Thread: Can human be immortal in the future?

Do you want to live another 100 years or more? Some experts said that scientific development may make humans immortal in the future.
"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a professor and author of two books on the future.
At the conference in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School, said advances in using genes as well as nanotechnology could make humans in the future live beyond what we could imagine in the past. “Some have suggested that people should live 300 or 500 years,� he said.
However, many scientists who specialize in aging are doubtful about it. "Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease," they said, "failure of the brains and organs will finally lead all humans to death."
Scientists also had different ideas about what kind of life the super aged might live. "It remains to be seen. Could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life after 120 years old?� said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Centre. "At present, people who are over 120 years old are not in good health at all.�

hm... if they do manege to do this, so if 500years will be the life capacity
in the future... what will like a 200 year old will look like? like a 30 year old dude
or a 80 year?

There are a whole lot of issues that need to be tackled before lifespans will start to expand, and a whole lot more than just biological hurdles stand in the way.

For starters, our economy is pretty dependent on the fact that people live for about 80 years or so. Compound interest would cripple the banks if people were leaving even small amounts of money in savings accounts for 300 to 500 years. $500 earning 5% interest over 400 years comes to over 1 trillion dollars ($1,495,166,756,244.22).

How would occupational standards respond to 500 year lifespans? Would we still retire at 65, and live another 435 years on social security? Would people just have to get used to working for 400 years instead of 45? How much more money would have to be put into circulation to keep up with the amount of money individuals are saving over that timespan? If the average worker makes 1 million USD in his lifetime, then each would now make 11 million USD over 500 years. And what about those who can't work? Social security is tight as it is, could you imagine if another 400 years of SS collection were tacked onto the tab for each person who's currently collecting it, plus the number of people who would start collecting SS at a later time within that period?

How about education? Would increased lifespans lead to additional years of education being appended to the public school curriculum? Would the extra 400 years to attend colleges and universities mean there would be a huge glut of people with doctorate degrees, leading to an over-saturated job market among the jobs with the highest requirements for entry?

Do human brains have the capacity to hold hundreds of years of memories? We have incredibly vast amounts of storage in there, but if I recall correctly, many savants who had perfect memories and could tell you the day of the week of a certain event decades ago, in their later life began experiencing cognitive difficulties that were tied to over-saturated memory.

Would reproduction levels have to be forcefully curved by government concerned about overpopulation? Would longer lifespans start to naturally cause lower reproduction rates in humans? What kind of effect would this have on the evolutionary rate of the human species? Longer lives means less generations over time, which would cause our rate of evolution to slow, leading to unknown (to me anyway) circumstances.

There are alot of consequences to extended lives. But personally I'm an avid proponent of life extension.

Yeah, it will most likely happen. But why 500 years? If we have the technology to live that long why stop there. Most of this technology was a result of fairly recent discoveries. Meaning that for every extra hundred years of life we'll probably be extending it a few hundred more to the point where it's useless to count.

Here's the problems that haven't been brought up? It's all about the money. There are some rich people who are already attempting "radical life extension." But it costs more than most can afford. What about third-world countries? Do we all start living a few thousand years while they all die at age forty?

I don't think we need to worry about banks or the job market. This is a progression of man not the rich. Eventually all will have it. Babies won't be born, they will be grown. How do you stop people from having babies. Simply do a little genetic modification and we all become perfect Buddhists, with no desires whatsoever. Life won't be about work anymore. It will be more like a nirvana of sorts. The technology will keep us alive. Deus Ex Machina. God by Machine. As nature evolves so will the technology. It's kind of creepy when you think of it. And, I suspect there will be many hurdles and much conflict along the way.

I used to read about the past or the future (fiction of course) and wish I was born in different time but I've been slowly realizing something. We are in an amazing time. It is suggested that most works of fiction come true in some sense. Take cloning. First it was all about taking the egg and trying to make it grow. Now we know that we don't even need the egg. By the time a human clone is made (which is inevitable) it won't be a clone like you read in fiction, it will likely be even more fantastic.
How about a program with the human genome in it. We add a theoretical chemical or mechanism and see what the program does. Well, I guess we don't need animal testing any more.
It's amazing what will happen. I can't even begin to imagine the depth of it.

Originally Posted by could147

Do you want to live another 100 years or more?

No.

The generational overlap we've established is a "sweet spot" so unless conditions changed to suggest a better rate or pattern, no, hell no.

Individuals must make way for younger generations in spite of our knowing better. On the other hand, we have to stick around long enough to ensure their success, AND we shouldn't be a burden or disruptive while they raise their own children. Then we're free to go.

If you could limit immortality to just the "queer aunties" and "funny uncles", have them as the infertile worker bees, then maybe. Promote a homosexual gene and bind longevity to it? Then we're wanting maybe one-in-ten babies born non-breeder, depending on their added years.

I'd rather have a freepass of a painful death or dehumanizing diseases when I die than a longer life. Of course, if they could be combined, that'd be super- also, by dehumanizing diseases, I don't mean any offense; it's just that dementation and other bad things like those feel like it's just.. I can't quite come to the right words in english. I hope you can sortof guess what I'm getting at ^-^;

In any event, rather a painless death than eternal life.

immortality of the cell exists, as when the fertilisation of a egg cell takes places, the cell is reprogrammed to a cell of 0 years.
So in theory our cells can live forever; however if such processes should ever be invented, we’re still stuck with deadly diseases etc.

How about downloading your personality, memories, etc on a harddrive and make yourself into a robot? That way you could live forever, or?

Originally Posted by Obviously

How about downloading your personality, memories, etc on a harddrive and make yourself into a robot? That way you could live forever, or?

You run into a crisis of identity there though. Since the robot would be born while you're still alive, there are now two entities with the same consciousness. You are definitely you, but now this machine has your consciousness. In reality, this isn't a solution for you: you're still going to die, while this robot lives on with your memories and desires and assumes your identity. There's no transferal of consciousness (or 'spirit' if you believe in such things), just a really accurate clone.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

Originally Posted by Obviously

How about downloading your personality, memories, etc on a harddrive and make yourself into a robot? That way you could live forever, or?

You run into a crisis of identity there though. Since the robot would be born while you're still alive, there are now two entities with the same consciousness. You are definitely you, but now this machine has your consciousness. In reality, this isn't a solution for you: you're still going to die, while this robot lives on with your memories and desires and assumes your identity. There's no transferal of consciousness (or 'spirit' if you believe in such things), just a really accurate clone.

I don't believe in a soul or anything (there's no reason why I should). If the robot got my personality, memories, ability to learn, etc it would be me. I'll just live on as a robot

EDIT:

Apologies, I didn't recognize the point being raised.

Indeed there will be two consciousnesses. The problem though can be solved with a direct transfer from the biological you to the machine. During the transfer the biological you dies. Technically it will be death and rebirth, but since it happens over a short period of time, you will feel like it was nothing more than a transfer.

Originally Posted by Obviously

you will feel like it was nothing more than a transfer

That sure sounds like reincarnation of a soul to me.

I originally pondered this question in response to games like Unreal Tournament, where the game explains that your character fights to the death in combat, and when he dies, a machine creates a perfect clone of him to rush back into battle.

Consider what would happen if you and clone were to stand face to face. Your individual consciousness resides only in you, not your clone. You don't see through his eyes, you don't think his thoughts, you don't feel his limbs. If you were to shoot him, you wouldn't feel any pain. The clone, despite being a perfect copy of you, is not you. When you clone yourself, you don't live on anymore than you would if you had a child. When you die, you are still dead. You won't "wake up" inside the head of your clone and suddenly feel all the things he's feeling. A clone is just a vessel to carry on your memories and desires, not your individual consciousness. This is a good example of the Ship of Theseus paradox.

I agree Frenchi. That is why I'll never climb into a teleporter. :wink:

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I originally pondered this question in response to games like Unreal Tournament, where the game explains that your character fights to the death in combat, and when he dies, a machine creates a perfect clone of him to rush back into battle.

Consider what would happen if you and clone were to stand face to face. Your individual consciousness resides only in you, not your clone. You don't see through his eyes, you don't think his thoughts, you don't feel his limbs. If you were to shoot him, you wouldn't feel any pain. The clone, despite being a perfect copy of you, is not you. When you clone yourself, you don't live on anymore than you would if you had a child. When you die, you are still dead. You won't "wake up" inside the head of your clone and suddenly feel all the things he's feeling. A clone is just a vessel to carry on your memories and desires, not your individual consciousness. This is a good example of the Ship of Theseus paradox.

However, as I pointed out, if over a short period of time you get transfered when close to death, it will feel different. When you quickly get killed and your consciousness gets transferred, your memories will pick up where they left. That's why it will be percieved differently than simply making a clone out of yourself. But if your consciousness is already "stored" and you die some time later, then it will not go as I said. Time determines how the event is percieved.

You can't transfer your consciousness out of your brain without destroying the original 'you'. The only way I could see this working is if your organic body were replaced with machine, cyber-organic, or new organic parts without disrupting blood flow to the brain for an extensive period of time. If your brain could be safely removed from your skull and stuck into a prosthetic body a-la Ghost in the Shell, then sure. A lot of methods are feasible, including sticking your brain in a jar, as long as your original brain stays intact and nourished during extraction and after implantation. However, uploading your memory into a hard-drive is still creating a doppleganger that is not you, no matter how slowly or quickly you go about it.

These objections are irrelevant if we are soulless and every moment "new".

I think sense of self is reflection. Not abstract wishy washy reflection I mean literal concrete reflection as in light bouncing off a mirror or neural impulses folding back on themselves 'cause they ran out of frontal lobe. So a duplicate has this same "self conscious" structure, unless you lobotomize it.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think sense of self is reflection. Not abstract wishy washy reflection I mean literal concrete reflection as in light bouncing off a mirror or neural impulses folding back on themselves 'cause they ran out of frontal lobe. So a duplicate has this same "self conscious" structure, unless you lobotomize it.

I'm not saying a duplicate is not a person, it's just not you. Cloning yourself as a method of preserving your existence is useless. Your consciousness will still putter out when you die while a husk endowed with your memories assumes your name, your pretty wife, and your new car. This clone thinks like you, feels like you would in any situation, treats your kids like you would, draws and plays piano like you, does everything you would do. It is a real person, but not you. To everyone else in the world, you are still alive and well, but to you, well, it doesn't matter to you because your consciousness has moved on to oblivion.

I hope I haven't mistaken your point.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

However, uploading your memory into a hard-drive is still creating a doppleganger that is not you, no matter how slowly or quickly you go about it.

Wrong.

I think you thoroughly misunderstood what I said. Technically, killing the biological you while transfering your consciousness to a computer (with all the same functions which make up you) will be you, as in you, and you'll make a duplicate, in a short period of time. However, the time in which this is done will affect how it is percieved (by you), and if it's done fast enough it will be percieved not as "death" and "rebirth", but as a transfer.

"Time" and "Perception" are keywords here.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Wrong.

I think you thoroughly misunderstood what I said. Technically, killing the biological you while transfering your consciousness to a computer (with all the same functions which make up you) will be you, as in you, and you'll make a duplicate, in a short period of time. However, the time in which this is done will affect how it is percieved, and if it's done fast enough it will be percieved not as "death" and "rebirth", but as a transfer.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Killing the biological you in order to do anything is the end of you, no matter what. No level of precision in copying your memories is ever going to make you wake up inside of any clone or robot. Your clone will wake up and say "Whew, glad I made it through the procedure okay!", but your consciousness as you know it right now will be nevermore.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Killing the biological you in order to do anything is the end of you, no matter what. No level of precision in copying your memories is ever going to make you wake up inside of any clone or robot. Your clone will wake up and say "Whew, glad I made it through the procedure okay!", but your consciousness as you know it right now will be nevermore.

In technicality, you are right. I'm just adding how the subject will percieve the event into my calculations.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I'm not saying a duplicate is not a person, it's just not you.

Agreed. And none of them are. Because "you" can't step into the same river twice. "You" are different every moment. This is why the question "which is the real me?" is irrelevant.

So there's no existential problem with having more Pongs or longer Pongs, if Pong can pull that off.

Originally Posted by Frenchi

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Killing the biological you in order to do anything is the end of you, no matter what. No level of precision in copying your memories is ever going to make you wake up inside of any clone or robot. Your clone will wake up and say "Whew, glad I made it through the procedure okay!", but your consciousness as you know it right now will be nevermore.

Like I said, I agree with you, in that your clone with your memories will essentially be you and be happy that the procedure worked and such, but for the you in your current body the lights will go out and stay out. But then what is the difference between this and being anaesthetised and waking or waking from a deep dreamless sleep? Nothing as far as I can tell...

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Like I said, I agree with you, in that your clone with your memories will essentially be you and be happy that the procedure worked and such, but for the you in your current body the lights will go out and stay out. But then what is the difference between this and being anaesthetised and waking or waking from a deep dreamless sleep? Nothing as far as I can tell...

Except here you're not waking up. In this case its more like a wizard appears, steals your memories and your image, and then winks at you and makes a little 'shh!' motion with his finger as you die. You don't continue to live through the clone. The identity of you in the minds of others does, because another sack of meat programmed with your memories is taking your place, but as far as you are concerned, the clone might as well be a sick impostor. It's great if you want someone to be around to keep your wife company after the cancer takes its toll on you, but no good if you desperately want to know the secret of life before you die, but the guy who promised to tell you isn't flying in till next week.

I do get what you are saying. One could make it a bit more interesting then. Let's say you do a brain transplant from you current body to the new one. Still the same? I think so too. Lets say then you can take only the parts that hold your memory and then transplant these parts into the new brain. Still you then? Mmm... Memories are probably stored by some physical means in the brain somewhere, so if you where to take these exact cells and then transplant those? Still you?

I do get what you are saying. One could make it a bit more interesting then. Let's say you do a brain transplant from you current body to the new one. Still the same? I think so too. Lets say then you can take only the parts that hold your memory and then transplant these parts into the new brain. Still you then? Mmm... Memories are probably stored by some physical means in the brain somewhere, so if you where to take these exact cells and then transplant those? Still you?

