I could be wrong but I think _carmi meant to say that...well...what she actually said. The key word is "should". Since not everyone is afforded equal opportunities, it would be the same case with this immortality shit. So, she'd be a fan of the idea IF there were an opportunity for equal access to this "death cure". But she did say "....like anything else in life.." which can easily be interpreted the way you did but I give her the benefit of the doubt since English is her second language.
Biotech and the end of dying
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
I could be wrong but I think _carmi meant to say that...well...what she actually said. The key word is "should". Since not everyone is afforded equal opportunities, it would be the same case with this immortality shit. So, she'd be a fan of the idea IF there were an opportunity for equal access to this "death cure". But she did say "....like anything else in life.." which can easily be interpreted the way you did but I give her the benefit of the doubt since English is her second language.
key word is should. i checked my post, i did write should.
got my point. after rereading my post i do see it was my best writing lol. it's been long days with not much sleeping this week. so yeah.
i just don't get it. what's so cool about immortality? when what is life actually worth? all those questions.
And what would you do?
Read more?
Learn more?
Fuck more women?
Know everything there is to know about the world and then share your wisdom on hip hop forums?
To what end man? I feel comfortable about death if I know that I have lived a fulfilling life. The fact that it may be short (80 years) relative to immortality does not irk me. In fact, it instills in me a greater desire to make the most of the time that I have on this earth. It makes me appreciate things. It makes me want to be a good, decent human being. It offers a perspective that grounds you. It makes time a precious resource, and not something never ending.
I say it is unnatural because nature has dictated that there is an aging process - that all living organisms and beings eventually age, slow down, and ultimately die. This is a law of nature, and it applies to almost everything; trees, plants, animals, insects, human life, ocean life, bacterias, germs. How is defying this natural aging process not "unnatural"? A law of nature that applies to nearly everything within the realm of this Earth? The purpose of this is to establish an equilibrium in this earth. Life and death creates balance. If you take away death, that balance no longer exists, and this may have catasrophic consequences.
You mentioned that it will induce people to be more willing to fight things such as climatic change because they will have to live in it. What about the flipside? What if we grow complacent and not give a fuck because we can colonise the moon, mars, and whatever else. Our species would become like a cancer...spreading, consuming, destroying, then moving to something else. If you drop your naive, "think of the best outcome" opinion, you would take into account the possibility of humans losing their incentive and drive to do good for the places they live and create a better environment, because you have ulimtately eradicated the fear of death.
illy, don't take this the wrong way, because i'm not trying to insult you, and I could be wrong, but I've noticed a prevalent theme of you being someone that considers things based upon "the way things are", what is in your definition "natural", etc.
To put it simply, you think inside the box. Your perspective on life is brick-walled.
Myself and Jokerman do not think within confines and constructions of things that are completely understood. Just because something has always been one way, does not mean it SHOULD or WILL be that way. I don't see death as a natural thing or a barrier simply because that's how it currently works, I see death as a problem that can be solved for the greater benefit of humankind.
You aren't approaching this logically. When people have illnesses, we work to solve those illnesses. You wouldn't object to finding a way to cure cancer or AIDS or heart disease.
But if you take away so called "diseases" etc, why do people die? They say that people "die of old age" and they call it "natural death" - but age doesn't kill someone, and these deaths are far from natural.
People's bodies deteriorate over time due to many reasons, but don't get it twisted, these aren't things that can't be solved and you KNOW that already. I don't eat meat because it causes the human body to deteriorate faster. Eating meat causes acid buildup, which eats away at our internal organs. Meat begins to rot before the human body can digest it, leading to further problems. Animal fat clogs the arteries, reducing their ability to function. We know all these things.
Exposure to toxic chemicals in work environments causes deterioration of the human body, that's why we have health and safety legislation. The warnings of smoking cigarettes are widely publicized, and people know about the effects of second-hand smoke, yet most people are subject to far worse toxins on a daily basis, due to pollution of the environment.
You wouldn't disagree that living a healthy lifestyle increases one's lifespan, so why do you believe that there is ultimately still a limit on that? It only stands to reason that the more we learn about the effects of our environments on our bodies, and how to live more healthily, the longer we will live. The more we learn, the longer lifespans we could all ultimately live, and we can find ways to live forever if we choose to. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Animals, insects, bacterias that you mentioned have limited lifespans because they lack the intelligence to adapt and evolve. We as humans have evolved to a higher level of intelligence whereby we can learn and self-evolve much faster than any creature before us due to the intelligence we have. That's the difference there. Again, it's the same argument as with eating meat. The people who lack the ability to think with perspective (or simply just choose not to, perhaps due to lack of confidence in their own intelligence) argue that it's "natural" and that "animals eat meat so what's the difference".
