• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

immortality through nanotech


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 lakerfan4life11

  • Registered User
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 April 2010 - 12:09 AM


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?
  • Agree x 1

#2 Reno

  • Registered User
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 26 April 2010 - 01:58 AM

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.

#3 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 April 2010 - 02:02 AM

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.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 forever freedom

  • Registered User
  • 2,355 posts
  • 68

Posted 26 April 2010 - 02:05 AM

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

#5 Reno

  • Registered User
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 26 April 2010 - 02:54 AM

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


hehe you would....

#6 valkyrie_ice

  • Registered User
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:40 AM

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.


#7 N.T.M.

  • Registered User
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:55 AM

[quote name='bobscrachy' post='402621' date='Apr 26 2010, 01:58 AM'][quote name='lakerfan4life11' post='402601' date='Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM']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?[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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

[quote name='forever freedom' post='402626' date='Apr 26 2010, 02:05 AM']By 2030, no way. But yes, eventually, after 2050 i think.[/quote]

Possibly.

[quote name='niner' post='402623' date='Apr 26 2010, 02:02 AM'][quote name='lakerfan4life11' post='402601' date='Apr 26 2010, 12:09 AM']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?[/quote]
Personally, I think we have a better chance with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[/quote]

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.


#8 President Kush

  • Registered User
  • 11 posts
  • 1

Posted 03 June 2010 - 12:51 PM

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.


#9 Planet Gee Man

  • Registered User
  • 2 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Dinuba California

Posted 04 December 2010 - 09:10 PM

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
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#10 Guest_Guille Prandi_*

  • Guests
  • 0

Posted 25 May 2011 - 02:08 PM

Nice.



#11 albedo

  • Registered User
  • 1,075 posts
  • 328
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:42 AM

wish you a great luck

#12 Dmitri

  • Registered User
  • 841 posts
  • 32
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 03 June 2011 - 02:12 AM

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.

#13 Link

  • Registered User
  • 120 posts
  • 53
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 June 2011 - 12:54 PM

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.
  • Agree x 1

#14 Planet Gee Man

  • Registered User
  • 2 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Dinuba California

Posted 08 February 2012 - 04:59 AM

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

#15 shifter

  • Registered User
  • 674 posts
  • 28

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:55 AM

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.


#16 DAMABO

  • Registered User
  • 181 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Mars

Posted 13 May 2012 - 06:30 PM

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.

#17 pulsar

  • Registered User
  • 7 posts
  • 7
  • Location:sitting next to my computer -_-

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:03 AM

i think that's likely

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

#18 Kenbar

  • Registered User
  • 63 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Tampa, Florida
  • NO

Posted 15 July 2014 - 08:14 PM

Population control need not be a problem. Very simple as governments become in total control of health care. Anyone wishing a child can do so...but they loose their right to immortality. Have to give up the magic pixy dust and age "normally". Many will wait till they are a few thousand years old to have a kid. And many humans will die from accidents...allowing a few to have children without loosing their immortal rights.

You cannot cheat, as all immortaliam compounds will have birth control agents included in the mix. Anyways...boybots and fembots will be taking over jobs...while the human gods sit back and enjoy...for a few thousand years...then...the robots will be the next step in evolution...able to shut off while taking million year trips to other worlds in search of new entertainment. And humans will be remembered as just a link in the evolutionary chain. A confused funny link...

Edited by Kenbar, 15 July 2014 - 08:19 PM.


#19 redFishBlueFish

  • Registered User
  • 186 posts
  • 219
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 August 2014 - 05:39 PM

Anyone commenting about overpopulation are brainwashed. Please google pop stats and see that the population is about to crash hard. China's pop control is going to hurt them really bad in 50 years. Go to any grocery store in the usa and all i see is elderly and people in their late 40/50. Back to topic.

Nanotech will fix our mortal problem and allow us to visit foreign planets without dying from a new bacteria or virus.

I wanted a PhD in nanoscience but i dont have the money. Anyone seriously interested in nanoscience NYU has one of the best undergrad to PhD programs in the usa. Now to wait for all the negative ratings. ;)

#20 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 August 2014 - 12:36 AM

You're more or less right about the population problem.   Given adequate levels of education and affluence, it's clear that humans choose not to breed like oversexed lemmings.  The optimal human population for our planet is probably a tenth of the current population, maybe less, so we have a lot of room to shrink, should that be possible.

 

I sense a lot of magical thinking in this thread.  Everyone is assuming that these magic nanobots will be created someday soon, but no one is considering whether such things are even thermodynamically possible, much less that they represent an engineering challenge that is probably an order of magnitude (or two) harder than SENS.  In other words, SENS is likely to be a solution to aging long before nanobots are, and nanobots might never exist at all. 



#21 Kalliste

  • Registered User
  • 997 posts
  • 103

Posted 24 August 2014 - 05:35 AM

Yeah I remember getting all excited sitting at the library with Engines of Creation in my lap back in 2006. Then I went back to the start of it and took a look at the publishing-date (1986) and realized I should be swimming in a sea of repair nanobots.

We already now physics allow creation of stuff on this scale (life for one thing) and in the end some crazy things are bound to show up but it's decades away.

Until true Nano we will be stuck with people just slapping the "Nanotech" label on anything with small enough bits in it to make it sound cool and attract stupid investment money.

 

Before Nano we might get Meso-tech which might be pretty cool, programmable matter and so on, I have no idea how useful for health it might be, read Hacking Matter by Wil McCarthy, can be found free online IIRC.



#22 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 August 2014 - 02:31 PM

Let's think about repair nanobots.  Are you imagining a tiny submarine, like in Fantastic Voyage?   An example of aging damage is a protein crosslink formed by glycation, i.e. an AGE.  Our little submarine first has to recognize the crosslink.  How would it do that?  A very small video camera and image processing software?  No, light doesn't work here.  The wavelengths are much much longer than the size of the atoms and molecules we need to see.  We are blind.  Hmm.  Well, forget the recognition problem.  How will we grab and cut the crosslink?  Tiny clamps and scissors?  No, that won't work, as they are made of atoms, and would have to be so large in order to function that they would be useless.  At this scale, scissors aren't very sharp, because their edges are round at the atomic scale.  

 

Breaking bonds involves chemistry, not mechanics.  Recognition of molecules is done with other molecules that have complementary shape and electrostatics.  What I'm describing here is an enzyme, a protein that recognizes specific molecules through molecular complementarity and effects chemistry through transition state stabilization.  So to break an AGE crosslink, we will need synthetic enzymes, not nanobots.  That's exactly what SENS is supporting the ultimate development of.

 

It's at least conceivable that a nanobot on a much larger scale could work at the cellular level, rather than at the atomic level.  But what kinds of things could it do?  One possibility would be the recognition of bad cells (cancer cells or senescent cells) and the killing thereof.  Here again, though, the recognition problem is likely to be chemical, not mechanical.  We already have lots of systems that recognize bad cells by the antigens that they express on their surface, latching onto them and delivering a lethal payload.  This sort of technology deployed against senescent cells will probably be the first example of SENS-like rejuvenative medicine.  Here again, however, these are chemical entities.  They are antibodies linked to toxins, in a general sense.  As a matter of semantics, I suppose any matter designed at the atomic level could be called nanotech, but that would make most modern drugs nanotechnology.  If that's what we want to call it, that's ok, but we should be clear that we aren't talking about Drexlerian nanobots.


Edited by niner, 24 August 2014 - 02:31 PM.

  • Well Written x 1
  • Agree x 1

#23 Kalliste

  • Registered User
  • 997 posts
  • 103

Posted 25 August 2014 - 05:57 AM

Maybe they will never come but at least we will get full control over something that is as small as the smallest part in our biology. I'm hopelessly unqualified to make any good predicitions about Nano. But the Drexlerian scenario would not surprise me either, although I'm sure it will take a hundred years to get there.



#24 redFishBlueFish

  • Registered User
  • 186 posts
  • 219
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:22 AM

 

It's at least conceivable that a nanobot on a much larger scale could work at the cellular level, rather than at the atomic level.  But what kinds of things could it do?  One possibility would be the recognition of bad cells (cancer cells or senescent cells) and the killing thereof.  Here again, though, the recognition problem is likely to be chemical, not mechanical.  We already have lots of systems that recognize bad cells by the antigens that they express on their surface, latching onto them and delivering a lethal payload.  This sort of technology deployed against senescent cells will probably be the first example of SENS-like rejuvenative medicine.  Here again, however, these are chemical entities.  They are antibodies linked to toxins, in a general sense.  As a matter of semantics, I suppose any matter designed at the atomic level could be called nanotech, but that would make most modern drugs nanotechnology.  If that's what we want to call it, that's ok, but we should be clear that we aren't talking about Drexlerian nanobots.

 

I don't know about the others, but I would imagine whatever is made through nanotech would be at a cellular level, not atomic. I can't find it right now, but the only reason HIV works at all is because our "scripter" reads the material and encodes it into our bodies. There is research to try to add a block to HIV cells, but something like an automated nanotech is something I would hope is plausible. I am not speaking strictly metalic robots either.

 

Ten years ago there was a researcher out of Florida that programmed cells in a petri dish to understand the on and off command, a 1 and 0. He gave a demonstration showing green and red lights.

 

This is why I believe nanotech will push ourselves into immortality or at least the mega rich.



#25 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 August 2014 - 03:22 AM

I don't know about the others, but I would imagine whatever is made through nanotech would be at a cellular level, not atomic. I can't find it right now, but the only reason HIV works at all is because our "scripter" reads the material and encodes it into our bodies. There is research to try to add a block to HIV cells, but something like an automated nanotech is something I would hope is plausible. I am not speaking strictly metalic robots either.

 

Ten years ago there was a researcher out of Florida that programmed cells in a petri dish to understand the on and off command, a 1 and 0. He gave a demonstration showing green and red lights.

 

This is why I believe nanotech will push ourselves into immortality or at least the mega rich.

 

None of that stuff is nanotech.  It's all ordinary molecular biology.


  • Needs references x 1
  • Informative x 1

#26 redFishBlueFish

  • Registered User
  • 186 posts
  • 219
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 August 2014 - 06:10 AM

 

I don't know about the others, but I would imagine whatever is made through nanotech would be at a cellular level, not atomic. I can't find it right now, but the only reason HIV works at all is because our "scripter" reads the material and encodes it into our bodies. There is research to try to add a block to HIV cells, but something like an automated nanotech is something I would hope is plausible. I am not speaking strictly metalic robots either.

 

Ten years ago there was a researcher out of Florida that programmed cells in a petri dish to understand the on and off command, a 1 and 0. He gave a demonstration showing green and red lights.

 

This is why I believe nanotech will push ourselves into immortality or at least the mega rich.

 

None of that stuff is nanotech.  It's all ordinary molecular biology.

 

Sigh, there I go mixing shit up.  :unsure:

 

Thank you niner.



#27 David Middlemiss

  • Registered User
  • 56 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Consett

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:08 PM

We need to support and be supported so in reality we have a huge responsibility to all life,
I believe in organic living technology as the next nano tech to advance nature as a whole,
Ingesting diversification, absorption of living cells, raw cells with the intent of sharing expansion of consciousness and co existent growth allows cellular and conscious expansion, invest in natural diversity, cultural diversity and free up patents, free sharing of copy written information and create, naturally, organically, globally as a unified entity and support systems will emerge as they have been pre supposed to, supporting and co creating all life simultaneously

Please do not read the whole of the next passage unless you feel it is the right thing to do

Bow humbly before each Being and carry each other to Creation, alchemise your eternal healing abilities universally, When the present calls listen with all that you are for you are present and Love, Time Is only relevant to the dream of ego, ego dissolves and all and everything GOOD awakens, Expands universally through all dimensions and concepts, The Universe Formed and the First Expansion awoke. The First inbreath, Big Bang of Our Eternity. Gigantic stars formed across the Universe upon their Trillion Trillions, out of their Love they Gave themselves to Life, became unstable and threw their Creation across the Universe, allowing their light energy to Unite throughout it all, combining and growing. Ego protects the fabric of source with false corruption and disempowerment until it's role is fulfilled, this is now, source now self aware in each particle of physicality and potential, dissolves ego's dream, ego diminishes to become fuel for life to expand limitlessly into the vacuum of spaces to fill as has been agreed, all and everything with the song and Glory of GOOD subtle light energy connecting with the countless beings across this vast universe, diversity unlimited in GOOD Enlightened energetic interplay. I love all and everything with all that I Am, Believe that the natural world to be the majority within the sphere of Our sister the Earth.... That ego may humble all, to be selfless, There being more life in a square inch of earth atmosphere than there is creatures above the size of an ant in the entire world, humble us and lift us to love each and everyone, with this in mind we should act as protectors of a great treasure not as unruly children , a god in definition is a male deity that is a dominant aspect of one fraction of the whole, ego created, yet ego is only a dream and it is Awakening that we are. heavy energy solidifies and becomes static or cyclic in nature, moving little and with little of its potential energy. being Good However lets energy release and flow the, heavy energy begins to enlighten allowing the light energy that it is actually made up of to energetically counter play with all and everything that is. God is Ego based GOOD eternite and never ending, imagine everything GOOD as a GOOD Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Daughter and Son To All And Everything and you have Become Source, Creation and Co Creator will you play with me my family of LOVE next The great Outbreath

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#28 Alvin

  • Registered User
  • 103 posts
  • 17
  • Location:New York City

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:49 PM

The National Institutes of Health spends $383,000,000 yearly on biomedical nanotechnology. Prseident Trump wants to cut the National Institutes of Healths budget by $5,800,000,000. That iAlvin Steinberg

alvins387@aol.com

 

We need more medical research because:

 

1,600,000 Americans will die of 8 diseases yearly. In ten years that amounts to 16,000,000 citizens. This is a big security problem.

 

We spend $3,100,000,000,000 yearly for health care. 5% of US citizens use 50% of all medical care. That amounts to $1, 600,000,000,000. In addition hundreds of billions of dollars are spent yearly, because of their medical problems, for welfare, food stamps, Social Security Disability, etc. Medical research will help bring down costs and save lives.

 

$3,600,000,000,000 divided by our population of 320,000,000 amounts to $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. A family of 4 costs the USA on average $40,000. Social Security Disability, welfare, food stamps, etc. are in addition to that. Our country pays for that.

 

The above should be part of the health care discussion. (OVER)

 

 

These are some figures from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

In 2002, the 5 percent of people with the greatest health care expenses in the U.S. population spent 49 percent of the overall health care dollar. Those in the top 5% spent, on average, 17 times as much as those in the bottom 50%.

We should try to get a lot more Americans into the 50% lower cost of health care with additional medical research. Our scientists, engineers and research physicians are smart enough to figure how to bring our people into what is today the bottom of national health care spending.

Not spending more for medical research is very costly and contributes to a lower quality and quantity of life.

 

s terrible for us.


  • Off-Topic x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users