Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Immortality

  1. #1 Immortality 
    Forum Freshman Jubei Yagyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12
    I’ve been studying the aging process lately and started doing some deep thinking. Who here feels that, through gene manipulation and biomechanics, that the human body is capable of becoming immortal (in the sense that one does not age, not that he is immune to injury and disease)?

    I feel that it is only a matter of time before science is capable of somehow halting or reversing the aging process, either through chemical or genetic means. Imagine how such a discovery would impact a world already being racked with overpopulation.


    Some interesting links:
    http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_348517.html


    "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    -Schopenhauer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Inmortality?


    Well, it just makes me think of some things...

    #1, gather everyone who got the knowledge of it.

    #2, gather evey inmortal created by them.

    #3, give them a 1st row seat for the detonation of a 5 kilotons nuke.

    #4, fill up the hole.




    Now seriously, from a social perspective, the trouble is not overpopulation. We can't even provide enough calories a day to half the humankind, so let's forget about "we all will live forever". Yet from a moral perspective... Well, the day we allow the rich become inmortal, that will be the last end most definitive offence to morality and equality. We all are born and we all die. Money shouldn't change that -that's the source of our belief that we're not the only force around, of all the gods we believe in, of all our awareness on how limited we are. Even if it was possible, inmortality to the death from within (age) would turn over our perception of ourselves. We all are born and we all die. Let's keep it like that... whatever it takes. #1, #2, #3, #4. :wink:


    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    61
    Well, the day we allow the rich become inmortal, that will be the last end most definitive offence to morality and equality. We all are born and we all die. Money shouldn't change that
    So you think its bad that people with lots of money can get better healthcare?

    You would rather that nobody can live forever than give the chance to a few at first, then it can be spread to everyone?

    To the original thread starter, I to think this is an interesting subject, as far as I can tell, the main two hurdles on the way to an intrinsicly unlimited life is genetic decay caused by the telomers being depleted and damage to the nervous tissue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    home
    Posts
    7
    well, i believe it would only be a matter of time before it is possible to become immortal. but as lucifer says, it probably would not be a good idea... however i disagree on the point that "the trouble is not overpopulation". population is growing really rapidly. unless scientist find some way to let us live in artic or sahara desert or build really tall apartments, the earth would become squashed. not to mention the environment would be badly destroyed and we would have no resources left
    "for an idea that does not first seem insane, there is no hope" ---Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    home
    Posts
    7
    well... it would kind of be unfair if only the rich and the powerful people have the chance to be immortal. i mean like, everybody should have an equal opportunity to live.
    "for an idea that does not first seem insane, there is no hope" ---Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrashogun
    Well, the day we allow the rich become inmortal, that will be the last end most definitive offence to morality and equality. We all are born and we all die. Money shouldn't change that
    So you think its bad that people with lots of money can get better healthcare?

    You would rather that nobody can live forever than give the chance to a few at first, then it can be spread to everyone?
    Gee... please try to don't skip too much off-topic. I have said what I have said, no what you say.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    i think it is possibel, just no one has try to od it yet, due to reasons given above, its sorta wrong,

    who would want to live forever? not me!

    but at the same time, its possible, but meaby not for all the aging process. so im contradicing my self,

    free radicals, and other chemical reasons... (eg, if we do . which we do .. build up too much mercury ... it will kill us! notr sure if we break it down or not) if we bulid up so muc of X in a life time, double it by two, and it could kill us!
    so imoratally is possible , inb theory, but it depends on enviroment!
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Perhaps it is possible to become near-immortal through repeated clonings of frozen and preserved DNA (since clones are the genetically the same as the host organism, one can argue the host organism is never 'dead').

    Otherwise, I think it is scientifically unreasonable to expect immortality, since each cell can divide only a fixed number of times (about 25-50 times, at most). Cell division is necessary to replace old and damaged cells.

