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

[–] 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.

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.

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.