16 ms·

Google vs. Death

187 points by weu 13y ago

bproper 13y ago
Can anyone find meaningful detail in here about how Google hopes to solve the problem of death? Beyond the name of the company and the guy running it, this seems like a stock profile of Google X.
radley 13y ago
What's with the fake, trollish headline on HN? It should say "Google vs. Death".
- raldi 13y ago
  It does say that, now. What was the original headline?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wissler 13y ago
Google can't extend human life but maybe it can pick the right people who can. This is similar to iPhone. Steve Jobs didn't make the iPhone possible. What he did was recognize something that many engineers had recognized for a long time and he permitted the resources to flow to the right people. Sure, he introduced some of his own artistic flair. But the combination of radio, UNIX, with a nice API was an idea whose time had come. We just needed a CEO with the balls to let his engineers go for it. There are many brilliant scientists and engineers that can nearly do magic, and not enough people who know how to discern what visions to fund. Every so often we get blessed with a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk who can send the resources the right way, but for the most part we get Carly Fiorina.
hosay123 13y ago
So this article was presumably written beforehand and embargoed to coincide with the official announcement of Calico. While I guess there's nothing wrong with that, it does make me wonder what kind of pre-approved message is supposed to be imparted by a premeditated PR campaign. Perhaps it is just to avoid scaring investors, going by Larry's concern assuaging in the second paragraph of his post. One of the Google founders was also behind funding the first purely lab-grown burger eaten in London a few months ago. That also had an obviously professional PR campaign attached to it, although little of this was explicit in the press. A professionally edited HD recording of the event appeared on the BBC web site only a few minutes after publication, so obviously some PR mechanism was at play. But that event wasn't to promote Google or anything else, it was absent of any commercial labels attached to the copy or the video itself, and no mention was made of who organized or funded it. I have no idea what the message, or the point of that campaign was either. What are these campaigns trying to tell us?
- eli 13y ago
  I think you're reading too much into it. Of course there's a premeditated PR campaign -- it's the launch of a major new initiative!
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Google does everything in a very orchestrated campaign. Bash Adwords or Search here and you will see "them" show up to defend it. But unless Google already transferred $x billions to Calico's bank account, I have to laugh at the 20-30+ year investment agenda and that somehow Google will be in for the long run--unlike other companies. This will be shut down the minute Adwords growth slows down...and they're running out of places to put them due to over-saturation and "free" traffic to sites is disappearing at an alarming rate already. Google, Page, Brin should've put $500 mil each and then pledged regular contributions. Or maybe this is Brin's divorce package: Calico will buy 123andMe for a lot of money ;-)
  - DominikR 13y ago
    You don't have any information on how much money they have invested. All you do is speculate and inform us about your aversion towards Google. And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this project if their profits started going down isn't really informative unless you think that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental logic.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      >>"You don't have any information on how much money they have invested." I never said I had the info. The people that know this chose not to say it. I speculated, which is all we can do. >>"And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this project if their profits started going down isn't really informative unless you think that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental logic." It's not that informative, I give you that; it's Wall Street 101 and most know by now. >>"about your aversion towards Google." Not sure blind love and gullibility is any better, assuming that I have an aversion to everything Google.
michaelfeathers 13y ago
Funny. No mention of Kurzweil.
- lukev 13y ago
  Kurzweil is a joker. His entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that computational power is the only obstacle to general AI, which is manifestly not the case.
  - melange 13y ago
    Kurzweil works for Google.
- jcutrell 13y ago
  I mostly agree here, but he does have quite a bit of a history of accurate predictions. Not a logical reason to believe in his future predictive ability, but certainly seems relevant to the anti-aging conversation.
devanti 13y ago
after money, fame, what else? the google founders desire to live forever
- nullc 13y ago
  Desire _everyone_ to live forever. What kind of monster are you that you don't think thats a laudable goal?
  - sigzero 13y ago
    You have no idea what you are even saying. Have you even thought about what "everyone living forever" means? Probably not.
    - nullc 13y ago
      I have. Have you? I suspect not: http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html Of course, the result won't actually achieve that. But it is not an unhonorable goal. Involuntary death is not a virtuous thing.
  - objclxt 13y ago
