Let's Discuss Aging

[amateursurgeon]

From what I've learned from my wife (who's a scientist working to cure an age-related disease in one teeny weeny part of the human body) I think we're not even close.

Seriously, at the biochemical level there are huge gaps in our knowledge, and we're making very slow progress in closing them. And the more we cure, the more stuff goes wrong. Just look at the most common causes of death over the last 100 years.

In the 1900s it was Tuberculosis & Pneumonia. Infectious disease which we learned to treat, so now people die of Heart disease. We've got better at treating and preventing that, so more people live long enough to get cancer.

We're getting better at treating cancer, so what's next? Dementia.

I don't think we're psychologically equipped to handle immortality. I reckon that if we all suddenly lived forever, people would start to kill themselves en mass. Our entire existence is given meaning by its briefness.

Also, most people do fuck all with their time as it is. They know they only have 80-odd short years on this planet, and they still spend most of it sitting around watching Oprah with a packet of cheetos in one hand and the other one rummaging down the front of their stained jogging pants.

 

[WickedJoe]

What are people's thoughts on cryonics?

Cryonics: Alcor Life Extension Foundation

I'll probably actually sign up for this even though I think the chances of success are very very low. But it's better than nothing. Let's just say I have more faith in it than I do a magical fairy man living in heaven who will make me live forever.

I'm not worried about science eventually being able to repair frozen tissue, etc. I'm more worried about human events fucking up your frozen body more while you wait for tech to catch up.

- some new great depression could fuck stuff up
- governmental changes (like a theocracy outlawing it)
- massive wars could fuck it up
- incompetence
- etc etc

 

[Human]

Sometimes I like the threads I make. Learning like a boss.

 

[mrtwister]

Aging... I'm young, so I don't think about it. Don't think about death and about what I want to accomplish in my life.
My father died at 45 and he did a lot of good things. I hope I'll do more.

What are people's thoughts on cryonics?
Cryonics: Alcor Life Extension Foundation

This idea is weird. It's stupid to use it when you're young. And when you're old it's useles. Many old people don't thinks it's cool to live forever.

 

[Fiver]

I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to talk about how it sucks to get old.

 

[MyOwnDemon]

Most people hate getting out of bed in the morning enough as it is. Imagine doing it forever. Paying your bills every month for 2000 years. Hah. Fuck that.

This would do absolutely nothing to advance humanity as a whole except make people more cynical and bitter.

The REASON technology evolves, love is found, and the world changes is because people are doing the most they can with their limited time here.

 

[Vhaeos]

I remember reading an article about this guy back when I was 14 or so in Discover magazine. The glorious beard triggered my memory. Hope he succeeds.

The TED Talk he gave was amazing.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Most people hate getting out of bed in the morning enough as it is. Imagine doing it forever. Paying your bills every month for 2000 years. Hah. Fuck that.

I doubt life extension/immortality would be free for everybody *if* it happened. Those who have the ability to purchase it will either be smart, rich, or both. Point being, I doubt they'll care about paying the bills as long as they're alive.

The REASON technology evolves, love is found, and the world changes is because people are doing the most they can with their limited time here.

Technology evolves because we love? I think technology evolves because there's both money and power in it.

 

[REIMktg]

We cannot figure a way to economically weather the burden of the Baby Boomer population bubble - imagine no one left dying of natural causes? What age retirement? Never?

I assume you believe that everyone will be healthy the whole time?

If 90% of health care costs are in the last few months of life, does that mean the health industry will go under?

 

[cardine]

Your "in 20-30 years we'll be able to extend life 20-30 years, and 20-30 years from then etc etc" really only works in theory and comes straight from de Grey. What in the next 2 decades will prolong our life an additional 20-50 years? Life expectancy is increasing, but not close to that rate.

I'd imagine curing (most) cancer and significantly reducing heart disease would be very reasonable goals which would increase life expectancy a lot.

Artificial organs are a start, but we are still in the early stages of that as well. Testing, regulating, safety, etc will take decades on it's own...and that's after we discover a universal solution. In 20 years I highly doubt we'll all casually be able to start replacing organs and brain cells.

I don't disagree with this at all. However I think in 50-60 years we might be doing this. And I think it is very likely that nanotechnology will be used within the next 40-50 years. We may not be replacing our hearts or brain cells, but I do think we'll have computers in our body that can sense when a heart attack might be coming and stop it before it happens, see cancer before it starts spreading and wipe it out, etc.


Also as an aside I've never read or listened to anything by de Grey. Most of my information about this sort of stuff comes from Ray Kurzweil.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

I'd imagine curing (most) cancer and significantly reducing heart disease would be very reasonable goals which would increase life expectancy a lot.

We've had advanced medicine and have not come close to solving a cure for cancer; which cleverly mutates in a jillion different ways. I'm friends with smart biologists, and "cancer" is still baffling to them. We're on the right path, but don't expect wholesale cures in the next 20 years...only hope for them.

