5 ms·

I for one would like a bit more time. 200? Maybe 500? No one likely wants to be immortal but 80 or so seems criminally short for what our abilities are and how

I for one would like a bit more time. 200? Maybe 500? No one likely wants to be immortal but 80 or so seems criminally short for what our abilities are and how long it takes for us to find our calling.

adastra22 4y ago
I want to be immortal. If I ever tire of existence and achieve terminal boredom, I'll just use technology to forget (temporarily or permanently) some memories and experience them again anew. I'll see you all at the heat death of the universe.
- ausbah 4y ago
  semi relevant user name ironically
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Not at all ironic or accidental.
- terminal_d 4y ago
  If you like that premise, you'd like to read "The Golden Age" by John C. Wright. It's hard scifi.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Thanks!
epicureanideal 4y ago
You may find this organization (working on extending healthy human lifespan) interesting. https://www.levf.org/ https://www.levf.org/ I'm not involved with that organization, but I find their work very interesting. As a backup plan, there's Alcor. https://www.alcor.org/ https://www.alcor.org/
- ramraj07 4y ago
  As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.
  - miramba 4y ago
    Whenever we find the way to immortality, it will be exclusive to the richest of the rich at first. But equally inevitable, it will eventually trickle down to all. The business will be just to good.
  - unixbotnuke 4y ago
    Would it not be reasonable to assume that the first anti-aging therapies that are approved will go to the privleged? Then they would be commodified and provided to the less economically fortunate.
    - ramraj07 4y ago
      The first monoclonal antibody therapy hit markets decades ago. It still hasn’t percolated to even the middle class in countries like india. If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    There are many arguments for longevity, even if it were temporarily for the rich, or those in advanced economies. For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits. People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes. They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others. People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them. And so on...
terminal_d 4y ago
I think 100 is quite enough -- life is meant to be lived with people one knows.
- adastra22 4y ago
  You’re always free to take the quick way out. Don’t be so quick to condemn 8 billion other humans to the same short lifetime just because you can’t imagine living longer.
  - terminal_d 4y ago
    That's very rude.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      Advocating that others should not be allowed to live is beyond rude.
      - terminal_d 4y ago
        Nipping a fantasy =/= killing people Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.
        adastra22 4y ago
        Ok you very much misunderstood. I was saying that nobody would be forced to live forever: assisted suicide would always be an option for those who tore of life.
        terminal_d 4y ago
        > assisted suicide looks like I didn't misunderstand at all.
- stanete 4y ago
ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
Somewhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 years seems like the right amount to live as a human being and die with absolutely no regrets. Dying as a 257 years old you can still imagine feeling some resentment for the future beyond you: what will they discover, how will the music sound. But dying as a 84,751 years old, after an incomprehensible amount of sensory data, inner and outer experiences, concepts, technologies, maybe even a bit of interstellar exploration, feels just natural. Therefore, no, we should not search for immortality, Terra will be unliveable for carbon-based organisms in 1 billion years [1], but we should look for mechanisms to preserve a somewhat trivial metabolism of ~50-90 kg of mass for 10,000 to 100,000 years. [1] "1.2 billion years [from now], high estimate until all plant life dies out [...] rising temperatures will make any animal life unsustainable from this point on" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Earth,_the_Solar_System,_and_the_Universe:~:text=82%5D%5B83%5D-,1.2%20billion,-High%20estimate%20until https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...
- ramraj07 4y ago
  I’m just being reasonable here. It’s _possible_ I might find life that’s thousands of years long interesting, but it’s beyond my current imagination. I’ll be perfectly happy with doubling my lifetime (tripling my productive life?). as a biologist, that sounds more reasonable anyway.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
    Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days [1]. Doubling the lifespan, 240+ years, is most certainly not possible, not reasonable, using diets, exercises, and so forth: if it were such a low hanging fruit, we would have already been there. Even if we could push the body using current technology, no one will want to live 100+ years (from age 70 to 160+) as an old person, being in pain constantly, fighting all kinds of cancers. Therefore, the only way I can see a lifespan push, not only x2, but x10, or even x100 (10,000 years—once you get x3/x4, it probably scales trivially) is through 100% organ regeneration and 100% programmatic control over the morphospace. Broke an arm? Amputate the limb and grow another one back, your cells already did it before. Liver cancer? Regrow another liver. Heart issues? Make another heart. Spend all the years above 35 as a perpetual 35 year old, eventually in the bodyshape of Chris Hemsworth/Margot Robbie (to keep the examples in Australia). This scientific fancy is somehow grounded in the mind-expanding perspectives coming from Dr. Michael Levin's lab [2]. Personally, I'm compelled enough by their thesis, programmatic control over cells, that I started learning about their work, BETSE, Bio Electric Tissue Simulation Engine [3], and try to build on top a BioElectric Simulation Orchestrator, BESO [4]. Most probably, however, we won't see 100% human organ regeneration in our regular lifetimes, but never say never. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment [2] Speaking with Cells: the Electrical Future of Regenerative Medicine with Dr. Michael Levin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU [3] https://github.com/betsee/betse https://github.com/betsee/betse [4] https://github.com/daysful/beso https://github.com/daysful/beso

adastra22 4y ago

I want to be immortal. If I ever tire of existence and achieve terminal boredom, I'll just use technology to forget (temporarily or permanently) some memories and experience them again anew. I'll see you all at the heat death of the universe.