    Here is a short excerpt from an interesting and detailed article on the subject of cell mortality and apoptosis:
    .............Replicative cell senescence in human fibroblasts seems to be caused by changes in the structure of the telomeres, the repetitive DNA sequences and associated proteins at the ends of chromosomes. As discussed in Chapter 5, when a cell divides, telomeric DNA sequences are not replicated in the same manner as the rest of the genome but instead are synthesized by the enzyme telomerase. By mechanisms that remain unclear, telomerase also promotes the formation of protein cap structures that protect the chromosome ends. Because human fibroblasts, and many other human somatic cells, are deficient in telomerase, their telomeres become shorter with every cell division, and their protective protein caps progressively deteriorate. Eventually, DNA damage occurs at chromosome ends. The damage activates a p53-dependent cell-cycle arrest that resembles the arrest caused by other types of DNA damage (see Figure 17-33).

    The lack of telomerase in most somatic cells has been proposed to help protect humans from the potentially damaging effects of runaway cell proliferation, as occurs in cancer. Unfortunately, most cancer cells have regained the ability to produce telomerase and therefore maintain telomere function as they proliferate; as a result, they do not undergo replicative cell senescence (discussed in Chapter 23). The forced expression of telomerase in normal human fibroblasts, using genetic engineering techniques, has the same effect (Figure 17-43)............

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...4.section.3255
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Jubei Yagyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12
    To the original thread starter, I to think this is an interesting subject, as far as I can tell, the main two hurdles on the way to an intrinsicly unlimited life is genetic decay caused by the telomers being depleted and damage to the nervous tissue.
    Absolutely. But note that certain animals are essentially immortal, such as lobsters. To quote Wikipedia;
    As noted above, senescence is not universal, and senescence is not observed in single celled organisms that reproduce through the process of cellular mitosis. Moreover, cellular senescence is not observed in many organisms, including sponges, corals, and lobsters. In those species where cellular senescence is observed, cells eventually become post-mitotic when they can no longer replicate themselves through the process of cellular mitosis -- i.e., cells experience replicative senescence. How and why some cells become post-mitotic in some species has been the subject of much research and speculation, but (as noted above) it is widely believed that cellular senescence evolved as a way to prevent the onset and spread of cancer. Somatic cells that have divided many times will have accumulated DNA mutations and would therefore be in danger of becoming cancerous if cell division continued.
    Lately the role of telomeres in cellular senescence has aroused general interest, especially with a view to the possible genetically adverse effects of cloning. The successive shortening of the chromosomal telomeres with each cell cycle is also believed to limit the number of divisions of the cell, thus contributing to aging. There have, on the other hand, also been reports that cloning could alter the shortening of telomeres. Some cells do not age and are therefore described as being "biologically immortal." It is theorized by some that when it is discovered exactly what allows these cells, whether it be the result of telomere shortening or not, to divide without limit that it will be possible to genetically alter other cells to have the same capability. It is further theorized that it will eventually be possible to genetically engineer all cells in the human body to have this capability by employing gene therapy and thereby stop or reverse ageing, effectively making the entire organism potentially immortal.

    So you think its bad that people with lots of money can get better healthcare?

    You would rather that nobody can live forever than give the chance to a few at first, then it can be spread to everyone?
    True; think of it this way. Imagine a person today dying on the street. Now there is absolutely no reason not to give him CPR, because today’s technology allows for it; it is within our power. Imagine the same scene sometime in the future, and suppose that it is within our power of technology to repair every single cell in the body of a person who has just passed away. Would not reviving a dead person when you have the technology to do it be analogous to not giving CPR to someone today?

    I believe that many people are selling short our ability to overcome scientific hurdles. During the dark ages things like antibiotics and cloning were completely unknown, and no doubt would be considered impossible. No doubt it’s only a matter of time before other miracles are discovered. Death will probably be considered a disease.

