6 ms·

>He's not talking about drugs, the word 'drug' is not even mentioned in the (hype-filled 'article'). I think his nanobots would be regulated by the FDA as drug

>He's not talking about drugs, the word 'drug' is not even mentioned in the (hype-filled 'article'). I think his nanobots would be regulated by the FDA as drugs. >Even if he was basing his ideas on one or more drugs, what sort of stumbling block does 'government approval in the USA' matter if you're a multimillionaire with contacts in high-tech industries, looking to avoid death, present? Not much of one. The same stumbling block that you would have getting an iphone if they were illegal. They would never have been made in the first place. >His predictions are based on transformational technologies such as nanotechnology and/or AI, they wont follow on linearly from current ailing pharma, so that's not relevant. Right - that's why I qualified my statement with "The only way this is going to happen is if human-level or better AI is finished, like, next week." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet that way. >Ray Kurzweil has counted to infinity... twice Sure, he's a smart guy. I could dig up other smart guys who work closer to the field who don't think immortality will ever be achieved. Smart guys can be right about one thing and wrong about another.

jodrellblank 17y ago
I think his nanobots would be regulated by the FDA as drugs. I think that would be like the FDA trying to classify a programming language as good or bad. The same stumbling block that you would have getting an iphone if they were illegal. They would never have been made in the first place. They will be made so they can be used on inanimate objects and used or tested on animals. They will be made so they can be tested for FDA approval. Therefore will be available on the black market for the right people with enough money. Right - that's why I qualified my statement with "The only way this is going to happen is if human-level or better AI is finished, like, next week." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet that way. That isn't the only way it will happen. Specifically mentioned are artificial organs used to replace failing organs. That is starting to happen right now and could extend life expectancy. Sure, he's a smart guy. I could dig up other smart guys who work closer to the field who don't think immortality will ever be achieved. Smart guys can be right about one thing and wrong about another. Whether he's right or wrong isn't the issue, your dismissive comment as if he had just thought of it yesterday and his ideas were obviously meritless and unsupported is part of the issue (it's unfairly misrepresentative) and your personal attack that he's just an old man grasping at straws is just bad form.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  FDA: drugs = "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease." That would include nanobots. >That isn't the only way it will happen. Specifically mentioned are artificial organs used to replace failing organs. That is starting to happen right now and could extend life expectancy. What happens when (not if) your brain fails? This would just buy us a few more years before we became senile. Worthwhile, but not immortality. >your personal attack that he's just an old man grasping at straws is just bad form. Maybe. It's also true.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    FDA: Silly, will happen, will be worked around. Years: Immortality isn't one step. Extra years are all you need for immortality, as long as you last long enough for the next treatment that gives you extra years. What happens when your brain fails? Hope there's a cure by then. Said failure wont be magic, it will be biological/physical/chemical/electrical and one day repair/replacable at some level. Straws: Not true. He's not grasping at straws because he's old, he's pursuing a several decades long interest in technology, health and longevity. Also, wanting a longer life isn't 'sad' nor does it make him a 'sad' person.
    - ph0rque 17y ago
      Years: Immortality isn't one step. Extra years are all you need for immortality, as long as you last long enough for the next treatment that gives you extra years. Aubrey de Grey has termed this concept actuarial escape velocity.

jodrellblank 17y ago

I think his nanobots would be regulated by the FDA as drugs. I think that would be like the FDA trying to classify a programming language as good or bad. The same stumbling block that you would have getting an iphone if they were illegal. They would never have been made in the first place. They will be made so they can be used on inanimate objects and used or tested on animals. They will be made so they can be tested for FDA approval. Therefore will be available on the black market for the right people with enough money. Right - that's why I qualified my statement with "The only way this is going to happen is if human-level or better AI is finished, like, next week." It could happen, I just wouldn't bet that way. That isn't the only way it will happen. Specifically mentioned are artificial organs used to replace failing organs. That is starting to happen right now and could extend life expectancy. Sure, he's a smart guy. I could dig up other smart guys who work closer to the field who don't think immortality will ever be achieved. Smart guys can be right about one thing and wrong about another. Whether he's right or wrong isn't the issue, your dismissive comment as if he had just thought of it yesterday and his ideas were obviously meritless and unsupported is part of the issue (it's unfairly misrepresentative) and your personal attack that he's just an old man grasping at straws is just bad form.

rsheridan6 17y ago
FDA: drugs = "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease." That would include nanobots. >That isn't the only way it will happen. Specifically mentioned are artificial organs used to replace failing organs. That is starting to happen right now and could extend life expectancy. What happens when (not if) your brain fails? This would just buy us a few more years before we became senile. Worthwhile, but not immortality. >your personal attack that he's just an old man grasping at straws is just bad form. Maybe. It's also true.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  FDA: Silly, will happen, will be worked around. Years: Immortality isn't one step. Extra years are all you need for immortality, as long as you last long enough for the next treatment that gives you extra years. What happens when your brain fails? Hope there's a cure by then. Said failure wont be magic, it will be biological/physical/chemical/electrical and one day repair/replacable at some level. Straws: Not true. He's not grasping at straws because he's old, he's pursuing a several decades long interest in technology, health and longevity. Also, wanting a longer life isn't 'sad' nor does it make him a 'sad' person.
  - ph0rque 17y ago
    Years: Immortality isn't one step. Extra years are all you need for immortality, as long as you last long enough for the next treatment that gives you extra years. Aubrey de Grey has termed this concept actuarial escape velocity.