16 replies to this topic

[lakerfan4life11]

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

[Reno]

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I believe it will. The question is whether or not most governments will allow such a thing to become widespread. The world already has a population problem. It's scary to imagine the government deciding who lives and dies. But, it's also scary to imagine a world with 20 or 30 billion people on it.

[niner]

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I think we have a better chance with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[forever freedom]

By 2030, no way. But yes, eventually, after 2050 i think.

[Reno]

niner, on Apr 26 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Personally, I think we have a better chance with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

hehe you would....

[valkyrie_ice]

My answer is yes, possibly even sooner, though that is less likely. At current rates of progress 10-15 years is the earliest that real nanotech could be realized.

Population is not an issue. Nanotech will allow 100% recycling of all material resources. That means we could easily support a population many times our current one. But it is also a fact that in industrialized nations, the population boom has more or less crawled to a halt. Given that nanotech would give us the ability to control our individual ability to reproduce, making unwanted pregnancies impossible, it is quite likely that our population is going to stabilize at a very low growth rate within 50 years.

There are numerous other factors involved in my opinion, but they are far too detailed to go into atm. The short form is that yes, I do see nanotech within ten years as a very strong possibility, with biotech going hand and hand with it, enabling practical immortality and rejuvenation by 2030.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 26 April 2010 - 03:43 AM.

[N.T.M.]

bobscrachy, on Apr 26 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I believe it will. The question is whether or not most governments will allow such a thing to become widespread. The world already has a population problem. It's scary to imagine the government deciding who lives and dies. But, it's also scary to imagine a world with 20 or 30 billion people on it.

I keep saying that the issue can be resolved by that one simple stipulation.

forever freedom, on Apr 26 2010, 02:05 AM, said:

By 2030, no way. But yes, eventually, after 2050 i think.

Possibly.

niner, on Apr 26 2010, 02:02 AM, said:

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I think we have a better chance with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

lol

*edit* It really is just too tough to extrapolate things accurately when applying exponential progression.

So to answer the OP: Maybe, maybe not.

Edited by N.T.M., 26 April 2010 - 03:57 AM.

[President Kush]

bobscrachy, on Apr 25 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I believe it will. The question is whether or not most governments will allow such a thing to become widespread. The world already has a population problem. It's scary to imagine the government deciding who lives and dies. But, it's also scary to imagine a world with 20 or 30 billion people on it.

Haha, exactly... I just wrote a long post titled -  IOP: Immortality over population.  that will be the problem.  The government is already to controlling and stupid, so one more thing will hardly be noticed.  Besides when immortality is acheived, it will be the biggest discovery/technological advance of man kind.  so I doubt they could realy stop anyone from doing it.  Plus if all else fails... China will probably do it, and let people come reap the bennefits for a price... just like they do now with the black market and organ transplants.  Of course they already have a population problem, so they sure as hell won't let you stay there lol
______________________

@ Bobscrachy - I believe immortality or super long lifespans (1000 years) will be possible at some point, maybe via nanotech, or other options.  But by 2030, its really hard to say.  I can forsee one problem with that.  Even if we are potentially smart enough to figure it out, for new technologies as amazing as this to be developed, there has to be some serious coin to fund the R&D, and that might be the bottleneck, rather than our technological capabilities.  

Personally I like the option of cloning myself, and then doing a brain transplant or mind upload.  because then you can transfer around to different mediums, such as your original body (100% biological), a cybornetic body created from you dna and hardware, other bodies, and purely mechanical bodies.  with the ultimate option being a Shape-shifting body (like the terminator 2) made out of fogglets.  

and Provided that a clone+mind upload, will result in you still truely being you, that would be my favorite option.

Edited by President Kush, 03 June 2010 - 12:53 PM.

