Born 50yrs too early...

Radiation said:
Imagine they could keep just the brain alive in a jar hooked up to a super computer a bit like in the matrix so you would have a virtual world to play in once you reached old age, who here would be up for that form of life extension?
Click to expand...

This.

it would be far more acceptable than living in the real world indefinately.
 
I wouldn't want to live forever, or even have such a huge extention (unless the aging process was slowed). To me it seems unnatural, I'd rather die human than machine, and besides dying is an adventure, its the only thing we can never be certain about is what comes after.

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't want to live forever, or as Skeletor :p.

EDIT:

@Radiation: That'd be just cool, except getting flamed for all eternity :p
 
This thread is like looking back at those who predicted in the 50's we'd be living on Mars, have flying cars, human like robots, and popping one pill a day for a meal.

If anything life expectancy and quality of life will be going down considering the amount of fat, bone idle, unhealthy people around.
 
I fancy boys said:
This.

it would be far more acceptable than living in the real world indefinately.
Click to expand...

It would certainly help with the over population problem, once you reach 120 or before at a time of your choosing you can be transferred to a jar where you experience either self created lucid dreams or a virtual world where you can interact with all the other brains, uh i mean people...
 
skippi90 said:
130 more urine soaked years....


No thanks. :p
Click to expand...

You're urine soaked? They can sort that out...

The half glass attitude shown by the majority of people here would make you think people have no appetite for life and want to die as soon as possible... Sheesh!

Imagine 120 years as a 20-50yr old... Perfect!

Now some of you miserable sods whine about that... :rolleyes:
 
Energize said:
Sexual competition is irrelevant to an individual and not needed with genetic engineering. You seem to be arguing against immortality based on the principals of what a human is rather than an individual living forever.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but can you please rephrase that for me? Thanks.
 
a human has the possibility to live forever, he can die by non natural methods. If the human body starts from on cell and keeps dividing into other cells, then why can't it keep reproducing.
 
mattheman said:
a human has the possibility to live forever, he can die by non natural methods. If the human body starts from on cell and keeps dividing into other cells, then why can't it keep reproducing.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I have already addressed this in my previous post. The goal of our genes is not to keep on growing and repairing, but to reproduce sexually as fast as is reasonably possible, all things considered, to the expense of viability. Sexual reproduction and growth are not the same thing.
 
Radiation said:
It would certainly help with the over population problem, once you reach 120 or before at a time of your choosing you can be transferred to a jar where you experience either self created lucid dreams or a virtual world where you can interact with all the other brains, uh i mean people...
Click to expand...

Minority Report much? :D
 
Nitefly said:
No, it doesn't. I have already addressed this in my previous post. The goal of our genes is not to keep on growing and repairing, but to reproduce sexually as fast as is reasonably possible, all things considered, to the expense of viability. Sexual reproduction and growth are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

What proof do you have of that, the goal of our genes is to keep us alive as long as possible, the same way a tiger seeks out his prey to keep alive. The reason why we die is due to the earth not being able to hold us,its a self survival mechanism.
 
Last edited:
There can be only 1 highlander.

and it is me, sorry chaps.


but seriously it will happen. It is just a matter of time, first drugs to slow down the ageing process and implants grown in the lab from our own DNA so they don't get rejected.

The last problem is the brain, but they still think it can be kept going for 200 years + by which point perhaps we will be able to put our mind onto a computer and copy it onto another brain, but the problem is the brain physically changes as you get more intelligent, it isn;t just like a blank memory card so it is not going to be for a long time but I think we will sort the rest out in the next 100 years.

I would love to live forever personally, or atleast a time of my chosing. if you got bored you could just frezze yourself for a few years until the next Playstation comes out. :D
 
Last edited:
mattheman said:
What proof do you have of that, the goal of our genes is to keep us alive as long as possible, the same way a tiger seeks out his prey to keep alive. The reason why we die is due to the earth not being able to hold us,its a self survival mechanism.
Click to expand...

At the distinct risk of misinterpreting Mr Dawkins, that isn't the point. An individual gene doesn't "care" about the body that it is in beyond that in aiding us (the survival machine) to survive it improves the chances of us procreating and therefore the likelihood of the gene being passed down to the next generation and so on ad infinitum. It isn't a concious strategy and anthropomorphising it with terms like "care" and "goal" is slightly misleading but possibly easier for us to understand.

If I'm wrong then I'm sure I'll be corrected on this. There is of course the possibility that Mr Dawkins (and others) is incorrect in this but there is a considerable weight of evidence for this theory.
 
mattheman said:
What proof do you have of that, the goal of our genes is to keep us alive as long as possible, the same way a tiger seeks out his prey to keep alive. The reason why we die is due to the earth not being able to hold us,its a self survival mechanism.
Click to expand...

As semi-pro waster has already mentioned (see his post above), it ties in with the idea of the selfish gene (this theory is how Richard Dawkins revolutionised evolutionary theory, and it follows should be held as a respectable scientist for his work in this area). Think of it so that genes are passengers and that individuals are vehicles. The gene is not interested in the vehicle as long as it can get to the destination. This idea of the selfish gene is taken for granted in most evolutionary studies and virtually all scientific observations support this theory. I will give you an interesting example:

There is a species of mosquito (Aedes) that has a genomic conflict. As you know there are X and Y sex chromosomes that determine sex in an individual (XX is female, XY is male). The Y chromosome doesn't get passed on into female offspring (XX), and as a result the Y chromosome in Aedes has evolved to break down the X chromosome as meiosis - in other words, the Y chromosome kills off the X chromosome to ensure that all offspring are male!

This is obviously not in the interest of the individuals or population as a whole - an entirely male sex ratio will lead to the species being extinct, but the Y chromosome doesn't care. Evolution is short sighted, and genes don't give a damn about any other than persisting.

semi-pro waster said:
It isn't a concious strategy and anthropomorphising it with terms like "care" and "goal" is slightly misleading but possibly easier for us to understand.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is difficult to talk about genes without implying they have concious thought - obviously this isn't true and is something I take for granted when I am explaining things to make it easier to understand :)
 
mattheman said:
Over the next few years the way we think about genes will change.
Click to expand...

Do you have any particular basis for this confident prediction? It is of course entirely possible that we will have a paradigm shift in our understanding but if you've got any hard evidence for this assertion I'd be very interested to see it as I found The Selfish Gene fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom