Topic: Immortality (Page 1 of 1)

Ok perhaps this is a little bit of a broad subject ... so lets talk about living 1000 years through incremental advances in medical science instead.

I was reading this fascinating piece of fiction while my train of thought drifted away to a specific TED Talk that I had watched a while back: watch this to continue.

So basically the theory goes: there are a dozen or a few dozen basic biological reasons for aging and ultimately dying. The current science is making advances that with high probability will be able to solve a few of those in the not so far future. For example a few months ago if I'm not mistaken some scientists were able to make their mice live 25% longer by injecting them with some enzyme or whatshallmecallit thingy. The details here aren't relevant. The fact is that advances like that are being made. And again the theory goes that if you're lucky and rich enough and all that and get that first incremental treatment that causes you to live longer you might live long enough to get a second treatment (of a different kind) that causes you to live even longer and so on until eventually you get into a car accident or you're struck down by lightning no doubt originating from some rather furious gods. But in theory by getting these solutions or drugs people of today would be able to live forever.

Now I started thinking about it ... (this is the good part) ... and I spotted a few rather obvious flaws in this plan. Specifically 'I' won't be able to live for a thousand years because of a few simple probabilistic reasons. So I think that while no doubt this Aubrey de Grey guy is a better scientist than me he's far too optimistic in his approach and the whole "Longevity escape velocity" is bogus because it's only a small part of the equation and obviously too simplistic because it assumes that we are able to come up with these incremental solutions in regular and sufficiently short intervals.
1) The problem is that people die of different causes and although conceptually irrelevant here, most of these causes are not considered natural. I would go as far to guess that these few dozens of basic biological reasons don't affect all people in the same order. This in turn means that if we are able to come up with a solution or drug to some of those causes in 30 years and extend the average life expectancy by 30 years it would only work for a fraction of all subjects. This again means that the next 'patch' so to say while extending the average life expectancy of all subjects will only help a fraction of the ones who were helped by the first patch. And so on until none of the original beneficiaries survive. Being among the last ones to survive is highly improbable.
2) The second biggest problem as I see it is that this theory assumes absolute reliability and success of the treatments and the order in which they are developed. I'm not talking about immediate effectiveness. Every one of those treatments may extend the life of someone by a number of years but it is almost impossible to know whether they will work in a succession and whether they don't change something for the worse in the long run. Perhaps they will change something that we just don't have enough time to fix and a generation or two of 170-year-olds will die.

So basically I think that in moderately distant future the average lifespan of a person will be extended by a significant amount but it's just too bold to assume that any of us will be able to benefit from the whole chain of incremental advances/drugs/solutions. It's just too improbable that things will turn out this way. Still a fun thing to fantasize about

Didn't bother to watch the TED video (not a fan), but I don't see why we can't fix parts of our bodies over and over; we do it already, just not well enough to prolong life indefinitely. IIRC the estimated European life span two hundred years ago was closer to about half what it is now. Travelling is also statistically "safer" than it was in the past - a lot of activities are. there are only speed bumps, IMO, no stop signs.

The word "immortality" is being misused a bit here, as it general is. Technically speaking, "immortal" means "undying." Generally, though, it is used to mean the type of immortality that Highlanders and Tolkien elves possess--not subject to aging, but able to die through other methods. What we're really talking about here, I think, is being able to stop or overcome the effects of aging. Even if we were to make life completely safe, we still wouldn't be immortal, because we could still be killed.

Anyway, I would tend to agree with reisio--I don't really see any reason why we would not eventually be able to overcome the effects of aging in one way or another. Whether or not our planet would be able to support the accompanying population growth is another story--plenty of areas are having a hard enough time as it is with people dying in (on average) well under a century.

[Edit: Oh, I didn't watch the TED video either. Sorry.]


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

(Edited by Suho1004 on 03-02-2009 12:42)

Wait, you mean I'm the only true immortal here?

I'm so alone...

I know that Mankind will find scientific ways to extend life expectancy.

This is because it is a PRIMAL drive - to survive. It is something that Mankind has pursued since
time immortal. And as scientific knowledge drives back the unknown, especially in biology, and more specifically,
in the area of the human body, ways to repair cells, DNA, nerves, etc will come into existence, as will treatments that rejuvenate the
human body as well.

The real question is how much time will it give, how optimized will it become, and will it be economically feasible?

I think the first types of treatments will be crude, of course (and probably are already being done, or experimented with for humans). But
as advances are made, things will get more and more optimized.

I mean, here is where the money is - if you can offer a type of rejuvenation (and it actually works), people will be prepared to pay anything to obtain it.

To that, comes the societal impact of such a thing, of course. This is where we should really be focusing our questions and thoughts - rejuvenation of the human body and the extention of life expectancy will become a reality. We need to start seriously considering the ramifications of such.

How do we deal with a workforce that is retiring at age X, but can life 10 times longer than that? To that, what does money really mean, when I can save a paltry sum (10$, say, a year) and live for thousands of years - eventually I will be a millionaire. In that sense, just about anyone will become rich with just a paltry amount of savings. What about the impact that has on the population?

The way I see it, something like this will of course drive Mankind to the stars. For there will not be enough space and resources on this planet to support such an advance.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles