Born 50yrs too early...

V4NT0M · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:56

Isn't Kurzweil a big advocate of the technological singularity idea, it's no surprise really and old news.

You should watch this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html

clv101 · 28 Sep 2009 at 10:59

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

Or it could me half today's longevity and significantly harder due to.... energy shortage, resource limitations, pollution, economic collapse, climate change, pandemic, super volcano, asteroid, nuclear war....

The future could be good, better than today. But it could also be bad, worse than today. We really have no way of knowing at all.

Given that it's hard to think of a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with a lower population... I’m not sure increased life expectancy is such a good idea if it results in still larger populations!

platinum87 · 28 Sep 2009 at 11:03

Nitefly said:
You can't beat 4.5 billion years of evolution by the flick of a switch.

ey?

knowledge123 · 28 Sep 2009 at 11:08

Any one else think we live too long as it is ? Surely our time and effort should go towards those who are less fortunate then ourselves. As a First World country we already have everything we need on our doorstep BUT we are impatient, easily angered, greedy, selfish and arrogant, yet still we want more.

If this did come to pass, do you really think it would improve quality of life ? Would you want to work for another 20 years of your life, doing what you do now for another 10, 20, 30 years (longer then you do now) ? You'd be bored and get complacent.

my 2p

The Dread Pirate · 28 Sep 2009 at 11:13

So we're all going to be like JC Denton? Do I get my own dragons tooth also?

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 11:30

knowledge123 said:
Any one else think we live too long as it is ? Surely our time and effort should go towards those who are less fortunate then ourselves. As a First World country we already have everything we need on our doorstep BUT we are impatient, easily angered, greedy, selfish and arrogant, yet still we want more.

If this did come to pass, do you really think it would improve quality of life ? Would you want to work for another 20 years of your life, doing what you do now for another 10, 20, 30 years (longer then you do now) ? You'd be bored and get complacent.

my 2p

There's no IF about it... Just WHEN...

At some point in 50, 100, or 200 years, we'll have the ability most likely to slowdown the aging process. Of course other factors will come into play such as general gene degradation. But people's life spans will drastically increase...

I get around · 28 Sep 2009 at 12:12

Immortality, no.
I'd like to live until I'd completed my lifes ambitions and eventually got bored though, so a few hundred, maybe thousand years maybe?

OH DEAR GOD. Think how many children chavs will be able to have!

Amp34 · 28 Sep 2009 at 12:43

platinum87 said:
ey?

True, he's incorrect, around 4.2Billion years would be more accurate with todays palaeontological knowledge, however there aren't many rocks older than that so you can't tell quite when life started on the planet.

mame · 28 Sep 2009 at 12:49

So the worlds population could just double every 10 years or so? Even if your organs kept going, surely by 150 your would be blind, deaf and have the memory of a goldfish.

SlyReaper · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:02

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

Obviously yes. Unless magic is involved, immortality does not imply indestructibility, so you'd be free to die at any time you like.

SexyGreyFox · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:15

Funnily enough I was with a bunch of 4th year Medical students last week who were lecturing to 50 x 14 year olds and one of them said 'Because of modern medicine there is an excellent chance that in this room one of you will live until you are 120 years old'

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:16

dmpoole said:
Funnily enough I was with a bunch of 4th year Medical students last week who were lecturing to 50 x 14 year olds and one of them said 'Because of modern medicine there is an excellent chance that in this room one of you will live until you are 120 years old'

Ummm... And then these 50 x fourteen olds spent the weekend sitting on the sofa playing their game consoles and eating KFC?

drunkenmaster · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:25

NeilFawcett said:
Beyond that people will most likely live two, three or more times longer...

Are you not the slightest bit jealous?

The fact its simply not even close to true makes me not jealous of it. In the next 100 years, people will routinely be hitting 100 years old, but you'll still be pretty "old" with it, as in wrinkly, frail, not particularly healthy etc.

I have no idea what makes anyone think the ageing process can be "fixed", if it can be, we're most likely hundreds of years away from it.

People won't be living to 140+ in the next hundred years, let along living two or three times longer than most do now.

More people living closer to the higher ages people live to now, yes, which will mostly mean more people aged 80-110 who cost our society more than any other group of people in pensions, benefits and healthcare. So all people have to look forward to is longer to live as they are frailer and unable to do much, and increased taxes for everyone to pay for them, yippee.

Angilion · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:29

StevenRaith said:
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...

If, and it's a very big if, technological advances occur as fast as he predicts and to the extent that he predicts, energy supply will cease to be an issue. If you can create nano-scale machines to do the fantastically complicated job of working together to be a human body, energy supply is a walk in the park. There is no shortage of energy on Earth. It's a shortage of energy in a form we can use. Such advanced technology would make the conversion straightforward.

I think he's excessively optimistic, perhaps as a result of feeling his own mortality. If it happened in 20 years, he'd have a good chance of being alive for it. If it happened in even just 30 years, he's very likely to die before it happens.

I think he's looking down the wrong road, anyway. On a cellular scale, biological machines (i.e. cells) seem to be much more efficient than mechanical machines (i.e. nanobots). Humans are on the verge of custom-making living cells. I think longevity treatments will be biological rather than mechanical, at least initially.

drunkenmaster · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:29

knowledge123 said:
If this did come to pass, do you really think it would improve quality of life ? Would you want to work for another 20 years of your life, doing what you do now for another 10, 20, 30 years (longer then you do now) ? You'd be bored and get complacent.

my 2p

This is part of the hilarious idea of religion and heaven/hell, do you really want a eternity in heaven, honestly, what is there to do you would enjoy doing FOREVER.

Sex would be boring if you did it every few hours for the rest of time, as would bowling, reading and anything else anyone can think of. I'd prefer to stop, eventually as at some point there is literally nothing left to do, theres only a finite amount of things to do and see on earth. If we didn't have to work for 2/3rds of the day for 2/3rds of our lives, well, we'd be bored to tears, and most of those who work for so long are doing jobs that mean nothing to them and are boring. We've filled up our lives with so much meaningless crap anyway, you could condence the interesting stuff that was worthwhile and fun, into several years most likely, skip the rest and be done.

Angilion · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:31

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

If it worked, you would be far beyond the abilities of a gifted and dedicated athlete at the peak of their strength and vigour. So it's eternity as a superman.

Fenris · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:35

Angilion said:
If it worked, you would be far beyond the abilities of a gifted and dedicated athlete at the peak of their strength and vigour. So it's eternity as a superman.

Except everyone would also be Superman, so life would go on as nomral.

aardvark · 28 Sep 2009 at 13:39

lol - nonsense article.

NeilF · 28 Sep 2009 at 14:06

drunkenmaster said:
This is part of the hilarious idea of religion and heaven/hell, do you really want a eternity in heaven, honestly, what is there to do you would enjoy doing FOREVER.

Sex would be boring if you did it every few hours for the rest of time, as would bowling, reading and anything else anyone can think of. I'd prefer to stop, eventually as at some point there is literally nothing left to do, theres only a finite amount of things to do and see on earth. If we didn't have to work for 2/3rds of the day for 2/3rds of our lives, well, we'd be bored to tears, and most of those who work for so long are doing jobs that mean nothing to them and are boring. We've filled up our lives with so much meaningless crap anyway, you could condence the interesting stuff that was worthwhile and fun, into several years most likely, skip the rest and be done.

Speak for yourself... Unfortunately life is too short. Think of it even in these simple terms. The choice to have kids or not.. It's basically a life time commitment as it takes 25yrs to get them out of your door... The entire middle of your life is spent with (or without) kids basically.

Now, imagine being to live your life not having kids, and with kids... ie: Have the middle of your life twice (or more) over...

willhub · 28 Sep 2009 at 14:08

I'd like to live forever, or die, come back as someone else, of course, you'd not realise it... But I find the idea of nothingness for eternity horrifying even if we would not realise it, it just seems odd, can't imagine it, just can't get the mind around it.