26 replies to this topic

[tjcbs]

For a long time my gut feeling has been that I will not. There are too many looming catastrophes; i.e. peak oil, global warming/environmental collapse, nuclear war, etc. etc., for me to be really interested in "immortality" (I joined this site for the nootropics forum). Just looking at the sharp exponential population growth and overall change (technological, environmental, etc) over the last few hundred years pretty much tells you that life as we know it won't last much longer.

What do you think?

[tjcbs]

oops, didn't see there was a whole sub-forum for this topic...

[brokenportal]

For a long time my gut feeling has been that I will not. There are too many looming catastrophes; i.e. peak oil, global warming/environmental collapse, nuclear war, etc. etc., for me to be really interested in "immortality" (I joined this site for the nootropics forum). Just looking at the sharp exponential population growth and overall change (technological, environmental, etc) over the last few hundred years pretty much tells you that life as we know it won't last much longer.

What do you think?

Yes, of course. Sure we might get squashed by an asteroid or suffocate in a nuclear fall out or something like that, but things like that have been potentials since the dawn of time. We cant live in fear of the what ifs. We have to tackle them where we can and innovate on into the future until we know all of existence.

With this of course we also have to survive aging. We have to see the defeat of aging in our lifetimes, which we absolutely with out a doubt can have.

[Nootropic Cat]

Meh, just another reason it's an exciting time to be alive. Be one of the survivors yo!

[bacopa]

Portal obviously nuclear problems did not occur at the "dawn of time," and I expect you were writing in haste to a fellow doubter, and I say fellow, since, I think we all doubt indefinite life spans will happen to us, but obviously we hope. As to the OP, be part of the cause not just the supplements forums! Help us achieve the unthinkable within our life spans.

[brokenportal]

Portal obviously nuclear problems did not occur at the "dawn of time," and I expect you were writing in haste to a fellow doubter, and I say fellow, since, I think we all doubt indefinite life spans will happen to us, but obviously we hope. As to the OP, be part of the cause not just the supplements forums! Help us achieve the unthinkable within our life spans.

Thats why I wrote:

things like that

We can not doubt that we can have indefinite life extension in our life times. Like MacArthur said, "It is fatal to enter any war with out the will to win it." We can absolutely with out a doubt have indefinite life extension in our life times. We can, and not only can we but we have, have to beleive it if we are to get it done in our life times. That reminds me of this peice that a few of us wrote that we are currently working to get on the front page: http://www.imminst.o...ion-t40361.html

For sure, it will not be easy, but resolve will take us the distance if it is in the cards for us. As that peice says, "We do not have to know we can get there to go there, but we do have to go there to get there." As an analogy to that, if there is a vial somewhere at the top of one of the mountains in a mountain range that might have the cure for aging in it, then we have to go after it, even if we find that the vial is empty, because if the vial is not empty, and we do not go there then it will be a far bigger tragedy than if we go there and the vial is empty. Not only that, but one set of strategies to defeat aging is already under way, and diseases that are like it have already had successes in labs. Thats like knowing that a 160 story sky scraper has been built, but wondering whether or not its possible or worth it to undertake to build a 160 story sky scraper to save our lives.

[Cameron]

I do have doubts, due to the fact that the human shell is fragile indeed. A mind should never have been put in such a delicate container. Not only can it self destruct, but it can be easily disposed even by lesser minds. It should be impossible for a junkie to even injure a luminary, let alone kill. That is the way it ought to be, and hopefully that is the way it shall be. For too long a time have the lesser intellects gathered, and used simple weaponry to coerce and enforce their ways upon the higher intellects.

Edited by Cameron, 06 May 2010 - 04:47 AM.

[chrwe]

I`d say it depends a lot on the development of nanotechnology. Seriously.

[N.T.M.]

I have an idea: Since we might fail, lets ensure it by stopping to try.


You list valid questions, but an even more important one is WTF can we do about it?

nothing

[brokenportal]

This essay was written in response to the compression of morbity mindset, but it also works in response to the, "Its too hard, we'll probably never get it done" mindset.

http://www.imminst.o...ion-t40361.html

You shouldnt have any doubt at all, we dont need to have any doubt at all. There is no need to doubt that we can have indefinite life extension in our lifetimes. Dont doubt, fight.

Nanotechnology is good, but it doesnt depend on nanotechnology. It depends on people fighthing and not doubting.

[chris w]

There are too many looming catastrophes; i.e. peak oil, global warming/environmental collapse, nuclear war, etc. etc., for me to be really interested in "immortality".

But maybe we could alter ourselves to become a civilization of wise mutant cockroaches in order to survive the nuclear winter.

Edited by chris w, 07 May 2010 - 12:54 AM.

[N.T.M.]

This essay was written in response to the compression of morbity mindset, but it also works in response to the, "Its too hard, we'll probably never get it done" mindset.

http://www.imminst.o...ion-t40361.html

You shouldnt have any doubt at all, we dont need to have any doubt at all. There is no need to doubt that we can have indefinite life extension in our lifetimes. Dont doubt, fight.

Nanotechnology is good, but it doesnt depend on nanotechnology. It depends on people fighthing and not doubting.

Uhg.... the compression of morbidity fallacy. It's biologically infeasible AND counterintuitive. As for why it's so prevalent..... no idea. =P

[brokenportal]

Why do you say it might be a fallacy? Its good in principle, but to focus on compression of morbity rather than indefinite life extension would be like focusing on getting say, 50 more low space orbits around the earth rather than having aimed to go to the moon.

[N.T.M.]

Why do you say it might be a fallacy? Its good in principle, but to focus on compression of morbity rather than indefinite life extension would be like focusing on getting say, 50 more low space orbits around the earth rather than having aimed to go to the moon.

As Aubrey said: It's impossible to postpone "morbidity" without extending overall life span. The whole compression of morbidity concept is erroneous.

[Alex Libman]

For a long time my gut feeling has been that I will not. There are too many looming catastrophes; i.e. peak oil, global warming/environmental collapse, nuclear war, etc. etc., for me to be really interested in "immortality" (I joined this site for the nootropics forum). Just looking at the sharp exponential population growth and overall change (technological, environmental, etc) over the last few hundred years pretty much tells you that life as we know it won't last much longer.

What do you think?

(1) There is no such thing as "your natural lifespan" . If you mean the mainstream definition of "nature", that is the primitive state of the universe prior to civilized human intervention, then the "natural" human lifespan is ~30 years. If you mean the philosophical definition of "nature", of which the human civilization is a fundamental part, then all potential longevity advancements are a part of that "natural lifespan" as well.

(2) All the "looming catastrophes" you've mentioned are government propaganda frauds, as explained on other threads. Stop mindlessly parroting what others tell you and think critically - none of the alleged problems can stand the light of an objective examination.

(3) Exponential population growth would be a very good thing, but unfortunately we are headed for a population decline which will most likely be irreversible (without totally redefining the reproductive / family traditions as we know them today).

Edited by Alex Libman, 08 May 2010 - 04:52 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Stop mindlessly parroting what others tell you and think critically - none of the alleged problems can stand the light of an objective examination.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

~ George Orwell

[brokenportal]

Why do you say it might be a fallacy? Its good in principle, but to focus on compression of morbity rather than indefinite life extension would be like focusing on getting say, 50 more low space orbits around the earth rather than having aimed to go to the moon.

As Aubrey said: It's impossible to postpone "morbidity" without extending overall life span. The whole compression of morbidity concept is erroneous.

Lets say that my grandpa takes preventative treatments for stroke and heart disease so that he doesnt succumb to them and so he lives to 95 and dies of alzheimers. Thats a lot better than having a stroke at 76 and losing speech, having a bypass at 82 and having more limited mobility, and then dying of alzheimers at 95. Thats the kind I mean is good in principle but seems not to be a fallacy in that way.

Although I support that, Im also saying that thats the kind of research we need to not be focusing on and pouring most of our dollars into (us, NIH, etc...). Of course, as Im sure you agree, we need to be pouring it into things like sens, maxlife, methuselah, and imminst, because we are helping to bring about treatments that will cut down every affliction that causes us to age to death. By focusing on it in that way, it seems that eventually Longevity Escape Velocity will come about, and these treatments wont forever merely compress our morbidity, but eventually a combination of a few will cause us to surpass that fabled 12th decade mark.

[N.T.M.]

Why do you say it might be a fallacy? Its good in principle, but to focus on compression of morbity rather than indefinite life extension would be like focusing on getting say, 50 more low space orbits around the earth rather than having aimed to go to the moon.

As Aubrey said: It's impossible to postpone "morbidity" without extending overall life span. The whole compression of morbidity concept is erroneous.

Lets say that my grandpa takes preventative treatments for stroke and heart disease so that he doesnt succumb to them and so he lives to 95 and dies of alzheimers. Thats a lot better than having a stroke at 76 and losing speech, having a bypass at 82 and having more limited mobility, and then dying of alzheimers at 95. Thats the kind I mean is good in principle but seems not to be a fallacy in that way.

Oh, just a matter of semantics then. I gotcha.

[forever freedom]

I can only hope. What i do know is that there's a possibility that in this century we may beat aging. I can only work to keep myself alive for as long as possible (without compromising my quality of life) and try to help the process in whatever way possible. That's the most logical path to take.

[N.T.M.]

I can only hope. What i do know is that there's a possibility that in this century we may beat aging. I can only work to keep myself alive for as long as possible (without compromising my quality of life) and try to help the process in whatever way possible. That's the most logical path to take.

agreed

[brokenportal]

Oh, just a matter of semantics then. I gotcha.

Maybe, is it? I cant say for sure of course, is there no such thing as compression of morbidity?

and try to help the process in whatever way possible.

Like what? How much help?

[forever freedom]

and try to help the process in whatever way possible.

Like what? How much help?

As much as i feel like helping and am able to help, without a high cost of opportunity to me, and as long as i see that the cause is specific to an area and has concrete chances of succeeding. I'm no Don Quixote.

[skylined]

I do have doubts, due to the fact that the human shell is fragile indeed. A mind should never have been put in such a delicate container. Not only can it self destruct, but it can be easily disposed even by lesser minds. It should be impossible for a junkie to even injure a luminary, let alone kill. That is the way it ought to be, and hopefully that is the way it shall be. For too long a time have the lesser intellects gathered, and used simple weaponry to coerce and enforce their ways upon the higher intellects.

Well said comrade. I agree completely with you on that. Too many valuable people have been lost to aging itself, let alone deaths due to violence.

[N.T.M.]

Oh, just a matter of semantics then. I gotcha.

Maybe, is it? I cant say for sure of course, is there no such thing as compression of morbidity?

When I invoked semantics I meant to imply that it may be subjective to a degree. Compression of morbidity as I've always understood it means reducing the period of morbidity preceding death without any increase in life span. Really, that is impossible. But there are other things that're similar.

*edit* Maybe it's the ambiguity of the word morbidity.

Edited by N.T.M., 11 May 2010 - 05:41 AM.

[brokenportal]

Oh, just a matter of semantics then. I gotcha.

Maybe, is it? I cant say for sure of course, is there no such thing as compression of morbidity?

When I invoked semantics I meant to imply that it may be subjective to a degree. Compression of morbidity as I've always understood it means reducing the period of morbidity preceding death without any increase in life span. Really, that is impossible. But there are other things that're similar.

*edit* Maybe it's the ambiguity of the word morbidity.

Im glad you bring it up because probing it brings out, many times, otherwise inaccessible perspective. So lets say for the sake of arguement that we compress all of our morbidity down to 1 year. We are healthy and robust all of our lives, except for one year. Do you think that would extend our lifespans, and if so, do you think it could push beyond the 13th decade mark?

Also like your getting at, can you really be said to compress the morbidity of the causes of aging, like, if you reduce the symptoms of alzheimers, and hardening arteries, and cancer, are you really compressing the morbidity, or the symptoms of it, and is a lack of symptoms in the face of aging damage considered compressed morbidity?

[N.T.M.]

Im glad you bring it up because probing it brings out, many times, otherwise inaccessible perspective. So lets say for the sake of arguement that we compress all of our morbidity down to 1 year. We are healthy and robust all of our lives, except for one year. Do you think that would extend our lifespans, and if so, do you think it could push beyond the 13th decade mark?

Hmmm... I don't think it's possible to reduce frailness, etc. to a single year. But in any case, my point was that enfeeblement cannot be postponed without extending lifespan.

I'm not totally sure about your last question, but even with just current technology, I believe that's very doable.

Also like your getting at, can you really be said to compress the morbidity of the causes of aging, like, if you reduce the symptoms of alzheimers, and hardening arteries, and cancer, are you really compressing the morbidity, or the symptoms of it, and is a lack of symptoms in the face of aging damage considered compressed morbidity?

By use of a palliative I suppose that (ostensibly) you could reduce morbidity without extending lifespan. But I of course was referring to actual improvement.

All good points though.

[PYER]

Im glad you bring it up because probing it brings out, many times, otherwise inaccessible perspective. So lets say for the sake of arguement that we compress all of our morbidity down to 1 year. We are healthy and robust all of our lives, except for one year. Do you think that would extend our lifespans, and if so, do you think it could push beyond the 13th decade mark?

Hmmm... I don't think it's possible to reduce frailness, etc. to a single year. But in any case, my point was that enfeeblement cannot be postponed without extending lifespan.

I'm not totally sure about your last question, but even with just current technology, I believe that's very doable.

Also like your getting at, can you really be said to compress the morbidity of the causes of aging, like, if you reduce the symptoms of alzheimers, and hardening arteries, and cancer, are you really compressing the morbidity, or the symptoms of it, and is a lack of symptoms in the face of aging damage considered compressed morbidity?

By use of a palliative I suppose that (ostensibly) you could reduce morbidity without extending lifespan. But I of course was referring to actual improvement.

All good points though.

- Well, why not make the best use of what is already here in chemistry for prolonging life? It aggravates the hell out of me to hear of stories of members of the clergy whom have decaying health! I have a cure for that - put then in debit with their true nature that comes from the sfter-life by leading them to know that they are indeed beings only of themselves technically rather than the mambo-jumbo psyche images, and that they are routine geared in their own nature socially, so what! Tell them how they may get a lot more reward of themselves by being just themselves with more concern with their own love life and/or sexual manner of expression on earth. How's that?

Edited by PYER, 27 May 2010 - 09:19 PM.