Born 50yrs too early...

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:04

So here's an article proclaiming immortality is 20yrs off. Now while I don't believe that, I do think that many of the things it's talking about are not that far away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...tality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

It's frustrating to think that the generation 50yrs after ours will most likely have health and longevity beyond our imagination...

StevenRaith · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:06

Easy solution - we kill all children.

Won't that be a gift for the next generation

antijoke · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:06

I doubt anyone will ever live forever.

And even if you could, why would you want to?

Also that article mentions nothing of the actual ageing process, are they going to halt that?

Ziggy · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:06

loltelegraph

Fenris · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:06

Eternity as a 40 year old....brilliant.

willhub · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:07

"Within 25 years we will be able to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or go scuba-diving for four hours without oxygen

So it takes the challenge? Unless olympic sprinters just go faster then? I don't think that'd ever happen.

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:08

anticonscience said:
I doubt anyone will ever live forever.

And even if you could, why would you want to?

Of course not... But would you prefer a healthy prime of 20-30yrs with a 20-30yr fade away? Or a 200 year prime of your life

LeJosh · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:08

anticonscience said:
I doubt anyone will ever live forever.

And even if you could, why would you want to?

To watch the advancement in technology unfold. My only reason.

Edit - This just reminds me of a philip k dick book.

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:09

Fenris said:
Eternity as a 40 year old....brilliant.

What would you prefer in comparison? 200yrs as a 40yr old... or 10yrs as a 40yrs old, 10yrs as a 50yr old.., 10yrs as a 60yr old... 2yrs as a 70yr old... and 168yrs as dust?

~J~ · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:11

Logans Run!!

We've gotta end at some point.

Firestar_3x · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:11

He says theoretically

Sums up the report for me, he's clearly been watching too much T2.

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:13

Firestar_3x said:
Sums up the report for me, he's clearly been watching too much T2.

Indeed... But do you not think within the next 100yrs we will have the ability to probably control the aging process to a significant degree? Do you not think had you been born 50-100yrs later your life would not be over within 70yrs, but maybe three times that instead?

linktoinsanity · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:14

It is theoreticly possible that we will live longer in the future and that we will have artificial parts replacing some of our organs, but in 20 years we will be able to acheive immortality? No chance.

Conscript · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:15

LinktoInsanity said:
It is theoreticly possible that we will live longer in the future and that we will have artificial parts replacing some of our organs, but in 20 years we will be able to acheive immortality? No chance.

More poignantly, would we want to achieve immortality?

StevenRaith · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:15

If we don't sort out the energy supply issues [oil, etc] then we'll havbe far bigger problems in 20 years than just worrying about our ******* wrinkles...

Firestar_3x · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:17

NeilFawcett said:
Indeed... But do you not think within the next 100yrs we will have the ability to probably control the aging process to a significant degree? Do you not think had you been born 50-100yrs later your life would not be over within 70yrs, but maybe three times that instead?

I think within 100 years is a more reasonable timescale, however would immortality for the masses be legal, why would we want people living till 140+? I think an extended life for the intellectually gifted would do the world good, lots of people with great brains and ideas die too soon.

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:17

LinktoInsanity said:
It is theoreticly possible that we will live longer in the future and that we will have artificial parts replacing some of our organs, but in 20 years we will be able to acheive immortality? No chance.

That was not the suggestion (or the point) of the OP. The premise is that probably soon after you die, the science will be developed to create far healthier lives, that go on for far longer periods.

It's akin to dying from a disease that they find the cure to the following year.

This, and probably the next generation will die having lead traditional lives with traditional life times. Beyond that people will most likely live two, three or more times longer...

Are you not the slightest big jealous?

Fenris · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:17

NeilFawcett said:
What would you prefer in comparison? 200yrs as a 40yr old... or 10yrs as a 40yrs old, 10yrs as a 50yr old.., 10yrs as a 60yr old... 2yrs as a 70yr old... and 168yrs as dust?

Dpends, would I have to wear beige?

Antar Bolaeisk · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:18

"Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively."

He's going to assimilate us all!

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:18

Conscript said:
More poignantly, would we want to achieve immortality?

No... But to live got 200yrs instead of 70? Yes!