    As far as overpopulation goes, perhaps a system can be developed where people are limited to the amount of children they can have. An infinite lifespan doesn’t rule out death by injury and disease, so no doubt everyone will eventually have an opportunity to have offspring. And then there’s the prospect of colonizing other planets; if we are advanced enough to stop the aging process, then by that time we may be closer to the technology needed to traverse greater distances in space or even terraform planets closer to home. All just speculation, of course.
    "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    -Schopenhauer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 gi 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    61
    My comment on the overpopulation argument is the following, lets say that the average lifespan becomes 500 years or so, people would also spend alot more time studying and such. Imagine how the rate of technological progress would rise if everybody was a student for as long as it takes to get a Phd in our age.

    We will find a solution to overpopulation and nurishment of the people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: gi 
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrashogun
    My comment on the overpopulation argument is the following, lets say that the average lifespan becomes 500 years or so, people would also spend alot more time studying and such. Imagine how the rate of technological progress would rise if everybody was a student for as long as it takes to get a Phd in our age.

    We will find a solution to overpopulation and nurishment of the people.
    Just as a commentary, you are assuming that living a heap of time is good, that studying a lot of time is good, and that developing more technology is good... per se.

    Call me a ichonoclast, but I ask "Why should more be better?" Actually, I do doubt that there are direct links between quantity and quality. The more the better? Reflexionate... :wink:
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Seems to me the problem is what do people do for all those years. If they added just another 50 years to my life, I would probably HAVE to go back to work. Guarantee me 40-45 years of working followed by 2,500 years of retirement, and I'm in, dude.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Immortality 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jubei Yagyu
    I’ve been studying the aging process lately and started doing some deep thinking. Who here feels that, through gene manipulation and biomechanics, that the human body is capable of becoming immortal (in the sense that one does not age, not that he is immune to injury and disease)?

    I feel that it is only a matter of time before science is capable of somehow halting or reversing the aging process, either through chemical or genetic means. Imagine how such a discovery would impact a world already being racked with overpopulation.
    I sure hope not. It would spell the end of the human race. Evil would become eternal and progress would become not existent as people would fight to obtain never ending power over the human race preventing change since that would ultimately threaten the overthrow of those in power. I believe that, it is death which ultimately brought down the iron curtain. The old guard must eventually die and children have a habit of reacting against the inadequacies, faults and flaws in their parents, no matter what pressures the parents exert in order to make them conform.

    This is only the beginning of the problems that immortality implies. It probably would not be democratic therefore it would exacerbate the class elements of our society and all vestiges of democracy would vanish. Otherwise the reality of population would mean no more children and that is not something anyone with any power is likely to accept. Quite likely it may lead to enforced retirement and euthanasia of the elderly and all the moral dilemnas that brings. In general, the value and respect for life must decline for that is what usually happens when something becomes too abundant.

    I also don't think that real immortality is possible. That is, even if we find the means to prolong life, it will only prolong decrepid old age and senility, which modern medicine has made too long already. Most members of my family are already thinking about how to end their life more gracefully (like walking into the mountains in winter) rather than endure the prolonged nightmare that modern medicine promises us.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    As stated above replicative senescence is a cellular process just like other, perfect knowledge of it could make it possible to stop this process and can keep all our cells young.

    For the morals, the comparables to modern health-care also being more available for well fortunate people is fault of modern society.
    Modern health-care has always been first available for the rich and mostly has spread out to the poor; so I can live with how healthcare is in Europe (with remarks but this an other discussion). But “replicative senescence stop” will not spread out from the rich to the poor. Because when everyone is able to expand his life to 500 years, there simple are not enough resources. So it is an intrinsic property of the technique to be only applicable to the happy few; in modern society meaning the rich; which is un-defendable.

    If the technique would be available for everybody. Even if we do not reproduce our population would be at a minimum 5 times higher. Today Half the population is underfed.
    Colonising other planets (again the rich) and let the rest to fight for the left-overs on planet earth and kill each others endless live. Everybody lifes for ever will end up in battle. Chaos and battle.
    But hey man that's progress.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Cantero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Just around the Corner...
    Posts
    6
    Just a question:

    Why are humans so afraid of death, that think in this mysterious and miraculous (sp?) ways to achieve eternal life??

    You know, in Nature itself (the enviroment, not the magazine :P) doesn't matter that an individual dies if the specie still exists.

    Why we suddenly become so self-absorbed when we try to discuss death?? Is it no good to us that we are like 6 billions of us world-wide?? Is it really necesary our existence in the world??

    Anyway... just a few questions... ^_^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantero
    Why are humans so afraid of death, that think in this mysterious and miraculous (sp?) ways to achieve eternal life??
    I guess we are so affraid of death, because we have no clue what happens after that...

    What if death is just an eternal blackout and nothing happens? Sounds boring and creepy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Well,you sure got the over-population part right! We are over-crowded, but if you will notice, scholars will no longer say so! Our society has become more conservative as we take up more again with the old religions. So, it is "offensive" to talk in public about over-population---especially to people who believe killing stem cells, cytoblasts and zigotes as "murder"---murdering "children."

    So, if we cannot solve the problem secularly-scientifically, we are left with the processes of Malthus. Also, consider the "behavioral pit" which some animals descend into when they feel crowded. Is that happening to us?

    But on the subject of ending death, I wonder how we could ever end death until at least we are able to scientifically duplicate the beginning of life. Also, there is probaby and economic cost involved that like so many therapies is so expensive that only the few rich (or our over-burdened government) can pay.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    p.s. I feel at home with biologists because there is a higher ratio of fellow atheists to biologists in the National Academy of Sciences than with any other science!
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    20
    Ok, i didn`t read all the posts but it seems you`ve started a debate over wether it is ethical or not, the fact is if immortality is possible it WILL happen (provided humans don`t make themselves extinct) consider how much is spent on anti aging products and surgery and life extending surgery transplants etc. The negative implications are irrelevant, despite the problems and dangers it will create if it is possible it will take place.

    Anyway if you want to find out what the pro-immortality people think i`d do a search for `aubrey de grey`, `methuselah prize`, and also might be worth checking out opinions on the upcoming technological singularity.

    Personally i support the perspective of the singularitarians, human advancment is accelerating, and if human equivelant ai is possible then our world is going to be turned upside down sometime this century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    ....the previous post seems to be directed to me, but I am having some trouble responding to it because I am not able to find what point "Question" is trying to make. If he would indicate what country he is from I might find a clue . . .

    charles
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman thequ1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    26
    Humans already are immortal, it's just individual greed
    that we're trying to make immortal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by thequ1ck
    Humans already are immortal, it's just individual greed
    that we're trying to make immortal.
    couldn't have said it better
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Such faith-based responses! And, here, in a science forum! Death is the end of life. We all see it happening. Everything eventually dies. Schaupenhaur put it that "life is merely postponed death." Life-after-death" is an oxymoran. Beyond it is only imagination and well-wishing. . .

    charles
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Such faith-based responses! And, here, in a science forum! Death is the end of life. We all see it happening. Everything eventually dies. Schaupenhaur put it that "life is merely postponed death." Life-after-death" is an oxymoran. Beyond it is only imagination and well-wishing. . .
    charles
    My answer wasn’t based faith based.
    Quote Originally Posted by thequ1ck
    Humans already are immortal, it's just individual greed
    that we're trying to make immortal.
    Maybe it is a wrong interpretation of my part (probably; it happens more). But I considered eternal live of humans because we (all) donate our living sperm cell and living egg cell which forms a new person. No new live is created, the two cells didn’t die to form the embryo, a new life form is created.
    So our human cells are living forever, our personal self die = see quote.
    This is the whole idea why eternal life theoretically is possible. There are mechanisms reprogramming our 20 year cells to cells showing no replicative senescence. If we crack them, it all starts...

    But then again you could interpret it in a religious way, I keep forgetting many people are religious.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    There is a big difference between not being vulnerable to aging (which is what the thread started asked about) and being "immortal". I wonder how many people would be willing to risk their life fighting in wars or committing crimes if they knew that there was no set limit to how long they might live if they were careful? I wonder how many people would suddenly become very very interested in environmental conservation and renewable energy if they knew that they were potentially going to be around on the planet for many hundreds of years? How many people would suddenly become very interested in staying fit, not smoking, using drugs, etc. if they weren't sure that they were going to die anyway?

    Also, like someone else pointed out, I think you would start seeing much more rapid scientific/technological progress. I'm working on my phd in chemistry at the moment, and it's very clear that the best scientists - the ones you go to when you're absolutely baffled by your data, can't figure out how to set up an experiment, or need help with a really difficult problem - are all the oldest guys who are about to retire. It's kind of perverse that their most productive time is right before they die/retire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman thequ1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    26
    Yeah, like an eternal flame being passed from wick to wick.
    Who want to smoulder for eternity when you could dazzle
    for a short while.

    edit - Thought for the day, how do you know you're not
    ALREADY dead?


    [quote="Him"]
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Such faith-based responses! And, here, in a science forum! Death is the end of life. We all see it happening. Everything eventually dies. Schaupenhaur put it that "life is
    .......
    But then again you could interpret it in a religious way, I keep forgetting many people are religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Scify Refugee makes an interesting point:

    ""the best scientists - the ones you go to when you're absolutely baffled by your data, can't figure out how to set up an experiment, or need help with a really difficult problem - are all the oldest guys who are about to retire. It's kind of perverse that their most productive time is right before they die/retire.""

    Have you considered the possibility that scientists, like everyone else, are NOT their best when they grow old? Consider that it just SEEMS that way because the younger scientists are not and never will be as good as those who are now retiring?

    The first half of the last century ended the Age of Pure science and we have coasted every since. What we are now doing in science is applying it. This is not the scientific age but the TECHNOLOGICAL age.

    So, now it might be that even technological science shows indication of a sort of generation gap that indicates it too is doomed.

    And what else can we expect? How can science blossom when people are going back to the old religious way of thinking? Religious Fundamentalism is creeping into our shool textbooks under the guise of "Creation Theory" and Intelligent Design. The aim of finding NATURAL causation for things is giving way to mythological thinking. PBS, Discovery and the History channels are showing acfademically dressed-up Bible Stores. News stores about Christ and the Apostles are freqently in the news magazines. Religion is becoming a "big thing" again. The last spark of the Age of Enlightenment is about to be extinguished.

    Perhaps you have noticed that a larger percentage of the students in your class are from other countries. US scientific leadership is weakening .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    ....the previous post seems to be directed to me, but I am having some trouble responding to it because I am not able to find what point "Question" is trying to make. If he would indicate what country he is from I might find a clue . . .

    charles
    I`m from the UK, no i wasn`t aiming at you in paticular. My point was just that it won`t really matter if it`s ethical or moral or whatever it will happen, if it possible. I`m just voicing the realization i`ve recently come to that no matter how dangerous some advance might be perceived to be, people will go ahead and develop it anyway.

    The thing is, most of the arguments about the problems immortality have already been met. A decline in infant mortality (which could leave to over population in developed countries) coincided with birth control, monarchies which pass on power to descendents end up deposed, the problem of a large percentage of the population being elderley, well thats a new one, but thats what a some of the research is about isn`t it? Not just delaying death but reversing aging.

    If all the technology being developed delivers what it`s promising we seem pretty much there already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman thequ1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    26
    This is all too true. Every device, tactic and possibility of the human
    mind, (barring the event of mass extinction) will eventually be realised.

    The only question is, how long will we have to wait for the next
    'natural disaster' (in quotes becasue they are really the result of apathy
    and spiritual nihilism) forces us to make the break?

    What a fascinating species we are, so complicite and analytical but also
    so willing to sail down the waterfall, caught over a barrel, looking for fish!


    [quote="Question"]
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    ....

    charles
    I`m just voicing the realization i`ve recently come to that no matter how dangerous some advance might be perceived to be, people will go ahead and develop it anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by thequ1ck
    I`m just voicing the realization i`ve recently come to that no matter how dangerous some advance might be perceived to be, people will go ahead and develop it anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Question
    Ok, i didn`t read all the posts but it seems you`ve started a debate over wether it is ethical or not, the fact is if immortality is possible it WILL happen.
    But this doesn’t mean you have to agree with it and also does not make the discussion meaningless.
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    it's very clear that the best scientists - the ones you go to when you're absolutely baffled by your data, can't figure out how to set up an experiment, or need help with a really difficult problem - are all the oldest guys who are about to retire
    Maybe it depends a bit on the topic and how fast your research area is developing I guess, just want to mention my experience with the oldest in the research group hasn’t been one of deeper inside. But one or two examples doesn’t proof anything. So indeed longer live will have it benefits on scientific research. But can also be factor slowing it down.

    I do not who and how he said, but some former researches ones said like this: New Ideas do convince the old ideas, the old ideas just die”. (relating to the quantum mechanics)
    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman thequ1ck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    26
    I war responding to Charles's post.

    My argument is the opposite, I think that we're not doing nearly
    enough to address the upcoming dangers and believe that we
    should be past the inertia of religion by now.
    There's a lot that takes place outside of logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    20
    Do i feel that immortality is possible? I don`t have an in depth scientific knowledge, so i can only listen to what the experts are saying, and mostly pick up what is happening from the media.

    But it does seem to me that it is really probable, from what we are being told, from the experiments that are being attempted. Cloning is possible, clning of mammals has been done, the technique hasn`t been refined, it`s not perfect. Though there has been a ban on human cloning (in some countries?) by cloning animals scientists will be able find better mothods.

    With that your already a big step toward immortality, clone yourself, grow the copy to maturity. Then just transplant the head of the old you onto the `new body`. Easier than doing a brain transplant, head transplants have been done successfully on animals. You`ve now got a fresh set of vital organs (apart from the brain).

    Stem cells from what i understand are totally new cells, without the accumulated damage of the cells in the body, and become similar to the cells around them. Which means you can use them to replace older cells in the brain making it `young` again.

    Thats a really simple summary of what the media has suggested to me (in bits and pieces) of what could be possible. The cloning of the body might never be done (since it`s unethical), stem cells have been used now to replace damaged cells in the hearts of people who have suffered heart attacks. There hearts are now supposed to be more youthful.

    The media is definitely trying to sell the idea that immortality is possible, i don`t think they`ve hardly dared use the word in the past, i`m betting it`s going to become a more popular idea in the future.

    One thing that`s struck me though is that no-one seems to deny that it`s possible (on this thread), is there anyone with a depth of scientific knowledge that can come up with an argument for why immortality just won`t work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Have you considered the possibility that scientists, like everyone else, are NOT their best when they grow old? Consider that it just SEEMS that way because the younger scientists are not and never will be as good as those who are now retiring?

    The first half of the last century ended the Age of Pure science and we have coasted every since. What we are now doing in science is applying it. This is not the scientific age but the TECHNOLOGICAL age.
    I think you are simply showing your own ignorance here. There is still a HUGE amount of pure science going on. Just pick up any recent copy of Science or Nature, or the specialized journal of your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    if you could bioengineer the zygote before birth, you could change the aging process. if you had a person wait until later in life to have a baby, and convince that person to wait, and so on, aging would slow. as dictated geneticly, a person just reproduces and dies, and thats all humans are good for, says your genes. so if we waited, the next generation would have a week longer life, and so on. but bioengineering would save us the wait. if we convinced the zygote that we wouldnt reproduce untill 80, it would keep us alive longer.
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    With medical costs rising faster than any other cost sector in the US economy, it looks like the length of life will begin to shorten in the future instead of grow longer. The middle class is declining, SS costs and drug benefit plans are an increasing drain on the treasury, and people are actually going abroad to have their operations.

    To achieve the science you mention will take time, money and expertise, and both are in shortening supply. Pure science stopped over a century ago. The last of the great scientific age ended about 1905 with the publication of Albert Einstein's work. Since they, science has coasted on applying and developing all the implications of the Age of Pure science.

