very least it won't exist in the same form), but it would be interesting if there was a solution to every problem.

Cure death.
Lose the flesh.
Escape the planet.
Figure out FTL travel.
Colonize.
Survive heat death.

What if you could escape the universe?
What if you could siphon energy from other dimensions and keep your digital society alive in a cube inside your cold, dead universe?

Pretty fantastical but we don't know what's possible with the right technology because we are still basically monkeys poking atoms around.