The entire brain I would agree with, as for the specific faculties in the brain I don't have requisite knowledge to speculate about. I doubt that memories and personality are located in the same area and encoded the same way of the brain. With just the memory cells, you'd probably remember what you were like, but it would be no more accurate than saying that if I took the SATA drive out of my HP and put it in my Compaq I have the same computer just because my files are still there. In that brain somewhere there's a self-actualizing mechanism responsible for the inner vocalization you hear of yourself when you think about how much I'm rambling and repeating myself.

You have a unique distribution and interconnecting network of neurons that makes you you. If we knew exactly which cells in the brain were responsible for identity, I think cognitive science would be a bit further along than it is now =)

You have a unique distribution and interconnecting network of neurons that makes you you. If we knew exactly which cells in the brain were responsible for identity, I think cognitive science would be a bit further along than it is now =)

True. I guess though that we are throwing away plausibility and suggesting that the two bodies are exactly the same, like scars and such, and that any technology is possible, e.g. transporters. If one were to implant the whole you into the new brain by copying the exact neural structure and contrast this with transplanting the brain (destroying the original body with both), the two brains would be exactly the same thing, down to the finest detail. Where does the fine line then lie? I guess when looked at in fine enough detail the only consideration would then be one of ethics or if you were religiously inclined, no? I still do not think I’d step into a transporter though…

LOL life so long mean u have to study long work long suffer long

Life expectancy can change, but potential lifespans will stay the same. The difference is simple - life expectancy is basically the average length of time someone will live under a certain set of conditions. A potential lifespan is the limit to how long we humans could potentially live under ideal conditions.

To quote a book I was reading last night (and right now), "..after reaching sexual maturity, organisms develop deficits in their physiological functions that increase the probability of their dying. In the human species the functional deficits show a slow but nearly linear increase from 30 years of age."

Medicine and technology are helping us get closer to our potential, but that potential is not infinite. Certain cells cannot divide indefinitely even under the best of conditions; cell death is inevitable, even intrinsic to development. There is no singular cause to aging, it's more of a collection of changes that leads to death.

I'm not aware of any scientific methods that are capable of forcing humans to evolve in any way, and certainly not in a specific way to achieve a specific thing! So.. until that changes and we've evolved into something with a greater lifespan, all we can do is figure out how to fully live up to our limited potential. I suggest that science will be responsible for this because I imagine that our bodies will only become weaker as time goes on -- med & tech are solving so many of our problems that our bodies aren't being forced to adapt to harsher environments. The only things that seem to be adapting are the various things that are killing us!

Just my two copper.

Welcome to the forum Ibbick.

Originally Posted by Ibbick

To quote a book I was reading last night (and right now), "..after reaching sexual maturity, organisms develop deficits in their physiological functions that increase the probability of their dying. In the human species the functional deficits show a slow but nearly linear increase from 30 years of age."

30 years isn't sexual maturity though. It's about the age you could die and still have firstborn survive to carry on your genes. So the momma spider hangs on long enough her offspring may eat her still-fresh corpse.

If evolution sets our (able-bodied) lifespan to the childrearing schedule, then we've got excellent leverage in "tilting the machine". For example, have a culture wherein children are cared for not by parents, but by grandparents. Then you would see a strange prevalence of lively old ladies... as indeed we do in certain cultures. Or, ditch one-child-policy in favor of incentives to have children later in life. Individuals who are healthier, longer, would rear the most successful generations and pass those longevity genes along.

I'm actually no fan of longevity and guess humankind would do better if breeders simply dropped dead, perhaps after helping out a bit with our childrens' first baby. Compliment that with well-educated and practically immortal homosexuals. In any case longevity ought to fit some broader generational scheme, since lifespan in other species clearly does.

Thanks.

Speaking of longevity genes, I was browsing through some PBS vids (bored. don't mock me!) a while ago and watched one on a group of aged men and women who, despite their various lifestyles, seemingly had some genetic anomalies which allowed them to live longer than everyone else. High HDL counts (larger, too). The SIR2/Sirtuin & DAF2 genes also played an integral part.

About the breeders:
The number of children that a person has and when they have them is usually related to the environment. In a safe (modern) society, parents prefer less children so they can spend more time teaching and caring for them. They tend to have them later in life when they're more financially secure. They can afford to wait.

In more hazardous (less wealthy) areas, couples are known to have many children, as soon as possible. They are often without advanced medical care, sanitary housing, and/or proper education -- though much of this has changed in the last few decades. Even so, it seems to be instinctual for the stereotypical redneck and inner-city families to have as many kids as possible, despite the obvious economic strain it puts them in. If one child is shot by a gang there are others to 'pick up the slack', so to speak. If another is in jail, they have more children. If just ONE gets a good job or makes it to college, the parents will have some support later in life. Or so they hope.