    > What kind of monster are you that you don't think thats a laudable goal? I think there are many compelling ethical and philosophical arguments one can make against wanting everyone to live forever. We shouldn't confuse live extension with living forever. Oddly enough, David Attenborough is in the news today for suggesting population control is a huge and growing problem[1]. You could argue that research into extending human life when we are looking at significant problems with population overcrowding and competition for resources in the near future is putting the horse before the cart. I am not sure which side of the fence I fall on. Medical research can allow people with previously incurable conditions to live full lives. This is a laudable goal. But that's not what you said - you're talking about living forever. Is that so laudable? I would certainly not call someone who thought that was a truly awful idea 'a monster'. Indeed, there's lots of speculative fiction based around how awful it would actually be to live forever (or even a very long time). [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-D...
nohuck13 13y ago
When Google sponsors an awesome project like this, I see the tech company equivalent of Nike sponsoring LeBron James for $105 million. Even if the R&D angle doesn't work out, Google gets real value (i.e. indirectly interchangeable for money) in terms of PR and recruiting. Consumer products companies pay huge amounts of money for PR. Google is just doing the same thing in a typically Googlish way. I don't think it's as cynical as just that: Google, and Larry Page in particular have been talking about making the world a better place for 15 years in a way that makes me pretty inclined to believe them, but the side benefits must counterbalance the longshot-ness quite a bit.
- modeless 13y ago
  It's a bit more risky than sponsoring a popular athlete I think. Few peope think we shouldn't play sports, but there is a surprisingly large group of people who believe we shouldn't be engaging on research like this. Reasons include religious, environmental, and social concerns.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    There are plenty of people prepared to question the veneration of professional athletes. (Though I should concede that they are not anything like a majority)
  - breckinloggins 13y ago
    When I first read about Aubrey de Grey, I instinctively knew that he had the right approach to the problem of aging and immortality but I also suspected that he would run afoul of the religious, environmental, and social criticism that you're suggesting. However, I no longer think that is the case, and I think if Calico takes the same tack they will mostly avoid it as well. Here's why: a gross simplification of de Grey's entire research program is "aging and death happen because things start breaking faster than we can fix them, and because things start breaking that we have no idea how to fix." One of the greatest things about tackling the fountain of youth from this perspective is that it will continue to look like normal medicine and cosmetic procedures. I predict that effective "eternal youth and immortality" will be achieved, but by the time the mass population notices enough to care, the majority of the population will be composed of people who grew up with the idea of accelerating progress on human health (in the same way that today's kids simply do not know an era without exponential advances in information technology). Thus, they will probably experience this threshold as completely normal, if they experience it at all. In other words, there won't be a "magic moment". That moment will only appear retroactively, similar to today's magazine articles that say "hey look, here we are in the future with our video phones and what not! Isn't that nice?" Let's say in the next 20 years the following things happen: 1. A therapeutic AIDS vaccine performs the equivalent of Polio eradication 2. Highly targeted and effective cancer therapies are developed at an increasingly alarming rate 3. An actual cure for baldness is found 4. A preventative therapeutic regimen for treating obesity at a genetic level is discovered 5. A "nano-cream" that restores collagen in the skin becomes available first by prescription, then over the counter 6. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's can be detected and prevented early and completely managed in those that are in advanced stages Each one of those 6 things will likely face some opposition, but the opposition's voices will most probably not reach any kind of "critical mass"; people will (for example with the AIDS vaccine) simply regard as cruel the idea that people should die of AIDS because you don't want them having sex (a silly protest that I can still predict happening). Each of these advances will happen individually, and to the average person they won't look anything alike. But if you stack enough of these together long enough, you eventually get your fountain of youth. It's just that by the time it arrives there won't be riots in the streets, just 90% of the population saying "oh cool" and the other 10% viewed as harmless luddites with an interesting perspective on life.
frank_boyd 13y ago
I think I'll go with death, then.
- pjscott 13y ago
  That's fine, as long as you choose it rather than having it thrust upon you. Currently, we lose this choice after less than a century.
  - qu4z-2 13y ago
    I worry that it will not be a choice (or at least taboo, like suicide is these days -- given that's basically what it will be). EDIT: I wonder if the possibility of living nearly forever will make society even more risk-averse?
    - lmm 13y ago
      Improved healthcare, reduced war and so on have already made society much more risk-averse. This would just be another bit of improved healthcare.
vibrolax 13y ago
Last week, my fiancée telling about me a novel she was reading "Google Démocratie" by David Angevin and Laurent Alexandre (2011, French language). This article sure makes the premise of the novel (genetically modified trans-humans vs the good old fashioned kind) seem a little less far-fetched.
stiff 13y ago
There is something very weird about people routinely speaking of immortality as something that is actually a thing. For all we know, stars die eventually, the sun will burn out eventually, the universe as we know most likely comes to an end and so forth, you can not cheat basic physics. To me this is the same kind of refusal that makes some people believe in god, and that shows how hopelessly biased we get on topics we are emotionally involved in. On any other topic with the information available everyone sane would asses the likelihood of success as maybe less than 0.001%, but if you ask about this specific thing, it's more like 50%... (Speaking in advance: I understand this is in fact about life extension)
- flatline 13y ago
  Due to these circumstances, I suspect that this having possible applications into life extension is a really good way to get funding for your research, because death is 100% certain, and a .0001% chance of evading it sounds so good to some people that you can just about write your own check. Agreed though, death can be terrifying, but the idea of immortality is flawed in more ways than one. Are you really the same person you were 10 years ago? 10 Months? Weeks? Days? Minutes? Seconds? What is it, other than one's own fragile ego, that people are trying to perpetuate into eternity? A few extra years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to me.
  - JoshTriplett 13y ago
    > A few extra years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to me. Feel free to pass on it then, assuming you'd actually make that decision if you really had the choice. That problem will naturally solve itself: the set of people still alive will trend towards 100% rejection of having a limited lifespan. "Everyone who had serious philosophical conundra on that subject just, you know, _died_, a generation before. [...] didn't need to convert its detractors, just outlive them." -- Cory Doctorow, "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom".
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      So you're going to volunteer for the sterilization and family-size controls necessary to make an indefinitely-living population feasible on a finite planet whose resources we're already overconsuming? Or are you just full-on into the Google-executive mindset where you use life extension to live long enough to deliberately invoke every other Singularity/transhuman/futurist douchebag trope in the damn book and go sailing off to space to find more resources for your exponentially-expanding population to consume?
nsxwolf 13y ago
If this random stat I found on Gizmodo (yeah, I Googled and couldn't find anything better) your chances of dying of an accident in a year are 1 in 1656. So "immortality" is really a couple thousand years. Don't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me that I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) I'm sticking with a couple thousand years tops. Impressive life extension. Not immortality. Not even talking about the "heat death of the universe" here - you're getting nowhere near that. You can live your life through robotic surrogates, and that could extend your life further, but wherever you warehouse your body becomes a single point of failure so it had better be secure.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Oh, don't worry. Ecosystem collapse is already occurring. 2000 years? We won't last 200 at this rate.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  That's only true if we assume that the chance of dying of an accident will remain constant in the next 2000 years (it won't).
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  > Don't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me that I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) […] Luckily, religions are false. The supernatural is unlikely, and immaterial souls even more so. But we have quantum mechanics. Current quantum mechanics say that copy&paste transportation doesn't kill you. (Yep. The question was philosophical, and the answer came from physics.) The reason is, you're not a heap of atom, you're an arrangement of atoms. Mind uploading goes a bit further, but should work just as well. Imagine a "temporary" uploading, where your memories from the Matrix are downloaded back into your brain (by rewiring your neurons accordingly). It's still you, only older. Anyway, a deeper understanding of our brains' inner workings may resolve the question of mind uploading more definitely. We'll see then.
  - melange 13y ago
samstave 13y ago
A couple of years ago, after it was revealed that Sergey had some genetic disorder I wrote this sci-fi short story inspired by the fact that Larry/Sergey would be doing exactly this: ---- In the year 2010, scientists perfected suspended animation through the use of cryogenics for the purpose of surgery. After more than a decade of study and refinement, long term suspended animation became a reality, yet a privilege reserved for only the most wealthy and influential. The thinking at the time was that only those who showed a global and fundamental contribution to society (while still viewed through the ridiculously tinted lenses of the global elite of the era) were worthy of entering into such state. The process was both incredibly complex and costly. As each Transport, as they were known, required their own stand alone facility to be built around them. Significant resources were put into the development of each facility as they required complete autonomous support systems to accommodate whatever duration was selected by the Transport. Standalone, yet fully redundant, power, security and life support systems were essential to the longevity of each facility. Additionally, it was recognized that monetary resources would be subject to change over time, especially fiat-currency based resources. Thus there was a need to place physical holders of value that would be perceived to not deplete/dilute over time into the facilities for use by the Transport when they resuscitate. These resources are the most sought after treasure of the new world. After hundreds of years of human progress, civilization could no longer sustain itself in an organized self-supporting system. Through utter corruption of what some call the human soul, the world has fallen dark. There are very few outposts of safety in the current Trial of Life, as its now known. Many Transporters have been found, resuscitated and exploited already. There are believed to be many many more, but their locations are both secret and secure. Akin to your life relying on the discovery of an undisturbed Tomb of a Pharaoh - even though every consciousness on the planet is also seeking the same tomb. They are the last bastion of hope for they alone have the reserves of precious materials needed to sustain life for the current generation. Metals, technology (however outdated), medicines, seeds, weapons and minerals are all a part of each Transport 'Crop'. One find can support a group or community for years alone based on the barter and renewable resource potentials in each Crop. One transport, found in 2465, that of a long dead nanotech pioneer - who was purportedly responsible for much of the cybernetic medical capabilities of the 21st century, which he sought to cure his genetic predisposition for a certain disease, was so vast that the still powerful city-state in the western province of North America was able to be founded. The resources of this individual were extraordinary, but his resuscitation, as they all are, was rather gruesome and cold. The security systems in each Transport Facility are biometric and very complex. They can only be accessed by a living, calm and (relatively) healthy Transport. If the system, and its control mechanism AI, detect signs of duress, stress or serious injury to the Transport - they go into fail-safe. Which is to say they self detonate. Taking with them all resources, the Transport and the Seekers as well. There have been many instances of this, such that the art of successful Resuscitation has become an extremely profitable business. The most active and successful Resuscitation Team (RT) have been the ironically named, Live Well Group. The most conniving, well practiced and profitable con in the history of mankind. LWG alone has been responsible for the resuscitation of more than 370 Transports. Their group is currently the most powerful in the world. With their own city-state, established after the Brin case mentioned, they have a cast of thousands of cons all working to ensure the Transport believes they have been Awakened to a new, advanced, safe world and that they would be allowed to stake part in a significant way now that they have been Transported. They are fooled into releasing their resources, then brutally tortured for information about any other Transports or any other knowledge they may possess, which invariably is less than nothing. It is a hard world out there now, and the LWGs ruthless strive to locate the thousands of other Transport Facilities is both the worst aspect of our modern struggle - yet ironically will serve to be the basis of the ongoing endeavor of the species. There is rumor of a vast facility of resources and Transports in an underground 'CITY' of the most elite Transports ever. A facility supposedly comprised of the 13 most powerful and rich bloodlines of people to have ever existed. It is not known which continent this facility is on, but I believe it is in Antarctica - fully automated and with the ability to auto-resuscitate at a given time. This is my mission, this is my life's work. To find and own this facility and crush any and all other groups that oppose me.
gmack 13y ago
Succeed or not in their stated goal, it could end up throwing off a lot of interesting science, assuming actual bio/neuro/genetic science is backed by the venture. Presumably all this enhanced by vast amounts of computational prowess, as well. That said, there are a lot of questions about what the philosophical, cultural, sociological and political underpinnings and implications might be. Creating a friendly environment for discussing those could be a worthwhile exercise as well. For example, what is the interaction between individual wellbeing and longevity, and the quality of world in which you live? Perhaps it's a two-way street, a wholistic set of factors that includes social wellbeing in addition to medical health, taking for example the case of that Greek island with famously long-living people (Ikaria). As someone said, it's not the years in your life, it's the life in your years.
consider_this 13y ago
You'd think with everything Google already knows about most people they could just solve for x.
_stuart 13y ago
Love that it has a cat name... they're the ones with seven lives, right?
- dsego 13y ago
  I thought it was 9.
  - _stuart 13y ago
    Depends what country you're from.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kjofol 13y ago
Damn, I thought Pratchet wrote another book...
tomd01 13y ago
The date publish on the article is wrong? Its also cuts off and trys to get me to pay money?

187 points by weu 13y ago

Can anyone find meaningful detail in here about how Google hopes to solve the problem of death? Beyond the name of the company and the guy running it, this seems like a stock profile of Google X.

radley 13y ago

What's with the fake, trollish headline on HN? It should say "Google vs. Death".

raldi 13y ago
It does say that, now. What was the original headline?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wissler 13y ago

Google can't extend human life but maybe it can pick the right people who can. This is similar to iPhone. Steve Jobs didn't make the iPhone possible. What he did was recognize something that many engineers had recognized for a long time and he permitted the resources to flow to the right people. Sure, he introduced some of his own artistic flair. But the combination of radio, UNIX, with a nice API was an idea whose time had come. We just needed a CEO with the balls to let his engineers go for it. There are many brilliant scientists and engineers that can nearly do magic, and not enough people who know how to discern what visions to fund. Every so often we get blessed with a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk who can send the resources the right way, but for the most part we get Carly Fiorina.

hosay123 13y ago

So this article was presumably written beforehand and embargoed to coincide with the official announcement of Calico. While I guess there's nothing wrong with that, it does make me wonder what kind of pre-approved message is supposed to be imparted by a premeditated PR campaign. Perhaps it is just to avoid scaring investors, going by Larry's concern assuaging in the second paragraph of his post. One of the Google founders was also behind funding the first purely lab-grown burger eaten in London a few months ago. That also had an obviously professional PR campaign attached to it, although little of this was explicit in the press. A professionally edited HD recording of the event appeared on the BBC web site only a few minutes after publication, so obviously some PR mechanism was at play. But that event wasn't to promote Google or anything else, it was absent of any commercial labels attached to the copy or the video itself, and no mention was made of who organized or funded it. I have no idea what the message, or the point of that campaign was either. What are these campaigns trying to tell us?

eli 13y ago
I think you're reading too much into it. Of course there's a premeditated PR campaign -- it's the launch of a major new initiative!
bsullivan01 13y ago
Google does everything in a very orchestrated campaign. Bash Adwords or Search here and you will see "them" show up to defend it. But unless Google already transferred $x billions to Calico's bank account, I have to laugh at the 20-30+ year investment agenda and that somehow Google will be in for the long run--unlike other companies. This will be shut down the minute Adwords growth slows down...and they're running out of places to put them due to over-saturation and "free" traffic to sites is disappearing at an alarming rate already. Google, Page, Brin should've put $500 mil each and then pledged regular contributions. Or maybe this is Brin's divorce package: Calico will buy 123andMe for a lot of money ;-)
- DominikR 13y ago
  You don't have any information on how much money they have invested. All you do is speculate and inform us about your aversion towards Google. And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this project if their profits started going down isn't really informative unless you think that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental logic.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    >>"You don't have any information on how much money they have invested." I never said I had the info. The people that know this chose not to say it. I speculated, which is all we can do. >>"And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this project if their profits started going down isn't really informative unless you think that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental logic." It's not that informative, I give you that; it's Wall Street 101 and most know by now. >>"about your aversion towards Google." Not sure blind love and gullibility is any better, assuming that I have an aversion to everything Google.

michaelfeathers 13y ago

Funny. No mention of Kurzweil.

lukev 13y ago
Kurzweil is a joker. His entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that computational power is the only obstacle to general AI, which is manifestly not the case.
- melange 13y ago
  Kurzweil works for Google.
jcutrell 13y ago
I mostly agree here, but he does have quite a bit of a history of accurate predictions. Not a logical reason to believe in his future predictive ability, but certainly seems relevant to the anti-aging conversation.

devanti 13y ago

after money, fame, what else? the google founders desire to live forever

nullc 13y ago
Desire _everyone_ to live forever. What kind of monster are you that you don't think thats a laudable goal?
- sigzero 13y ago
  You have no idea what you are even saying. Have you even thought about what "everyone living forever" means? Probably not.
  - nullc 13y ago
    I have. Have you? I suspect not: http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html Of course, the result won't actually achieve that. But it is not an unhonorable goal. Involuntary death is not a virtuous thing.
- objclxt 13y ago
  > What kind of monster are you that you don't think thats a laudable goal? I think there are many compelling ethical and philosophical arguments one can make against wanting everyone to live forever. We shouldn't confuse live extension with living forever. Oddly enough, David Attenborough is in the news today for suggesting population control is a huge and growing problem[1]. You could argue that research into extending human life when we are looking at significant problems with population overcrowding and competition for resources in the near future is putting the horse before the cart. I am not sure which side of the fence I fall on. Medical research can allow people with previously incurable conditions to live full lives. This is a laudable goal. But that's not what you said - you're talking about living forever. Is that so laudable? I would certainly not call someone who thought that was a truly awful idea 'a monster'. Indeed, there's lots of speculative fiction based around how awful it would actually be to live forever (or even a very long time). [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-D...

nohuck13 13y ago

When Google sponsors an awesome project like this, I see the tech company equivalent of Nike sponsoring LeBron James for $105 million. Even if the R&D angle doesn't work out, Google gets real value (i.e. indirectly interchangeable for money) in terms of PR and recruiting. Consumer products companies pay huge amounts of money for PR. Google is just doing the same thing in a typically Googlish way. I don't think it's as cynical as just that: Google, and Larry Page in particular have been talking about making the world a better place for 15 years in a way that makes me pretty inclined to believe them, but the side benefits must counterbalance the longshot-ness quite a bit.

modeless 13y ago
It's a bit more risky than sponsoring a popular athlete I think. Few peope think we shouldn't play sports, but there is a surprisingly large group of people who believe we shouldn't be engaging on research like this. Reasons include religious, environmental, and social concerns.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  There are plenty of people prepared to question the veneration of professional athletes. (Though I should concede that they are not anything like a majority)
- breckinloggins 13y ago
  When I first read about Aubrey de Grey, I instinctively knew that he had the right approach to the problem of aging and immortality but I also suspected that he would run afoul of the religious, environmental, and social criticism that you're suggesting. However, I no longer think that is the case, and I think if Calico takes the same tack they will mostly avoid it as well. Here's why: a gross simplification of de Grey's entire research program is "aging and death happen because things start breaking faster than we can fix them, and because things start breaking that we have no idea how to fix." One of the greatest things about tackling the fountain of youth from this perspective is that it will continue to look like normal medicine and cosmetic procedures. I predict that effective "eternal youth and immortality" will be achieved, but by the time the mass population notices enough to care, the majority of the population will be composed of people who grew up with the idea of accelerating progress on human health (in the same way that today's kids simply do not know an era without exponential advances in information technology). Thus, they will probably experience this threshold as completely normal, if they experience it at all. In other words, there won't be a "magic moment". That moment will only appear retroactively, similar to today's magazine articles that say "hey look, here we are in the future with our video phones and what not! Isn't that nice?" Let's say in the next 20 years the following things happen: 1. A therapeutic AIDS vaccine performs the equivalent of Polio eradication 2. Highly targeted and effective cancer therapies are developed at an increasingly alarming rate 3. An actual cure for baldness is found 4. A preventative therapeutic regimen for treating obesity at a genetic level is discovered 5. A "nano-cream" that restores collagen in the skin becomes available first by prescription, then over the counter 6. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's can be detected and prevented early and completely managed in those that are in advanced stages Each one of those 6 things will likely face some opposition, but the opposition's voices will most probably not reach any kind of "critical mass"; people will (for example with the AIDS vaccine) simply regard as cruel the idea that people should die of AIDS because you don't want them having sex (a silly protest that I can still predict happening). Each of these advances will happen individually, and to the average person they won't look anything alike. But if you stack enough of these together long enough, you eventually get your fountain of youth. It's just that by the time it arrives there won't be riots in the streets, just 90% of the population saying "oh cool" and the other 10% viewed as harmless luddites with an interesting perspective on life.

frank_boyd 13y ago

I think I'll go with death, then.

pjscott 13y ago
That's fine, as long as you choose it rather than having it thrust upon you. Currently, we lose this choice after less than a century.
- qu4z-2 13y ago
  I worry that it will not be a choice (or at least taboo, like suicide is these days -- given that's basically what it will be). EDIT: I wonder if the possibility of living nearly forever will make society even more risk-averse?
  - lmm 13y ago
    Improved healthcare, reduced war and so on have already made society much more risk-averse. This would just be another bit of improved healthcare.

vibrolax 13y ago

Last week, my fiancée telling about me a novel she was reading "Google Démocratie" by David Angevin and Laurent Alexandre (2011, French language). This article sure makes the premise of the novel (genetically modified trans-humans vs the good old fashioned kind) seem a little less far-fetched.

stiff 13y ago

There is something very weird about people routinely speaking of immortality as something that is actually a thing. For all we know, stars die eventually, the sun will burn out eventually, the universe as we know most likely comes to an end and so forth, you can not cheat basic physics. To me this is the same kind of refusal that makes some people believe in god, and that shows how hopelessly biased we get on topics we are emotionally involved in. On any other topic with the information available everyone sane would asses the likelihood of success as maybe less than 0.001%, but if you ask about this specific thing, it's more like 50%... (Speaking in advance: I understand this is in fact about life extension)

flatline 13y ago
Due to these circumstances, I suspect that this having possible applications into life extension is a really good way to get funding for your research, because death is 100% certain, and a .0001% chance of evading it sounds so good to some people that you can just about write your own check. Agreed though, death can be terrifying, but the idea of immortality is flawed in more ways than one. Are you really the same person you were 10 years ago? 10 Months? Weeks? Days? Minutes? Seconds? What is it, other than one's own fragile ego, that people are trying to perpetuate into eternity? A few extra years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to me.
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > A few extra years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to me. Feel free to pass on it then, assuming you'd actually make that decision if you really had the choice. That problem will naturally solve itself: the set of people still alive will trend towards 100% rejection of having a limited lifespan. "Everyone who had serious philosophical conundra on that subject just, you know, _died_, a generation before. [...] didn't need to convert its detractors, just outlive them." -- Cory Doctorow, "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom".
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    So you're going to volunteer for the sterilization and family-size controls necessary to make an indefinitely-living population feasible on a finite planet whose resources we're already overconsuming? Or are you just full-on into the Google-executive mindset where you use life extension to live long enough to deliberately invoke every other Singularity/transhuman/futurist douchebag trope in the damn book and go sailing off to space to find more resources for your exponentially-expanding population to consume?

nsxwolf 13y ago

If this random stat I found on Gizmodo (yeah, I Googled and couldn't find anything better) your chances of dying of an accident in a year are 1 in 1656. So "immortality" is really a couple thousand years. Don't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me that I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) I'm sticking with a couple thousand years tops. Impressive life extension. Not immortality. Not even talking about the "heat death of the universe" here - you're getting nowhere near that. You can live your life through robotic surrogates, and that could extend your life further, but wherever you warehouse your body becomes a single point of failure so it had better be secure.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Oh, don't worry. Ecosystem collapse is already occurring. 2000 years? We won't last 200 at this rate.
patrickaljord 13y ago
That's only true if we assume that the chance of dying of an accident will remain constant in the next 2000 years (it won't).
loup-vaillant 13y ago
> Don't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me that I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) […] Luckily, religions are false. The supernatural is unlikely, and immaterial souls even more so. But we have quantum mechanics. Current quantum mechanics say that copy&paste transportation doesn't kill you. (Yep. The question was philosophical, and the answer came from physics.) The reason is, you're not a heap of atom, you're an arrangement of atoms. Mind uploading goes a bit further, but should work just as well. Imagine a "temporary" uploading, where your memories from the Matrix are downloaded back into your brain (by rewiring your neurons accordingly). It's still you, only older. Anyway, a deeper understanding of our brains' inner workings may resolve the question of mind uploading more definitely. We'll see then.
- melange 13y ago

samstave 13y ago

A couple of years ago, after it was revealed that Sergey had some genetic disorder I wrote this sci-fi short story inspired by the fact that Larry/Sergey would be doing exactly this: ---- In the year 2010, scientists perfected suspended animation through the use of cryogenics for the purpose of surgery. After more than a decade of study and refinement, long term suspended animation became a reality, yet a privilege reserved for only the most wealthy and influential. The thinking at the time was that only those who showed a global and fundamental contribution to society (while still viewed through the ridiculously tinted lenses of the global elite of the era) were worthy of entering into such state. The process was both incredibly complex and costly. As each Transport, as they were known, required their own stand alone facility to be built around them. Significant resources were put into the development of each facility as they required complete autonomous support systems to accommodate whatever duration was selected by the Transport. Standalone, yet fully redundant, power, security and life support systems were essential to the longevity of each facility. Additionally, it was recognized that monetary resources would be subject to change over time, especially fiat-currency based resources. Thus there was a need to place physical holders of value that would be perceived to not deplete/dilute over time into the facilities for use by the Transport when they resuscitate. These resources are the most sought after treasure of the new world. After hundreds of years of human progress, civilization could no longer sustain itself in an organized self-supporting system. Through utter corruption of what some call the human soul, the world has fallen dark. There are very few outposts of safety in the current Trial of Life, as its now known. Many Transporters have been found, resuscitated and exploited already. There are believed to be many many more, but their locations are both secret and secure. Akin to your life relying on the discovery of an undisturbed Tomb of a Pharaoh - even though every consciousness on the planet is also seeking the same tomb. They are the last bastion of hope for they alone have the reserves of precious materials needed to sustain life for the current generation. Metals, technology (however outdated), medicines, seeds, weapons and minerals are all a part of each Transport 'Crop'. One find can support a group or community for years alone based on the barter and renewable resource potentials in each Crop. One transport, found in 2465, that of a long dead nanotech pioneer - who was purportedly responsible for much of the cybernetic medical capabilities of the 21st century, which he sought to cure his genetic predisposition for a certain disease, was so vast that the still powerful city-state in the western province of North America was able to be founded. The resources of this individual were extraordinary, but his resuscitation, as they all are, was rather gruesome and cold. The security systems in each Transport Facility are biometric and very complex. They can only be accessed by a living, calm and (relatively) healthy Transport. If the system, and its control mechanism AI, detect signs of duress, stress or serious injury to the Transport - they go into fail-safe. Which is to say they self detonate. Taking with them all resources, the Transport and the Seekers as well. There have been many instances of this, such that the art of successful Resuscitation has become an extremely profitable business. The most active and successful Resuscitation Team (RT) have been the ironically named, Live Well Group. The most conniving, well practiced and profitable con in the history of mankind. LWG alone has been responsible for the resuscitation of more than 370 Transports. Their group is currently the most powerful in the world. With their own city-state, established after the Brin case mentioned, they have a cast of thousands of cons all working to ensure the Transport believes they have been Awakened to a new, advanced, safe world and that they would be allowed to stake part in a significant way now that they have been Transported. They are fooled into releasing their resources, then brutally tortured for information about any other Transports or any other knowledge they may possess, which invariably is less than nothing. It is a hard world out there now, and the LWGs ruthless strive to locate the thousands of other Transport Facilities is both the worst aspect of our modern struggle - yet ironically will serve to be the basis of the ongoing endeavor of the species. There is rumor of a vast facility of resources and Transports in an underground 'CITY' of the most elite Transports ever. A facility supposedly comprised of the 13 most powerful and rich bloodlines of people to have ever existed. It is not known which continent this facility is on, but I believe it is in Antarctica - fully automated and with the ability to auto-resuscitate at a given time. This is my mission, this is my life's work. To find and own this facility and crush any and all other groups that oppose me.

gmack 13y ago

Succeed or not in their stated goal, it could end up throwing off a lot of interesting science, assuming actual bio/neuro/genetic science is backed by the venture. Presumably all this enhanced by vast amounts of computational prowess, as well. That said, there are a lot of questions about what the philosophical, cultural, sociological and political underpinnings and implications might be. Creating a friendly environment for discussing those could be a worthwhile exercise as well. For example, what is the interaction between individual wellbeing and longevity, and the quality of world in which you live? Perhaps it's a two-way street, a wholistic set of factors that includes social wellbeing in addition to medical health, taking for example the case of that Greek island with famously long-living people (Ikaria). As someone said, it's not the years in your life, it's the life in your years.

consider_this 13y ago

You'd think with everything Google already knows about most people they could just solve for x.

_stuart 13y ago

Love that it has a cat name... they're the ones with seven lives, right?

dsego 13y ago
I thought it was 9.
- _stuart 13y ago
  Depends what country you're from.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kjofol 13y ago

Damn, I thought Pratchet wrote another book...

tomd01 13y ago

The date publish on the article is wrong? Its also cuts off and trys to get me to pay money?