I’m not sure if he’s a genius or a nutcase.
Well, darn it all. I thought the title of this thread said that immorality was 20 years away, and I was going to say “Hey, Kurzweil, where ya been? We’ve got it now.”
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; to wit, Issac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Kary Mullis, et cetera. He might be right. I doubt it, but then, I doubt that the rabbit will ever get his Trix, either, and yet, it could still happen.
Just give the rabbit the damn cereal, willya? 
Stranger
Bah! You and your “imortality!” I plan to have imortality through an honorable death in battle, and living for ever in the hall of Odin!
I’ll bet that immortality, like economical fusion power, will be “a few decades away” for quite a long time, maybe forever.
I am currently reading his book, “Fantastic Voyage - Live Long Enough to Live Forever.” Pretty boring stuff so far. (i guess even immortality cant psych some people up)
Chapter two starts with a quote by Aubrey de Grey (they seem to be in kahootz)
The book is primarily written for omfg-im-scared-shitless-because-im-going-to-die-soon 50-60+ year olds. At a strapping 22 I was pretty much sealed in an immortal deal at birth.
Just remember…There can only be one…
To help conceptualize his ideas, it’s helpful to think of this “immortality is only 20 years away” idea in a certain way. He is basing this premise on what Audrey de Grey thinks, which is that in 20 years life expectancy will increase by one year every single year. To reach 5,000 years by 2100 life expectancy will increase exponentially - slowly at first and faster at last - over the next 100 years. So, it’s not going to be some red pill/blue pill situation that just suddenly happens by a miraculous scientific breakthrough, but rather a slow progression of miraculous scientific breakthroughs that, like the technology currently surrounding us, we will hardly notice. As it is, life expectancy is something like 77 years for yanks like me, (cite). According to wikipedia it was 49 years in 1901. I don’t think we consider it anything new, fancy, or outrageous that we probably all have a few people in the family tree, and moreso alive today, that are centenarians. It is simply the case.
Also keep in mind that so long as you are in this universe, you will never be immortal, so even if they are right there is a good bit of hype surrounding the concept.
I guess I had more to say about this than I though.
Don’t forget about Methuselah who, according to Genesis 5:27, lived to be 969. (that wasn’t in their book, but shoulda’ been)
Feh. Even if we can prolong old age for a long time (which I’ll believe when I see), we still have to deal with car (and boat, and airplane)-wrecks, diseases, pissed-off ex’s, day-to-day accidents, etc, etc, etc.
How many wars do you think we’ll have in the next 5,000 years? Think you’ll survive all of them?
This is happy-thinking at best and blatant quackery at worst.
56, huh? Gotta be a Baby Boomer: I had my fun in the 60’s and 70’s, now I’m getting old and saggy, and I don’t wanna die! We need another Spanish Flu to thin out their ranks.
So, do we spend this immortality in our 30-40-y/o bodies, or are we just decrepit and falling apart for eternity?
And what about Social Security in that case??? :eek:
And to think ya’ll were doubting the president when he said social security was in trouble. How does it feel to be wrong haters?
As for Kurzweil, I vote nutjob. I’ve tried to read one of his books and stopped about half way through. Complete and utter loon.
A note: The extension in life expectancy since '01 has mostly to do with a reduction in infant mortality rates, than any great increase in actual expectancy.
IIRC.
Yeah, because all Baby Boomers are like that. :rolleyes:
I believe this is the case also (not a total explanation, but it accounts for most of the increase). In addition, increased life expectancy is due to the better nutritional intake of those who make it through childhood, not an inherent increase. In other words, if you restrict people’s diet starting now, life expectancy would drop off.
Actually, restricted calorie intake (with a nutrionally appropriate diet) correlates with increased lifespan, and the life-extension people are increasingly promoting a highly restricted calorie diet (something on the order of 1500 calories/day.) Some hypotheses have been floated around as to why, but I don’t think there’s any substantial theory as of yet.
There are a few posters (tremorviolet who I recall offhand) who have followed this stuff; perhaps they’ll come along and fill us in on this.
Stranger
I read a sci-fi story where this was the premise. Some sect had discovered the secret to immortality. They couldn’t die of natural causes but were susceptible to accidents. One of the members went to an actuary and asked how long someone would live if this were the case (she posed it as a hypothetical). Evidently, the actuary figured that someone had a one in X chance of dying in an accident in a given year. So X (I think it was 5000) was how likely someone like that would live.
If anyone knows what book I’m talking about, I’d be interested in getting the title. I’ve tried usinging Amazon’s “search inside books” feature but I guess I don’t remember a specific enough detail.
Yes, I was particularly referring to nutritional content, not calorie intake. Thank you for clearing up any ambiguity I may have given.
Kurzweil is a big fan of unjustified extrapolation from current data. So if something is doubling every 18 months NOW, he sees no reason why it shouldn’t continue to do so for the rest of eternity and goes off and writes breathless books about the consequences of this happening.
Wasn’t there a Star Trek episode about this? Didn’t that place get a bit crowded?
Ah, Gene Roddenberry, was there anything he DIDN’T know? (Other than how to stay alive, I mean.)