Short of carpet-bombing most of the Americas, the entirety of Africa, and China just for good measure.. the only solution is to *lols* create a society where nobody feels like they have to struggle to spread their genes. Until then, I'm afraid we're stuck with them. :?

*ponders* I imagine that in such an ideal society, where everyone is equally capable of spreading their genes.. the only way one could insure the dominance of their line is by force! Rape would be a national past-time. Okay, I'm done.

I have a follow-up question about this with immortality.

How would the medicine occupation get affected with these new methods? Will it completely die out and all the 'med doctors' become programmers?

The numbers of open surgeries has dramatically decreased, more surgeries are now assisted by 'robots' but the operator control them, but anyway, is it possible in the future to have artificial intelligent robots which can do the operations by 'him'self?

I've heard rumors that it should be able to program nano-bots which will go through the body, and I guess you will have to be good at programming before you can do these kind of operations.

I agree that it is all very exciting, that humans could live till 500, but I do have concerns about the health side of things, we all know that as you get older bits of you stop working as well as they used to, what would the quality of life be like.

Ive never heard of Mike Zey, Im going to have to look that up. I cant wait to discuss more here but I have to go soon.

Have you all heard of one of the worlds leading researchers on ending aging science, the Dr. Aubrey deGrey? Hes been on shows like Colbert and Barbara Walters talking about this.

Hes going to be interviewed live with in the hour today, and you can interact. Thats here:

imminst.org/tv

If you go there, please chat about it here, not there. I will be back here later hopefully. Lots of great perspectives here.

Originally Posted by markk

I agree that it is all very exciting, that humans could live till 500, but I do have concerns about the health side of things, we all know that as you get older bits of you stop working as well as they used to, what would the quality of life be like.

I do believe people will live a lot longer, due to an increase in scientific and medical knowledge, over the next 500 years.
Surely this does not simply mean individuals living more years but implies a significant slowing down of the ageing process, as well, so that the "quality of life" would be maintained over a much longer period.

Originally Posted by could147

Do you want to live another 100 years or more? Some experts said that scientific development may make humans immortal in the future.
"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a professor and author of two books on the future.
At the conference in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School, said advances in using genes as well as nanotechnology could make humans in the future live beyond what we could imagine in the past. “Some have suggested that people should live 300 or 500 years,� he said.
However, many scientists who specialize in aging are doubtful about it. "Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease," they said, "failure of the brains and organs will finally lead all humans to death."
Scientists also had different ideas about what kind of life the super aged might live. "It remains to be seen. Could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life after 120 years old?� said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Centre. "At present, people who are over 120 years old are not in good health at all.�

unless we become mini-terminators then I feel sudden accidents like crush injuries and illness will still cause some fatalities for the sake of considering this as a likelyhood for a moment . I am also wondering if we live for as long as suggestions put forward and continue to increase in numbers then our capacity to feed ourselves would also need to match that increase .

Transferring memory to a Robort still doesn't make it 100% of you because not 100% of the memory will tranfered to the Robort even at the last minute of once death.....minute secound of the memory will go misplaced.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by markk

I agree that it is all very exciting, that humans could live till 500, but I do have concerns about the health side of things, we all know that as you get older bits of you stop working as well as they used to, what would the quality of life be like.

I do believe people will live a lot longer, due to an increase in scientific and medical knowledge, over the next 500 years.
Surely this does not simply mean individuals living more years but implies a significant slowing down of the ageing process, as well, so that the "quality of life" would be maintained over a much longer period.

Maybe not. We've seen several flu pandemic within a decade and increasing environmental problems and the stress of living in today's society may actually reverse the uptrend of the average lifespan of a person.

Maximum lifespan has remained unchanged despite medical progress.

What has changed is average lifespan.

But maximum lifespan will change. Im helping a matching grant for laser ablation of lipofuscin right now. As with most research, it probably wont work, but its the right path to be on, and if it does work it will be big. One of the reasons our cells senesce is that they fill up with junk, one main form of junk is lipofuscin. If we can get that out using lasers, it may increase our max lifespans by 10, 100, or 1,000 years right there. The prospects are exciting, and getting more exciting all the time as the cause picks up in pace.

Not sure whether it would be possible. But advancement in Science and Technology could change everything. However, there would definitely be issues related to overpopulation. I just can't imagine the whole world being filled by humans.

Humans are not meant to be immortal. We are generally too unstable to survive socially and mentally. That is very very few of us are stoic or even rational about most things. Someone who lives for hundreds of years must bear hundreds of years of sorrow and guilt on their shoulders. most people have enough with a normal life span. I cant imagine what it would do to someone who lived 500 years. FYI i have seen many very old people in my life the average life expectancy in my family is something like 101. My great grandfather is currently 109. This to say that from what i have seen living that old unless you work or have something to do and look forward to is worse than death. At least in death those of us who believe in an after life have something to look forward to.

Immortality, within one’s own body, certainly would require the following:
1) Turning the genes that make you age and die off, and turning the genes that keep you young and alive on.
2) Protecting the body from cancers and diseases, especially as they change and evolve.
3) Reversing aging already present, so that it does not continue to do damage to someone.
4) Repairing damage that happens, like growing hearts in the lab for transplant.
5) Advanced medical nanotechnology research to make it all a reality.
6) Somewhere safe for the immortals to live, to prevent overpopulation.

Longevity is inevitable and should be encouraged. Social mores will change as the average lifespan expands beyond the 80ish years we currently experience. I have no doubts that feelings towards age of having children, use/value of accumulation of money/wealth, inherent value of educating oneself, etc., will drastically change from what we believe now. I firmly believe that true immortality will be achieved, and that it will do so with a few steps (incrementation will likely occur, but these two are the focus as I conceive of the process)
Tissue Regeneration
Current emerging biological techniques/technologies allow us to do something never done before: autogenous tissue transplantation. This provides a means to harvest a cell of specific tissue type (liver, kidney, vascular, neural etc.) expose it to a specified sequential media process and in the presence of denucleated scaffold matrices (cartilege for example) grow entirely intact organs that can be transplanted into the donor of the originating cell(s). This eliminates graft vs. host rejection, and also makes capable zero day old organs that can be repeatedly used to exchange with aging or diseased tissues.

Transfer of Consciousness
Neuroanatomy and neurochemistry will continue to evolve to the point that a digital map can be created of the human brain specific to the individual. This will allow the transfer of consciousness as discussed in the first two pages of postings on this thread. The downloaded consciousness could be into a non biological organism (NBO as described by Ray Kurzweil in the Age of Spiritual Machines) such as an android (think of a terminator with your consciousness in it).

Immortality will thus be achieved since there is now nothing that can die in a non biological entity. So long as the data image that is your consciousness does not get corrupted, you will not 'die'. Also, you simply 'save' your new digital map at a fixed interval (or even in real time) then you can 'load' yourself were anything detrimental to happen to your 'terminator'. Aspects of this line of reasoning have been utilized in science fiction shows. The best, in my opinion, was on Battlestar Galactica where the cylons' consciousness was beamed to the resurrection ships upon their death. I realize the implications that this lifestyle would have on our understanding of the value and preciousness of life. However, I think it inevitable that we will evolve to continuously change our definition of the meaning of life. It is also an inherent truth that there are those among us now that will refuse to ever adopt this altered form of life for themselves. That will cause the formation of a schism between the non biological humans and the traditional biological humans. However there are obvious advantages to the former and it will outpace the latter in the long run (as it should given that it is still the basic adherence to Darwinian evolution) leaving no remaining biological humans in existence. Weather one wishes to argue this will be the end of all human kind is debatable, but in my opinion humans are not humans because we have carbon based cells composed of 23 pairs of chromosomes. Rather, humans are humans because of the ability to form a consciousness that works collectively with other entities able to form consciousness. The carbon tissues are simply the shell that house this and those can be interchangeable without altering the core.

Sidebar Argument
Perception is reality, so your consciousness is you. The 'Ship of Theseus' argument indicated earlier in the thread simply does not apply as consciousness lies outside a tangible item that is/can be recycled. Where my reasoning obviously fails is depicted nicely in 'The Sixth Day' when Tony Goldwyn's character is cloned and awakes before the template has died. This caused a conflict of identity issue to emerge as the template still felt himself to be real and the only one while the copy also felt himself to be real and the only one. So to avoid that paradox, you simply anesthetize the template (biological you) digitally map the brain, and transfer as a file to a hard drive. Then put the template into stasis or simply destroy them. Then download a copy of the consciousness to the NBO (which for ease of transition can be made to look identically like the biological version). You will awaken no different than you do every morning and will experience the world as 'you' with no feeling of not being you since perception is reality. "Blade Runner" shows how an entity exists completely oblivious to their non-human existence. While I disagree with doing this without the consent and awareness of the individual, it does show how easily one could be convinced they are simply who they perceive themselves to be.

Additional
I also think it is quite possible that we will achieve immortality in a matrix like construct. We all forfeit our biological entities and live our consciousness inside a 'matrix' system. We would all be cognisant of how we got there and who we were. However life would become less independent and more of an amalgamation of conscious thought; something of a soup of philosophical pondering. The 'individual' could at any time leave this existence to pursue a more tangible sensory existence outside the matrix, but this would all be dependent upon the location of that existence (Earth, or elsewhere in space etc.)

Being an immortal? I think it isn't gonna happen... ^^, If we say immortal, it's cool unless our body can survive... Cheers

hai.
Imagine what the advancement in human civilisation in all universe,iff the legal issues to resolve in making brain transplant with stemm cells,and clonig first life you make some money,next time you take brain and transplant to younger body you have all personality left and can make life in filosofies and art and science,think how clever we would get off living more lives or even shift through sexes ,human culture would evolve extremely due to issues with extension off life to over 1000 years or maybee even 10000 years.think off how easyer it would get in traveling to stars far away iff we now have more time to get out there,the humans would spread much faster sending ships to distant stars we would be finding new planets and life forms,even making terraforming and make new civilisationz this will make us predominant race and maybe even changing too new races and life will explode in many galaxies and culture would explode all over.and we not alone iff our life span suddenly is more .a culture cannot step in to ,almost eternity and long life,iff we not accept the rules this is almost so important that the possibilities off new religions spanding over millions off years all born only from they idea off extend life through brain transplant.maybee even create religion that deals with the problems in getting more lives or landing on other planets in speciel design bodys for creation of new colonies and then return back to earth after 2000 years in space and get new body maybee even people is alive to meet again but death issues not gone accidents and sickness stil exist iff this happens we would surely bee seeds off the universe please i beg all people with moral issuies to not stop humans best step in to evolve to stronger beings and civilisationz the matter for our survival is too important because even with these moves our race could suddenly stop exist

There is a discussion of this subject at:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=230883#230883

Originally Posted by could147

Do you want to live another 100 years or more? Some experts said that scientific development may make humans immortal in the future.
"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a professor and author of two books on the future.
At the conference in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School, said advances in using genes as well as nanotechnology could make humans in the future live beyond what we could imagine in the past. “Some have suggested that people should live 300 or 500 years,� he said.
However, many scientists who specialize in aging are doubtful about it. "Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease," they said, "failure of the brains and organs will finally lead all humans to death."
Scientists also had different ideas about what kind of life the super aged might live. "It remains to be seen. Could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life after 120 years old?� said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Centre. "At present, people who are over 120 years old are not in good health at all.�

YES! we can become immortal someday!!! the reason of decay and aging is programmed in our genes, programmed to keep on aging from birth till natural diseases and defects such as alzhimers etc occur because of such aging. But our genes can be reprogrammed to STOP aging when we reach our "prime" state physically, mentally, emotionally at prime, no worries bout cancer stuff, all those sleeping cells and all the other defects of our bodies can be corrected through genetic engineering

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Yeah, it will most likely happen. But why 500 years? If we have the technology to live that long why stop there. Most of this technology was a result of fairly recent discoveries. Meaning that for every extra hundred years of life we'll probably be extending it a few hundred more to the point where it's useless to count.

Here's the problems that haven't been brought up? It's all about the money. There are some rich people who are already attempting "radical life extension." But it costs more than most can afford. What about third-world countries? Do we all start living a few thousand years while they all die at age forty?

I don't think we need to worry about banks or the job market. This is a progression of man not the rich. Eventually all will have it. Babies won't be born, they will be grown. How do you stop people from having babies. Simply do a little genetic modification and we all become perfect Buddhists, with no desires whatsoever. Life won't be about work anymore. It will be more like a nirvana of sorts. The technology will keep us alive. Deus Ex Machina. God by Machine. As nature evolves so will the technology. It's kind of creepy when you think of it. And, I suspect there will be many hurdles and much conflict along the way.

I used to read about the past or the future (fiction of course) and wish I was born in different time but I've been slowly realizing something. We are in an amazing time. It is suggested that most works of fiction come true in some sense. Take cloning. First it was all about taking the egg and trying to make it grow. Now we know that we don't even need the egg. By the time a human clone is made (which is inevitable) it won't be a clone like you read in fiction, it will likely be even more fantastic.
How about a program with the human genome in it. We add a theoretical chemical or mechanism and see what the program does. Well, I guess we don't need animal testing any more.
It's amazing what will happen. I can't even begin to imagine the depth of it.

yeah it's all about the business profit as usual, I agree with everything u said here. The miracle and intelligence of technology can be a nerve racking ride.

Originally Posted by zubbs1

Longevity is inevitable and should be encouraged. Social mores will change as the average lifespan expands beyond the 80ish years we currently experience. I have no doubts that feelings towards age of having children, use/value of accumulation of money/wealth, inherent value of educating oneself, etc., will drastically change from what we believe now. I firmly believe that true immortality will be achieved, and that it will do so with a few steps (incrementation will likely occur, but these two are the focus as I conceive of the process)
Tissue Regeneration
Current emerging biological techniques/technologies allow us to do something never done before: autogenous tissue transplantation. This provides a means to harvest a cell of specific tissue type (liver, kidney, vascular, neural etc.) expose it to a specified sequential media process and in the presence of denucleated scaffold matrices (cartilege for example) grow entirely intact organs that can be transplanted into the donor of the originating cell(s). This eliminates graft vs. host rejection, and also makes capable zero day old organs that can be repeatedly used to exchange with aging or diseased tissues.

