Is Aging a Disease That can be Cured?

[MiamiHeat]

Yes yes, this is normal, age can be stopped. There is no reason why a human cannot live indefinitely.

There is something else I am interested in :

The day that we solve this, obviously, only the rich will benefit.

This will create another sort of moral debate. Everyone cannot live forever, overpopulation, resources... even if we leave Earth, still there would be a resource problem.

Who decides who is fit to live forever and who dies? The common folk die, the rich survive? Interesting debates will come

[RandomGuy]

I really wish I had the energy to talking about imprinting, Jung, and how nanomachines wouldn't be able to account for everything. I feel like I'm cheating us out of a decent discussion.

I also agree that nanomachines will be a huge help to preventative medicine, but what happens with the cost and moral questions it raises. Does everyone get them? What happens when people live longer and take up more resources? How do we decide who gets them and who doesn't? We might be better off just rotting away instead of damning others to a limited existence when there's something out there that could make them near perfect.

What "resouces"?

Our solar system has, for our practical purposes, limitless resources, in both energy and mass. The sun puts out more energy in two seconds than we have ever used as a civilization, and we have several ways of capturing this energy, both on planet and off.

There is enough iron in the asteroid belt of our solar system to coat the surface of the earth in a layer some hudreds of yards thick, let alone an amount of useful industrial metals that can be extracted with virtually NO pollution footprint on the earth.

Birth rates in every major industrialized country on earth are negative, implying that modest amounts of industrialization will bring down birth rates to a very flat or even negative rate. I think it is more possible that in coming centuries, we will be pressured to bring this up to at least replacement rates.

Technology and getting out into the rest of the solar system will reduce the amount of earthbound "resources" we need to sustain each individual human.

Malthusian dysotopias are far from a certainty, and more likely, less probable than not.

[z0sa]

I feel like I'm cheating us out of a decent discussion.

You seem knowledgable on the subject, perhaps you could just point me in a direction of mutual interest..

I also agree that nanomachines will be a huge help to preventative medicine, but what happens with the cost and moral questions it raises. Does everyone get them? What happens when people live longer and take up more resources? How do we decide who gets them and who doesn't? We might be better off just rotting away instead of damning others to a limited existence when there's something out there that could make them near perfect.

I dunno. I think nanomachines will be cheap enough, by nature, to help most people live a much longer period of time with only minimal calibration by doctors/officials. However, knowing humans, we'll purposely make ty nanomachines so people constantly have to pay the doctor for calibration/new treatment and to get new ones injected or whatever..

[DarkReign]

Standing on RG's shoulders for a moment, humans with an extended lifespan overcome one of the great difficulties in tapping these system resources, too. It just takes too long to get there.

But, if an average human lives 1000 years, he/she would spend less than 1/5 of their lifespan getting there, harvesting and getting back using even humanity's crude means of space travel we use today.

[MiamiHeat]

oh wow thats lame, i posted the same thing stringer did and didnt read his post

[Drachen]

Living a long time and seeing your loved ones go before you would be painful. When God calls you, it's his call not ours. (Sorry if it offends you lame atheists out there)

Extending life and insisting that you want to extend your life is selfish in my opinion. Vanity in it's purest sense.

Ok, so no medicine or surgery for you. Check.

[Rogue]

Ok, so no medicine or surgery for you. Check.

it's not necessarily a surgery or a medicine that could cure aging IMHO. The body cells aren't complex enough to record ages and subsequently to control the process of aging, instead it's all due to the brain function IMHO. It's like there's an imaginary clock in brain kicking second by second to record the span of time one lives through, and breaks down the human body as aging processes. To shut the down one needs to make most use of his own mental power and to take full control of his brain. Aging is like heart beating IMHO, both of which aren't naturally able to be controlled by human consciousness, but it's not too impossible today for humans to take over the control from God's hands as our brains are way more complex and powerful than those of ancestors.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Living 1,000 years would give a whole new meaning to the term MILF.

"Check out that hot 725 year old...damn!"

[Stringer_Bell]

Standing on RG's shoulders for a moment, humans with an extended lifespan overcome one of the great difficulties in tapping these system resources, too. It just takes too long to get there.

But, if an average human lives 1000 years, he/she would spend less than 1/5 of their lifespan getting there, harvesting and getting back using even humanity's crude means of space travel we use today.

Okay, let's say we consume less resources in our longer life spans, learn to do more with less in terms of building infrastructures for our cities, and we stop raping the planet's resources...I wonder what effect a trend toward minimalism would have on the entire world and how our ADVANCED MINIMALIST NANOMACHINE SOCIETY would interact with the more PRIMITIVE MINIMALIST SOCIETIES of the world (tribes and forest people). Do they simply go extinct because they find value in the limitations of their bodies...how do we react to watching cultures die within our lifetime? Sure, we can preserve the memories of dead cultures, but would we as human beings really be cool with that? I don't buy into the idea that we'd be too busy enjoying nanomachine existence to not shed tears for those that don't embrace the technology, and some reasons are discussed below...

@ z0sa: I'm actually not confident in my ability to explain the points about imprinting and Jungian...but I'll give you some questions to pursue: What effect would a world where everyone is basically a superman (das Übermensch, from Nietzsche, if you will), where we've created ourselves to reflect what we believe to be perfection have on our archetypes of sexuality and power/compe ion. What becomes of sensory experience and seizing the moment? Since we won't eat much food anymore, what happens to the experience of eating...sitting around with our families at dinner, spending hours cooking thanksgiving. Our customs could come to an end, or be reserved for only a few days a year, if we even view time the same way. I just think that our human condition is one of the most glorious/absurd things ever, and tampering with it might change what it means to be human to the point where we won't be humans anymore. We could make humanity extinct and be witnesses to our own evolution...or something like that.

/if that makes no sense, don't hurt me cuz I have no idea how to argue back lol

[Rogue]

No one can live forever. It goes against the laws of nature. However, we can slow down the decaying process to to the point of living much longer than we currently live. The proper eating habits, exercise, (physical and mental) and a culture that thrives on a slow, clean life would go a long ways torwards holding off good ol death.

it's also against the law of nature for a species to fly in sky except for birds/bats/insects. It's against the natural law for a male to stick to one single female...

[DarkReign]

I don't buy into the idea that we'd be too busy enjoying nanomachine existence to not shed tears for those that don't embrace the technology, and some reasons are discussed below...

I usually dont use such a short answer to a person who clearly has an interest, but...this is where you and I will disagree.

Never underestimate the audacity of the caste system.

[DarkReign]

No one can live forever. It goes against the laws of nature.

Please do not use the phrase "Laws of Nature" so loosely, please.

You might give other people the impression you know what youre talking about.

However, we can slow down the decaying process to to the point of living much longer than we currently live. The proper eating habits, exercise, (physical and mental) and a culture that thrives on a slow, clean life would go a long ways torwards holding off good ol death.

I would venture to guess that even if you had an entire, viable, diverse gene pool to breed these Nutritionists for generations, you might see only incremental age elongation.

Nanomachines, gene therapy (maybe), something more direct is quite viable, theoretically, of course.

It is no small measure that science has actually isolated physiological aging to certain, quantifiable cell attributes. Identifying this and that enzyme are the direct action that ages lifeforms of every kind (possibly).

Know thy enemy.

[phyzik]

Good discussion on both sides so far.

In my opinion, just look at the diverse opinions in this very thread to get your answer as to how it will regulate itself. There are those that simply would not want to live that long. In fact, I would guess that most wouldnt due to various concerns, all of which are valid... many of which already mentioned (religious beliefs, not wanting to outlive those close to you, ect).

Also, who is to say once the "proceedure" is done that it cant be undone? Decide to live at the age of 30 for several hundred years then "kill" the nanomachines ( if, indeed, that would be the technology used) to start the aging process again and die "naturally".

Look at what we, as humans, have accomplished in just the past 100 years (especially in just the past 20 years). How anyone wouldnt be the least bit curious what we could accomplish in the next 900 years baffles me. Curiosity is one of the core values of being human. Its a major trait that made us what we are today.

My only hope is Ray Kurzweil's technological singularity analysis is correct and it happens around 2045. I'd be 65yrs old at that point. Of course, I also hope that at that point 65 will be the new 35.

[Stringer_Bell]

I usually dont use such a short answer to a person who clearly has an interest, but...this is where you and I will disagree.

Never underestimate the audacity of the caste system.

You're probably right, but I'm too much of a dreamer to resign myself to that path. For me, science always goes back to philosophy and I don't think I could want to "will" the world to be a better place if I knew my "will" was just a tool for being efficient in my social tier. There's always gotta be someone to rebel, even if the nanomachine future. That thought is probably more audacious than the caste system