4 ms·

The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan. Good to see how this whole race to increase l

The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan. Good to see how this whole race to increase lifespan can change Silicon Valley, moving it once again toward true innovation, truly changing the world, while other companies like Craig Ventor's http://humanlongevity.com http://humanlongevity.com http://genopharmix.com http://genopharmix.com http://www.sens.org http://www.sens.org and http://buckinstitute.org http://buckinstitute.org come into to play.

baddox 12y ago
I would say that lifespan lengthening is in the top tier of impactful technologies, but I think there are three equals in the top tier: strong AI, nanotech, and biotech. Of course, all of these four are quite intertwined, with some being enabled or perhaps even prevented by progress in another.
- biomimic 12y ago
  We need more time.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I tend to group biotech and nanotech together. Because essentially, what is life made of if not nanotechnology that is not ours, and we don't yet know how to control? The simplest way to build our own nanomachines is to start with tweaking the ones we already have around us.
radiorental 12y ago
"The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan." True but I feel for the wrong reasons. To my mind, the single greatest challenge our species has faced in our brief history on this planet is how we minimize our impact on the finite resources available to us. Researchers recently reexamined the predictions made in the 1970's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth and found the models are holding true. The elephant in the room is how do we curb population growth in a meaningful and humane way. What's the point of extending life if there's a diminishing return experientially?
- sp3000 12y ago
  I get frustrated when people bring up Malthusian catastrophe to denigrate the real and important work that scientists are doing in the field of human longevity. Population growth curbs itself as nations become more economically stable. Over population is not a global problem, but rather a regional one. Even Bill Gates has written about this, more recently in his 2014 Gates letter, but also in the following essay, criticizing the doom and gloom predicted by books like The Population Bomb and Limits to Growth. http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Bet http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Bet
- biomimic 12y ago
  Lifespan solves for this. If people knew they would be living long enough to experience what future generations would have to experience in terms of environmental impact, many would take on a different viewpoint toward climate issues as opposed to the "let them deal with it, I ain't gonna be alive anyway" approach. In terms of population control, it's all about lifespan combined with more efficient discovery as fewer ideas would die with those moving them forward. Space travel will solve for moving the human race to further inhabitable planets, but not without a solution for the more important lifespan issue which is a requirement for extended space travel. We've got 4 billion years before our sun runs out and before the Andromeda galaxy will cause us a bit of trouble. 4 billion years from now, lets at least be known as the generation that began to make an impact in this area.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Even before going interplanetary, we still have a lot of uninhabited space on Earth. Colonizing various deserts would be a first step, then maybe underwater habitats will become a thing - all of this is cheaper, safer and easier to do than going to space. We will eventually have to spread to other worlds, but for now, there is still a lot of space to use on ours, so we don't have be afraid of overpopulation in terms of land. We just need to figure out how to feed us all in a sustainable way.
    - biomimic 12y ago
      I agree in part, however, sustainability requires a complex combinatorial solution as well due to it's association to the human condition related to self-interests (the list goes on of course), science, international distribution policy/policing, philosophical vs. technology GMO issuse etc. We need to learn more about are species, we need to buy both time and food with something other than money.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

I would say that lifespan lengthening is in the top tier of impactful technologies, but I think there are three equals in the top tier: strong AI, nanotech, and biotech. Of course, all of these four are quite intertwined, with some being enabled or perhaps even prevented by progress in another.

biomimic 12y ago
We need more time.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I tend to group biotech and nanotech together. Because essentially, what is life made of if not nanotechnology that is not ours, and we don't yet know how to control? The simplest way to build our own nanomachines is to start with tweaking the ones we already have around us.

radiorental 12y ago

"The largest impact in the history of humankind will be made by those companies that work to extend human lifespan." True but I feel for the wrong reasons. To my mind, the single greatest challenge our species has faced in our brief history on this planet is how we minimize our impact on the finite resources available to us. Researchers recently reexamined the predictions made in the 1970's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth and found the models are holding true. The elephant in the room is how do we curb population growth in a meaningful and humane way. What's the point of extending life if there's a diminishing return experientially?

sp3000 12y ago
I get frustrated when people bring up Malthusian catastrophe to denigrate the real and important work that scientists are doing in the field of human longevity. Population growth curbs itself as nations become more economically stable. Over population is not a global problem, but rather a regional one. Even Bill Gates has written about this, more recently in his 2014 Gates letter, but also in the following essay, criticizing the doom and gloom predicted by books like The Population Bomb and Limits to Growth. http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Bet http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Bet
biomimic 12y ago
Lifespan solves for this. If people knew they would be living long enough to experience what future generations would have to experience in terms of environmental impact, many would take on a different viewpoint toward climate issues as opposed to the "let them deal with it, I ain't gonna be alive anyway" approach. In terms of population control, it's all about lifespan combined with more efficient discovery as fewer ideas would die with those moving them forward. Space travel will solve for moving the human race to further inhabitable planets, but not without a solution for the more important lifespan issue which is a requirement for extended space travel. We've got 4 billion years before our sun runs out and before the Andromeda galaxy will cause us a bit of trouble. 4 billion years from now, lets at least be known as the generation that began to make an impact in this area.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Even before going interplanetary, we still have a lot of uninhabited space on Earth. Colonizing various deserts would be a first step, then maybe underwater habitats will become a thing - all of this is cheaper, safer and easier to do than going to space. We will eventually have to spread to other worlds, but for now, there is still a lot of space to use on ours, so we don't have be afraid of overpopulation in terms of land. We just need to figure out how to feed us all in a sustainable way.
  - biomimic 12y ago
    I agree in part, however, sustainability requires a complex combinatorial solution as well due to it's association to the human condition related to self-interests (the list goes on of course), science, international distribution policy/policing, philosophical vs. technology GMO issuse etc. We need to learn more about are species, we need to buy both time and food with something other than money.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]