• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Could we achieve biological immortality in our lifetime?

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
Michio Kaku seems to think it'll happen to a large degree (thanks to the cheap and easy growth of organs, transhumanist augmentations, and genetic manipulation) by the end of the century. Ray Kurzweil is convinced we'll be immortal by the 2050s (under the same conditions as Michio plus outright machine merging). I have a lot of respect for Kurzweil and hope he's right, but I'm inclined to side with Michio's timeline. Kurzweil would just say I'm thinking linearly and not exponentially and maybe he's right, but (for various reasons I won't get into) I have my doubts about exponential growth going the way he predicts in the timeframe he suggests. But who knows. We'll see.

There is no doubt in my mind thought that this century we will have totally deciphered the genome and connectome and be able to manipulate these things pretty much at will. Will I live to see it? I have no idea, but I think my optimism isn't as delusional as it might seem. This century is going to be like none other. Exponential growth is going to do truly mind **** things to the 21st century, just as it did for the previous ones, albeit even more drastically considering our current technological potential. We are in a unique position to explode in ways that will totally alter what it means to be human this century.
 

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
Michio Kaku seems to think it'll happen to a large degree (thanks to the cheap and easy growth of organs, transhumanist augmentations, and genetic manipulation) by the end of the century. Ray Kurzweil is convinced we'll be immortal by the 2050s (under the same conditions as Michio plus outright machine merging). I have a lot of respect for Kurzweil and hope he's right, but I'm inclined to side with Michio's timeline. Kurzweil would just say I'm thinking linearly and not exponentially and maybe he's right, but (for various reasons I won't get into) I have my doubts about exponential growth going the way he predicts in the timeframe he suggests. But who knows. We'll see.

There is no doubt in my mind thought that this century we will have totally deciphered the genome and connectome and be able to manipulate these things pretty much at will. Will I live to see it? I have no idea, but I think my optimism isn't as delusional as it might seem. This century is going to be like none other. Exponential growth is going to do truly mind **** things to the 21st century, just as it did for the previous ones, albeit even more drastically considering our current technological potential. We are in a unique position to explode in ways that will totally alter what it means to be human this century.

That's an interesting thought, although it scares me quite a bit. I personally have no desire to live for over 100 years or so, and I think I have expressed to you and others my thoughts on how increased lifespan will affect human relationships (particularly ones with significant others). I doubt I can hold on to a marriage for 10 years, let alone 200 years, and that's a big fear of mine, as irrational as it may sound. Monogamy is a very important thing in my life.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Behind you
I would like to share your optimism, Batman, but while I feel it is totally within our ability to do those things, I think the incredibly daunting challenges that we are going to face this century are pretty damned frightening. The population boom (still going, somehow), anti-microbial resistance, continued climate change...

It's not that I think us incapable of overcoming those challenges, but I think that it's going to be a bumpy ride getting there.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
That's an interesting thought, although it scares me quite a bit. I personally have no desire to live for over 100 years or so, and I think I have expressed to you and others my thoughts on how increased lifespan will affect human relationships (particularly ones with significant others). I doubt I can hold on to a marriage for 10 years, let alone 200 years, and that's a big fear of mine, as irrational as it may sound. Monogamy is a very important thing in my life.

Such a change would scare a lot of people. Although we must ensure that people who want to live more traditionally (want to die before 100 and not augment themselves) have every opportunity to do so without discrimination and barrier. I personally would "plug-in", but the wishes of those who don't want to must be respected to the highest degree.

Garo said:
I would like to share your optimism, Batman, but while I feel it is totally within our ability to do those things, I think the incredibly daunting challenges that we are going to face this century are pretty damned frightening. The population boom (still going, somehow), anti-microbial resistance, continued climate change...

It's not that I think us incapable of overcoming those challenges, but I think that it's going to be a bumpy ride getting there.

Understandable. But I'm hoping that technological advancement in the near future will plant the seeds that completely solve the problems of scarcity and climate change. I can see climate engineering, nanotechnology, fusion, etc eradicated these problems. The question is when will they be around to do so? Before it's too late or after? I really don't know, but I have my hopes.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Behind you
Okay a more thoughtful post, here we go:

I think that for immortality to exist we'd have to a) have solved the issue of scarcity and b) have found ways to curb population growth simply to preemptively address issues of overcrowding. So to have a hypothetical conversation about the societal ramifications of immortality, we'd have to consider those two things as being givens.

Assuming that, the picture of a life lived without end (or, at least, with a nebulous end that can be defined and accepted by the person rather than being out of their control) changes pretty drastically. With no scarcity, the concept of "jobs" and "careers" gets a bit sticky; if things aren't scarce, how does our economy work? I'd imagine it becomes motivated by cultural and intellectual capital. What sort of work can you produce that improves the body of work of all of humanity? What art can you create, what contributions to science can you make, what ideas can you propagate? When an entire life is spent not earning a living, but rather accepting that living as a given and using it to embark on creative endeavors, I can't help but wonder whether or not one would even want to "end" their life. I feel like when you grow up in a world that accepts this sort of immortality and encourages cultural and intellectual growth, there can be no "boredom" that people often assume is inherent with immortality. You pursue creative endeavors endlessly, or intellectual ones tirelessly. There's no slavish work week keeping you bound to an exhaustive schedule; you are driven forward not by a desire to stay alive and eat, but solely by the passion of creation and discovery.

On a parallel axis we have the question of romance that Repentance brought up; how exactly does monogamy work when you have essentially endless life? Again I think the answer is very simple: it doesn't. Monogamy has its evolutionary roots in child rearing, and assuming that we have ways to curb population growth, child rearing is likely not a particularly common thing, occurring at the same rate that people choose to die (or that people who reject immortality die naturally). So, given enough generations passing, I think the nexus of human romantic relationships will shift dramatically. Where it lands is an interesting question, and it's tempting to assume that it shifts to being focused on sex-for-pleasure, which would certainly be an interesting system (I imagine it would end the idea of prolonged partnership entirely and possibly even pave the way for widespread casual sexual encounters among friends). But I think there's little question that monogamy as we know it would basically be a relic of the past, and while people would certainly have incredibly close partnership and friendship, the idea of a sole significant other would probably be gone.

The big thing about all of this is, of course, that societal change of this magnitude takes a lot of time and takes place over many generations. With people living presumably indefinitely... would enough generations be able to pass to bring it about? Or would enough people from our modern society continue living and remaining relatively static, keeping the world in a bizarre state of half-change? It's been over 150 years from the end of slavery in America and we still aren't anywhere close to racial equality in this country; how could we expect a complete overhaul of the economic system that has lasted all of human history to be a smooth transition?

Immortality is cool and all, but I get the feeling it may be self-defeating - creating a circumstance where society needs to fundamentally change, but because people aren't dying and new generations aren't taking the reins, it might not happen.
 

A Link In Time

To Overcome Harder Challenges
ZD Legend
The concept of immortality has been written in human history for tens of centuries, yet it has never been achieved. While advances in medicine will likely result in another exponential increase in average lifespan, preventing the aging process altogether seems far-fetched.

The rapamycin described in the news article has only been used extensively in procedures with animal subjects. Only recently are older human patients being tested for a possible reduction in risk factors associated with age.

I also think it's a bit counterproductive to start at the end point and work backwards in medicine. Our current understanding of potential remedies for various types of cancer, Alzheimer's, and Diabetes is still limited.

Although I'm a bit pessimistic, I don't want to close my mind to the possibilities that anti-aging medicine could entail. Few people thought humans would orbit around the Earth, much less land on the moon, at the dawn of the 20th century. If the effects of the medication produce significant effects on human lifespan and initial production is limited, I could see such a medicine causing massive wars. Then again, other "miracle" drugs like penicillin didn't cause physical conflict over production when they first arrived, so maybe I'm overthinking things.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
Assuming that, the picture of a life lived without end (or, at least, with a nebulous end that can be defined and accepted by the person rather than being out of their control) changes pretty drastically. With no scarcity, the concept of "jobs" and "careers" gets a bit sticky; if things aren't scarce, how does our economy work? I'd imagine it becomes motivated by cultural and intellectual capital. What sort of work can you produce that improves the body of work of all of humanity? What art can you create, what contributions to science can you make, what ideas can you propagate? When an entire life is spent not earning a living, but rather accepting that living as a given and using it to embark on creative endeavors, I can't help but wonder whether or not one would even want to "end" their life. I feel like when you grow up in a world that accepts this sort of immortality and encourages cultural and intellectual growth, there can be no "boredom" that people often assume is inherent with immortality. You pursue creative endeavors endlessly, or intellectual ones tirelessly. There's no slavish work week keeping you bound to an exhaustive schedule; you are driven forward not by a desire to stay alive and eat, but solely by the passion of creation and discovery.

I think this is a pretty cogent assessment of the situation, and for me personally, this is the kind of society I hope our species achieves someday. I do not think that overcrowding is an issue once we fix scarcity. Population growth is a problem because of the allocation of resources, not the amount of space we have to settle. And in such a futuristic society, I don't see a distinction between urban and rural (and the crowding issues that come with urbanism) even being meaningful. Plus, hopefully we're spread out throughout the solar system. We would have "cities" on the oceans, space stations orbiting Earth, colonies on the Moon and Mars, etc getting rid of any potential space issues.

On a parallel axis we have the question of romance that Repentance brought up; how exactly does monogamy work when you have essentially endless life? Again I think the answer is very simple: it doesn't. Monogamy has its evolutionary roots in child rearing, and assuming that we have ways to curb population growth, child rearing is likely not a particularly common thing, occurring at the same rate that people choose to die (or that people who reject immortality die naturally). So, given enough generations passing, I think the nexus of human romantic relationships will shift dramatically. Where it lands is an interesting question, and it's tempting to assume that it shifts to being focused on sex-for-pleasure, which would certainly be an interesting system (I imagine it would end the idea of prolonged partnership entirely and possibly even pave the way for widespread casual sexual encounters among friends). But I think there's little question that monogamy as we know it would basically be a relic of the past, and while people would certainly have incredibly close partnership and friendship, the idea of a sole significant other would probably be gone.

Very interesting thoughts. If we are able to manipulate the connectome (manipulate our brains, be them organic, synthetic, or a combination of both) I imagine we could in principle alter what would otherwise be considered "human nature" if we desired. We could set the parameters for what we wanted to feel and what kinds of relationships we'd like to have. So I imagine people wanting to stick with monogamy could alter their "code" to only find monogamy appealing. Or whatever. But yes, I imagine that the romantic and sexual relationship structures we currently use would become outdated really quickly and new structures would arise given such a drastic shift in what it means to be human.

The big thing about all of this is, of course, that societal change of this magnitude takes a lot of time and takes place over many generations. With people living presumably indefinitely... would enough generations be able to pass to bring it about? Or would enough people from our modern society continue living and remaining relatively static, keeping the world in a bizarre state of half-change? It's been over 150 years from the end of slavery in America and we still aren't anywhere close to racial equality in this country; how could we expect a complete overhaul of the economic system that has lasted all of human history to be a smooth transition?

I would submit (being the Marxist that I am), that it's technology that provides the structures upon which social attitudes are later formed. It's the primary condition that creates issues in society, be them negative or positive (aside from some inborn natural tendencies for our species regardless of superstructures that manipulate us). Social relations and their catalysts come into being based on what we as a species can do with the resources and means to manipulate those resources (technology). In a society where technology makes it so that the conditions are not present to give rise to racism, sexism, classism, etc (thanks to the meaninglessness of territorialism, scarcity, and so on), these attitudes would have no incentive to arise in the first place. And if they exist, their legitimacy is wiped away very quickly in the same way that the incentive to steal things would be eradicated when we live in a post-scarcity world. People have incentives to be racist in the modern era (irrational as those incentives be), but I don't see how there could be an incentive to be racist (or sexist or classist or homophobic or whatever) in a world where no conditions are present to create the racism (insert other examples here) in the first place. It's my contention that those conditions are not present in a world where we don't die, where there are no mental illnesses, where we don't cling to plots of land and feel the need to defend them, when we have no concept of allocating scarce resources to help ourselves in conflict with others trying to do the same. I'm sure my thesis here is not perfect, but you can see where I'm coming from.

Immortality is cool and all, but I get the feeling it may be self-defeating - creating a circumstance where society needs to fundamentally change, but because people aren't dying and new generations aren't taking the reins, it might not happen.

Aside from being cool, I suspect it's deterministic even. I see us moving in these directions (thanks to our advancements in technology) whether we want to or not. The only way to stop it would be to universally adopt the Luddite agenda and become technological primitivists. An impossible goal considering the support for such dramatic reversals don't and won't ever exist. Technology determines society, and creating and improving on technology is one of the key aspects of the human species. It's what we do. Beavers build dams, we create cyborgs, lol.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Assuming that, the picture of a life lived without end (or, at least, with a nebulous end that can be defined and accepted by the person rather than being out of their control) changes pretty drastically. With no scarcity, the concept of "jobs" and "careers" gets a bit sticky; if things aren't scarce, how does our economy work? I'd imagine it becomes motivated by cultural and intellectual capital. What sort of work can you produce that improves the body of work of all of humanity? What art can you create, what contributions to science can you make, what ideas can you propagate? When an entire life is spent not earning a living, but rather accepting that living as a given and using it to embark on creative endeavors, I can't help but wonder whether or not one would even want to "end" their life. I feel like when you grow up in a world that accepts this sort of immortality and encourages cultural and intellectual growth, there can be no "boredom" that people often assume is inherent with immortality. You pursue creative endeavors endlessly, or intellectual ones tirelessly. There's no slavish work week keeping you bound to an exhaustive schedule; you are driven forward not by a desire to stay alive and eat, but solely by the passion of creation and discovery.

A post-scarcity is entirely resource based. There is no monetary system or 'capital' in that sense. You hit the nail on the head as far how such society would function though. Basically you would take what you needed and produced what ever you could. (i.e From each according to their ability, to each according to their need). The logistics for say production, distribution, and so on would be cybernated as you're already starting to see anyways. The focus at this point would be trying to make everything as efficient as possible; That is doing more with less until you're doing everything with 'nothing' (also called Ephemeralization). It's important to note that there the earth has finite amount of resources (think in terms as if you living on a spaceship), however there are probably more efficient ways of using those resources such that you virtually eliminate what we deem as 'scarcity' and create an abundance.

ow exactly does monogamy work when you have essentially endless life? Again I think the answer is very simple: it doesn't. Monogamy has its evolutionary roots in child rearing, and assuming that we have ways to curb population growth, child rearing is likely not a particularly common thing, occurring at the same rate that people choose to die (or that people who reject immortality die naturally). So, given enough generations passing, I think the nexus of human romantic relationships will shift dramatically. Where it lands is an interesting question, and it's tempting to assume that it shifts to being focused on sex-for-pleasure, which would certainly be an interesting system (I imagine it would end the idea of prolonged partnership entirely and possibly even pave the way for widespread casual sexual encounters among friends). But I think there's little question that monogamy as we know it would basically be a relic of the past, and while people would certainly have incredibly close partnership and friendship, the idea of a sole significant other would probably be gone.

As I see it, you would have free unions to where "monogamy" would be defined as solidarity with the human race as whole. There is no marriage but instead Free Love. A union of course like you said may have multiple partners (polyamory). A relationship would be built on extensionality (i.e. To extend one's capabilities, and meet ones emotional needs) instead of financial need.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom