75 replies to this topic

[Panther]

Sometimes I think people lack the self awareness to realize that discussion is not a competition wherein one wins or loses. It is one where experiences are shared so that all may grow and better their lives. Odd that so many make the same mistake in regards to society, despite the evidence to the contrary being right infront of their face.

You know, another odd habit of these people is to argue their point very fervently until they are obviously disproven, then say things that suggest the entire discussion was meaningless from the start. You'll run into many of these people in your life, I assure you, and you'll notice that the company they keep tends to be quite.. crooked. What's worse is that their fear of being rejected by society causes them to convert as many people as they possibly can to their demented causes. A true drain on society. Difficult nuts to crack, but I feel close to developing a number of solutions to this problem.

[MentalParadox]

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.

What percentage of the world's 6.2 billion people has access to vaccines? In the Western world percetages are quite high (80-95%), but in the developing world, otherwise known as the vast majority of the world population, they are not.

By the way, in order for people to see ILE as a vaccine, they need to follow your vision of seeing aging as a disease. The vast majority does not. ILE will be a luxury product.
Look, I'm quitting this discussion. I don't believe in rainbow unicorn world where everybody is equal and we all sing kumbaya while living forever.

[Panther]

Bye now.

[niner]

You'll note that "intellectuals" rarely possess physical prowess, social skills, or integrity.

Where do you get this nonsense?

[Panther]

Em, averages. Of course I'd have to accurately define my meaning. If you're interested enough, we can go over it.

[MentalParadox]

Sometimes I think people lack the self awareness to realize that discussion is not a competition wherein one wins or loses. It is one where experiences are shared so that all may grow and better their lives. Odd that so many make the same mistake in regards to society, despite the evidence to the contrary being right infront of their face.

You know, another odd habit of these people is to argue their point very fervently until they are obviously disproven, then say things that suggest the entire discussion was meaningless from the start. You'll run into many of these people in your life, I assure you, and you'll notice that the company they keep tends to be quite.. crooked. What's worse is that their fear of being rejected by society causes them to convert as many people as they possibly can to their demented causes. A true drain on society. Difficult nuts to crack, but I feel close to developing a number of solutions to this problem.

Nice. An ad hominem hidden behind a facade of expensive words.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and your arguments did not convince me. Neither can I convince you. You didn't "disprove" anything. Hence I call it a draw. Does this make me "crooked"? A "drain on society"? What "demented cause" are you referring to?

Careful now.

Edited by Timotheos Aionon, 08 March 2011 - 03:09 AM.

[Panther]

What a kind offer. Now if you'll pardon me, my opinions on the subject, which I've outlined in great detail despite your reluctance to reply in kind, should be taking their effect. I should take my leave, unless you feel unsatisfied with my current answer and feel you need more.

[Ichoose2live]

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.

What percentage of the world's 6.2 billion people has access to vaccines? In the Western world percetages are quite high (80-95%), but in the developing world, otherwise known as the vast majority of the world population, they are not.

By the way, in order for people to see ILE as a vaccine, they need to follow your vision of seeing aging as a disease. The vast majority does not. ILE will be a luxury product.
Look, I'm quitting this discussion. I don't believe in rainbow unicorn world where everybody is equal and we all sing kumbaya while living forever.

Yes, you made a good point. The truth is that most people are tired of their lives. They have enough problems around them and believe me I don't think they want to be immortal. Imagine that this would be an injection of nanotechnology. Since it will not be very important in most of the people lives, the price of this ''medication'' will probably be high (higher probability of sell = cheapest prices). We also know that this will be controlled by the government there is no doubt. Also, what we should hope is that this cure will not be controversial in its viability of benefits.

Another question would be ­­« Is this going to make us immortal or is it only going to enhances our lifespan? »

Edited by Ichoose2live, 08 March 2011 - 10:05 AM.

[drus]

the entire human paradigm needs to shift or change entirely, otherwise (physical) immortality will not be a good thing. under the current system, immortality just wouldn't work.

[Panther]

Em, my current estimations suggest that it's mortality that limits humanity's paradigm. A lynch-pin. I highly doubt the transition will be impeded in any serious way, beyond a few nukes hitting some of the super powers. Though I expect sever defenses are in place to prevent the mere possibility of that. But will that transition come in my lifetime according to the current forces obviously in play? Doubt it. God out of the machine.

[drus]

Em, my current estimations suggest that it's mortality that limits humanity's paradigm. A lynch-pin. I highly doubt the transition will be impeded in any serious way, beyond a few nukes hitting some of the super powers. Though I expect sever defenses are in place to prevent the mere possibility of that. But will that transition come in my lifetime according to the current forces obviously in play? Doubt it. God out of the machine.

i see and understand your point about our mortality being something of a limiting factor within the nature of our paradigm; i still however respectfully disagree with you on this whole physical immortality thing for present-day humanity. there are just too many aspects of human nature that still have growing up to do before humans will be ready for such a change. just for a quick example, the 'death' industry is hugely profitable. there is just no money in a perfectly healthy, physically immortal society/population. and even if there were, there is more money in a sick, generally unhealthy and mortal society/population. death is a necessary link in the chain of a world that revolves around greed, run by a species 60%-70% at least of which are malevolently selfish to their core, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. so you can bet your last dollar that physical immortality is a fleeting dream well past the foreseeable future. i could see it being used for evil/selfish purposes for a long time and well before it is ever known or available to the general public, if ever. the economic masters of the world see the people of the world as sheep, as commodities, as cattle and nothing more. it makes me sick, and as sad as it is to say this; that is the basis of the present world-human paradigm.

[Panther]

I, also, respectfully disagree. Yes, society is far from it's full potential, but we are still strong. And while the reasons humanity remains in it's infant stage are manifold, they are not enough to suppress it's inherent strength. From monkeys, we built the world to what is it today. Yes, our capacity is not maximized, but that's to be expected. We're still growing, and we're still learning from our past atrocities. From the horrible wars, to the arrogance which corrupted so many great cultures in the past, to the cults which are currently being exposed for what they are. In the past, our focus was on establishing methods to acquire material goods. That time is over.

I am personally of the opinion that the societies of the world powers are in a sociological stagnation due to the individual psyches being capped by a number of very specific factors, mortality being an indirect source of all. The answer is simple. When people are going to die soon anyway, they don't really care about the world. Now, as far as changing this goes, that's simple. We need results, tangible, obvious, easy to apply results. Then the flood gates open. I am not of the opinion that people are inherently selfish, twisted, stupid, or any of the negative traits. I simply think that life isn't the best environment for creating good people.

[Marios Kyriazis]

When people are going to die soon anyway, they don't really care about the world.

This is one of the main arguments supporting indefinite lifespans. If you live in a rented house for a few months, you are not going to take full care of it, or try to repair it. But if the house is yours forever, then you will try and keep it in a good condition. I meet many people you don't really care about, say, global warming, saying that by the time it becomes a real problem they will be dead anyway. But if they know that their lifespan is not limited, and that they could live for several centuries, then everything changes.

[drus]

Panther, i understand everything you're saying, i've asked/addressed the same questions myself over the years. i'm not necessarily of the opinion that humanity is inherently truly evil in the worst sense either. what i am saying is that under the current system present day humanity has been corrupted to such an extent that the majority are permanently and irreparably lost to their own selfishness. the very fact (you point out) that people will choose not to act responsibly and morally just because they will not live long enough to see or have to deal with the problem proves my point. and you think it'd be a good idea to give these kind of people immortality?! you think that will fix the problem(s)?! let alone before all sorts of new problems take root and make things worse?!

i've looked at this from top to bottom, contemplated, argued, and philosophized about it for years. here's the bottom line and you can take this to the bank (i'm assuming you're about my age 30's) you and i will not live to see physical immortality, and neither will our kids or our grandkids. we/they may if cryonics proves to work (assuming you're a cryonicist), but imo actual attainable physical immortality is likely centuries away, if at all, for a number of reasons not least of which the human corruption/selfishness factor.

