Jump to content



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


Photo
- - - - -

Would everybody attain immortality if therapies were available?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 Marios Kyriazis

  • Registered User
  • 446 posts
  • 243
  • Location:London UK
  • yes

Posted 20 February 2011 - 10:48 AM


Say there were effective therapies that could lead to indefinite lifespans (not just healthy aging). Would everybody be willing, interested or able to use them? I don’t mean just a few dedicated people like here at Longecity/Imminst, or a few health enthusiasts. I am talking about every human on Earth.

From one point of view, even in the 21st century people are still dying from hunger, lack of water or lack of basic medical facilities. How can these people ever be in a position to use life-extension technologies?

From the other point of view, who would have predicted that mobile phones and internet will be used so widely, including by villagers or farmers from very poor developing countries? Maybe, these life-extending technologies would be embraced by all, if and when available.

Why is it that people can easily lay their hands on technological devices (digital assistants, laser guided guns, satellite communication) and yet are unable to provide a malaria tablet, or a few clean dressings and syringes to those in need?
  • 0

#2 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:09 PM

Simple. The poor won't. Those who can't afford such treatments will die of old age, while those who can will live on and breed the next generations. In a way, it's Darwinism at its finest. The rich (usually the superior) get more kids than the poor, vastly improving the quality of the human gene pool. It's cruel, but effective. If you look at this world realisticly, you'll see it's a cesspool of selfishness and hypocrisy (self-righteous preaching).

Edited by Timotheos Aionon, 20 February 2011 - 06:11 PM.

  • -1

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Lifetime Member, Guardian
  • 8,059 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
  • yes

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:39 PM

Say there were effective therapies that could lead to indefinite lifespans (not just healthy aging). Would everybody be willing, interested or able to use them? I don’t mean just a few dedicated people like here at Longecity/Imminst, or a few health enthusiasts. I am talking about every human on Earth.


You ask:
Would everybody be willing, interested or able to use them?

This is actually three questions, but initially the answer to all (interested, willing, able) is no.

As in any watershed moment in human development the transition is generational not instantaneous. There will continue to be injustice and denial for reason of society and economics. There will be self denial due to culture and ignorance, but above all there will evolve free choice. That choice will become eventually a right of the individual but it is naive to expect it to start out that way.

From one point of view, even in the 21st century people are still dying from hunger, lack of water or lack of basic medical facilities. How can these people ever be in a position to use life-extension technologies?


This is a separate issue from longevity technology specifically but a question of society, economics and culture that is all pervading. It is overcome one day at a time and by one person at a time multiplied by billions. Just as it is being overcome across the world right now with the demands for food and democratic rights of expression and representation.

Once this technology is conceived of and recognized as possible, eventually it will be achieved. Once achieved the next phase of creating free choice and the right of access becomes the next struggle. Just as economic justice is the rising struggle of our current era.

From the other point of view, who would have predicted that mobile phones and internet will be used so widely, including by villagers or farmers from very poor developing countries? Maybe, these life-extending technologies would be embraced by all, if and when available.


Actually need, demand, and economic accessibility, are the driving issues in the examples you provide as well. Mongolian yak herders have cell phones because once the technology become economically feasible it provides an economic advantage and it was vastly less expensive an infrastructure to build than assembling a communications grid across vast stretches of empty desert for a nomadic people.


Why is it that people can easily lay their hands on technological devices (digital assistants, laser guided guns, satellite communication) and yet are unable to provide a malaria tablet, or a few clean dressings and syringes to those in need?


These are separate questions because the malaria pills are available yet many deny themselves due to cultural perceptions and mistrust or are denied access by those that take advantage of poverty to manipulate events to their own ends. The medicines and technology to feed people exists but a variety of factors contribute to diminishing access, including the lack of will on the part of those without such need to sacrifice whatsoever to help meets the needs of those who do. Selfishness and the lack of empathy and sympathy are not anymore common among those seeking longevity than they are among the general populace, including in nations both rich and poor.

Digital assistants are not merely a substitute for cheap labor but are only important when their use provides advantage economically. Most of these technologies are not desired by the poor because they are faddish, they are desired to provide some advantage for economic competition.

As for the weapons, so long as there are oppressors and the oppressed there will be demand and those that go without freedom will go without food to find a weapon to fight back with. Violence may be the last resort of the incompetent but it is still an all too effective last resort.

Sorry for the bit of a ramble but I am in a hurry to split wood and make music while the sun shines.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 forever freedom

  • Registered User
  • 2,334 posts
  • 58

Posted 20 February 2011 - 10:26 PM

Say there were effective therapies that could lead to indefinite lifespans (not just healthy aging). Would everybody be willing, interested or able to use them? I don’t mean just a few dedicated people like here at Longecity/Imminst, or a few health enthusiasts. I am talking about every human on Earth.

From one point of view, even in the 21st century people are still dying from hunger, lack of water or lack of basic medical facilities. How can these people ever be in a position to use life-extension technologies?

From the other point of view, who would have predicted that mobile phones and internet will be used so widely, including by villagers or farmers from very poor developing countries? Maybe, these life-extending technologies would be embraced by all, if and when available.

Why is it that people can easily lay their hands on technological devices (digital assistants, laser guided guns, satellite communication) and yet are unable to provide a malaria tablet, or a few clean dressings and syringes to those in need?



With time, i strongly believe these therapies will become available to everyone, or almost everyone, in the developed world. In the developing world, they make take longer, or much longer to become easily available. It's the same case with food and other basic necessities.

Only through the occurrence of a technological Singularity could we give immortality to every person who wants it. Otherwise things will still suck for the poorest.




Simple. The poor won't. Those who can't afford such treatments will die of old age, while those who can will live on and breed the next generations. In a way, it's Darwinism at its finest. The rich (usually the superior) get more kids than the poor, vastly improving the quality of the human gene pool. It's cruel, but effective. If you look at this world realisticly, you'll see it's a cesspool of selfishness and hypocrisy (self-righteous preaching).


Actually, the poorer have more kids than the richer. They need the kids for their survival, plus they usually don't have access to condom or/and to information about safe sex.






On a side note, with indefinite lifespans, i think society will slowly become more stratified again, like in the middle ages. The powerful won't die and will most likely continue getting more and more powerful, while the newer generations (at least the kids of the less powerful) will have more and more difficulty to enter society and claim their places. This might make our society more and more static. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

Regardless of any consequence, radical life extension is a must and we, as living humans, should have the right to live for as long as we want to, because we, human beings, are simply too intelligent and conscious to have to face involuntary death. The fact that we have to face death is a grave mistake by nature, but one that we will fix in no time (in an evolutionary time frame; too bad we as individuals live so incredibly little). I hope society wakes up from this trance soon enough.

Edited by forever freedom, 20 February 2011 - 10:32 PM.

  • 0

#5 brokenportal

  • Lifetime Member, Moderator
  • 7,044 posts
  • 587
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 February 2011 - 01:21 AM

Say there were effective therapies that could lead to indefinite lifespans (not just healthy aging). Would everybody be willing, interested or able to use them? I don’t mean just a few dedicated people like here at Longecity/Imminst, or a few health enthusiasts. I am talking about every human on Earth.


It seems that the general answer to that is yes. It will catch on amongst those who are more readily equipped to understand it at first, and the rest of the sketpics, fence sitters, uninformed, and the pro aging trancists that are left after our information dissemination campaign is complete, will slowly succumb to the crowd mentality of it and it will join the crowd. This seems directly comparable to the "luddites" of a century ago. Most all of their grand children drive cars and use cell phones on their way to the factory and store now.

Beyond generally, there is another way that it seems we can speed up the arrival of acceptance, the willingness to apply indefinite life extension to oneself. I think that is through spreading teaching of the understanding of fallacy to grade schools around the world. Ive been talking to some people that work with fallacy, and some other related groups about this. Im working to arrange a committee to outline the way forward on that: who you have to talk to about curriculum, which fallacy teaching systems might exist that we can spread, etc... It seems to me the more it can become installed in curriculum more extensively around the world, the faster the answer to your question becomes yes.

From one point of view, even in the 21st century people are still dying from hunger, lack of water or lack of basic medical facilities. How can these people ever be in a position to use life-extension technologies?


All of the world is languishing under a list of conditions, some longer than others. If we compare it to a fleet of sinking ships, to make analogies to poverty, disease, oppression, aging and so forth, some people are lost in the dark in the center of the ship, some have flashlights, some can swim, some cant, some of them have broken legs, some are on fire etc... There are also many "lucky" people who dont face as many obstacles. They are nearer the edge of the ship, they can see the lifeboats, they just need to get to them, cut them loose and get to safety. Every generation is born on a fleet of sinking ships. It seems that the ones facing the shortest list of obstacles for getting to safety owe it to the rest of them to go there so they can put themselves in a better position to strengthen the new fleets and stop them all from sinking. There is not much use in swimming to the center of a sinking ship to help others when your more than likely going to cause you to both go down with it.

From the other point of view, who would have predicted that mobile phones and internet will be used so widely, including by villagers or farmers from very poor developing countries? Maybe, these life-extending technologies would be embraced by all, if and when available.


Right, so then as soon as we "get to shore" we can start working on sending more "lifeboats and tug boats" back out and we will be able to reach a lot of them right away. More importantly though we will have the time and the resources to help stop those future fleets from sinking. This is kind of like in the same way that because we industrialized and accelerated technology (took the industry and technology lifeboats to the factory and the DuPont lab) we have made it increasingly easier for those who would never have, to have increasingly greater opportunities to get them.

Why is it that people can easily lay their hands on technological devices (digital assistants, laser guided guns, satellite communication) and yet are unable to provide a malaria tablet, or a few clean dressings and syringes to those in need?


Like Lazarus says in part,

many deny themselves due to cultural perceptions and mistrust or are denied access by those that take advantage of poverty to manipulate events to their own ends. The medicines and technology to feed people exists but a variety of factors contribute to diminishing access, including the lack of will on the part of those without such need to sacrifice whatsoever to help meets the needs of those who do.


While the ship is going down, a lot of people get caught up and escape routes dont occur to them, or they dont think they can make it out etc... So they do what they can to take advantage of the people around them to live it up now (ie wealthy rulers that cant understand the importance of helping push the advancement of indefinite life extension, who take advantage of people in third world countries, and others) They might for example, let everybody continue to watch the TV, but they might also go and limit their access to extra air reserves so that when the water line reaches them they will have more air for themselves, etc... If some people have a headache from the chaos of the capsize they might hide the aspirin because its easier for them to live it up if the people around them arent as able to challenge them.
  • 0

#6 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 February 2011 - 01:31 AM

In my opinion, it's foolish to look at this from a monetary standpoint. Please point out my errors in calculation. Yes, everything requires resources to accomplish, and times often change slowly, but most things in the world lay broken due to people's faults, not a lack of resources. Laziness, cowardice, and apathy are rampant in privileged areas. Athletes are paid millions to run back and forth. Actors to lie. "Green living" is prioritized over our own poor, forget Africa completely. Tell me the resources don't exist and I'll show you a pair of smooth hands.
  • 0

#7 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,538 posts
  • 3,459
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:03 AM

The rich (usually the superior)

By definition? :blink:
  • 0

#8 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:20 AM


The rich (usually the superior)

By definition? :blink:


No, that was wrong of me. But you gotta be realistic here. Quit dreaming. This is the real world - a world of capitalism. Money is power. Might makes right.
Unless you're a combination of Rockefeller and Jesus Christ, no one will buy these upgrades for the poor. And yeah, they WILL cost money. Companies always
work for money, and non-profit orgs simply don't have the money to achieve what real companies can.
  • 0

#9 Marios Kyriazis

  • Registered User
  • 446 posts
  • 243
  • Location:London UK
  • yes

Posted 21 February 2011 - 02:05 PM

Let me clarify the term ‘Life-extending therapies’.

If these therapies are technological (nanomedicine, etc) or biological (SENS-type treatments, stem cells etc) then I believe that both rich and poor in Western (developed) countries will eventually have access to them. Rich people living in poor countries will also have access. This leaves out a large proportion of humanity – poor people in poor countries who, in my opinion will not have access to any life extending treatment, at least for the foreseeable future.

If however, the therapies are neither technological nor biological, then the issue is different. I believe that there could be some point in the near future when it may be possible to avoid death caused by aging. This would not be due to technological treatments but due to changes in our evolutionary processes. I assume a difference between technological treatments (an injection, a scan, an intervention, whatever) and technology at large (internet, iphones).

For a brief discussion see here: http://lifeboat.com/...an-immortality.

So, if the issue is the tight and meaningful integration of humans with emerging technology (the Global Brain), then most people on Earth would be able to benefit. All it is necessary is the wish/interest to take part, and access to virtually ubiquitous technological devices. Nature will do the rest. IMO.

Edited by mrszeta, 21 February 2011 - 02:06 PM.

  • 0

#10 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 February 2011 - 08:38 PM

Timotheos,

What limited interactions I've had with the rich have rarely proven them to be superior. I understand the concept, but any superiority they may have is rarely derived from a depth of character but instead an abundance of time. That is to say, they aren't run ragged by life, possessing the surplus of resources necessary to rest and recalibrate between exertions. The few rich, in my understanding, that have a measurable amount of maturity to them tend to be self-made men, from the bottom up. Not from the middle up. Not from the top up. And each subsequent generation, tending to be pampered by the money, lose more and more of the qualities abundant in their patriarch. It's challenge that forges someone into a human being, and who can resist the easy life given by money?

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." -Abraham Lincoln

The idea that might makes right has been fancied by many tyrants.



mrszeta,

Your opinions bring to mind revolution. It seems, to me, that the prospect of stopping aging is something worth making a fuss about. That people won't sit still for those who think they're in power to get to it after their cappuccinos are ready. Once motivated, people are capable of a great deal. Take the American societal, industrial, and economic transformations of world war 2. Don't underestimate the social impact this will have. I imagine, or at least hope, it will encourage humanity to take it's final step into maturity. And single mature individuals have always pushed humanity forward, imagine the impact of several, a country, or a continent worth. Candy-land hopes, I know.
  • 0

#11 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 21 February 2011 - 11:15 PM

Timotheos,

What limited interactions I've had with the rich have rarely proven them to be superior. I understand the concept, but any superiority they may have is rarely derived from a depth of character but instead an abundance of time. That is to say, they aren't run ragged by life, possessing the surplus of resources necessary to rest and recalibrate between exertions. The few rich, in my understanding, that have a measurable amount of maturity to them tend to be self-made men, from the bottom up. Not from the middle up. Not from the top up. And each subsequent generation, tending to be pampered by the money, lose more and more of the qualities abundant in their patriarch. It's challenge that forges someone into a human being, and who can resist the easy life given by money?

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." -Abraham Lincoln

The idea that might makes right has been fancied by many tyrants.


You misunderstood. I knew that would happen.

First off, I already said I knew rich people weren't necessarily superior, and neither is this relevant to the topic.
I never said that might SHOULD make right. I only said that it was a sad truth in this world, and that to deny this would be naiveté. My point is: no Rockefeller Jesus = no equal chance at ILE for everybody.
  • 0

#12 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 February 2011 - 02:46 AM

I feel it is extremely relevant to this topic. And that a man should be as much responsible for the concepts he spreads as for the actions he takes. Wouldn't want the majority of humanity to be enslaved by cults encouraging the repression of personal growth, all started by one or two rambling charismatic fools, now would we?



But, naive? Pish posh. Money is nothing more than a commonly agreed upon substitution for human effort. Many forms of thought encourage a person to act in ways that are flatly self destructive, but people do it happily anyway. What's to say people aren't dying to do things that are productive, they simply don't know how?
  • 0

#13 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,538 posts
  • 3,459
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 February 2011 - 03:39 AM

Let me clarify the term ‘Life-extending therapies’.

If these therapies are technological (nanomedicine, etc) or biological (SENS-type treatments, stem cells etc) then I believe that both rich and poor in Western (developed) countries will eventually have access to them. Rich people living in poor countries will also have access. This leaves out a large proportion of humanity – poor people in poor countries who, in my opinion will not have access to any life extending treatment, at least for the foreseeable future.

If however, the therapies are neither technological nor biological, then the issue is different. I believe that there could be some point in the near future when it may be possible to avoid death caused by aging. This would not be due to technological treatments but due to changes in our evolutionary processes. I assume a difference between technological treatments (an injection, a scan, an intervention, whatever) and technology at large (internet, iphones).

For a brief discussion see here: http://lifeboat.com/...an-immortality.

So, if the issue is the tight and meaningful integration of humans with emerging technology (the Global Brain), then most people on Earth would be able to benefit. All it is necessary is the wish/interest to take part, and access to virtually ubiquitous technological devices. Nature will do the rest. IMO.

Kyriazis' Global Brain idea is good up to a point. Not new; Teilhard de Chardin might have beat him to the punch on that. But the idea that people will just magically live forever because they are a part of the GB, and thus analogous to neurons that he claims live as long as the whole organism? That's just shroom-head nonsense. Our environment provides the milieu in which evolution acts, but I see no force that selects for extreme longevity as a result of updating our facebook profile.

In the future, I suspect that longevity-enhancing therapies will still cost money. If someone with money benefits by providing therapy to the poor, then it will be provided. If our future world is as resource-constrained as our current world, and if we continue to structure our economic systems such that a small fraction of people control most of the wealth, then it is highly unlikely that expensive therapy will be provided to everyone. If we live in a world where medical care is provided to everyone, and this is the direction that the developed world is choosing, then it might be the case that it's cheaper to provide life extension therapy to everyone than it is to care for age-related disease. I think the chances of that being the case are reasonably good. If the developing world continues to develop as they have been, then the world might be rich enough as a whole to cover the needs of the remaining states that haven't gotten off the ground economically. Small pockets of poverty are easy to deal with; a sea of poverty is not.
  • 0

#14 Johan

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 472 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:00 AM

I'm inclined to agree with niner and Timotheos here. I don't think our societal structure is likely to go away anytime soon, nor will this dependency on resources that we have. People will want to make money out of these therapies, and will probably need to since research isn't exactly done for free and the life-extension (LE) companies have to sustain themselves somehow in order to continue delivering LE therapies.

Edited by Johan, 01 March 2011 - 01:36 PM.

  • 0

#15 drus

  • Registered User
  • 278 posts
  • 21
  • Location:?

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:22 PM

In my opinion, it's foolish to look at this from a monetary standpoint. Please point out my errors in calculation. Yes, everything requires resources to accomplish, and times often change slowly, but most things in the world lay broken due to people's faults, not a lack of resources. Laziness, cowardice, and apathy are rampant in privileged areas. Athletes are paid millions to run back and forth. Actors to lie. "Green living" is prioritized over our own poor, forget Africa completely. Tell me the resources don't exist and I'll show you a pair of smooth hands.



good post, Panther. i agree completely.
  • 0

#16 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:33 PM

It's not about resources. Extending life will naturally become something for the elite.
I see no point in discussing it any further. I'm too busy literally gathering a fortune to pay for my future meds/treatment.
  • 0

#17 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 March 2011 - 05:37 AM

Thank you drus.


Timotheos,

If someone withheld LE from you due to a lack of funding that you could not acquire through reasonable efforts, would you simply accept that? To reiterate, you're talking about denying someone life. That starts war. Remember that those with the most resources have them due to societal order. That is to say, a person is -allowed- to be wealthy by the majority. Gates, for example, got his billions by creating something which others paid to use. Without law his efforts would merely be copied and used by any who choose to, freely. If the majority no longer feels that the laws are good ones, the laws will be changed. Those changes, when the problem is minor, occur through law. When they are major, through war. Now, deny a huge percentage of the populous to live, and which will happen?
  • 0

#18 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 06 March 2011 - 12:27 PM

Thank you drus.


Timotheos,

If someone withheld LE from you due to a lack of funding that you could not acquire through reasonable efforts, would you simply accept that? To reiterate, you're talking about denying someone life. That starts war. Remember that those with the most resources have them due to societal order. That is to say, a person is -allowed- to be wealthy by the majority. Gates, for example, got his billions by creating something which others paid to use. Without law his efforts would merely be copied and used by any who choose to, freely. If the majority no longer feels that the laws are good ones, the laws will be changed. Those changes, when the problem is minor, occur through law. When they are major, through war. Now, deny a huge percentage of the populous to live, and which will happen?


Here comes the usual misunderstanding. I'm NOT SAYING I WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY. I just said that it WILL BE. I'm a cynic. A realist. It won't look pretty.
And no, if they deny me ILE because of me not being rich enough, I'll pry the remedy from their cold, dead hands. :ph34r:

I'm as they call it, a "anarcho-transhumanist".

Edited by Timotheos Aionon, 06 March 2011 - 12:28 PM.

  • 0

#19 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 March 2011 - 08:06 PM

And I'm not saying you said you want it that way. I'm saying it won't be. The numbers don't add up. The only possible chance of that happening is if the material required of the treatment is incredibly rare. Then it's a matter of economics, rather than morality. Also, if the global populous is incapable of producing the few scientists required for mass production, which is unlikely due to the motivation this product will create. Your notions are unsound.

Now, I'm commonly misunderstood, and I understand why. You may find value in understanding why your opinions are perceived as wrong.
  • 0

#20 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,538 posts
  • 3,459
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 March 2011 - 08:55 PM

And no, if they deny me ILE because of me not being rich enough, I'll pry the remedy from their cold, dead hands. :ph34r:

I'm as they call it, a "anarcho-transhumanist".

Sadly, if you resort to theft or violence to obtain ILE, you may well be an incarcerated or dead transhumanist.

I'm saying it won't be. The numbers don't add up. The only possible chance of that happening is if the material required of the treatment is incredibly rare. Then it's a matter of economics, rather than morality.

At the moment, people die for lack of things like... food. or mosquito netting, or rehydration fluid. Those things are pretty cheap, and I doubt very much that LE technology will be that cheap. It will probably involve a number of sophisticated tests, treatments, and procedures. Look at what healthcare costs today. There's clearly a demand for it, but no one is "mass producing" it. You seem to be postulating some sort of miracle coming along and changing everything. I don't think that is going to happen for a long time. In the meanwhile, people will not get expensive health care ("health care" = LE treatments) unless they can pay for it, or someone gives it to them, or the poor rise up and conquer the wealthy, creating a new socialist world of free health care. What other options are there? The poor resort to theft or violence to obtain health care? I doubt that the rich would stand for that. The powerful will voluntarily create a socialist world? Doesn't really look that way, at least not in America, but I suppose you never know.

If you want everyone to have access to expensive health care regardless of their ability to pay for it, then you have to stand up and proudly declare yourself to be a Socialist. You can't be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-anything and be for free health care at the same time.
  • 0

#21 Ichoose2live

  • Registered User
  • 200 posts
  • 110
  • Location:Canada

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:52 PM

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, the immortality shall be absolute once we attain a Type 2 civilization. Moreover, the transition from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization strangely resembles what we call "The New World Order."



Even if we achieve immunity against diseases, cancers, and so on, we will not be completely immortal. The risk of an external threat is inevitable. We would need to have absolute control of our planet and also of our solar system. Imagine that tomorrow we discover the ultimate immunity against all diseases, and three hours later an asteroid (or natural disaster) hits the earth and wipes out all planetary species.

I think it's time for humanity to put aside our arrogance, because if it fails this time we will self-destruct.

During the last twenty years we discovered more than the entire history of humankind, and in the next ten years we will discover more than the past twenty years, and at one moment in one day we will discover more than the entire history of humankind. We are entering an era far more important than the Renaissance. The Mayan calendar ended on or around December 21, 2012, to mark the beginning of a new era. If we do what it takes, then the time will be right.

Edited by Ichoose2live, 06 March 2011 - 10:43 PM.

  • 0

#22 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 07 March 2011 - 02:03 AM


And no, if they deny me ILE because of me not being rich enough, I'll pry the remedy from their cold, dead hands. :ph34r:

I'm as they call it, a "anarcho-transhumanist".

Sadly, if you resort to theft or violence to obtain ILE, you may well be an incarcerated or dead transhumanist.

I'm saying it won't be. The numbers don't add up. The only possible chance of that happening is if the material required of the treatment is incredibly rare. Then it's a matter of economics, rather than morality.

At the moment, people die for lack of things like... food. or mosquito netting, or rehydration fluid. Those things are pretty cheap, and I doubt very much that LE technology will be that cheap. It will probably involve a number of sophisticated tests, treatments, and procedures. Look at what healthcare costs today. There's clearly a demand for it, but no one is "mass producing" it. You seem to be postulating some sort of miracle coming along and changing everything. I don't think that is going to happen for a long time. In the meanwhile, people will not get expensive health care ("health care" = LE treatments) unless they can pay for it, or someone gives it to them, or the poor rise up and conquer the wealthy, creating a new socialist world of free health care. What other options are there? The poor resort to theft or violence to obtain health care? I doubt that the rich would stand for that. The powerful will voluntarily create a socialist world? Doesn't really look that way, at least not in America, but I suppose you never know.

If you want everyone to have access to expensive health care regardless of their ability to pay for it, then you have to stand up and proudly declare yourself to be a Socialist. You can't be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-anything and be for free health care at the same time.