[Planet Gee Man]

hi everyone my name is German Cervantes I am a student at dinuba high school I new here at immortality insitutes and my dream is to go to stanford university so i could run a business for nanotechnolgy and making people immortal

[albedo]

wish you a great luck

[Dmitri]

lakerfan4life11, on 26 April 2010 - 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Nano technology will likely be able to extend our lives, but I don't see how it could possible keep us from aging? Also, I don't think nano-bots will be that advanced by the year 2030, if by 2020 they'll barely be using  chemotherapy nano-bots (according to those medical segments they show in clinic waiting rooms) that take drugs directly to tumors then I doubt we'll have something that could change our DNA by 2030.

[Link]

i think stem cells and other forms of regenerative medicine will be the most "longevity applicable" technology for the next 20 - 30 years at least. Nanotech will certainly have a place in the coming decades, (graphene processors etc.) but i think true healing nanobots (intelligent machines that travel through our bodies identifiying damage and automatically repairing it) are a long way off yet.

[Planet Gee Man]

hey guys i'm back sorry it took so long to open my account I got a new password. I got back on the water polo and swim season and I decided to take things slow after high school I plan on attending a junior college only for two years and then transfer to uc san diego they have a great nanotechnology program and I still have my dreams of achieving immortality eternal youth and beauty

[shifter]

If we want to live forever, wouldn't we need to be more resistant to radiation? We want to venture into space, colonise other worlds and have almost limitless energy supply, chances are we will also be bombarded with radiation.

Imagine having a brain/body made of pure nanotech, and then the sun has a freak storm sending huge EM our way. We might be able to prevent death by aging but having our species existence dependent on 'man made' technology has its vulnerabilities. Biological bodies aren't perfect, but neither is artificial. Our fallacies and our difficulty concentrating and falling asleep in boring lectures etc is what makes moments in our life worth living. Personally, I would hate to be an immortal automaton (which we might end up being in our quest for 'perfection'). If we are perfect, will we have purpose? Or will we be stagnant culturally and mentally.

If our bodies were artificial hardware and our software was man made, we might be in the middle of something important before we get a random 'This program has performed an illegal operation ans will be shut down' (That program being your life!) hehe

Edited by shifter, 02 May 2012 - 05:56 AM.

[DAMABO]

shifter, on 02 May 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

If we want to live forever, wouldn't we need to be more resistant to radiation? We want to venture into space, colonise other worlds and have almost limitless energy supply, chances are we will also be bombarded with radiation.

Imagine having a brain/body made of pure nanotech, and then the sun has a freak storm sending huge EM our way. We might be able to prevent death by aging but having our species existence dependent on 'man made' technology has its vulnerabilities. Biological bodies aren't perfect, but neither is artificial. Our fallacies and our difficulty concentrating and falling asleep in boring lectures etc is what makes moments in our life worth living. Personally, I would hate to be an immortal automaton (which we might end up being in our quest for 'perfection'). If we are perfect, will we have purpose? Or will we be stagnant culturally and mentally.

If our bodies were artificial hardware and our software was man made, we might be in the middle of something important before we get a random 'This program has performed an illegal operation ans will be shut down' (That program being your life!) hehe

I think perfection also implies humour, fun and emotions, and having a purpose (i.e. working toward perfection). The difference between the more perfect being and the less perfect being would lie in where you get these emotions, humour and fun (from more complex and moral deeds obviously). Also, even if we increase our intelligence a billionfold, we still would not be 'perfect' since intelligence can increase infinitely.

[pulsar]

i think that's likely

Reno, on 26 April 2010 - 01:58 AM, said:

lakerfan4life11, on Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

I was wondering just like a little poll, how many of the members believe that nanotech will be able to cure death through aging, and allow us to live forever basically? and also do you think it will be advanced enough by 2030 to reverse a 70 year old man to great health?

Personally, I believe it will. The question is whether or not most governments will allow such a thing to become widespread. The world already has a population problem. It's scary to imagine the government deciding who lives and dies. But, it's also scary to imagine a world with 20 or 30 billion people on it.

If it comes to it we would probably just temporarily illegalise (not a word but idc) having babies, plus with rapidly inproving technology we will likely be able to colonize the moon, mars shortly after