ausbah 4y ago
semi relevant user name ironically
- adastra22 4y ago
  Not at all ironic or accidental.
terminal_d 4y ago
If you like that premise, you'd like to read "The Golden Age" by John C. Wright. It's hard scifi.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Thanks!

epicureanideal 4y ago

You may find this organization (working on extending healthy human lifespan) interesting. https://www.levf.org/ https://www.levf.org/ I'm not involved with that organization, but I find their work very interesting. As a backup plan, there's Alcor. https://www.alcor.org/ https://www.alcor.org/

ramraj07 4y ago
As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.
- miramba 4y ago
  Whenever we find the way to immortality, it will be exclusive to the richest of the rich at first. But equally inevitable, it will eventually trickle down to all. The business will be just to good.
- unixbotnuke 4y ago
  Would it not be reasonable to assume that the first anti-aging therapies that are approved will go to the privleged? Then they would be commodified and provided to the less economically fortunate.
  - ramraj07 4y ago
    The first monoclonal antibody therapy hit markets decades ago. It still hasn’t percolated to even the middle class in countries like india. If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  There are many arguments for longevity, even if it were temporarily for the rich, or those in advanced economies. For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits. People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes. They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others. People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them. And so on...

terminal_d 4y ago

I think 100 is quite enough -- life is meant to be lived with people one knows.

adastra22 4y ago
You’re always free to take the quick way out. Don’t be so quick to condemn 8 billion other humans to the same short lifetime just because you can’t imagine living longer.
- terminal_d 4y ago
  That's very rude.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Advocating that others should not be allowed to live is beyond rude.
    - terminal_d 4y ago
      Nipping a fantasy =/= killing people Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.
      - adastra22 4y ago
        Ok you very much misunderstood. I was saying that nobody would be forced to live forever: assisted suicide would always be an option for those who tore of life.
        terminal_d 4y ago
        > assisted suicide looks like I didn't misunderstand at all.
stanete 4y ago

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

Somewhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 years seems like the right amount to live as a human being and die with absolutely no regrets. Dying as a 257 years old you can still imagine feeling some resentment for the future beyond you: what will they discover, how will the music sound. But dying as a 84,751 years old, after an incomprehensible amount of sensory data, inner and outer experiences, concepts, technologies, maybe even a bit of interstellar exploration, feels just natural. Therefore, no, we should not search for immortality, Terra will be unliveable for carbon-based organisms in 1 billion years [1], but we should look for mechanisms to preserve a somewhat trivial metabolism of ~50-90 kg of mass for 10,000 to 100,000 years. [1] "1.2 billion years [from now], high estimate until all plant life dies out [...] rising temperatures will make any animal life unsustainable from this point on" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Earth,_the_Solar_System,_and_the_Universe:~:text=82%5D%5B83%5D-,1.2%20billion,-High%20estimate%20until https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...

ramraj07 4y ago
I’m just being reasonable here. It’s _possible_ I might find life that’s thousands of years long interesting, but it’s beyond my current imagination. I’ll be perfectly happy with doubling my lifetime (tripling my productive life?). as a biologist, that sounds more reasonable anyway.
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days [1]. Doubling the lifespan, 240+ years, is most certainly not possible, not reasonable, using diets, exercises, and so forth: if it were such a low hanging fruit, we would have already been there. Even if we could push the body using current technology, no one will want to live 100+ years (from age 70 to 160+) as an old person, being in pain constantly, fighting all kinds of cancers. Therefore, the only way I can see a lifespan push, not only x2, but x10, or even x100 (10,000 years—once you get x3/x4, it probably scales trivially) is through 100% organ regeneration and 100% programmatic control over the morphospace. Broke an arm? Amputate the limb and grow another one back, your cells already did it before. Liver cancer? Regrow another liver. Heart issues? Make another heart. Spend all the years above 35 as a perpetual 35 year old, eventually in the bodyshape of Chris Hemsworth/Margot Robbie (to keep the examples in Australia). This scientific fancy is somehow grounded in the mind-expanding perspectives coming from Dr. Michael Levin's lab [2]. Personally, I'm compelled enough by their thesis, programmatic control over cells, that I started learning about their work, BETSE, Bio Electric Tissue Simulation Engine [3], and try to build on top a BioElectric Simulation Orchestrator, BESO [4]. Most probably, however, we won't see 100% human organ regeneration in our regular lifetimes, but never say never. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment [2] Speaking with Cells: the Electrical Future of Regenerative Medicine with Dr. Michael Levin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU [3] https://github.com/betsee/betse https://github.com/betsee/betse [4] https://github.com/daysful/beso https://github.com/daysful/beso