View Single Post
  #117  
Old 12-27-2017, 02:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Right, and the logical step to take after that is to ask "is there any way with the technology we have now to do something so we don't have to be the last (or second to last) generation to die? Because if you concede that it's inevitable that human ingenuity will find a way to defeat aging and certain death, and then in such a society, take many safety measures to reduce to near zero most homicides and accidental deaths, it makes you feel really shitty if you think you'll end up dying 10 years before there's a treatment for aging.
I certainly do not concede that. I do think that we will mange to extend our lifespans a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few generations living into your hundreds becomes as common as making it to your 60's now, and with better health.

There are some other medical concerns that may not be so easily waved away. Pushing past 150 is going to require more than just simple advances in medicine, it's going to need complete retooling of our cellular machinery.

Is dying 10 years before immortality comes about any shittier than your parents dying 10 years before it comes out either? Or how shitty is it if we can create new humans with aging "removed" from their DNA, but that treatment doesn't work on already living people?

Someone always has to be the last one to die for any cause.

And I don't know that it is inevitable that humanity itself will make it another 3 years, much less with the growing technology that is required to make any sort of increased lifespan.

Quote:
And then you realize that it just might be possible to solve the problem now. Maybe. To reuse your fire analogy, maybe you don't need a complete theory of lightning and spontaneous combustion. Maybe you can just rub 2 sticks together really fast. Maybe, since liquid nitrogen seems to preserve every other living thing, if it's real small and frozen really fast, maybe there's a way to preserve your whole brain well enough that you could fix the damage done later. Maybe we as a society could be researching this on a large scale instead of giving tax cuts to the rich*.
What research? Dropping things into a cold dewar doesn't need much practice.

I might suggest that we try liquid helium, at least for initial freezing, as that would make it freeze faster and lead to less crystallization, but that's pretty much it, research done.

Without the technology to revive such a person, we will not know how well we did, so there literally is no point to research, as there is no way to check the results of the experiments.

Quote:
*Which I find obscenely short sighted. Who benefits most from reliable medical care that allows for indefinite lifespans? Rich billionaires, of course. Aging and death is the only thing that threatens them and their lavish existence. So why aren't there foundations with a trillion dollars of donated money working round the clock on every promising avenue of human life extension?
Good point, if life extension was so easy, then why do the ultra-wealthy not pursue it?

Maybe because it is not all that feasible, even with nearly unlimited resources for research. That alone should tell you something, that those with the resources to do what you are saying aren't doing it. That may just mean that all the wealthy and ultra wealthy people are stupid.

I have many questions about the ethics of some of our wealthiest citizens, but I do not ever think that they are stupid.
Quote:
If every billionaire was long-sighted enough to donate half their fortune to longevity research, each one individually would face no discernible degradation of their lavish lifestyle. Even being a 500-millionaire is pretty damn nice. And they might make progress. It's a bet that might not pay off - but they shouldn't be defeatist about it. Even if it's just a pill + immune cell transplants that gets them to 110, that's a very large, personal reward for their investment.
Somehow I think that it's gonna be a bit more invasive than a pill and immune cell transplants.