The difference is that we have the higher state of intelligence to make a choice based upon our limitless capacity for knowledge.We make the choice, to kill (thereby not utilizing our intelligence, self-awareness and compassion and be just like less intelligent forms of life), or to find alternatives so that we don't have to kill.
And with this scenario, we as humans can make the choice to die, or to find alternatives so that we do not HAVE to die.
That's the ability that we (and only humans) have. If you choose not to utilize that capacity, well, in my opinion you are wasting your capacity as a human, but who am I to judge? You aren't going to stop my self-evolution, so you're only hurting yourself.
As Jokerman said earlier:
The people like you who stick to these limited, old school ways of thinking will die out. And those of us like Jokerman and I will continue to evolve, and continue to live, and the human race will become a more advanced species because of it.
To put it simply, you think inside the box. Your perspective on life is brick-walled.
Myself and Jokerman do not think within confines and constructions of things that are completely understood. Just because something has always been one way, does not mean it SHOULD or WILL be that way. I don't see death as a natural thing or a barrier simply because that's how it currently works, I see death as a problem that can be solved for the greater benefit of humankind.
You aren't approaching this logically. When people have illnesses, we work to solve those illnesses. You wouldn't object to finding a way to cure cancer or AIDS or heart disease.
But if you take away so called "diseases" etc, why do people die? They say that people "die of old age" and they call it "natural death" - but age doesn't kill someone, and these deaths are far from natural.
People's bodies deteriorate over time due to many reasons, but don't get it twisted, these aren't things that can't be solved and you KNOW that already. I don't eat meat because it causes the human body to deteriorate faster. Eating meat causes acid buildup, which eats away at our internal organs. Meat begins to rot before the human body can digest it, leading to further problems. Animal fat clogs the arteries, reducing their ability to function. We know all these things.
Exposure to toxic chemicals in work environments causes deterioration of the human body, that's why we have health and safety legislation. The warnings of smoking cigarettes are widely publicized, and people know about the effects of second-hand smoke, yet most people are subject to far worse toxins on a daily basis, due to pollution of the environment.
You wouldn't disagree that living a healthy lifestyle increases one's lifespan, so why do you believe that there is ultimately still a limit on that? It only stands to reason that the more we learn about the effects of our environments on our bodies, and how to live more healthily, the longer we will live. The more we learn, the longer lifespans we could all ultimately live, and we can find ways to live forever if we choose to. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Animals, insects, bacterias that you mentioned have limited lifespans because they lack the intelligence to adapt and evolve. We as humans have evolved to a higher level of intelligence whereby we can learn and self-evolve much faster than any creature before us due to the intelligence we have. That's the difference there. Again, it's the same argument as with eating meat. The people who lack the ability to think with perspective (or simply just choose not to, perhaps due to lack of confidence in their own intelligence) argue that it's "natural" and that "animals eat meat so what's the difference".
The difference is that we have the higher state of intelligence to make a choice based upon our limitless capacity for knowledge.We make the choice, to kill (thereby not utilizing our intelligence, self-awareness and compassion and be just like less intelligent forms of life), or to find alternatives so that we don't have to kill.
And with this scenario, we as humans can make the choice to die, or to find alternatives so that we do not HAVE to die.
That's the ability that we (and only humans) have. If you choose not to utilize that capacity, well, in my opinion you are wasting your capacity as a human, but who am I to judge? You aren't going to stop my self-evolution, so you're only hurting yourself.
As Jokerman said earlier:
The people like you who stick to these limited, old school ways of thinking will die out. And those of us like Jokerman and I will continue to evolve, and continue to live, and the human race will become a more advanced species because of it.
Fair enough.. I appreciate that, and I'm not completely opposed to it. It's something which I feel I have to get used to. I just don't believe that blindly accepting something like this without even a blink in its infant stages is just ridiculous.
I like the fact that I atleast question such an advancement, and the merits, considering this will ultimately change the entire structure of human life. Everything will change. It's not just a matter of "ok so i'll live for a few hundred years more".. but everything will change. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be weary of this.. I think it's scarier that yourself and Jokerman champion this with such steadfastness and give it the two thumbs up immediately and brush people like myself off as "backward people who are stuck inside a box". Give me a break. Im just not so sure it should be met with such enthusiasm and eagerness in such a premature stage as exhibited by you and Jokerman.