What he said. If we lived in that perfect world where cheap things that everybody needed would actually get distributed evenly, there'd be no famine, no disease, no war.
Needless to say we don't live in such a world - and we never will.

I'd like to add that if I could choose between *potentially* getting killed/jailed OR dying without ILE, I'll choose the former. When we're talking about survival, everything goes. I'm not saying I'd love doing that. Certainly not. Violence is always a last resort. If I can get it by peacefully contributing within the boundaries set by society, I would.

I'm not for free health care or whatever either. I see this place for what it is. Without governments, there'd still be an elite. There will always be "leaders". Celebrities, the rich, the powerful (politicians), "the genetic elite". It's how it works. I see this world as my playground. Or no, my "challenge". I'm an opportunitist. If working with group A will get me ILE, I'll work with A. I've learned to put aside my false 'morals' and petty worries about the negative consequences for what I want and need. Survival.

Edited by Timotheos Aionon, 07 March 2011 - 02:05 AM.

  • 0

#23 Ichoose2live

  • Registered User
  • 200 posts
  • 110
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 March 2011 - 04:25 AM

I'm not for free health care or whatever either. I see this place for what it is. Without governments, there'd still be an elite. There will always be "leaders". Celebrities, the rich, the powerful (politicians), "the genetic elite". It's how it works. I see this world as my playground. Or no, my "challenge". I'm an opportunitist. If working with group A will get me ILE, I'll work with A. I've learned to put aside my false 'morals' and petty worries about the negative consequences for what I want and need. Survival.


I don't think that it is a matter of genetics or DNA, but rather a matter of awareness. If I took the genetics of William of Wales at his birth to substitute it for that of an Indian, I don't think there would have been a big difference. Since he would have had the same education with the same environment with the same rules and so on. Genetics has no control over the brain. Each tree grows from different roots, to execute the same function. It's the same for humans, whom constantly seeks satisfaction. That is the goal of humanity that it is our finality. Since every human being is different, the levels and the needs of satisfaction is different. This may cause the destruction of self or more often of others. So if we consider this fact, humanity will never find absolute satisfaction. The result will be that we would never stop evolving. The idea of changing humanity never ceases to echo in my head. The evolution of man is limited by the dimension of time.
  • 0

#24 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 05:01 AM

Reciprocity, gentlemen. The problems of the world, which cause men to behave with parsimony, are due to that very niggardliness. Again. There are more than adequate resources, we simply lack the wisdom to use them correctly.

Instead of investing excess into bettering humanity, the vast majority of those fortunate enough to possess said excess spend it on reinforcing their personal security and comfort. Ironic, as removing themselves from the real world destroys any chance they'll ever have of maturing and thus the happiness that comes with said maturity. And, of course, furthering the divide, exacerbating the problems of society, becoming the source of the very problems they fear.

Peace, as they say, gentlemen, must be maintained. It is the place of the strong to protect and guide the weak, least in their trials they become corrupt, and think of nothing more than what they can take from others.
  • 0

#25 Marios Kyriazis

  • Registered User
  • 446 posts
  • 243
  • Location:London UK
  • yes

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:55 AM

During the last twenty years we discovered more than the entire history of humankind, and in the next ten years we will discover more than the past twenty years, and at one moment in one day we will discover more than the entire history of humankind.


This is true as a general statement. However we have made miserable progress in some important areas. For example, the emergency medical treatment of cardiac arrest has not progressed AT ALL in the past 30 years at least. The treatment for common viral infections (common cold etc) is still essentially the same as 100 years ago. We need to catch up soon if we can even begin to consider wide-ranging commonly available longevity therapies.
  • 1

#26 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:25 AM

Reciprocity, gentlemen. The problems of the world, which cause men to behave with parsimony, are due to that very niggardliness. Again. There are more than adequate resources, we simply lack the wisdom to use them correctly.

Instead of investing excess into bettering humanity, the vast majority of those fortunate enough to possess said excess spend it on reinforcing their personal security and comfort. Ironic, as removing themselves from the real world destroys any chance they'll ever have of maturing and thus the happiness that comes with said maturity. And, of course, furthering the divide, exacerbating the problems of society, becoming the source of the very problems they fear.

Peace, as they say, gentlemen, must be maintained. It is the place of the strong to protect and guide the weak, least in their trials they become corrupt, and think of nothing more than what they can take from others.


Where's this "wisdom" going to come from all of the sudden? It isn't gonna come falling down from the stars. I mean *look* at this place. First look at your beliefs, then look at reality.
You make it sound as if mankind is "doing someting wrong" which can be corrected. That isn't true, imo. We're genetically programmed to act in this way, and even though the odd strong-willed individual can alter this, the vast majority will simply do what they were programmed to do. You can't alter the entire race's way of living. And expecting this to magically happen because ILE is coming is just plain folly.
  • 1

#27 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:27 AM


I'm not for free health care or whatever either. I see this place for what it is. Without governments, there'd still be an elite. There will always be "leaders". Celebrities, the rich, the powerful (politicians), "the genetic elite". It's how it works. I see this world as my playground. Or no, my "challenge". I'm an opportunitist. If working with group A will get me ILE, I'll work with A. I've learned to put aside my false 'morals' and petty worries about the negative consequences for what I want and need. Survival.


I don't think that it is a matter of genetics or DNA, but rather a matter of awareness. If I took the genetics of William of Wales at his birth to substitute it for that of an Indian, I don't think there would have been a big difference. Since he would have had the same education with the same environment with the same rules and so on. Genetics has no control over the brain. Each tree grows from different roots, to execute the same function. It's the same for humans, whom constantly seeks satisfaction. That is the goal of humanity that it is our finality. Since every human being is different, the levels and the needs of satisfaction is different. This may cause the destruction of self or more often of others. So if we consider this fact, humanity will never find absolute satisfaction. The result will be that we would never stop evolving. The idea of changing humanity never ceases to echo in my head. The evolution of man is limited by the dimension of time.


You misunderstood. The "genetic elite" in this case means the "strong". Literally the strong and the attractive. It's a flat fact that when you put people together, the smart, strong, and handsome WILL control the group. And imo (and not just mine, it's just plain science) genetics determines everthing. I don't need philosofical babble or religious talk to explain why and how we're here.

Edited by Timotheos Aionon, 07 March 2011 - 11:28 AM.

  • 0

#28 Panther

  • Registered User
  • 65 posts
  • 23
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:51 PM

"We do not see the world the way it is, but as we are."

It is a common mistake of budding intellectuals to write off humanity. The reason for this mistake, like anything once understood, is simple. But from the perspective of one who's primary focus is the memorization of abstract factors having no real impact on their lives aside from the collection of paper used in trade for other materials, it is easily overlooked.

You think, perhaps, that a seemingly simple man, a farmer in a small community, has less on his mind than a rocket scientist. Blatantly incorrect. You'll note that "intellectuals" rarely possess physical prowess, social skills, or integrity. This is not due to their superiority making such things unnecessary, but that their focus is on their particular trade rather than these subjects. And I assure you, those skills require a great deal of calculation to perfect.

Because of ignorance of those subjects, budding intellectuals are often simply incapable of understanding the elaborate complexities involved no matter how influential in their own lives. Instead, to protect an ego which often rules them more than it does most, this due to that very lack of self awareness, they write others off to "simplify" the problem. A terrible situation, this, as those with the most potential often cause the most problems. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  • -1

#29 MentalParadox

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Wijnegem, Antwerp

Posted 07 March 2011 - 10:20 PM

Sometimes I think you deliberately use language no ordinary mortal could ever understand
to trump my arguments. Whatever that was supposed to mean, it would seem to me none of it
is relevant to the issue.

Oh well.

The future will reveal all.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 Ichoose2live

  • Registered User
  • 200 posts
  • 110
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 March 2011 - 10:50 PM

You misunderstood. The "genetic elite" in this case means the "strong". Literally the strong and the attractive. It's a flat fact that when you put people together, the smart, strong, and handsome WILL control the group. And imo (and not just mine, it's just plain science) genetics determines everthing. I don't need philosofical babble or religious talk to explain why and how we're here.


Considiring the words of philosophy and religion babble are common nowadays. But considiring the words of someone who sees the world 'as it is', will lead us to chaos. The best example is Adolft Hitler. ''The Jews are contagious diseases.'' Anyway, this discussion is off subject.

To answer the primary question: '' Would everybody attain immortality if therapies were available? '', I simply think that if it is regarded and promoted as a vaccine, then everyone will have excess to it. Let's hope it's NOT going to be controlled by the FDA whatever it will be.

Edited by Ichoose2live, 07 March 2011 - 11:22 PM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users