How close are we to immortality and putting brains in robots

>>8193947
>How close
When you will be at the end of your life, we will start to make the richest of us immortal. You won't make it.

>I find very mixed answers about both.
What are you expecting from /sci/?

>we just kept breeding and we all were immortal
Human hunting seasons

>>8194129
Well, I moreso meant I find mixed answers when I'm doing my own studying on the subject.
A lot of contradictions and baseless conjecture both ways

Not very. Realize the brain is dependent on a lot more from the body than just nutrients and oxygen. If you think otherwise, then cut out your thyroid, castrate yourself, and cut the adrenal glands off your kidneys. Then remove ~70% of your liver and induce scarring where your CSF drains.

Also, remove all your adipose cells, see how readily you can tell you're hungry. Also, adipose makes estrogen, which men need to an extent as well.

Etc. It's a ways off, if viable at all.

Not even remotely close. We could perhaps take some halting steps in the near future, akin to stitching someone's leg to their shoulder and calling the slumping mass a functional arm.

>>8193947
Robots don't need an organic brain. And I see little use in immortality. Your particles will live forever as long as the universe exists.

>>8194264
>your particles
>your
You're only a small system borrowing from the whole. Those particles are as much yours as the water in a waterfall belongs to that waterfall.

Why are you concerned about immortality when our AI overlords are going to take over this world from inferior humans in the next few centuries?

>>8194129
>Human hunting seasons
This actually makes a lot of sense.
I wonder why this particular permutation of the idea wasn't developed into a young adult fantasy franchise yet.

It's tough to say. It's much more likely that something else drastic will happen that will accelerate the medical field much faster than the cripplingly slow ethical approach modern science is taking.

Think economic automation destroying the need for human labouring thus freeing up research and development sectors to branch out more rapidly. Think development of Artificial intelligence and quantum computing. It's more likely that AI will figure out this stuff far faster than we will once it establishes its footing and we learn how to produce innovations through it.

If none of this happens before the end of our lifespans, and just basing off the gradient of research rate we've been trending at, it's likely that we'lll eliminate most, if not all, current diseases and common afflictions, like cancer, AIDS and all those goodies. We'll be able to selectively dictate traits for our children, but it will be less parents picking genes they want, and more parents taking out genes they don't want (Balding, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, height under 6", eye colour, that sort of thing). And we'll likely be able to reproduce bionic tissue quite easily, if we haven't already transitioned to a bionic prosthetic kind of personal surgery, from what I can gather, prosthetics and stem cell research seem to be accelerating at about the same pace. Both in their comparative infancy, but promising.

>>8194689
There's some old sci-fi scenarios about a future where this is a thing. I can't remember titles right now. My father read a lot of science fiction and had myriad interesting concepts to talk about.

>>8194176
What does this have to do with science?

>>8193947
I doubt any of us will see it.
If it does come in our lifetimes, it will only be for the super rich.
Either that or something so fucking unlikely that it's not even worth bringing up, like aliens coming out of the sky tomorrow or a super intelligent ai becoming our benevolent dictator.

>>8193947
intractable.

>>8193947
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/

File: reddit bitch.jpg (114KB, 557x305px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 557x305px

>>8194176
>>8194765