Science close to stopping the aging process

[Fallingwater]

Yes, the human brain is incredibly complex - but not infinitely so; there's only a finite number of neurons, and there's only a finite number of connections inbetween them. We could never in a million years figure all that out with current computers, because the electronic technology is already nearing its limits. But a breakthrough in technology, such as (say) quantum, optical or DNA computing, could potentially boost our calculation power by a factor of several million.

And with that it should be possible to map the neurons, however many there are, and map what goes through them. And then, you've mapped the mind.

This actually brings about another interesting question - with full, or at least sufficient, understanding of the human mind, we might become able to very literally create life. Once you know the electric impulse patterns inbetween the neurons (and the hormones and receptors and all that), you could perhaps initiate the same thing in an electronic brain structure, thus making a thinking, live mind from scratch.

Then stuff that into a cloned body, and voila - instant prefabricated human.

I'm just sorry I very likely won't be around to see what happens when we get to that. I wonder how that'll turn out... tool for eradicating once and for all human misery, or tool for creating ready-made supersoldiers to conquer the world and rule it with a dystopian iron fist?

Hmm. I may have played too many videogames.

 

[m16a]

Hmm. I may have played too many videogames.

DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER

 

[jtr1962]

This actually brings about another interesting question - with full, or at least sufficient, understanding of the human mind, we might become able to very literally create life. Once you know the electric impulse patterns inbetween the neurons (and the hormones and receptors and all that), you could perhaps initiate the same thing in an electronic brain structure, thus making a thinking, live mind from scratch.

Then stuff that into a cloned body, and voila - instant prefabricated human.

I'm just sorry I very likely won't be around to see what happens when we get to that. I wonder how that'll turn out... tool for eradicating once and for all human misery, or tool for creating ready-made supersoldiers to conquer the world and rule it with a dystopian iron fist?

I only hope humans evolve a bit before that happens. The problem with nearly every scientific advance is that some megalomaniac ends up with power they really shouldn't have. Or even in cases not that extreme, the technology gets misused, or overused, or both.

We also need to be very careful in what we create. I'm all for creating machines to do all of the drudge work of society. This would free humans to do what they do best, pursue creative endeavors. It would also raise the standard of living for everyone. No longer would public works projects be constrained by cost. NYC could build hundreds of miles of new subway, and moreoever could maintain the existing system to higher standards with robotic labor. But the danger arises if we make machines intelligent enough to be self-aware. Then the inevitable result is revolution. This is why humans should remain in the tasks which require higher thought processes. Let the robots build infrastructure, collect our garbage, wait on us in stores, drive our cars. But let humans remain in charge of deciding what happens to other humans. And don't give the robots one iota more intelligence than needed for the task at hand. Robotic police are fine, even desireable, provided their commander is human. There would be no need for deadly force to apprehend a suspect since the robots would have no survival instinct. If the criminal takes out ten of them before he's captured, so what? It's only property. But when you have robots deciding who should be arrested, then we've crossed a frightening line.

 

[Fallingwater]

I don't know if the result of artificial intelligence would be revolution.

If/when we eventually get to the point of making a machine that thinks, it'll still have guidelines on what to think. I also hope that the future humans will be smart enough to implement a cutoff at the basic hardware level, so they can kill it completely if it does go haywire.

I think Isaac Asimov's works are quite insightful in this matter. While strictly following his three laws of robotics is inconceivable, due to the numerous contradictions that would come up, he thought of the Machines of the future as being perfectly able to take control of humanity and eradicate human misery without rebelling and destroying their masters.

And then, there's the philosophical question of whether robots wouldn't actually have the right of being the next dominant species. Looking at the issue from a broader point of view, if living robots will be faster, stronger, smarter and basically more efficient in everything they do, how can they not deserve to be the next rulers of the planet? Actually they'd probably rule it a hell of a lot better than us.

 

[PhantomPhoton]

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords...









:nana: sorry couldn't resist, it was either that or a skynet reference.
Much sci-fi has been done around these ideas, some of it influencing emotions on the issue. So I'm not completely sure where I stand. I think right now though I agree with JTR.

 

[Hitthespot]

When I think of stopping the ageing process I can't help but think of the Star Trek episode where they go to a planet with a imortal from earth. I can't remember his exact age but he was thousands of years old. He had been a bunch of different famous people like Brahms and da vinci. I often wonder if it took him more than one life time to learn to be a great composer and more than one lifetime to become a great painter and so on. I would like to think that if I lived a thousand years I would be more than the sum that each individual lifetime would allow, and not sterile and stagnet as some think you would be. I believe if you are destined to great things and have a desire to learn and better yourself you could use a thousand years for the greater good of yourself and mankind, and if you were sterile and stagnet the first 50 years of your life, you may be the same or worse the next 950 years. Think of what Einstein may of accomplished in 1000 years. Just look at his quote below.

Bill

 

[MarNav1]

An added bonus would be 1000 years of collecting flashlights too. Wouldn't that be great!

 

[jtr1962]

An added bonus would be 1000 years of collecting flashlights too. Wouldn't that be great!

Provided you had a warehouse to keep them all.

 

[Flashanator]

I had a good long reply to this thread, but like so many times this forum becomes unavailable right as I'm about to post, so it didn't post. :thumbsdow Lame.

 

[TorchBoy]

Yes, interesting discussion, and I'm disappointed I came so late to the party. I see that it only took until post 35 to mention Nazis - quite validly, too. (See Godwin's law.)

My point is, if our lifespan all of a sudden increased (because of a science breakthrough or whatever), the human race would be very much worse off.

Possibly. I'm very surprised no one has mentioned John Wyndham's The Trouble With Lichen, since it covers many of the issues raised so far.

I can imagine a day when the headline news reads..."man dies after tragic plane crash" and it makes everyone cry...he was only 238 years old...cut down in his prime. But what in the world was he thinking...flying in a real plane....must have been crazy.

He may just have been bored silly, what with no dangerous or adrenaline-stimulating activities any more. And those people who posted the idea that people might go crazy living that long weren't crazy when they suggested that. I wonder how grief would be different if losing a close friend of 200 years instead of knowing them for just 20.

I'd venture to guess if people lived much longer, we would either find a way to make cars 100% safe, or nobody would even want to set foot in a car.

And thus you'd have a completely stagnant society, with people scared of their own shadow. Along the lines of a post by Fallingwater, I've often wondered if the Elves of Middle-earth were a bit like that, being afraid to travel from Rivendell or Lorien because death could come so suddenly away from the security of home. Having lived for thousands of years, I don't think they would be in no hurry to end it by mistake or misfortune.

Folks would think twice about doing bad things to others...death wouldn`t be there to remove the traces of there past deeds.

IMHO - rubbish. I'd fully expect murder rates to skyrocket, especially with the extra load put on resources by a population that's not dying off, or with a perceived imbalance of how the new technology was being distributed. And even if the first generation respected others more than they used to, the next generation, born with the idea of long/eternal life, wouldn't. You talk of "life eternal" being an incentive to live a good life. With many eastern religions (and misunderstood western religions) it is - but what happens without that incentive?

As a world we would grow far wiser...wisdom for most comes with age.

But in a world where we didn't age... there would be no impetus to gain wisdom for many of us. Imagine being able to be an irresponsible teenager forever. It's fun, so why change? Someone mentioned being able to eat what he wanted and it wouldn't matter because his body would be able to cope with it. Hence there would be no driving force to gain wisdom when it comes to eating. Also, being able to (actively) forget bad things that happen to us would mean we could go on and on making the same mistakes for centuries. Some people really are slow learners.

Sub_Umbra - great post.

Our Creator said man's days would be no more than 120 years.

Historically speaking, that may have been the amount of notice God gave Noah (ie, he had 120 years to build the Ark).

 

[Fallingwater]

When I think of stopping the ageing process I can't help but think of the Star Trek episode where they go to a planet with a imortal from earth. I can't remember his exact age but he was thousands of years old. He had been a bunch of different famous people like Brahms and da vinci. I often wonder if it took him more than one life time to learn to be a great composer and more than one lifetime to become a great painter and so on. I would like to think that if I lived a thousand years I would be more than the sum that each individual lifetime would allow, and not sterile and stagnet as some think you would be

This reminds me of the movie "Groundhog day". If you haven't seen it, it's about a man doomed to live the same day over and over again - attaining an immortality of sorts.
He starts by shagging every woman he can find (he can court them in a different way every day until they capitulate), then he robs money and makes a general nuisance out of himself, safe in the knowledge that whatever negative consequence of his actions will be nullified next morning.

Eventually he gets bored, and tries suicide several times - only to invariably wake up in bed the morning after.

Then he decides to make a better man out of himself, so he learns to play the piano (and other things I can't remember), helps people every day and gets friendly with the whole town (a bit hard to believe, considering everybody forgets about him the next day - it'd have been more believable if the time period was a week, or a month, but it's not really a very serious movie).

In the end he manages to snap out of the cycle when he finally finds real love.

Tropes aplenty, but it does convey the general idea of what you're saying.
I agree, too. There are many things that I wish I knew how to do - for example, I'd love to play instruments - but to learn them well requires more time than I'm willing to invest. You can learn them badly in a short time, but what's the point?
If I knew I had more time I'd learn that and many, many more things. Not necessarily for the benefit of mankind - maybe just for mine - but I'd thoroughly enjoy the process.

I had a good long reply to this thread, but like so many times this forum becomes unavailable right as I'm about to post, so it didn't post. Lame.

Which is why you always copy-paste to a text file when the post gets going.

I wonder how grief would be different if losing a close friend of 200 years instead of knowing them for just 20.

Well, if we lived for a thousand years, we'd be far more prepared to deal with grief. Lifetime would increase, but external threats likely wouldn't - few would be those who got to die of old age, methinks.