Do you expect to die?

[Borachio]

There you go.

Looks like you might be right.

Though it depends what part of the wiki article you read.

 

[Daw]

Soo.. the robotic revolution would end feminism and gender studies for the price of my wiener?

Yep. Parthenogenesis, you see...

It's close to being possible to take an ovicell (with half of female genome) add nucleus of another ovicell, and have a nice girl zygote.

What men are for when robots are even better at carrying heavy things around?

 

[brennan]

Death sounds boring. I'm planning to give it a miss.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yep. Parthenogenesis, you see...

It's close to being possible to take an ovicell (with half of female genome) add nucleus of another ovicell, and have a nice girl zygote.

What men are for when robots are even better at carrying heavy things around?

I'm not sure. Men are for carrying things and women are for birthing children? What happened to

To hell with sexism.

?
What's the point of the new babies? To birth more children? No value in themselves? I'm sure there will be more efficient ways to do things by then.

 

[Daw]

Death sounds boring. I'm planning to give it a miss.

Given that there are no records to confirm that, Socrates allegedly used to say: "If our clerics are right and there is afterlife, there are lots of wise men of the past to meet with and talk with there; if the clerics are wrong, being dead must be similar to dreamless sleep; either way, there's nothing to be afraid of."

Anyway, personally, I intend to live as long as I can just to see how long I will manage to (and also to see what happens next and what world is like in the future).

I'm not sure. Men are for carrying things and women are for birthing children? What happened to ?

Let's face it: men and women are somewhat different in their anatomy and physiology. And (somewhat less) in psychology. And (even less, practically indistinguishably) in intellect.

When we remove anatomy and physiology, and thus remove hormones to affect psychology through emotionality, and thus reduce its effect on thinking, we end up with women=men.

But when we remove anatomy leaving only brain to carry intellect and identity (and thus increase life expectancy beyond the horizon leaving only terminal traumas to affect population), we still need to somehow reproduce.

Women come to be more convenient than men from practical point of view. We still need ovicells to make zygotes to grow into brains carrying wits and identity. So we can't go without women producing ovicells. Men are only producing semens which carry 1/2 of human genome as well as ovicells.

Why bother having men when we can combine 2 ovicells (which we must have anyway) into a zygote?

 

[El_Machinae]

A much more feasible way than replacing dead neurons is to try to prevent neurons from dying. The known way of doing it is learning as much as you can and thinking about everything you know. It may sound like a banality, but the truth is that neural death rate is largely based on atrophy - similarly to how muscles get weaker and smaller if you don't use them.

Yes and no. It's certainly a feasible stopgap measure. So would be pharmaceuticals that prevent neurons from dying. These techniques buy time for other technologies to advance. The fate of those neurons is certainly sealed.

Upgrading into a repairable substrate is really the only the only long-term solution.

 

[Daw]

Yes and no. It's certainly a feasible stopgap measure. So would be pharmaceuticals that prevent neurons from dying. These techniques buy time for other technologies to advance. The fate of those neurons is certainly sealed.

Upgrading into a repairable substrate is really the only the only long-term solution.

True.

However, at current level of tech-no-logical development, it will more than suffice to make people dying at whatever reasonably old age for whatever reason while still being aware of what their name is, where they are, and who are all those people around.

 

[El_Machinae]

There might be a grammar error there. I'll never deny that such ideas are stopgaps. They'll buy time for those who literally need the other breakthroughs in time.

There are two routes. Extend your expected lifespan in time (which you can do just by being young) while you wait for normal development to create new interventions OR help speed the discovery of those interventions to bring them forward in time.

I like Option B better, since it will get the interventions off-patent sooner, and help make them cheaper faster. More poor people get the benefit too, then.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I like Option B better, since it will get the interventions off-patent sooner, and help make them cheaper faster. More poor people get the benefit too, then.

You seem awfully optimistic about what this progress will do to society. I get that you work in this area. No fears at all?

 

[Mise]

@Daw: Yeah, that's certainly in the same spirit as what I'm saying. Some people believe in reincarnation: if they act as if their well-being in their next life depends in some way on their actions in their present life, then their future selves may as well be continuations of their present selves, given their understanding of "self".

 

[El_Machinae]

You seem awfully optimistic about what this progress will do to society. I get that you work in this area. No fears at all?

Yes. Big fears. I can see many potential problems. They need clever people, much more specialized than I (you?) working on them.

Currently the main 'solution' to these problems seems to be "let people die". I think it shows a fundamental lack of creativity. And, more personally, not just "let people die" but "my loved ones must die" to enact this solution.

So yes, worried. I hold the current set of solutions in contempt. Nevermind all the other problems (financial and moral) that could be tackled by delaying the degeneration of the elderly.

 

[Daw]

Though it depends what part of the wiki article you read.

Which part would you suggest?

 

[Daw]

There might be a grammar error there. I'll never deny that such ideas are stopgaps. They'll buy time for those who literally need the other breakthroughs in time.

There are two routes. Extend your expected lifespan in time (which you can do just by being young) while you wait for normal development to create new interventions OR help speed the discovery of those interventions to bring them forward in time.

I like Option B better, since it will get the interventions off-patent sooner, and help make them cheaper faster. More poor people get the benefit too, then.

Interesting. I'd rather prefer Option A. Call me a misanthrope, but I don't see how current generation deserves eternity.

Yes. Big fears. I can see many potential problems. They need clever people, much more specialized than I (you?) working on them.

OTOH, Option A will make it possible to get more time to properly train specialists for the task and avoid potential problems by thinking them through before they blow up in our faces.

--------------

Also, I always prefer evolution to revolutions. Let humanity first live up to 100, 120, 150 years to see how it works and get used to how it feels. Then we talk about making cyborgs of ourselves. Moving too abruptly may turn the boat over by resulting in social tensions which will throw humanity back from eternity for another couple of Ages.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yes. Big fears. I can see many potential problems. They need clever people, much more specialized than I (you?) working on them.

Currently the main 'solution' to these problems seems to be "let people die". I think it shows a fundamental lack of creativity. And, more personally, not just "let people die" but "my loved ones must die" to enact this solution.

So yes, worried. I hold the current set of solutions in contempt. Nevermind all the other problems (financial and moral) that could be tackled by delaying the degeneration of the elderly.

I don't think anyone is against eliminating disease or mental degeneration, but I do think death is a part of life. Abolishing natural death here on earth would bring more suffering than it would alleviate, imo. As it is now, death comes to all, so it's equal in that aspect at least.

 

[El_Machinae]

Interesting. I'd rather prefer Option A. Call me a misanthrope, but I don't see how current generation deserves eternity.

OTOH, Option A will make it possible to get more time to properly train specialists for the task and avoid potential problems by thinking them through before they blow up in our faces.

Option A is a powerful tool in the toolkit, regardless. Look at skin cancer. I'd much rather get skin cancer in 2034 than in 2014, so I use sunscreen. The treatment will be much better in the future.

Now, I'm not misanthropic, since I have a bunch of loved ones. As well, I think that by helping them, I end up helping myself.

 

[Borachio]

Which part would you suggest?

How about all of it? It starts out agreeing with you, and then goes on to list some of "side-effects" of various forms of meditation on the brain.

 

[Zack]

What if "you" are not defined by the biological fact of cells and neurons, but by who you consider yourself to be? Of all things, I would expect identity to be quite subjective.

Something I've always wondered is the point where you stop being alive/human and become a robot, presuming you gradually replace all of your organs with mechanical ones until you're entirely mechanical. At which point did you become a "robot" instead of a human? When the brain was replaced? How much of the brain? Is an entirely organic body with a partially robotic brain a robot?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Humans being humans...if we find a way to avoid death people will be so concerned that they might be missing out on something that they will die anyway.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Humans being humans...if we find a way to avoid death people will be so concerned that they might be missing out on something that they will die anyway.

I want other people to die too


I wonder how this immortality is viewed from a political perspective. I'd say rejecting it is the leftist thing to do since it'd surely increase the gaps in society. Immortal families growing ever larger, accumulating wealth and power... yea, I'm joining the left for the moral high ground on this. Death to all

 

[Tahuti]

I wonder how this immortality is viewed from a political perspective. I'd say rejecting it is the leftist thing to do since it'd surely increase the gaps in society. Immortal families growing ever larger, accumulating wealth and power... yea, I'm joining the left for the moral high ground on this. Death to all

Weird, I think dying is the right-wing thing: Being aware that there are greater beings than humans in these terms - in theory - attempting to introduce immortality will simply bring carnage to humanity.