More
5

By the time children today are old enough to die from natural causes, we'll have a cure for that.

At some point I think we will 'cure' cellular senescence. Then humans can stay physically in their prime, indefinitely. But there are other limits, like memory. Because memories require physical space, there is only room for a limited amount.
I think we can get past that either naturally, by overwriting old memories, or artificially, by augmenting memory with technology. Research is already looking at brain augmentation with electronics.

So what will be the ultimate limit? Or will humans achieve immortality?
By the time children today are old enough to die from natural causes, we'll have a cure for that. At some point I think we will 'cure' cellular senescence. Then humans can stay physically in their prime, indefinitely. But there are other limits, like memory. Because memories require physical space, there is only room for a limited amount. I think we can get past that either naturally, by overwriting old memories, or artificially, by augmenting memory with technology. Research is already looking at brain augmentation with electronics. So what will be the ultimate limit? Or will humans achieve immortality?

24 comments

[–] Owlchemy 3 points (+3|-0)

I hate to sound like a fatalist ... but my question would be 'why would anyone want to live forever?' It just seems to me that there would come a time when you've done everything you wanted to do, seen everything you wanted to see, and would be faced with an endless, boring existence.

This also adds an element of selfishness. Why shouldn't new people be born to replace me and have the experience of life? Clearly you couldn't still reproduce and have this world as you outline it. It's seems more problematical to me than it would be of value. Maybe that's me though.
[–] Hitchens 2 points (+2|-0)

I’d only want to stay alive if my body and skin stayed 25 years old forever. What’s the point of living forever if you look and feel like the crypt keeper for eternity.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

If they found a way to stop cellular senescence, you would.
Probably more like 28-30, whenever you physically peaked.
[–] OeeThaGreat 1 points (+1|-0)

Suicide booths would become a thing if people could live forever.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

It's seems more problematical to me than it would be of value.

I would generally agree, but it's gonna happen anyway.
There will be very severe consequences, and I can't even guess how it will end.

Clearly you couldn't still reproduce and have this world as you outline it.

Maybe if we colonize other planets, or start more wars.
It would be somewhat mitigated naturally, since anyone with access to that level of prosperity is likely have low birth rates, anyway.
I would suspect birthrates may fall even more since some motivation toward having children is to pass on genes. It's another way to live forever.

Like it or not, humanity will always seek to prolong life. If I think about living forever, I agree that it doesn't sound like fun.
But if you will never die of natural causes, do you think you would wake up one day and feel you've had enough, then suicide? Or Maybe just opt-out of medical treatment at some point?
You could end up accidentally becoming immortal if you don't plan a premature death. :)
[–] Owlchemy 1 points (+1|-0)

I'm fairly certain that science will get us to a point where we no longer have to die. Even where we can remain young artificially and live a decent life as we age. But this has always been the stuff of sci-fi where it ends up being a curse rather than a blessing. I doubt that we'll conquer other worlds to inhabit before the medical breakthroughs for this are achieved, though ... so that means that all of society would need to change drastically. Then who decides who lives and who can never be born ... that's where it gets scary to me.

The rich and connected ... hell no.

Or will the cosmo or Mother Earth decide they've had enough of us? We live in a very fragile world where any day the sun could belch and destroy life as we know it ... an asteroid could bump the moon out of orbit destroying us in the process ... or a super nova from light years away could bombard us with radiation that would burn the Earth to a crisp. Then there could be new organisms that evolve that would wipe out humanity long before science could combat them.

I like things the way they are ... death is simply the big unknown ... you either enter the next amazing adventure, or all is dark for eternity.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I doubt that we'll conquer other worlds to inhabit before the medical breakthroughs for this are achieved

I think you're right there. Other worlds could actually make that viable, but we'll get the abilities in the wrong order.

Then who decides who lives and who can never be born ... that's where it gets scary to me.

And it should. I don't know what will happen, but I think it will get messy at points.
Ironically a lot of people are going to die over some next-level health care debates. That alone may reduce the population enough.

any day the sun could belch and destroy life as we know it

All we can do is continue to hope.

I like things the way they are ... death is simply the big unknown ... you either enter the next amazing adventure, or all is dark for eternity.

Well good news then. You and I will be dead from some of the last 'natural' causes, before the shit hits the fan.
Sometimes it pays to be an oldphuk.
[–] Sarcastaway 2 points (+2|-0)

Yes, at least for a natural life. Who knows what is possible with gene therapy.

All cells in the human body are programmed to die. When cells fail to self-terminate (called apoptosis) the result is that the DNA of the cell gets fragmented, which causes all sorts of nasty things to happen, like tumor growth.

Of course, our cells reproduce. There's a bit of a debate on if nerve cells can do this or not. If not, the human lifespan is limited by the functional life of its neurons. If they can, the lifespan is just a factor of the rate at which neurons can be created to replace dying ones.