Edited by drus, 10 March 2011 - 03:40 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

i've looked at this from top to bottom, contemplated, argued, and philosophized about it for years. here's the bottom line and you can take this to the bank (i'm assuming you're about my age 30's) you and i will not live to see physical immortality, and neither will our kids or our grandkids.

By this reasoning, I am guessing that you also do not believe in singularity.

[drus]

Mike, singularity isn't a question of 'belief'. are you asking me if i think it's possible? or if i think it'll be a 'good' thing? what are you asking me exactly?

[Panther]

My point is not merely that people care little for their surroundings, but themselves, when mortality prevents true progression. People care little for both the world, and themselves, thinking all is ultimately doomed. Look back on history, study all the great minds, the few people that actually molded the world, and you'll notice something they have in common. Motivation. Some are born geniuses, some princes, some peons that fight their way to become kings or tyrants. But it's always the same, they have a psychological motivation to become what they became.

My theory is that the majority of humanity privileged enough to have the choice, in one form or another (this requires a great deal of definition as psychological motivations are complex) choose to do nothing but what comforts them with the least effort. There are still many areas where our twisted brethren, the predatory, blood-thirsty tyrants rule; some are corporate predators who milk the world for their pathetic egos. Then there are the cults, ruled by their instincts, who can be benevolent or malicious in turn from moment to moment; individually harmless, but their numbers are still large. These are traits abundant in children, not mature human beings. And as children, they are incapable of changing their lives for the better, much less the world.

My theoretical solution to this problem is unrefined. But my current calculations suggest that a society where morality is regarded as having the utmost importance will produce ideal results. These ideas however assume that morality is objective.

[niner]

i see and understand your point about our mortality being something of a limiting factor within the nature of our paradigm; i still however respectfully disagree with you on this whole physical immortality thing for present-day humanity. there are just too many aspects of human nature that still have growing up to do before humans will be ready for such a change. just for a quick example, the 'death' industry is hugely profitable. there is just no money in a perfectly healthy, physically immortal society/population. and even if there were, there is more money in a sick, generally unhealthy and mortal society/population. death is a necessary link in the chain of a world that revolves around greed, run by a species 60%-70% at least of which are malevolently selfish to their core, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. so you can bet your last dollar that physical immortality is a fleeting dream well past the foreseeable future. i could see it being used for evil/selfish purposes for a long time and well before it is ever known or available to the general public, if ever. the economic masters of the world see the people of the world as sheep, as commodities, as cattle and nothing more. it makes me sick, and as sad as it is to say this; that is the basis of the present world-human paradigm.

This can't possibly be right. People are worth more when they are healthy and productive than when they are sick and dying. Look at the insane amount of money we spend on healthcare. Now consider that the majority of it is spent in the waning days of life. What if we could have that money to use for something else? This is known as the "longevity dividend". Even if people lived ten years longer (and we adjusted retirement ages appropriately), the difference would be huge. The need to rescue our country from bankruptcy ought to focus our efforts on LE, if nothing else does.

[mikeinnaples]

Mike, singularity isn't a question of 'belief'. are you asking me if i think it's possible? or if i think it'll be a 'good' thing? what are you asking me exactly?

Possibility.

You speak with such conviction about immortality treatment being unavailable for generations. To me, that conviction directly opposes the concept of singularity. Unless of course you believe that singularity won't happen for generations or that when it does, things will go drastically wrong for humans.

Adequate clarification?

[drus]

Niner, what do you think is a more profitable endeavour; a weight-loss/health franchise, or a mcdonalds? (this is a trick question btw lol) so you really think that the health/medical industry (and all it's connected businesses and subsidiaries) are altruistic? do you really believe they actually truly care about your health and want everyone healthy and cured of disease? to quote you, "look at the insane amount of money we spend on healthcare" is exactly right! lol! look at the INSANE amount of profits made in the healthcare sector! sick people are their best clients. do you think they want business to stop? and the twisted thing is when the system starts to play the facade game like they give a shit about people (eg smoking laws etc...), it's not really that they care about 'people', they just want to save money.

anyway, Mike, yes i think singularity is a very real possibility. i might even go so far as to say it's a scientific/social inevitability at some point in the future. i'm not saying that singularity will 'definitely' not happen. but you realize it might not happen, right? a lot of things can happen between now and then, natural disasters, wars etc that could put things off for a very long time. i don't really have an opinion about singularity to be completely honest with you. i don't think we'll live to see it. but i will say that i think it could be very dangerous if it happens too soon. singularity (or something made to look like it) could VERY EASILY be twisted to serve tyrannical purposes. my main point here is about physical immortality for present day humans, which i think will not happen in our life times, and even if it did it might turn out to be more like a prison in hell than the liberty and freedom that transhumanism hopes for.

(*just for clarification purposes, i want people to understand i'm not trashing transhumanism necessarily, nor am i opposed to the idea of immortality in principle. i'm a scientist and philosopher at heart. i'm a cryonicist, i love science, i love my humanity, i love my fellow humans and i want whats best for the world. my arguments above do not reflect what i want the world to be like, they are just facts as to how the present world is and operates*)

[mikeinnaples]

anyway, Mike, yes i think singularity is a very real possibility. i might even go so far as to say it's a scientific/social inevitability at some point in the future. i'm not saying that singularity will 'definitely' not happen. but you realize it might not happen, right? a lot of things can happen between now and then, natural disasters, wars etc that could put things off for a very long time. i don't really have an opinion about singularity to be completely honest with you. i don't think we'll live to see it. but i will say that i think it could be very dangerous if it happens too soon. singularity (or something made to look like it) could VERY EASILY be twisted to serve tyrannical purposes. my main point here is about physical immortality for present day humans, which i think will not happen in our life times, and even if it did it might turn out to be more like a prison in hell than the liberty and freedom that transhumanism hopes for.

Yeah, I realize that there are things that could happen to prevent its emergence within our lifetimes. I believe probability sides with it happening during my lifetime at least. I am more concerned about how it happens and the results of it happening than whether or not it does happen.

[Panther]

drus,

I think you overestimate your understanding of people. Many are completely ignorant of their role in the world, incapable of understanding themselves, the concept of socioeconomic mechanics is beyond their current awareness. I feel most people are intrinsically good, and given understanding and ability, they will infact try to help the whole. Look at the green movement. It accomplishes nothing, yes. But it does prove that people care, in their thoughtless way.

[drus]

Panther, imho, all your example proves is that people are 'sheep', and will do anything to be seen as fashionably 'doing their part' or to be seen as 'good'. but just for the record, i'm not really saying that people are intrinsically 'bad' or 'evil', just that they're generally selfish and easily controlled, and that those calling the shots are worst of all. also, you have to understand i'm not talking about all people for all time, just about 60% or so, and mostly people of today's world.

Edited by drus, 11 March 2011 - 08:54 PM.

[Panther]

Yes, I understand what you're thinking, but you're missing a crucial point. People are mostly weak due not to a lack of capacity, but lack of desire to maximize that capacity as well as psychological hindrances such as fear and laziness, and of course ignorance of the methods of self improvement. I maintain, very strongly, that humanity's potential for intellectual and moral maturity is always open, and further, that people infact want it.

And don't mistake this for cheery bullshit of some smiling fool who hasn't tasted the ugly parts of life. This is cold, hard logic. People want to be happy, happiness is achieved through self-control. Self control reduces one's needs of the world, (that is to say, they need less to be happier) and thus their time is freed for other tasks. Primary of those tasks, naturally, is improving humanity. The reason for that specific action being that the only real cause of humanity's strife left is humanity. And of course dying. Logic.

[niner]

Niner, what do you think is a more profitable endeavour; a weight-loss/health franchise, or a mcdonalds? (this is a trick question btw lol) so you really think that the health/medical industry (and all it's connected businesses and subsidiaries) are altruistic? do you really believe they actually truly care about your health and want everyone healthy and cured of disease? to quote you, "look at the insane amount of money we spend on healthcare" is exactly right! lol! look at the INSANE amount of profits made in the healthcare sector! sick people are their best clients. do you think they want business to stop? and the twisted thing is when the system starts to play the facade game like they give a shit about people (eg smoking laws etc...), it's not really that they care about 'people', they just want to save money.

Of course they aren't purely altruistic. They are trying to make a profit. Many of them also want to help people. But you make it sound like doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are sitting around plotting ways to make people sicker. That just isn't the case. They may not always be doing the best things for patients, but that's out of ignorance, not evil intent. Think about who is paying the bills here: the government and private sector employers. The people paying the money are not making a dime from disease and disability. They have a motivation to seek out optimal health, and if someone could offer it to them, they would pay for it. Saving money is what the free market is all about. It's possible that life extension therapy could be an overall money-saver. If that's the case, then the people who are currently paying for health care will happily pay for LE. If it isn't a money saver, then we will have to pay for it ourselves, because the free market won't.

[drus]

most doctors personally don't care one way or the other, but they need patients who feel they are getting something for their money. the pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a deeply vested interest in sick people....it's not out of ignorance, and it is infact the case. when it comes to a multi-billion dollar industry, 'evil intent' can wear a very convincing mask but it's always very prevalent. no personal offense meant to you but you can't possibly be that naive. and don't even get me started on hmo's.

[niner]

most doctors personally don't care one way or the other, but they need patients who feel they are getting something for their money. the pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a deeply vested interest in sick people....it's not out of ignorance, and it is infact the case. when it comes to a multi-billion dollar industry, 'evil intent' can wear a very convincing mask but it's always very prevalent. no personal offense meant to you but you can't possibly be that naive. and don't even get me started on hmo's.

I don't think I'm being naive. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for many years. If the industry is scheming to keep people sick, they've done a pretty good job of hiding the evidence, because I and a large number of people that I know, some at very senior levels, are not aware of it. I guess internet paranoia requires that I now be branded a dupe, tool, or 'in on it'. Do you have any evidence of active scheming to keep people sick? Where are the miracle cures that are being suppressed?

[drus]

Niner, you're missing the deeper point/issue here. i'm not saying that they're always constantly conspiring to keep all people sick 100% of the time (although i have to admit, i wouldnt be surprised if they were). what i'm saying is that they put profits/money ahead of people's health, and alot of the time, so do doctors (atleast the ones that work in a privatized or 'for profit' healthcare system like the US).

[chris w]

most doctors personally don't care one way or the other, but they need patients who feel they are getting something for their money. the pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a deeply vested interest in sick people....it's not out of ignorance, and it is infact the case. when it comes to a multi-billion dollar industry, 'evil intent' can wear a very convincing mask but it's always very prevalent. no personal offense meant to you but you can't possibly be that naive. and don't even get me started on hmo's.

I don't think I'm being naive. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for many years. If the industry is scheming to keep people sick, they've done a pretty good job of hiding the evidence, because I and a large number of people that I know, some at very senior levels, are not aware of it. I guess internet paranoia requires that I now be branded a dupe, tool, or 'in on it'. Do you have any evidence of active scheming to keep people sick? Where are the miracle cures that are being suppressed?

Or, you didn't reach the Inner Circle where they pray to the owl statue

But do you think there is some possibility that sub - optimal results are achieved by an entity, not due to genuine malevolence of its functionaries, but instead because "in the back of the head" of the institution there is the realisation, that it can only perpetuate itself as long as it doesn't meet goals better than those actually being met ?

I remember Alex Libman said something I could actually agree with - that because of the shape of the Western pension systems in place, governments are on a sort of unconscious level desyntetised towards pursuing longevity technolgies. If that was to be true to any extent, I don't see why this scheme wouldn't apply to private bodies as well, if there is a profitable disease - management industry, it needs to have something to be managed, otherwise they're out of bussiness. I'm not trying to ascribe conspiracies and guilt here, only wondering how much particular decisions as to what avenues of research to explore that are made in a certain wider, perhaps skewed framework, are affected by that framework.

[niner]

most doctors personally don't care one way or the other, but they need patients who feel they are getting something for their money. the pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a deeply vested interest in sick people....it's not out of ignorance, and it is infact the case. when it comes to a multi-billion dollar industry, 'evil intent' can wear a very convincing mask but it's always very prevalent. no personal offense meant to you but you can't possibly be that naive. and don't even get me started on hmo's.

I don't think I'm being naive. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for many years. If the industry is scheming to keep people sick, they've done a pretty good job of hiding the evidence, because I and a large number of people that I know, some at very senior levels, are not aware of it. I guess internet paranoia requires that I now be branded a dupe, tool, or 'in on it'. Do you have any evidence of active scheming to keep people sick? Where are the miracle cures that are being suppressed?

Or, you didn't reach the Inner Circle where they pray to the owl statue

But do you think there is some possibility that sub - optimal results are achieved by an entity, not due to genuine malevolence of its functionaries, but instead because "in the back of the head" of the institution there is the realisation, that it can only perpetuate itself as long as it doesn't meet goals better than those actually being met ?

I remember Alex Libman said something I could actually agree with - that because of the shape of the Western pension systems in place, governments are on a sort of unconscious level desyntetised towards pursuing longevity technolgies. If that was to be true to any extent, I don't see why this scheme wouldn't apply to private bodies as well, if there is a profitable disease - management industry, it needs to have something to be managed, otherwise they're out of bussiness. I'm not trying to ascribe conspiracies and guilt here, only wondering how much particular decisions as to what avenues of research to explore that are made in a certain wider, perhaps skewed framework, are affected by that framework.

LOL. You're right that we have a lot of misplaced incentives. It's been pointed out that the government has quite an interest in having its people smoke. Smoking tends to kill people relatively cheaply (quickly), (on average- lots of MI's) and also tends to ensure that, on average, they get in a full working life but die before collecting many benefits. In addition, it provides a steady revenue stream through taxes. All this, and yet the government still seems to not want us to smoke. There is so much wrong with the health care industry in America, mostly due to the ways in which we fund it and public attitudes toward risk, that I don't think we need to look to evil conspiracies to explain the results we're getting. There's also the insane complexity of our biology, and the near-impossibility of "curing" the sorts of disorders that spring from our horrid diets and lifestyles. I think that mostly researchers are trying to do what they can do. If someone could come up with a "cure for cancer" or some such, the accolades alone would be quite an incentive, but they would also get rich. Alex is right about longevity technologies, but only up to a point. If people could work longer and/or die more cheaply, which the super-old tend to do, then it would be in the government's interest to invest in it. S. Jay Olshansky published something on the "Longevity Dividend" that attempted to quantify this.

Finally, regarding the effect of the financial framework on research decisions, companies go where they think they can make money. Big Pharma spends a lot of effort looking at "Unmet Medical Need". That usually is a dual win, in that if you can address such a need, you not only help people, but you make a lot of money. At the level of individual researchers, actually helping people is a real motivation, but everyone knows that making money is a requirement for a project to go forward. Academic researchers have a different set of incentives, and patient communities that are driving research through Internet organizations are starting to be a "third way" of moving research, and they are having real results. ImmInst/Longecity is doing that too, in the longevity domain. I don't think that anyone is avoiding work on curative therapies because it would kill a market. I think the reason we don't see curative therapies is because it's too damn hard. What certainly does happen is that no one is willing to run a multi-million dollar trial on a compound that can't be patented. We need a funding mechanism for that sort of thing, and the free market alone isn't getting the job done.