However I think in 50-60 years we might be doing this. And I think it is very likely that nanotechnology will be used within the next 40-50 years. We may not be replacing our hearts or brain cells, but I do think we'll have computers in our body that can sense when a heart attack might be coming and stop it before it happens, see cancer before it starts spreading and wipe it out, etc.

At best this is an afterthought and at best all I can do is disagree with it. I think years slip by faster than we expect. Five years ago I certainly thought with the level of medical advancement we'd have a cure for cancer on the horizon. Half a decade later and we're still struggling to combat certain strings of cancer with deadly radiation. The process seems entirely slow relative to our lifespans.

And notification that you have cancer or heart disease won't affect the general outcome that you're destined for at this point. Meaning that cancer detection won't add 30-50 years onto the average lifespan of a human.

Also as an aside I've never read or listened to anything by de Grey. Most of my information about this sort of stuff comes from Ray Kurzweil.

Ah. He's an advocate of technological singularity. Which is a cool concept, but not entirely practical (as is anti-aging).

Humans have grown technology exponentially in the past couple centuries no doubt, but I think this is a simple act/result of "enlightenment". Once we realize the power of computing, of course we're going to maximize it as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean in 30 years we're going to be simulating consciousnesses and creating supercomputers smarter than our brains. It means we discovered computing and will maximize it as quickly as possible. This is natural.

 

[cardine]

Ah. He's an advocate of technological singularity. Which is a cool concept, but not entirely practical (as is anti-aging).

Yeah, I'm counting on singularity to occur for everything I've been saying to be true. Otherwise, yes the timelines I'm giving might be unrealistic.

Humans have grown technology exponentially in the past couple centuries no doubt, but I think this is a simple act/result of "enlightenment". Once we realize the power of computing, of course we're going to maximize it as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean in 30 years we're going to be simulating consciousnesses and creating supercomputers smarter than our brains. It means we discovered computing and will maximize it as quickly as possible. This is natural.

I think that maximizing the power of computing would naturally lead us to singularity. There's pretty much no question that within the next 25 years we'll have $1000 computers that able to do as many calculations per second as the human brain. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that we are able to figure out the software side of the human brain, we'd be able to increase our intelligence output by such a huge amount that an indefinite lifespan within the next 100 years doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Yeah, I'm counting on singularity to occur for everything I've been saying to be true. Otherwise, yes the timelines I'm giving might be unrealistic.

Singularity is a term very loosely known in the physical world. We have two practical examples of singularity: black holes and the big bang. Both are still theoretical (the non-fact theoretical) at this point.

I think that maximizing the power of computing would naturally lead us to singularity.

How?

We have been "maximizing" the power of computing since we discovered computing. We haven't discovered a maximum yet, it just keeps increasing. If anything, this is a reason to not believe in singularity.

There's pretty much no question that within the next 25 years we'll have $1000 computers that able to do as many calculations per second as the human brain.

That doesn't mean they'll be conscious. Consciousness/the brain is the most important existential trait, and is the most unknown to scientists. We simply cannot replicate consciousness in a computer, and I don't think we're close to it (because it might be impossible).

Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that we are able to figure out the software side of the human brain, we'd be able to increase our intelligence output by such a huge amount that an indefinite lifespan within the next 100 years doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched.

It does though, because I don't think you know what you're talking about. We have been greatly increasing intelligence since we were alive (hundreds of thousands of years). This is what archaeological (and now) informational history tells us. To early primates, "flying in the sky like birds" seemed as unrealistic as traveling through a black hole to an alternate universe. Yet we do it. It seemed just as unrealistic as taking a small wooden tablet, pressing it a certain way, and having it be displayed to someone across the length of the earth. Yet we have the iPad. Technology in 20 years I'm sure will baffle us all, but it won't provide immortality (infinity).

We're not currently capable of understanding a "ceiling", which is why it's more reasonable to think that we'll die before we discover it. I'm sure many men in the year 1900 felt the same way you did. They're dead.

 

[Konkorps]

I'm slowly aging reading this thread. So profound.

How much money does this thread make you guys with your sig links?

 

[cardine]

Singularity is a term very loosely known in the physical world. We have two practical examples of singularity: black holes and the big bang. Both are still theoretical (the non-fact theoretical) at this point.

By singularity I meant technological singularity, and by technological singularity I meant "the point in time in which an affordable computer has exceeded the intelligence of a human being" (which is how most people define singularity).

We have been "maximizing" the power of computing since we discovered computing. We haven't discovered a maximum yet, it just keeps increasing. If anything, this is a reason to not believe in singularity.

Technological singularity != reaching a "maximized" computer power.

That doesn't mean they'll be conscious. Consciousness/the brain is the most important existential trait, and is the most unknown to scientists. We simply cannot replicate consciousness in a computer, and I don't think we're close to it (because it might be impossible).

As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't disagree with you regarding this point. But I still think this is a moot point. Going back to the original discussion, as long as there is a $1000 computer that can effectively do the work of a full time researcher, who cares about consciousness?

We're not currently capable of understanding a "ceiling", which is why it's more reasonable to think that we'll die before we discover it. I'm sure many men in the year 1900 felt the same way you did. They're dead.

When did I ever use the word 'ceiling'. Those are your words, not mine. Because technological singularity has very little to do with a 'ceiling' of knowledge.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

By singularity I meant technological singularity, and by technological singularity I meant "the point in time in which an affordable computer has exceeded the intelligence of a human being" (which is how most people define singularity).

Right. We're not close to that. Moving on...

Technological singularity != reaching a "maximized" computer power.

And as my previous post mentioned, we are constantly "maximizing" the potential of computing power. This does not imply a singularity.

Going back to the original discussion, as long as there is a $1000 computer that can effectively do the work of a full time researcher, who cares about consciousness?

Any human being. Human "work" as you describe it is not sheer binary power. Intuition is involved, always. Take for example the Quants of Wall Street. Their mathematical formulae accurately gained them BILLIONS in personal profit, but they were the cause of the market crash in 2007 for millions. As a whole, the system could not adhere to only current mathematical principles. It crashed.

When did I ever use the word 'ceiling'. Those are your words, not mine. Because technological singularity has very little to do with a 'ceiling' of knowledge.

What is singularity?

 

[cardine]

Right. We're not close to that. Moving on...

We are not right now, but we will be 40-50 years from now. People far more qualified than either of us think it will happen in less time (although you may disagree, technological singularity isn't some crazy theory with no chance of happening).

Any human being. Human "work" as you describe it is not sheer binary power. Intuition is involved, always. Take for example the Quants of Wall Street. Their mathematical formulae accurately gained them BILLIONS in personal profit, but they were the cause of the market crash in 2007 for millions. As a whole, the system could not adhere to only current mathematical principles. It crashed.

And likewise human error led to the massive housing crash. It's not like humans did any better of a job predicting how the markets would react. I never said work was simply computing power, of course there is an intelligence/intuition aspect to it (I agreed with you regarding that). That doesn't mean that such intuition will not be replicated. As I said before, the ability for a technological singularity to occur is largely dependent on our ability to do such a thing.

What is singularity?

I already defined technological singularity for you (I'll rephrase it for you: When an affordable computer is able to mimic most intelligent human behavior). I am not talking about any other type of singularity.

 

[cArLo23]

protein for aging

There exists expanding facts that will whey health proteins invokes the activity involving osteoblasts, your cellular material throughout your bones which in turn have the effect of making brand-new navicular bone. It might participate in the important element throughout raising navicular bone occurrence along with increasing the standard of collagen inside conjunctive structure along with skin color. There exists perhaps a number of signal that will whey health proteins may possibly reduce as well as opposite your cross-linking involving collagen that provide growing older, along with results in lines throughout expire skin color.


________________________


oil spill claims

 

[productionhead]

Ya'll Niggas Is Gon' Be Ded

 

[GerardWon]

My great-grandmother died this morning at age 100. She lived through worlds of changes. Heck, the woman was two when the Titanic went down. She lived through World War I, and turned 18 the same year as the Great Depression. She used to tell stories about horses and buggies, yet drove until she was 95 (like a normal person, mind you), and mowed her lawn up until two weeks ago.

She left a lot to this world. What would you like to leave behind? Do you want to live forever, or die young and happy? Does the concept of death scare you, or will you stare it in the face and laugh? What about the aging process? Are you afraid of when you won't be able to do some of your everyday activities today?

Discuss.

Ok, so I'm really fucking old, lol. I gotta be at least one of the oldest WF members, quite frankly I believe I'm the oldest: and I know there's a female member on here thats like 46.

Leave behind: I have two kids. I'm a true INTJ the past happend I don't dwell there, I look ahead. I'm still learning, still discovering, still having awesome fucking sex.

Ok: Not scared to die. At all. Hey I started street racing when I was 17. I was so audacious no one expepted me to be alive at 21 -- me included. I'm stunned I was never killed. Then I went real racing in open wheel formula cars.

Aging process scares me -- I still fly down windy roads when I drive -- Its what I do, what I've always done. As luck would have it I still appear Very young (relatively speaking) . Still am in decent shape and I'm quite certain i can kick the op's ass. Still have vision corrected to 20/15 if not slightly better. Still have hand speed that is stupefying. I'm still good. But tick-tock motherfucker: that shit can't last forever. However I don't worry about it. i don't let that noise in me.

PS: sorry for your loss.