All of the above is considered in a vacuum though. In reality there are numerous natural (and artificial) toxins in our environment. These toxins cause damage to the DNA in our cells before they undergo cell death, which means that the damaged DNA is sometimes passed on the the new cells, and so on down the line. Because there's no test environment free of these toxins, we will never get a number for true maximum lifespan of a human.

You can read more about this if you do a search for "free-radical theory of aging." Its super interesting.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Yes, at least for a natural life.

We're long past 'natural' lifespans. I am specifically talking about artificially extended lives and the coming technology.

All cells in the human body are programmed to die ..

"At some point I think we will 'cure' cellular senescence."

In reality there are numerous ..

Everything you listed is at least partially treatable already. I am optimistic about future medicine.

Free-radical theory takes a focused look at one aspect of aging. I was taken with the idea when it was first popularized. It is interesting.
But it doesn't really apply here. The damage can be repaired, in theory. I don't think future-tec will consider free-radical damage to be an obstacle.
[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0)

We're long past 'natural' lifespans.

I'll give you that, but I think gene modification is crossing into a different realm. Can you really be called human if you have different DNA? Or perhaps its a process of rewriting the code from your original "good DNA" over your current damaged DNA with a series of tailored retroviruses? Not sure that possible, since one persons blood/fluids would probably do some serious harm to anyone else.

Regardless, if we can give cells indefinite lifespans, we can give people indefinite lifespans. No question about it. Humans are machines. If you replace the parts that fail, the machine keeps working. This raises the same questions found in Theseus's paradox. If you keep replacing parts until there's no original parts left, is it still the same machine? Or have you just made a new machine?

Physically, yes, the human body can be sustained indefinitely. But the immortality of the human mind is a question for philosophers.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

I think gene modification is crossing into a different realm. Can you really be called human if you have different DNA?

The lines get so blurred that it's difficult to use some terms. The difference between treating a simple injury or sickness and doing a head transplant is only a difference of degree. At some point there is a line that gets crossed, but I'm not sure there's an objective way to locate that line.
I'm also not sure it really matters.
Nature has been removed from the equation, and morality is subjective and malleable.

But the immortality of the human mind is a question for philosophers.

For today, I appoint us as official Philosophers then.
I would love to know what a thousand year old person thinks about. I have doubt the mind could cope with that amount of experience without some form of augmentation. More than just running out of room for new memories, I think other aspects of 'thinking' would grow beyond the infrastructures ability to work with it.

So I guess I think that if we stay 100% organic, our brains will begin to malfunction and turn to mush. So no immortality, except as a retard or vegetable.
But Cyber-human 2.0 could be the next dominant lifeform on the planet, and it could potentially live forever.
[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

At some point I think we will 'cure' cellular senescence.

I don't think we will.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I should qualify that. Why do you think we will 'cure' cellular senescence?
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

Well, we have to die, don't we? We make room for the next generation when we die or else we end up living "a la soylent green". What a mess that would be. Of course, I'm all for the cyborg idea that Scalzi develops in the incredible sci-fi novel "Old Man's War". Or even something like Haldeman's "Forever War" where people travel time-space during obligatory military duty. Immortality? Maybe. I'd rather die and be allowed to come back again to a better existence.

[–] Justintoxicated 0 points (+0|-0)

At some point I think we will 'cure' cellular senescence.

I can just imagine the horrible cancers that would cause, cells that don't die indefinitely producing damaged RNA where essentially only an intense targeted therapy could have an effect.

Or even something as simple as human skin, just if your skin cells didn't die and just kept building up, that would not only fuck up your pores but imagine just having every scar from every little burn or cut you've had in you entire life still visible on your skin.

There could be some pretty horrific Island of Dr. Moreau going on.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

cells that don't die

Why wouldn't they die?
By 'cure for cellular senescence' I am referring to the cells rate of division slowing to a stop, not the cells individual lifespan.

There could be some pretty horrific Island of Dr. Moreau going on.

In an age of designer genetics and advanced medicine? I doubt that.

[–] Justintoxicated 0 points (+0|-0)

Why wouldn't they die? By 'cure for cellular senescence' I am referring to the cells rate of division slowing to a stop, not the cells individual lifespan

Cellular senescence includes the arresting of a cell's life cycle without undergoing cell death, essentially cells would not deteriorate and not die unless (depending on how the scenario is set up) acted upon by an outside force.

In an age of designer genetics and advanced medicine? I doubt that.

I can partially agree that if medicine is advanced enough at the time and well tested they would undercover most of the short term issues during clinical trials.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

Cellular senescence includes the arresting of a cell's life cycle without undergoing cell death, essentially cells would not deteriorate and not die unless (depending on how the scenario is set up) acted upon by an outside force.

A 'Cure for cellular senescence' would remove that danger also.
The idea is to prevent senescent cells. Keep the regular cells that divide and die.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae