20-30 years from now we will be able to reverse aging with no

Can you proof?

you are wrong.

debate me?

>>8677702
>>8677703
Aubrey de Grey promised me.

>>8677685
Aging and disease are products of malnutrition and a toxic environment.
How--seriously--are you going to fix hunger and starvation? Inhumanity?

>>8677718
> How--seriously--are you going to fix hunger and starvation? Inhumanity?
Cannibalism

>>8677718
Aging is a product of living.

Why debating you when you're right? Also post more qts

>>8677685
good thing it will be too late for those who are already 20-30 years old and older

>>8677814
Hey nigger, if you are alive when the treatments come, it's not too late. I will be 55 at the absolute maximum.

I can more or less prove it. Go back 30 years ago, to 1987, and ask yourself what kind of future would someone living in that year would have expected of 2017. people tend to overestimate scientific research.

>>8677866
>le science improves at the same pace for the next 20 years as it did for the past 20 years meme

Get the fuck out of this board and don't come back until you are over 18

>>8677878
>Le exponential scientific growth meme

>>8677866
>Go back 30 years ago, to 1987, and ask yourself what kind of future would someone living in that year would have expected of 2017
30 years ago there were commodore 64's
the internet didn't exist for the public
it was unthinkable to imagine people would one day need more than 20-40mb HDD's
128GB data on a thing the size of a fingernail? yeah right
There were no smartphones, AI's nor flat screens, e-readers, tablets, smart watches nor any bendable tech,
robot technology was a complete joke
people were actually buying stuff instead of everyone and their mothers downloading shit for free

that's just off the top of my head. Not even sci-fi could predict most of these things

>>8677903
Imagine taking a time machine back to 1750—a time when the world was in a permanent power outage, long-distance communication meant either yelling loudly or firing a cannon in the air, and all transportation ran on hay. When you get there, you retrieve a dude, bring him to 2015, and then walk him around and watch him react to everything. It’s impossible for us to understand what it would be like for him to see shiny capsules racing by on a highway, talk to people who had been on the other side of the ocean earlier in the day, watch sports that were being played 1,000 miles away, hear a musical performance that happened 50 years ago, and play with my magical wizard rectangle that he could use to capture a real-life image or record a living moment, generate a map with a paranormal moving blue dot that shows him where he is, look at someone’s face and chat with them even though they’re on the other side of the country, and worlds of other inconceivable sorcery. This is all before you show him the internet or explain things like the International Space Station, the Large Hadron Collider, nuclear weapons, or general relativity.

This experience for him wouldn’t be surprising or shocking or even mind-blowing—those words aren’t big enough. He might actually die.

>>8677909
But here’s the interesting thing—if he then went back to 1750 and got jealous that we got to see his reaction and decided he wanted to try the same thing, he’d take the time machine and go back the same distance, get someone from around the year 1500, bring him to 1750, and show him everything. And the 1500 guy would be shocked by a lot of things—but he wouldn’t die. It would be far less of an insane experience for him, because while 1500 and 1750 were very different, they were much less different than 1750 to 2015. The 1500 guy would learn some mind-bending shit about space and physics, he’d be impressed with how committed Europe turned out to be with that new imperialism fad, and he’d have to do some major revisions of his world map conception. But watching everyday life go by in 1750—transportation, communication, etc.—definitely wouldn’t make him die.

No, in order for the 1750 guy to have as much fun as we had with him, he’d have to go much farther back—maybe all the way back to about 12,000 BC, before the First Agricultural Revolution gave rise to the first cities and to the concept of civilization. If someone from a purely hunter-gatherer world—from a time when humans were, more or less, just another animal species—saw the vast human empires of 1750 with their towering churches, their ocean-crossing ships, their concept of being “inside,” and their enormous mountain of collective, accumulated human knowledge and discovery—he’d likely die.

And then what if, after dying, he got jealous and wanted to do the same thing. If he went back 12,000 years to 24,000 BC and got a guy and brought him to 12,000 BC, he’d show the guy everything and the guy would be like, “Okay what’s your point who cares.” For the 12,000 BC guy to have the same fun, he’d have to go back over 100,000 years and get someone he could show fire and language to for the first time.

>>8677903
yeah, and life expectancy only went up by a few years. Those things, except for supercomputers, are all fairly trivial

>>8677911
In order for someone to be transported into the future and die from the level of shock they’d experience, they have to go enough years ahead that a “die level of progress,” or a Die Progress Unit (DPU) has been achieved. So a DPU took over 100,000 years in hunter-gatherer times, but at the post-Agricultural Revolution rate, it only took about 12,000 years. The post-Industrial Revolution world has moved so quickly that a 1750 person only needs to go forward a couple hundred years for a DPU to have happened.

This pattern—human progress moving quicker and quicker as time goes on—is what futurist Ray Kurzweil calls human history’s Law of Accelerating Returns. This happens because more advanced societies have the ability to progress at a faster rate than less advanced societies—because they’re more advanced. 19th century humanity knew more and had better technology than 15th century humanity, so it’s no surprise that humanity made far more advances in the 19th century than in the 15th century—15th century humanity was no match for 19th century humanity.

TL;DR exponential scientific growth isn't a meme

>>8677685
you don't know shit about aging or biology. it seems highly unlikely that people will have access to large scale genetic modifications in 30 years, let alone reverse aging. there are way too many unsolved questions in biology for us to use it that way.

>>8677917
So, theoretically, how far would we 21th century humans (millenials) need to go into the future to get DPU'd?

>>8677940
A decade.

>>8677915
>Internet is trivial
>Life expectancy only went up by a few years.
Not that Anon, but are you retarded?

Wait, what do you want to debate? Your sexual orientation? Because you're a fag

We would have to have a revolution in genetics such that we can control and understand processes at the level of cellular microbiology. It might be akin to the IT revolution where we developed the means to perform lengthy computations and the complex software needed. However as always there might be some unforeseen limitations.

>>8677878
>what are diminishing returns

>>8677685
>Debate me
first Lrn2debate fgt pls

>>8677685
>reverse aging
????????????????????????
do u even understand what those words mean

in 30 years your body is going to slowly become more and more fucked up in subtle completely random ways

theres no reversing it anon ur just fucked

>>8679027
Of course there is. Just like we can make a 100 year old car look and run like it's brand new.

>>8677685
We've already got plenty of ideas for slowing it down, it's just that it'll probably be a lot more productive to just go full Deus Ex and replace faulty parts with machinery.
You know, like we already do?

>>8679032
HOLY SHIT /SCI/ NEVER USED TO BE THIS BAD

I DONT RECALL IT BEING THIS BAD

>>8677718
Aging would happen even in optimal conditions you dilettante fuck

>>8679036
Is that a fucking Anne Frank cosplay?

>>8679060
I can't see anyone fucking her

>>8679036
Her nostrils are normal. Do you think that white people are all equal?

>>8678798
Oh yeah? Why don't you look up life expectancy (in first world countries) in the late 80s and now? I think you are the retard.