    Now, students are not interested in physics, engineering, etc. They take business courses and the social science or social studies. Most science students are from other countries studying in the US. Science is in retreat in the media and educational system. Evolution has become controversial. Christian Fundamentalism is growing more and more popular and the Mega Churches are spreading a militant Christianity all over the world. In other countries, they flock to the Christian evangelical events by the hundreds of thousands. Both Christian and Muslim militancy are growing fast in the world, and science is being turned away because there is no compatability between the two.

    This return to religiousness is going to come at a heavy price. Already, these religious fanatics are telling us that The End Times is practically here. They smile with pleasure as they talk about the vast war that will be "between good and evil." To them, that we are loaded with atomic weapons and biological agents is an eirrlevency. It never occurs to them that the war they want would possibly exterminate the human race---and, LOW and BEHOLD, not be followed by the Millenium. Instead, just followed by endless suffering here on Earth.

    charles http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    85
    you guys may need to check here
    here is a video
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame...html?id%3D5170
    HI, to know me more, you may check this: http://groups.msn.com/Internationall...on/page11.msnw

    And this is the homepage of my site:
    http://groups.msn.com/Internationall..._whatsnew.msnw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough

    Pure science stopped over a century ago. The last of the great scientific age ended about 1905 with the publication of Albert Einstein's work. Since they, science has coasted on applying and developing all the implications of the Age of Pure science.
    http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Very true. alot of theorys are just combining previous works. basiclly the only new discoveries are quantam physics.
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    What a bizarre notion!

    What about the dramtatic advances in the understanding genetic character?
    What about the impact of those discoveries on refining and detailing out understanding of evolution?
    What about the wholly unlooked for discoveries in planetology, whether it be the geology of Mars, the diversity of major satellites, the existence of hot gas giant exoplanets, etc
    What about plate tectonics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    It's obvious that you haven't even bothered to check your facts. It's really ironic that you're complaining about science declining, but you yourself are just spouting off things that you apparently assume to be true without actually checking.

    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    To achieve the science you mention will take time, money and expertise, and both are in shortening supply. Pure science stopped over a century ago. The last of the great scientific age ended about 1905 with the publication of Albert Einstein's work. Since they, science has coasted on applying and developing all the implications of the Age of Pure science.
    Two obvious examples to prove you wrong off the top of my head:

    -1913 to 1930: Quantum physics is developed.

    -1953: Watson and Crick characterized DNA and discovered that it is responsible for determining the characteristics of all living organisms.

    I'm sure that there are plenty of others, that's just what immediately comes to mind.

    You seem to be complaining that there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs in physics, but that's just silly. Breakthroughs on the magnitude of relativity or quantum theory don't happen very often - it took us hundreds of years to get from Newton to Einstein and Bohr, but you seem to expect a major breakthrough to come along every few decades, which is not reasonable.
    Now, students are not interested in physics, engineering, etc. They take business courses and the social science or social studies. Most science students are from other countries studying in the US.
    Wrong again. Enrolment in science and engineering programs in U.S. universities, both graduate and undergraduate, are higher than they have ever been, in terms of both total number of students and % of population. Most science and engineering students in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, and the percentage of foreign students has been declining over the last ten years. Also, most foreign students who come to the U.S. to study science or engineering stay in the U.S. and get citizenship after they graduate.

    Science is in retreat in the media and educational system. Evolution has become controversial. Christian Fundamentalism is growing more and more popular and the Mega Churches are spreading a militant Christianity all over the world. In other countries, they flock to the Christian evangelical events by the hundreds of thousands. Both Christian and Muslim militancy are growing fast in the world, and science is being turned away because there is no compatability between the two.
    Teaching evolution used to be punishable by imprisonment. Now fundamentalists are reduced to trying to quibble over generic "intelligent design" theories, and even those are always shot down in court if they manage to make it past the school board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •