Is life extension and biological immortality just memes, or can

Any answers?

>>8437698
Yes, with nanotech i believe. At molecule level.

File: 1473045097318.png (865KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1136x640px

>>8437698
Possibly, if we use nano machines to repair damaged tissue and use moderate amounts of gene therapy on ourselves.

That being said I believe there are other ways to achieve immortality.

>>8437729
>That being said I believe there are other ways to achieve immortality.

you're talking about the holy grail right?

>>8437712

I won't speak to the scientific feasibility of biological immortality, but life extension in its literal sense has clearly been effected, most profoundly in first-world countries, over the past century. Populations now live decades longer than they used to a mere century+ ago, and there is no real reason to suppose that this trend won't continue, short of resource depletion/catastrophe.

As for biological immortality itself, a moralistic comment: the prospect of biological immortality is an abomination. The fact that every billionaire, every Chad fuck in this world eventuallly drops dead just like every otehr schmuck on the planet, that he can be killed and that his life ultimately amounts to the same thing as anyone else's (nothing,in the long view) is precisely one of the things that makes life bearable. And this because religion is of course also false, and so what is left, is the life that one has. "Muh posterity", some pop-sci memers will claim, referring to the act of reproduction. To which the correct reply is: what you you care, you're dead. You have ceased to be.

One of the most common features of religion in general is that it prescribes som sort of /differentiation of status/ in the afterlife. This because the faithful feel a need to project some of the present state of affairs onto the unknown, in order to conquer and make sense of it. Happily, no such differentiation of status is really in the offing, and this is precisely what makes life bearable: everyone ends up exactly the same in the end, for all of their trying.

Biological immortality would be a game changer, and an abhorrent one at that. Then, if one values life above all else, it really would be true that some humans, even where it really ontologically counts, are objectively better than others. And this must never, ever be. If I had the power, I would sooner extinguish this species in its entirety than to allow a single organism of it to escape into biological immortality.

File: 1476547619349.gif (242KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 512x512px

°•∆•°
•∆∆•

>>8437733
There is much more we need to learn before we can say "technology is the only way to achieve 'x'".

I believe we may already have the ability to become immortal. The plasibo effect can stimulate the bodies own healing mechanisms for example.

Holy Magic relics may work too...
: )

>>8437734
>I rather have everyone dead than one person alive forever.
Crab in the bucket much?

>>8437698
Stop clinging to the body, it only obfuscates your search for truth.

Life extension already exists.

Biological immortality is just a technocultist fantasy though.

>>8437734
You are sick.

Ensure you do not find immortality, you would be miserable forever.

Do not take a actions on my, or anyone else's behalf.

If "we" find a way to become immortal than leave us be.

>>8437729
Would nano machines that could repair damaged tissue appear within this century though? Aren't we just starting gene therapy?

>>8437748
>Biological immortality is technocultist fantasy
>fantasy
>Jellyfish are biologically immortal

>Life extension already exists
citation

>>8437748
It could become a reality, the future knows no bounds in terms of possibility.

>>8437746

You're exactly right, and you're saying that like it's a deficient view, when on the contrary it's /exactly the way that one ought to approach this possibility/. Not recognizing this is your philosophical error.

May no crab ever, /ever/ escape the bucket. And why should it? Or if it does, let us hope that entropy and the increasing boredom of the universe drives it to do itself in after an aeon.

It is a very specific delusion of the animal, that it wants a better world for its children, rather than wanting it for itself. The man who plants a tree that he knows its shade he will never rest in, is not therefore wise. The superiority of delayed gratification is again a delusion to which the adult animal betrays itself, lies to itself. You could /die/ before receiving the delayed gratification!

>>8437750

I most certainly won't.

>>8437734
I gotta agree: >>8437750

That is fucked up.

If any form of immortality exists for me, my family, and friends and we all agreed to get it. Why should you fucking care? Why should you harass and try to kill me. Leave me and others who got it alone brah.

>>8437752
Life extension literally just means living longer. Life expectancy is higher today than it was before, therefore we have life extension.

We aren't jelly fish you turbofaggot.

>>8437752
Maybe, it depends how much time and effort we put into developing them.

"Gene therapy" has been around since the 20th century, all though now we are learning to utilize it in a more targeted fashion. It is dangerous in its current state though.

>>8437759
He's the crab in the bucket as >>8437746 said, it is sad...

>>8437759

Because it is an /ontological game changer/.

The theorization of the real, ontological, divergence of rich and poor has been underway for some time. One example:

https://www.rt.com/uk/263133-rich-human-god-cyborgs/

Happily, in the initial fits and starts, the would-be escapers shall still be dependent upon a very specific, very interruptable supply chain. And interrupt to the point of destroying it we can, should, must and will.

None of us deserves to escape.

C A N C E R
A
N
C
E
R

>>8437779
>None of us deserves to escape
I really don't say this much, or joke about it. But you are a person who should really kill yourself.

>>8437779
None of us deserves to escape?

I would not mind if some rich men and their cyborg/robotics fleet left earth in search of planets to colonize.

File: 1476500787887.png (690KB, 700x885px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 700x885px

it was or is , "god" "yahwh" broke us .
they set our life span to 100 years used to be 5000 .
read the bible it tell us how "god" has destroyed man over and over to be made in there image, but relentlessly reminded that we do not have there mind. we are immortal we are broken by our enemy yahwh.

>>8437734
>>8437754
>>8437779
Good shitposter to derail the thread, or you're the best fedora tipper of /sci/

>>8437761
>It is dangerous in its current state.
Why is this? Is it because we do not have information on the end results of such target changes with CRISPR and other tools?

>Depends on how much time and effort we put into developing them.
How much funding and energy is being put into them now? Isn't the US Army studying nanomachines for medical purposes?

>>8437797
"Gene editing and genetic mutations", search.

The more effort we put in now the sooner we will arrive at the desired result, though the same technology could be used to terminate all of humanity so....

File: 1477116307677.jpg (115KB, 900x1274px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 900x1274px

>>8437793
Maybe..... Go on please.

>>8437816

The latter. The latter, let's go with the latter.

>>8437816
>The more effort we put in now the sooner we will arrive at desired results.
Which is a good thing with CRISPR being used by China with embyros and other test subjects. I wish the US and most of West Europe weren't so strict and allowed testing it doesn't allow now.

>>8437836
Why do you hate humanity so?

We could be so great given the proper opportunities.

>>8437841
He's either trolling or just hates himself and is taking it out on humanity. Or he will go with my nihilist strawman.

Just ignore and continue discussion.

>>8437840
Well... I would not want to be "the test gone wrong", if these embryos were to be allowed to grow.

Advanced computer models are beginning to be used which are much more reliable than living subjects, so we hopefully won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.

The future is limitless!

>>8437841

It's not that I hate humanity, you misunderstand. Humanity has consisted of a very definite state of affairs throughout the entirety of its existence, which as I've said have included a few merciful ontological /equalizers/. What I hate is the ambition to remove these equalizers, when so many have already died. And this because, ironically, I actually value life. To a point.

It honestly bothers me that not a single other person in this thread has thus far arrived at my correct philosophical conclusions, or even sincerely entertained the content of my thought. You are all beta-STEM cucks writ large, only enabling some future Chad's immortality. This ought to disgust you. You are all "temporarily embarrassed Americans" who still limbically want to believe that you yourselves will be the millionaires, the immortal, the gods. And I really think that most of you know deep down inside that you yourselves won't be the lucky ones.

You should not be noble, magnanimous, only so that some idiot generation a generation or two removed into the future can fuck off into the galaxy. What you should properly do is to say Fuck That, Non Serviam, and pull the rug out from under the logical conclusion. But you won't because of the delusion of the will to life, because you falsely believe that you will participate in the gains, somehow.

>>8437851
>He thinks he's a rebel for a cause.
>He thinks only his life matters and nobody else should have the right to long life, even it surpasses the norm.
>He thinks only "Chads" will obtain long lives.
You sound like an ass brah

>You are all best-STEM cucks
>You are all temporarily embarrassed Americans
>You won't be the lucky ones.
You better be trolling me because this is some high ass projecting. Stop posting mate.

>>8437847
>Well... I would not want to be "the test gone wrong", if these embryos were to be allowed to grow.
This is true and sad. Though such embryos would be heroes to prevent other embryos from being messed up, and should be respected.

>Advanced computer models are beginning to be used which are much more reliable than living subjects, so we hopefully won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.
Which is a good thing and hopefully we won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.

>The future is limitless.
Postive comment man.

>>8437866

This is disingenuous on multiple levels.

the people who are immortal, or who live an aeon, are by definition the Chads of the world, as we use and understand the phrase in this Balinese puppet show, so this comment of yours is nonsensical, or else you simply haven't understood what I meant, which is what Chad popularly means in a rhetorical sense, these days.

We are not talking about merely "long life" or even "much longer life". What we are talking about is the accident of history that certain people have it within their grasp to live orders of magnitude longer than those who had just gone before. The former group ought to be denied that possibility, on the very simple general principles which not a single other poster has thus far even understood or wanted to understand (you should) thus far.

It /should/ disturb and upset you, this possibility of future humans living for millions of years, while you yourself are about to croak . It /should/ cause you to want to prevent that state of affairs. It /should/ impel you to throw your own body into the gears, to stop them turning.

You seem to toss out "projecting" as an insult where it doesn't actually work in context, in this discussion. What exactly is it that I am supposed to be projecting, in these examples? Think about that for a little bit and get back to me.

>>8437851
Ben?

>>8437925

hm, maybe a reference? If so I don't get it.

>>8437698
>Is life extension and biological immortality just memes,

No.

>or can they actually be achieved within this century?

No.

>>8437894
This is edgy.

>I didn't win so I should screw the other person over.
If somebody found 100$ would you go out your way to make sure they don't keep it?

>>8437952

You still don't get it. We're not talking about a hundred fucking dollars (false analogy), or even five more years of life. This is what every single person in the thread apart from myself has continually failed to understand. Because the only really proper reaction to such a thing, from the present human point of view, is revulsion with a will toward destruction.

/IT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ONTOLOGY./ Don't you get it (I said as much above)? And the abrasion of the one next to the other is above all what creates the intolerable absurdity; which requires the upsetting.

None of you has actually done the thought experiment of what the world will actually be like in a state of affairs where there are some human beings who are, say, 400 years old and spry and rich, as opposed to the sub-100 set. It is going to naturally start occuring to the latter bunch that maybe just maybe they ought to start offing the former bunch if at all possible, on general principles. You haven't tried this both because you falsely aspire to the former group, and also because of Muh Scientism. More Science, More Progress = good, is the culture.

It's very lonely, being this right about things, and being this alone in the rightness. It disturbs me.

>biological immortality becomes a thing
>no hope of dying peacefully in your bed anymore
>everyone is now guaranteed to eventually die a gruesome, painful death in some sort of horrible accident

>>8437981

most hopefully the gruesome envy-killing wrought by the underclass, as I have rightly harped continually on in this thread.

>>8437977
>Alone in rightness
Wew lad. There is no greater evil than the man who views himself and his beliefs as absolutely righteous.

>>8437981
>Everyone is guaranteed to die a gruesome painful death.
You can still die a peaceful death with biological immortality, man.

>Implying the next thing humanity won't work on is a way to cheat painful and gruesome deaths.

So what is your reasoning as to why the "underclass" wouldn't have access to it? Are you one of those conspiretards that believe that muh elites would keep the tech to themselves?

>>8437995
He actually is Anon. If you read his rants he's not on the up and up, mentally or he is a good troll.

To be honest. Any form of biological immortality and life extension that comes out would be marketed to everyone because the person who does it would become rich as fuck. It's stupid to have it locked within an elite circle which would become impossible considering how connected everything is, and that doesn't secure the secrets to it.

A company offering life extension services stolen from the elite could be created to be sold in another country, or in the black market.

>>8438000
>It's stupid to have it locked within an elite circle which would become impossible considering how connected everything is, and that doesn't secure the secrets to it
Exactly what I think, every scientist knows what the other is doing, internet also makes think easy for spreading infos, etc... once latin nobles could fuck over the peasants at court because only them knew the law, it's not possible anymore.

Plus the potential gain far outweighs the cost

>>8438009
To add on you would also have a continued economy of skilled workers, some who wouldn't have to retire due to becoming too old now.

Though this would harm the younger generation coming into the work force, this would also give them time to acquire more skills to compete against the older workforce, and older people to acquire new skills and learn new things to pursue different interest. Birth rates would also drop (even more) and people would put off having children around their 20-30's.

>>8437995

Suppose that they did, and that the tech were equitably shared. Even if they did, then they shouldn't. Because then they get to live "forever", or as along as amounts to same from our perspective. Have you understood nothing? The aspiration itself can, should, must and will be destroyed, and this is blessedly possible due to the the stupidity, fragility, and sociability of man.

I would like for a single person to actually try to get right by thinking as I do, even while not agreeing with the ideas, at this point. Just try it on, see about getting into the mindset. You really haven't thought through the long game?

File: c54.png (143KB, 299x449px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 299x449px

>humouring the fag who read too much nietzsche and can't stop tipping his fedora
/sci/ pls

>>8438016

to be fair my posts have dominated the thread and so anyone who reads the thread has had no choice.

There are multiple ironies in your projection (here I am using the word correctly whereas an earlier anon did not) here, the first being that I've never read any Nietzsche, and the other being that I am advocating a contrarian "anti-progress" view which is required in view of proper perception of subjective reality, which is at odds with the popular scientism-friendly atheist.

>>8438019
yeah ok senpai, your posts reek of a 16-year-old who discovered nietzsche for the first time and cringeworthily trying to imitate his diction.

>scientism-friendly atheist.
he wasn't even an advocate of scientism, you're espousing all the same crazy regressive shit he did.

>it's another Nietzsche interpretation shitfest

I wish commoners would really stop trying to discuss Nietzsche.

>>8438019
>My posts have dominated the thread
Because you fucking derailed it with long ass fucking paragraphs over why you are right, why humanity shouldn't obtain any form of longevity, how only the elite rich will have it, other people should have your mindset, being a crab in a bucket and admitting to it, projecting, and the fact you can't be happy for other people without being edgy.

>Anyone who reads the thread has no choice.
You fucking posted rants paragraph long, the moment somebody sees you're bat shit insane they'll hide your posts.

>>8438016
Anon he'll keep posting no matter what you do.

>>8438027
>>8438019
>Samefagging

So the whole telomere thing is a red herring?

>>8438032
Messing with telomere can be the key.

If I remember correctly some scientists back in 2013, at Harvard messed with the telomerese of mice, helping their cells and self to become younger, though the mice developed tumors and cancers which isn't good.

The mice got younger which is a good thing, however.

>>8437698
Who is the old guy in OP?

>>8438046
Cancer is a problem that we have to solve if we want to extend our lifespans anyway. The longer the live, the more likely you are to get cancer after all.

Why companies like his don't relocate to India or something? Can't they make more progress that way?

>>8438064
would it still be the case if people stayed 20 years old biologically all the time?

I know nothing about that kind of things, I know that dying from cancer at 20 is extremely unlikely but what I do not know is if it's because our immune system is efficient enough to keep cancer from happening or if 20 years is not enough to get cancer.

>>8438069
For instance say your immune system is permanently 20 years old, would it be eventually powerless against the spreading of cancer cells?

>>8438074
there are kids under 10 dieing of cancer

>>8438080
yeah but it's because their immune system is shit already

>>8438069
>>8438074
I'm19 and got thyroid cancer.

File: 1475558217024.jpg (96KB, 498x750px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 498x750px

>>8437734
Being nihilistic is cool and so, but think about science.
Imagine if all the great minds of history would have been immortal, think how much things these genius could have discovered.
But I get your point, I wouldn't like to see evil elites like George Soros living forever. But I think that there will be always bad people, and even if immortality doesn't exist these elites have heirs that continue their legate.
In the other hand great inventors are pretty rare exceptions, and they can't continue their legate like the rich people since there is something called "regression toward the mean": that mean that if some genius with 200 IQ have kids with a women who have the same IQ (I know that they can't have too much, but it's an example) the kids will have less IQ, like 120, and after some generations they will tend to have the average IQ of its respective human sub-specimen. So it would be pretty useful to have immortal scientists.

>>8438069
>>8438074
One of the problems is that the immune system doesn't always find cancer. Even if you are young.
That's why engineering killer cells to find cancer is probably the best way to kill the bastard. Since cancer cells are already mutations, you can theorically pinpoint what killer cells have to kill, which is what I think CRISPR will try to attempt, and what the chinese are doing right now.
Of course this isn't easy becauese we don't have 100% control, wrong edits happen etc. But it's a step on the right direction, even though "oh, genetic engineering is so UNHETICAL" will only serve to cockblock progress, fuck.

>>8438056
Aubrey the Grey, cousin of Gandalf the Grey.

I read a Dutch book on this subject of aging, and he pretty much said that it all comes to hormosis and avoiding certain foods.
He also discussed some animals living really long. Such as bats (relative to their size).

File: baron.jpg (50KB, 1011x435px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1011x435px

>>8437977
>witnessed
Biological immortality is illogical for the human race so long as we are earth-bound. However, once we have capabilities for interstellar travel and able to have theoretically unlimited resources, then immortality will not be immoral but rather a necessity.

>>8438401
I'm assuming that you are talking about overpopulation right?
I think it's a non problem because the only places where it might be a problem are thirld world shitholes which would never have access to that kind of tech. Even if they did get immortality (and anti-aging is not enough as they don't die of aging anyway), longer lifespan might lead to a decrease in the fertility rate

daily reminder that doing anything but giving money to Aubrey de Grey won't help you to reach LEV

>>8438401
>witnessing a person who said they rather all humanity dies than one person surviving

Listen the earth has enough resources for the current population not only that overpopulation is a god damn joke and meme literally. Not too mention any form of life extension Nd biological immortality would want and get people into space travel you dumb fuck. As you get to live to see the return of your investment, one reason we aren't putting much into space travel now.

See >>8438406 as well.

>>8438432
>>8438406
I'm assuming you two don't care about climate change?
And the same with other issues that are non-issues to the both of you.
(Note I am not stating this as an argument against biological immortality per se)

>>8438479
what do you mean?

>>8438481
I assumed - perhaps wrongly - since the two I commented to don't see any problems with a large populations that they might be the kind of persons that don't care about the environment at all.
But I don't want to suggest that biological immortality makes that worse. Though I think both population and energy + resource use does affect the environment and perhaps more importantly the future of humanity.

Some stuff does run out you know, and innovation can over solutions but not in all cases.

>>8438056

A guy who will be dead in a few decades on the outside, like everyone else who has ever lived, or ever will life.

>>8438085

You're still stuck in the scientism frame, but kudos for being the first person in this thread to provide even a hint of understanding/rightheadedness.

>>8438545
>since the two I commented to don't see any problems with a large populations that they might be the kind of persons that don't care about the environment at all
That's probably true, still in european countries for instance ecology is starting to be a somewhat major political point. You can argue about the sincerity of said european policies of course.

What I was saying is that demography wouldn't change that much with biological immortality as the only countries that might flood the world with babies wouldn't have that tech and wouldn't find any use in it anyway.

Therefore ressources depletion and ecological impacts would be more or less the same with or without immortality, I'd even go as far to say that since people would have to live sooner or later with the consequences of their livingstyle, they would be even more inclined to adopt an eco-friendly way of life.

But yes at some point stuff will run out more or less quickly, I'm not disputing that.

>>8438545
See :>>8438573

He basically typed everything I wanted. People with life extension would want better future results than present and become more eco-friendly.

>>8437698
no you got it backwards, it's memes that are life extensions and biological immortality.

>>8438413
how about balanced diet, exercise and avoiding anything detriment to our health

>>8438872
That is a given if you're not a retard

>>8438085
I can agree with you.

Life extension doesn't sound that bad. An extra century to live your life and do things you didn't do before, study more, get new breakthroughs in mathematics and science. You'll still die, maybe???

Is there a valid reason to be against such a thing? (In before that one guy) Not only that, but within the century you live better and new methods of extending your's and others people life will come out, and the old methods become cheaper for others to get.

>>8438147
Apparently Aubrey believes by 2036, we will have the beginning form of life extension services out.

People sure are optimistic. Which isn't a bad thing.

organic chemistry is not stable enough.

you'll eventually be so run down that, you'll be in constant gene therapy and other reconstructions.

>>8437977
This guy is like bait, minus the intention of being bait.

File: Anomylous.jpg (34KB, 600x394px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x394px

>>8437894
Pls stop talking in words that attempt to sound fancy, but aren't.
>as we use and understand the phrase
And pls stop attempting to use memes you apparently have little command of.
>this Balinese puppet show
Also pls stop using strange unnecessary syntax that no one else is using.
>/should/, /should/
Thank you for your time.

>>8439707
I'm 100% sure he's autistic. I can't even imagine how someone who writes like that actually communicates with people IRL.

>>8439373
Explain I'm genuinely curious.

>>8439707
Anon he believed his views to be a crab in the bucket to be right, and only "Chads" will be rich enough to use and have any form of life extension.

>>8437977
Hi, I'm new to this thread.

Here's why I'm trying to help make biological immortality a reality:

I like living.

And,

If someone else likes living, and they shit the bed, they have to sleep in it.

Therefore, it's in the interest of people who enjoy living to not shit the bed. If you shit in the corner of the bed someone else is sleeping, guess what, there is still shit in your bed.

The problem isn't living forever, the problem is shitters, who already exist today and say "well I'm gonna be dead before I realize there's shit in my bed or anyone else realizes it was me so, fuck it"

Basically, I think you're full of shit, and you're getting ready to lay a steamy one on some freshly made science bedsheets just because you think you know better than everyone else

>what is the body?
The body is a mass of cells which can not live forever, and so, to make the body living longer, they reproduce and replace each other
>how do they reproduce?
Thru division based on the DNA
>what is the process of getting older?
When reproducing thru DNA, sometimes appear DNA mistakes. Each new generation of cells will carry over the mistakes made up to that point and their own as well as giving the new generation of cells those DNA faults. After enough circles of cell replacement, the number of faults is so great the system falls down.

Wrinkles appear as you get older because the cells making up the organ called skin, are not as good as when you were born. Muscles lose their flexibility, bones lose their resistance, organs lose their efficiency and so on until one of those, is so bad, it can't sustain life anymore and you die of old age.
>therefore, how can you delay the process of aging?
Slow down the metabolism of the body, less cell reproduction in a given time means less DNA faults adding up.
>how can you stop the process of aging?
Improve the cell division so that no DNA changes are made in this process.

_________________________________

>are all DNA changes, mutations bad?
No. Thru mutations, evolutions happens. Thru mutations, individuals which are better at surviving appear, in the same way faulty individuals do.

We ourselfs are a product of mutation which gave us bigger brains which in change was used for ..., well, you know what the brain is used for.

In conclusion, I ask you:
>If you could choose right now for indefinitely longevity, would you give up on the change for your future offsprings at evolution? would you stagnate the human evolution for not dying of old age?

There are animals in nature right now which don't die of old age, so I don't believe ''if it's possible'' is the right question, but ''if we should do it or not''.

Aubrey al-Grey (PBUH) will save us all

>>8437698
They won't solve heat death

>>8440223
they won't solve any deaths caused by environment, why are you referring to the heat specifically?

>>8440223
>life extension? Lmao that's ridiculous you would be able to live max only millions of years

>>8437698
im actually so fucking scared of dying I want to change my major from physics to genetics or something where i can at least have a chance of developing a way to live forever

>>8437977
This guy is right. If immortality is available to everyone, the world would get overpopulated. If it is available only to the elite, the masses would revolt to get the immortality drug. So you would need a third solution like sterilizing the immortals or something.

>>8440197
>would you stagnate the human evolution for not dying of old age?

What is transhumanism? What is AI?

>>8440266
I mean, if I have to sign a contract where it says that I will have to be sterilized to get immortality I would instantly say yes.

>>8440197
Those mutations responsible for evolution happen during the cell division of early life. I don't think many people are going to argue for ending the aging process at the fetus stage.
Stopping evolution would require eliminating reproduction, or switching to cloning, not by extending the life of adult humans.

>>8440197
>>8440391
Also humans, now being aware of the process of evolution, already have some small level of conscious influence over it, for better or worse.
This is a fact that is not likely to go away.

>>8440391
>Those mutations responsible for evolution happen during the cell division of early life.
fair enough
> I don't think many people are going to argue for ending the aging process at the fetus stage.
can we end up doing that tho? I mean, changing the DNA so that all individuals in a species become unaging could be doable I believe, but changing the DNA of an partially created fetus?

>>8437712
They are trying to lengthen the telomeres. It is totally viable and will happen within this century. Look at what they can already do with a simple thing like CRISPR gene editing. Its a cool idea, but holy shit... this will end up in the hands of the rich and never be let go. It will be insanely expensive and the rich will live forever while the poor die. I honestly dont know if living forever would be a good idea for society or not. Maybe for space travel.

>>8440485
That's not how it works, they would profit much more from everyone, not just the rich.

>>8438000
In a real life scenario - if the elites had one immortal - it would become a matter of short time before that person gets killed and his genes are reverse engineered by some criminal organization - the the immortality cure gets into black market and from there it will become a world wide thing - just like we have gum today.

And that's just one scenario - it's more likely that a laboratory would discover it then market it - because that owner behind that chain would otherwise just drop the opportunity to become the worlds first trillionaire.

>>8440550
It wouldn't happen in the first place anyway, the scientific community is way too much intertwined nowadays. If the mystery of aging is one day solved by someone, you can be sure that everyone else in the field wouls know

>>8440266
>World would get overpopulated.
When people get to live long life's they usually stop spreading. Look at the US and other 1st world countries.

3rd World shit holes wouldn't get this treatment and can be made to stop spreading, they also die early.

>>8440485
See: >>8440520, >>8440550
>>8440561

2010s People will begin working on life extension
2020s people will make their first breakthrough and funding will start
2030s become available for the first time.
2040 it improves and becomes cheaper
2050-60you fucks will get it and stop being edgy

File: 12367455751186.jpg (366KB, 1405x1405px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1405x1405px

>>8439340
The way I see it, being optimistic about it is the only way to go. I keep living, working and saving money with the assumption that I can plan for an indefinite lifespan. Donating to projects such as De Grey's when I can. If it's achieved within my lifetime, I contributed to the cause of immortality and now enjoy it for the rest of time. If it's not, I die and nothing I did in my life, or anything else really, matters. Because I'll be too dead to care.

>>8437779
>deserve
>should
>must
>bearable
Please. None of those words mean anything that you didn't subjectively ascribe to it. It has no value beyond the confines of your opinion and the universe does not care or validate your point of view in any way, as it does any other. That you think that any philosophical stance has validity against the simple reality of the universe is amusing, to say the least.

If it can happen, it's fair game.

>>8437981
>no hope of dying peacefully in your bed anymore
lmao
You could just stop taking the pills/use carbon monoxide/let your hardware degrade.

UNITY Biotechnology Raises $116M for Senescent Cell Clearance Development

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2016/10/unity-biotechnology-raises-116m-for-senescent-cell-clearance-development/

>>8438085
>>8437746
>>8437759
>>8437750
Now imagine every African dictator, war profiteer, human trafficker, corporate raider becoming literally immortal

Now imagine that those fuckers are the very FIRST people who will become immortal. Kim Jong Un achieving the godhood his father and grandfather aspired to. George Soros as a literal Eternal Jew.

>>8441583
>African dictator
>Human trafficker
>Kim Jong Un
>Obtaining biological immortality or being able to afford it.

You made my chuckle for today.

File: un.png (55KB, 638x304px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 638x304px

>>8441589
(you)

>>8441597
His actual worth 0$. You really think the US, China, and SK would let him live with biological immortality and wouldn't just split NK in half?

I have this strong belief that it has already been achieved
It could be safe to say that it takes 50,000 years for a new gene mutation to emerge and change a species
How many humans have lived from 50,000 BCE to 0 BCE?
around 70 billion
How many humans have lived from 0 to 2016?
around 60 billion

It just took one couple with the right combination of behaviors(building and staying in one place for life, a love for their crop, a strong mental bond by supernatural beliefs, lots of sex) and you can see how more kids this couple could have compared to a more nomadic family which means this gene spreads like wild fire

The next-gen human gene must already be here, we just have to wait 10 years more for it to kick in by spreading too just like that civilization-religious gene did

>>8441483
impressive, 2016 is a turning point in rejuvenation therapies I think. I don't know about you guys but I've never heard about it until 3 months ago.
Looks like funding is also coming its way, and not just for finding "a cure to cancer" like everyone else does

File: 1477592094668.jpg (661KB, 958x775px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 958x775px

your dna contains the code but yahwh broke us and made us his slaves when mosses betrayed us and stole the power source from the pyramid that was powering earths space defense shield.

>>8442046
We wuz kangs nigga

>>8442046
That's some crazy posting.

>>8442043
2012-2013 is when rejuvenation therapies started getting popular though.

File: 1476897732090.jpg (307KB, 1200x938px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1200x938px

The question of immortality is just a question of not aging and time. Everyone who would become immortal which I believe is possible would still die one day. The biggest scumbags will rule under their immortal rule or at least try to establish it as we know that people have this tendency of corruption. Its just a fancy name of finding new stimuli and meaning in meaningless world which even immortality wont give you. The immortals would be still killable by weapons.

Even if the immortals would be living for thousands of years and somehow survived. Every one last of them would die one day with some catastrophe in space. There is no way out of this by our knowledge and even immortality wont save you if you still belong to this world. You will also have to deal with a lot of unknown psychological burden of living too much and long and philosophical questions regarding the point of doing, being and such. The oldest one would be the loneliest one in the entire world and probably the most anhedonist of all human kind.

I would guess the meaning of life would become very fickle and shallow clinging on some strange small hopes and ways that gives you a path to follow in a process that brings new stimuli or experiences with no goal in mind.

Once you die though it never mattered if you lived for thousands of years or not. There wont be any meaning and the existential burden would just make you commit suicide probably.

Im not against it though as I do not care either way and it will probably happen anyway if we survive to that age of knowledge.

>>8443096
Nihilist please take your philosophy to /his/

>>8437779
They will still all die with the planet / universe. Actually when you think about it we're probably all immortal, boltzmann brain and eternal recurrence. Universe is obviously big crunch, collapses & restarts (maybe the same or new)

File: article-0-0A4492A5000005DC-372_468x493.jpg (62KB, 468x493px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 468x493px

>>8443096
The point of these therapies is health, not immortality or longer lives.

>>8444045
Not him, but explain. They are still researching why and how we age, so it also has to do with longer lives.

>>8443096
All of your shit, surface-level arguments have been answered. Fuck off with your edgy luddism.

File: mason verger.jpg (87KB, 960x722px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x722px

>>8444651
>immortality is not possible, everything dies eventually, period
>we are not going to repeat the mistake of Tithonus who asked for eternal life but forgot to ask for eternal youth - the point is not to live thousands of years as pic related

The point of therapies against aging is to keep people young so they can take care of themselves and live life to the fullest, get rid of diseases - overall make people live healthier longer. Sure, people will probably live for hundreds or thousands of years, maybe even millions - but that is a side effect. Ask anyone working in the field which option they'd be happier with:

>people stay physically 25 until they are 120 years old and then die
>people keep getting older and older every year and live until they are 3000 years old

>>8441583
theres a difference between immunity to aging and immunity to bullets

>>8437698
one will go insane living in frozen state body for say 250 years. old people want to die not just because their boy is old. and it will be rather uncomfortable to look in the eyes of 12 year old kid who is actually 200 years old faggot that has been changing over the years.

File: schopen wake me up.jpg (35KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 350x200px

>>8444896
>live life to the fullest

>>8444896
Pretty good post.

>>8444951
>Look a 12 year old who is actually 200 years old in the eyes.
I bet that is the smuggest 12 year old in the world.

If this is a meme(refer philosophy) discussion then fuck off to your pseudoscience board.
If this is a proper discussion,then good.
Factors which cause natural death:

DNA replication errors.
Telomeres.
A variety of genetic conditions.
Antioxidants and free radical accumulation.

Telomeres prevent the DNA replication errors acting as random non important pieces in places where errors are most likely to occur but take note "most likely". Telomerases can promote growth of these telomeres but then the cells become cancerous and never stop dividing. So we would have to develop a system to distinguish cancer cells from normal cells and kill them(should be easy as " most" cancer cells are polychromatic)
But won't the easier solution be to perfect the proof reading and error correcting parts of DNA replication.
Free radicle and antioxidant accumulation can be taken care off.
Radioactive typing against all known genetic conditions at the foetal period and gene splicing wherever necessary could prevent most genetic conditions.
But the most difficult to overcome would be the gradual neuronal degeneration.
As neurons do not have centrioles they they cannot regerate after a neuron dies(due to natural(constant passing of electrical impulses must cause a bit wear and tear)or other causes). Even if we found out a way to promote neuronal regenration., the newly formed neurons will not have the same potentiations as the earlier ones(memories and experiences stored as sequences of neurons bonds made stronger by long term potentiation).Thus we wont even be the same person after sometime.

Human evolution has a ways to go, we arenowheee near immmortality

If/When biological immortality happens, it will become a norm for decent people who want to continue living and not die of ageing, to get like going to the doctor for a check up.

>>8437734
Who are you to tell me if I can or cannot live as I please? Who is John Galt? Get the hell out of my way!

>>8445018
>Thus we wont even be the same person after sometime
this may be a blessing in the long run

>>8437698
What do you mean can actually be achieved, it is already done.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/04/29/liz-parrish-is-an-ceo-and-patient-zero/

>>8445712
If you have no sense of self identity are you even human

>>8445744
Absolute madwoman

>>8445811
You could start over couldn't you? I don't much like the idea either but it is still better than death. It's like reincarnation

>>8444951
>old people want to die not just because their boy is old

I disagree.

>>8445744
>an ceo

>>8445744
That's interesting.

>>8445018
My biggest fear is forgetting my deceased doge.

>>8446762
You know they are doing testing on animals so they can live longer as well right?

>>8446997
Unless they start doing testing on animals so they can be brought back from dead, I don't think it matters in my case.

>>8437698
There is nothing inherent in the laws of physics that says you can't have biological immortality. In fact there are species that are biologically immortal.

The reason most lifeforms die of aging (or senescense) is because it is beneficial for the species for them to do so. The old die so that the young, which are superior genetically, can replace them. Without death there can be no evolution.

This is something that is hard coded into our cells though, changing it is way beyond our capabilities or understanding.

I hope we don't discover it anytime soon though, it would be absolutely horrible if old people didn't die and take their outdated world views with them. There would be no progress or advancement, human civilization as we know it would end.

>>8438401
this is the most likely way a civilization would be able to colonize a galaxy. You need extremely long life spans (to us) for interstellar travel to be feasible

>>8437734
And this is why you're poor.

>>8447377
>Without death there can be no evolution
If we ever manage to become biologically immortal then there are no fucking reason why we couldn't also have artificial evolution, when humans decide themselves which steps of the evolutionary ladder they decide to climb.

>There would be no progress or advancement, human civilization as we know it would end.
Funny how us living longer thanks to technological discoveries did not decrease "progress" and advancement, it's almost like you are fucking wrong. Once people started living more than 30 years old, societies changed completely (in terms of culture, education, philosophy, whatever) because they suddenly had more time to.

>>8447377
I was gonna type out a long ass response to your stuff, but summarized it: >>8447430

>>8447437
Let's say...
If I get biological immortality is it wrong if I sleep with my great x4 to 5 granddaughter? Or are we still too closely related?

>>8447430
Fun fact, this dying at 30 years old meme is a meme.

The life expectancy for those in the past was obscured and offset by the extremely high infant mortality rate. If one could survive to adulthood, the chances of living a long healthy life expanded dramatically.

This is why for example, in the Bible the proper age for a righteous person is 80 years, any more signaled that you had done good and God had given you more years, any less and God had taken away some. But this phenomenon can be seen in many other ancient texts talking about the length of a life.

>>8437793
>muh demiurge

>>8437734
>I would sooner extinguish this species in its entirety
Hm, interesting point sir, however, we, the rest of the species, wanting to survive will not give you any power to do such things
and you'll die and we'll live,
and you'll end up in that happy place that the whole rest of humanity has gone so far.
But we will not, at least not for a long long time.

There we go, everybody wins, you're dead like you want, and we're alive like we want.

>>8447977
It still wasn't something as common as today, maximum lifespan has not changed true but there were still much more things that could kill you back then (malnutrition, plague and shit, wars, exhaustion, etc...)

>>8447819
You wouldn't be too closely related and can fuck your great-great-great-great (great) granddaughter.

>>8447984
so you would make yourself immortal, elevating yourself above all those that came before you, and subject the world to strict population control, so that you'd live without the fear of death?

>>8448433
>Elevating yourself above all those that came before you.
Not that Anon, but humanity is 6 million years old. In comparison you are already above all those came before you from an evolutionary stand point so its irrelevant.

Overpopulation is a meme, and just because you have biological immortality doesn't mean you can't die or live without a fear of death. Biological immortality just stops you from dying of old age, you can still die of disease dumb ass.

>>8447430
If we discovered immortality in the middle ages, we would still be living in backward feudal societies. It's the young people who are born into societies who say "this shit is fucking retarded, i can do this better" because they don't know any better. And sometimes they are actually right.

The one benefit would be that people like Guass get to live forever. But I think that is overstated, I doubt even if you gave Guass hundreds of years he would ever of been able to do what Grothendick did. It really required a fresh prospective from someone who didn't know what he was doing wasn't supposed to work. We lose nothing from old people dying because someone else can always pick up what they did and do it better.

It's not our physical evolution that worries me, we are not mature enough of a species for immortality to not destroy our species greatest strength. Change.

>>8448481
>If we discovered immortality in the middle ages
>Immortality = stagnation argument.
Just because you live a long time doesn't mean society stagnates. No matter what you do and how long you live, society will change regardless because a status quo cannot be held (with or without death).

>We are not mature enough of a species for immortality
Implying.

>>8448484
Large numbers of people living forever will obviously make change more difficult. Have you ever met old people? They fucking suck.

>>8448494
>Have you ever met old people.
Yes and some of them are wise, and some of them are not.

This doesn't change the fact more people will end up being progressive with the form of biological immortality, and change society due to the fact that they will need to be looking more towards the future. Most people don't tend to change their views due to short term gain and don't think they'll be around to reap long term ones.

If any form of biological immortality came out, and people acquired it. One common thing you would see is people investing more in fighting any type of cancers that would appear in the body or the more crippling diseases. Promoting general health with your rejuvenated body. (Something we are already doing as people are living older and older)

>>8438069
Im not much of a /sci/ but im pretty sure cancer cells feed off of high acidic levels
If one was to drop their levels....lets say by drinking baking soda
Shouldnt it help with fighting cancerous cells
Not to mention i remember back in the day where we had a /fit/sci/ discussion about a powder used for cutting that can raise body tempature which cancerous cells can only survive natarual body heat compared to non mutated genes that can withstand overheating.

>>8447421

This is actually a useful and perceptive projection on multiple levels. It even correctly diagnoses the impotent resentment of the have-nots toward the haves, and gets at some of my own personal paranoias.

However, you are still only sniping at the argument stopping just short of an ad-hom, without actually directly refuting the content of the argument itself.

After some serious thought, it seems to me that the species in its entirety must be annihilated, and replaced with nothing. This is a logical conclusion of various really moral propositions, together with the inevitability of scientific progress towards life extension as it is practiced by humans. This process must be interrupted and destroyed, which entails bringing about human extinction.

Pockets of violence won't do, due to human adaptation, intelligence, will-to-life, and the other delusions. We have it within our collective capacity as a species to commit suicide at-a-stroke, and this is exactly where I am going. We should goad the species-animal into its own annihilation, and the simplest method toward this end is to antagonize nuclear power relations to a snapping point.

The natural response is to bristle at this. Nor is it legitimate to command that I should kill myself first ( :^) ), since what is necessary that the entire species is eliminated at a stroke. Should one pocket survive, then there is always a chance of the anathema of intelligence, of self-awareness, of subjective terror, to again exist in the universe. And that is exactly what we have a moral obligation to foreclose, in our own case.

The will to extinguish the human species is not an environmentalism, but a logically nihilistic conclusion.

The irony is that many anons in this thread have started catching on that assholes (Soroses, Windsors, Rothschilds etc) should be prevented from living forever. And the surest way of effecting this, as any sensible person knows, is to extinguish human life itself. Otherwise the power-cycle just repeats until some assholes actually escape into immortality. Better that this should never happen, for anyone, ever. Which necessitates extinguishing the species.

And even if some aliens should have managed the same terror, then we in our non-beings may be consoled that it's really nothing to do with us, as we never knew them. The chain of interpersonal knowledge is exactly what makes the survival of the one in the face of the death of the other intolerable.

>>8448603
>>8448601
Kill yourself. Humanity will join you eventually ;)

>>8448601
>>8448603
I know it was Halloween, but you're not suppose to be this edgy.

>>8448494
define progress, if you ever say shit like gay marriage or smoking weed then I advise you to kys as those are insignificant matters

>>8448947
No, I mean things that progress us back towards our animal state of being. Like unrestrained sexuality that leads to 20% of men fucking 80% of women and all that follows from that. And of course, getting rid our clothes because they are only a social construction by le evil white men.

>>8437698
Why is this Rasputin so rapidly aging?

>>8448947
The study of concept of air pressure used to be banned for being too controversial.

>>8449205
>unrestrained sexuality that leads to 20% of men fucking 80%
You don't have to be so salty that you aren't in the top 20% of men, bro.

>>8437840
I'd say in this case it's nice to let them make all the mistakes figuring out, then we can simply learn and develop our own corpus without going through all those nasty biological horror mistakes.

>>8448601
>Hurr because technology could make one person live longer than others all of humanity needs to die because its not fair.
>Hurr humanity is a plague and need to be extinguished, nothing matters.
>Hurr my morals say I'm right and nobody should be allowed to live longer than I say.
>Hurr humanity is stupid and will commit suicide as a species because we're dumb.

There is reason why people tell you to kill yourself faggot.

>>8448601
Why do you enjoy pretending to be a complete moron on the internet? Nobody thinks like this. You don't think like this.

>>8437851
>correct philosophical conclusions

>>8450391

The terror for you is that I actually do think like this, /and that it is actually correct to do so/.

Like other reactors in the thread, you find it necessary to quickly and forcefully negate my conclusions, even to the point of foreclosing the possibility that an intelligent and (ironically, now) sensible person could possibly honestly reach such conclusions. Oh this guy actually knows how to construct paragraphs and rhetoric and so on, yet he is saying something that seems really stupid to me, therefore he cannot possibly be sincere about what he is writing since he is clearly not actually stupid, etc etc."

Your initial blithering is as a result of a normie mind, which has not taken things to their logical conclusion. So you must foreclose the possibility of anyone "thinking like this", much less a comfortable first-worlder. But it remains the case that once one actually thinks things through properly, a will toward extincion is where things tend.

>>8450352

Can you actually elucidate that reason without simply reacting in disgust to my rhetoric? Can you actually mount a compelling case for your revulsion to my claims, with a little detail?

>Come into thread thinking people are going to talk about telomerase extension, biotechnology, CRISPR, and longevity methods.
>Get a nihilistic shitposter who won't stop posting their philosophy, their morals, and think they are right.

/sci/ quality really has gone down even with /pol/ coming in.

>>8450600
That depends, can you write one sentence that doesn't read like the most try-hard pseudo-intellectual ever to watch V for Vendetta too many times?

>>8450596
It's not terror. I'm trying to be entertaining in tone while calling you on bullshit.

I'm not being forceful. I asked you why you enjoy pretending to be a moron on the internet.

Your paragraphs are actually pretty poorly designed, in fact I think you're doing a good impersonation of a person with Williams Syndrome.

I'm talking to you because you're a ding-dong and I get annoyed when ding-dongs don't know when to quit.

>>8450618
On second that my third line is wrong. What I meant is you seem like an idiot who speaks like someone who pretends to know what intelligence is but if anyone examines your reasoning they realize you're bad at the thinking part

>>8450596
Also, you're basically this:
>In 1884, meridian time personnel met

in Washington to change Earth time.

First words said was that only 1 day

could be used on Earth to not change

the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1

day and ignored the other 3 days.

The bible time was wrong then and it

proved wrong today. This a major lie

has so much evil feed from it's wrong.

File: Williams-syndrome-pictures.jpg (68KB, 500x506px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x506px

>>8450618
>Williams Syndrome
I learned something today!

File: AubreydeGrey.jpg (1MB, 820x1190px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 820x1190px

>>8449283
Please speak his name with respect. Aubrey de Grey. That's his name. You little faggot gay boi.

He's 53, he isn't "aging rapidly" any more than you or I. He will cure aging by 2040 and will be fine.

Pic related; Aubrey-san when he was younger.

>>8451177
Double dubs.

He looks like a stoner. Ironic he became a scientist.

>>8437698
Not with our current rate of progress. But if AI gets good enough in the short-term (I think it will) then yes, absolutely. The distance between strong AI and life extension is probably 5 years or less.

>>8437734
"As long as men die, liberty shall never perish" On the other hand think of the rate science would progress at if immortality was possible. Right now scientists spend their entire lives to gain a true understanding of their field just to have that vast trove of experience die with them. Right now they need to archive whatever progress they've made in hope of someone else catching up and picking up where they left off. Imagine if these pioneers were immortal, free to continue their research indefinitely with their life of experience intact.

With science progressing at breakneck speed it should theoretically be more than capable of dealing with the side effects of immortality. (Land shortages, food shortages, tyranny, over-population in general).

>>8437734
>>8437797
>>8437787
>>8437851
>>8437841
>>8437866
He's saying that if immortality was invented it would be forcibly coveted by the rich and powerful allowing them and them alone to hold power forever establishing work wide tyranny while things just get worse for people like us in general.

ITT wizardchan Russian philosophical optimism

>>8439707
I think he is what happens when /r9k/ gets into philosophy

>>8448433
This is the most stupid thing I've read in months, and I've been browing Tumblr

>>8448603
>implying biological inmortality makes you inmune to a bullet going right through your head

nano tech is a ludicrously meme answer -> no functional explanation besides ( repair )

Tissue culture using stem cells with selected differentiation via cell-signal (cytokines etc), and targeted senescence are non-meme currently-in-clinical-trial answers.

CRISPR's minimal control in embryos shows we couldn't use it out of the box; recent studies suggest 2 minor modifications to current proceses will allow unparalleled control of genetic modification, which when generalized to wide-scale treatment of somatic cells will mean upstream control isn't even important ( IE gene editing@latent/hiding stem cells ).

basically yes, and within the next 10 years a bazillion trials will be put out testing various hacked genotypes

They will likely all fail unless something as simple as Peto's Paradox is exploited ( e.g. adding gene copies of tumor suppresors ). If they do the data from massive public-access genotype:health-care-outcome databases (provided by this decades push for value-based-Healthcare, as necessitated by the non-linear increases to healthcare cost) will be analyzed by Machine learning and provide EFFECTIVE genetic therapy by the next decade.