I like the fact that I atleast question such an advancement, and the merits, considering this will ultimately change the entire structure of human life. Everything will change. It's not just a matter of "ok so i'll live for a few hundred years more".. but everything will change. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be weary of this.. I think it's scarier that yourself and Jokerman champion this with such steadfastness and give it the two thumbs up immediately and brush people like myself off as "backward people who are stuck inside a box". Give me a break. Im just not so sure it should be met with such enthusiasm and eagerness in such a premature stage as exhibited by you and Jokerman.
Well it boils down to attitude and stance I suppose.
I'm an optimist. We're talking about something here where the aim is to advance and progress and improve. In my book that's something to be enthusiastic about.
You claim to be wary, but you still say "such an advancement", showing that you do at least realize that this is, well, advancing from the stage we are at now.
Surely you don't prefer us to be static, or even worse, regressing? It's OK to be a cynic, but I tend to find that cynical outlooks lead to bitterness.
It's not my way, but do you.
I'm an optimist. We're talking about something here where the aim is to advance and progress and improve. In my book that's something to be enthusiastic about.
You claim to be wary, but you still say "such an advancement", showing that you do at least realize that this is, well, advancing from the stage we are at now.
Surely you don't prefer us to be static, or even worse, regressing? It's OK to be a cynic, but I tend to find that cynical outlooks lead to bitterness.
It's not my way, but do you.
This reminded me of your endings for the tupac4Life movies: (with Aussie accent): "Me and Jokerman live somewhere in the universe where we are not oppressed or controlled by any government or elitist society. We are the best. You will see. Because we are right and you are wrong. You dumb fucks."
Just wanted to point out that actually, bacterial cells are essentially immortal. They don’t die of old age. If they can avoid the myriad dangers of the environment in which they live, they go right on living. It’s possible (though unlikely) that there are bacteria alive today that are millions, even billions of years old. But any organism that’s not itself a live bacterium, is a descendant of a bacterium. The 100 trillion cells of our bodies are descended from bacterial cells. But I got the point you were making for Ill-matic.
I'll write some more tomorrow on this topic, and try to answer some of ill-matic's concerns.
When I posted earlier in the thread I wasn't opposing the idea or trying to discredit nobody. I'm not trying to hate. I'm saying that this statement is fucking retarded, "in 20 years i'm sure we'll". It's like saying in 20 years I'm sure we'll be driving flying cars. You can't use your philosophical and optimistic outlook to prove me otherwise. Nobody is living longer because someone tampered with their age gene. When that happens, awesome. I'm against the principle but obviously I have the "duality of man". I would love to live "forever" but I understand potential problems with everyone living "forever". In a weak moment I'd say yes to the shot but my reflected self understands why it's not 100% a good idea. Normally it's that guy you're supposed to listen to in my experience.
My main concern isn't whether or not it's possible though, it's about the responsibility of the people working in this field, and the attention whorish behaviour (which is what it seems like to me) of saying something totally controversial that has no substance beyond being an ambition/dream. We don't know that we'll ever be able to, just like we don't know that we'll ever be able to travel in light speed even though the universe theoretically allows it. So the concern was about buying into bullshit because one guy gave his opinion of what might happen in the future based on where we're at right now. Not that I'm not for technological advances. You can interpret it however you want and use my assumed conservative and hateful attitude to feed egoes and feel like the most liberal motherfucker ever, but you won't even admit that you're just partially fucking excited because you wanna live forever, so maybe you close your eyes to all the opposing factors because you really want it to be possible. That assumption has as much ground for being made as yours about me (that I am against technological advance) so I hope you don't mind me making it, if only to make this point.
That said, this whole thread repulses me. inb4 'don't come in here then.' I didn't know what I was coming to and I'm not sure I'll be coming back.
My main concern isn't whether or not it's possible though, it's about the responsibility of the people working in this field, and the attention whorish behaviour (which is what it seems like to me) of saying something totally controversial that has no substance beyond being an ambition/dream. We don't know that we'll ever be able to, just like we don't know that we'll ever be able to travel in light speed even though the universe theoretically allows it. So the concern was about buying into bullshit because one guy gave his opinion of what might happen in the future based on where we're at right now. Not that I'm not for technological advances. You can interpret it however you want and use my assumed conservative and hateful attitude to feed egoes and feel like the most liberal motherfucker ever, but you won't even admit that you're just partially fucking excited because you wanna live forever, so maybe you close your eyes to all the opposing factors because you really want it to be possible. That assumption has as much ground for being made as yours about me (that I am against technological advance) so I hope you don't mind me making it, if only to make this point.
That said, this whole thread repulses me. inb4 'don't come in here then.' I didn't know what I was coming to and I'm not sure I'll be coming back.
I'm excited about it because it might advance humanity as a whole. I doubt the technology will advance enough for me to enjoy it in my lifetime, whether I even want to use it and if I can afford it.
But I am excited about the technology and science behind it. Has nothing to do with me wanting to live forever.
Exactly.
It's like tomorrow, if they said "Well we know how to cure cancer but it might take us another 100 years to perfect it and be able to implement it successfully" - I'd be excited, because even though I wouldn't live to see it, it's a step in the right direction. In the future, nobody will have to die from cancer or AIDS and that is amazing to think about.
Just like even as little as 200 years ago, most people would not survive what we now consider to be very basic surgery.
Priest, you just don’t have knowledge in this area. Skin or other cells won’t stop dying. Of course skin cells die and--did you forget?--they get replaced! I explained this for carmi in that heartbeat thread. Cells divide, or regenerate, to replace cells that are worn out and die, like old dead skin cells. Millions of your cells are dying every minute and being replaced by new ones. Different cells regenerate at different rates. For example, red blood cells divide at a rate of 2 million per second. Skin cells and the cells in the intestine live only about 2 weeks before being completely replaced. The programming in your cell’s DNA is what regulates this. The problem is when this programming, the DNA, gets damaged by radiation, environmental toxins, and lifestyle choices, which create free radicals. Mutations in the cell’s genetic database occur and the body’s DNA-replicating machinery makes “typos.” Then each new generation of cells are slightly aged. This is how too much ultraviolet light wrinkles your skin over time. Also, the process of cell division gradually shortens each successive cellular generation’s telomeres—the protective caps on the DNA double helix that serve the same function as the plastic bits on the end of your shoelaces, preventing the chromosomes from “fraying.” If we can prevent and reverse this damage, we’re well on our way to defeating aging. We already can prevent and reverse some of this damage with life-style changes and supplements.
There are no genes for aging in most species, simply because genes only survive if they confer enough benefit to outweigh the constant stream of random mutations that all genes experience over evolutionary time, and a gene can’t confer any benefit if it only mediates a process that would happen anyway. What we do have genes for are all the interacting processes that turns each of us from a single cell into a fertile adult and that maintain our vigor and fertility until an age at which (in the wild) we’re unlikely to have succumbed to starvation, predation, and so on. For several decades scientists have been finding ways to lengthen the lives of various organisms in the laboratory. They’ve done this by extending the period of peak health and vigor between maturity and frailty. Single genes have been modified in the test tube and then introduced into the body by gene therapy. Gene therapy for humans is still taking its baby steps, but there’s widespread confidence that it’ll work well eventually.
Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life. Just because human beings have always died does not mean that they have to. We don’t owe God or nature a death. Time itself produces no biological effects. There’s nothing about duration that ages us. Events occur in time but not because of its passage. It’s all about process. It’s not the years, it’s the mileage. The body is a machine like any other, and can be fixed. In fact, unlike most man-made machines, the body already has a host of self-repair and self-maintenance processes, which leaves less for us to do with biomedical technology.
Physical immortality, if not yet within our grasp, is certainly within our vision. It’s no longer a fantasy or a dream but may be achievable within this generation. We are approaching the point where human beings can and will live for hundreds of years or even more. The majority of scientists and thinkers in this area now consider life extension and even medical immortality possible and likely. It will be a revolution. We aren’t close enough to this revolution to put accurate timescales on its arrival, but developments in a number of scientific disciplines suggest that we are close enough that our action (or inaction) today will affect the date at which aging is defeated. I think the first clear signs that we’re on the right track will appear within the next decade. And within thirty years, yes, some people will be benefiting from it. This is as certain as was digital high-definition coming in the age of VHS.
Well said Jokerman.
Most people just have no idea about time and processes. They believe that aging "just happens".
Well, like I said before, time is a man made creation. Your body does not abide by time. Humans create routines and follow them and they become habit.
My dad is in his mid 60's. He lives a very healthy and active lifestyle. He doesn't smoke and drinks the occasional beer. He's in better shape than most people in their 40's, hell even some people in their 30's that don't take care of themselves. He still works full-time, drives 40 miles to work and back every day, etc.
By contrast, an uncle (not blood related) of mine, drank and smoked heavily for most of his life. He's only a few years older than my dad, but you'd think he was in his 90's. His body is destroyed, he can barely walk, he has senile dementia, no short-term memory, has to take 10-15 different types of medication on a daily basis, needs round-the-clock care and quite frankly I'd be surprised if he lives another 2 years. Very morbid to say, but he is deteriorating very rapidly.
It sounds like those are two extremes, but really, they are not. How many of you drink, smoke, eat meat, don't exercise, work in smoggy environments, etc? All those things are reducing your life already, but you don't see it and don't realize it. Most people don't ever realize it, they get to their 50's and 60's and start having medical problems, heart attacks, etc, when if they had really considered things, they could potentially go 30 years further than that without any health problems at all.
So as Jokerman says - with the advances in gene therapy.....immortality, or at the least, humans living for a substantially longer period of time, isn't a far away concept.
Most people are uninformed to a very basic level. They don't even realize that very basic parts of their diet like meat and dairy are slowly degenerating their organs (and that's something that has been tested, proven, and numerous books written about). Of course immortality seems like some far away ridiculous concept to them. But the next time someone says to me that it's "unnatural" or uses the mindnumbingly retarded phrase "humans are playing god", I am going to punch them in the face.
Most people just have no idea about time and processes. They believe that aging "just happens".
Well, like I said before, time is a man made creation. Your body does not abide by time. Humans create routines and follow them and they become habit.
My dad is in his mid 60's. He lives a very healthy and active lifestyle. He doesn't smoke and drinks the occasional beer. He's in better shape than most people in their 40's, hell even some people in their 30's that don't take care of themselves. He still works full-time, drives 40 miles to work and back every day, etc.
By contrast, an uncle (not blood related) of mine, drank and smoked heavily for most of his life. He's only a few years older than my dad, but you'd think he was in his 90's. His body is destroyed, he can barely walk, he has senile dementia, no short-term memory, has to take 10-15 different types of medication on a daily basis, needs round-the-clock care and quite frankly I'd be surprised if he lives another 2 years. Very morbid to say, but he is deteriorating very rapidly.
It sounds like those are two extremes, but really, they are not. How many of you drink, smoke, eat meat, don't exercise, work in smoggy environments, etc? All those things are reducing your life already, but you don't see it and don't realize it. Most people don't ever realize it, they get to their 50's and 60's and start having medical problems, heart attacks, etc, when if they had really considered things, they could potentially go 30 years further than that without any health problems at all.
So as Jokerman says - with the advances in gene therapy.....immortality, or at the least, humans living for a substantially longer period of time, isn't a far away concept.
Most people are uninformed to a very basic level. They don't even realize that very basic parts of their diet like meat and dairy are slowly degenerating their organs (and that's something that has been tested, proven, and numerous books written about). Of course immortality seems like some far away ridiculous concept to them. But the next time someone says to me that it's "unnatural" or uses the mindnumbingly retarded phrase "humans are playing god", I am going to punch them in the face.
What you wrote made a whole lot of sense though, and is factual. If the guy had said that I would never have opened my mouth. I'm not against the concept of what you described and I'm not against technological advance, I do think as a scientist in the field you have a responsiblity though.
The guy managed to say that they are working on completely reversing the aging process, and that he believes in 20 years he can save all the lives lost to aging. Meaning he believes in 20 years people can be immortal due to scientific advances. When you're an expert you should be really sure before you say something like that, and that's where I wasn't convinced. So far we can live longer by eating healthy, I'd say becoming immortal is still a little mile to go. So to me it seems as if though this statement was made hastily considering so far we don't have a lot of people living past 120 years in the world. He should consider the impact of his words since he has some control over people's perception in his position. And then I'll apologize in 20 years if I turned out wrong of course.
Ok, what he meant by that is not that we will have the technology in 20 years to make someone immortal, but that we will have the technology in 20 years to extend people’s lives so that they can live long enough to have their lives extended indefinitely by the ever-increasing advances in life extension technology. And that’s why it says: Many of the projects researchers believe we’re approaching "longevity escape velocity" -- where medical advances outpace aging itself.
So say we can make people live 30 years longer in 20 years, the technology between then and 30 years from then will have advanced so that we can then make those same people live even longer, and so on, indefinitely. That’s “longevity escape velocity,” and this guy didn’t coin that. So in that sense, we can save all lives lost to aging starting in about 20 years.
Donate
Back in the day, we used to recieve donations sent as cash in fake birthday cards! Those were the days! I still have some of them, actually.
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8
Members online
No members online now.