Transfer of Consciousness
Neuroanatomy and neurochemistry will continue to evolve to the point that a digital map can be created of the human brain specific to the individual. This will allow the transfer of consciousness as discussed in the first two pages of postings on this thread. The downloaded consciousness could be into a non biological organism (NBO as described by Ray Kurzweil in the Age of Spiritual Machines) such as an android (think of a terminator with your consciousness in it).

Immortality will thus be achieved since there is now nothing that can die in a non biological entity. So long as the data image that is your consciousness does not get corrupted, you will not 'die'. Also, you simply 'save' your new digital map at a fixed interval (or even in real time) then you can 'load' yourself were anything detrimental to happen to your 'terminator'. Aspects of this line of reasoning have been utilized in science fiction shows. The best, in my opinion, was on Battlestar Galactica where the cylons' consciousness was beamed to the resurrection ships upon their death. I realize the implications that this lifestyle would have on our understanding of the value and preciousness of life. However, I think it inevitable that we will evolve to continuously change our definition of the meaning of life. It is also an inherent truth that there are those among us now that will refuse to ever adopt this altered form of life for themselves. That will cause the formation of a schism between the non biological humans and the traditional biological humans. However there are obvious advantages to the former and it will outpace the latter in the long run (as it should given that it is still the basic adherence to Darwinian evolution) leaving no remaining biological humans in existence. Weather one wishes to argue this will be the end of all human kind is debatable, but in my opinion humans are not humans because we have carbon based cells composed of 23 pairs of chromosomes. Rather, humans are humans because of the ability to form a consciousness that works collectively with other entities able to form consciousness. The carbon tissues are simply the shell that house this and those can be interchangeable without altering the core.

Sidebar Argument
Perception is reality, so your consciousness is you. The 'Ship of Theseus' argument indicated earlier in the thread simply does not apply as consciousness lies outside a tangible item that is/can be recycled. Where my reasoning obviously fails is depicted nicely in 'The Sixth Day' when Tony Goldwyn's character is cloned and awakes before the template has died. This caused a conflict of identity issue to emerge as the template still felt himself to be real and the only one while the copy also felt himself to be real and the only one. So to avoid that paradox, you simply anesthetize the template (biological you) digitally map the brain, and transfer as a file to a hard drive. Then put the template into stasis or simply destroy them. Then download a copy of the consciousness to the NBO (which for ease of transition can be made to look identically like the biological version). You will awaken no different than you do every morning and will experience the world as 'you' with no feeling of not being you since perception is reality. "Blade Runner" shows how an entity exists completely oblivious to their non-human existence. While I disagree with doing this without the consent and awareness of the individual, it does show how easily one could be convinced they are simply who they perceive themselves to be.

Additional
I also think it is quite possible that we will achieve immortality in a matrix like construct. We all forfeit our biological entities and live our consciousness inside a 'matrix' system. We would all be cognisant of how we got there and who we were. However life would become less independent and more of an amalgamation of conscious thought; something of a soup of philosophical pondering. The 'individual' could at any time leave this existence to pursue a more tangible sensory existence outside the matrix, but this would all be dependent upon the location of that existence (Earth, or elsewhere in space etc.)

Correct that immortality can be achieved by the preservation of consciousness, imagine downloading your mind / consciousness to a chip or cd like how we do it with music burning today. To be in a matrix world can definitely be another option.

[quote="Chisco1389"]Humans are not meant to be immortal. We are generally too unstable to survive socially and mentally. That is very very few of us are stoic or even rational about most things. Someone who lives for hundreds of years must bear hundreds of years of sorrow and guilt on their shoulders. most people have enough with a normal life span. I cant imagine what it would do to someone who lived 500 years. FYI i have seen many very old people in my life the average life expectancy in my family is something like 101. My great grandfather is currently 109. This to say that from what i have seen living that old unless you work or have something to do and look forward to is worse than death. At least in death those of us who believe in an after life have something to look forward to.[/quote Us humans are indeed living in sorrowful world and many of us aren't capable of social and mental wars. But have u considered that by the time our technology allows immortality we as a whole race wouldn't just have mastered science but have evolved to fully understand ourselves? I mean for the next 1,000 years the greatest feat man will accomplish isn't in the technological front but he will understand himself like never before seen. The ripple effect of this is yeah a perfect world, it is idealism but think about it, is it right to say that it could be the greatest gift ever, to truely finally understand who we are! I'd choose 1 lifetime with such enlightenment than to have immortality and to be lost forever :wink: