Is there a hard limit on human lifespan?

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.

[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0)

I would love to know what a thousand year old person thinks about.

Obviously I can only guess, but based on my own experience of getting older, I tend to find myself living in the moment more. I would imagine anyone that can survive being in their own skin for 1000 years is probably going to be pretty zen. Probably not going to be very emotionally reactive. Not necessarily jaded, but cool in a "I've seen some shit, and this ain't shit" sort of way.

I have doubt the mind could cope with that amount of experience without some form of augmentation.

If someone is augmented, I assume memory recall, and extra processing power would be used. In this situation, its not a stretch to think people would all be connected. With enough processing power to sift through the "internet of minds," I think every person would trend toward the same personality. I mean, if 99.999% of your knowledge and experiences are the same as everyone else, genetic factors would be the only unique part of your personality. I think this scenario would mean the death of the ego. In a word: boring. Lots of assumptions in that conclusion though.

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.

Psychological trauma would probably accumulate, and impair function. I don't think there's a real neurological problem with information storage, or types of thinking though. Because such a person would just forget things as they learned new things, they'd probably forget just about everything about their original self after enough time. That might look something like amnesia, just very high-functioning. Insanity and suicide would probably be more common that not in either case.

Which leads to me to wonder about mortality statistics. Assuming there are no backups/copies of yourself to respawn into, I wonder if accidents, murder, or suicide would be the new leading cause of death in that world?

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

In this situation, its not a stretch to think people would all be connected

Unless the mind was able to hold all the information at a conscious level simultaneously, I'm not sure that would be a problem.
As an comparison, we all have access to the same vast internet, but it looks very different to each of us. We each choose our own combination of places to access while ignoring stuff we're not interested in.

Ask ten people what you can do on the internet, and you'll get ten different answers.
I we would have different custom interfaces, just as we have different desktops and OSs. I have a hard time imagining people giving up their individuality.
I don't think we will directly interconnect minds, and instead connect by proxy.

I don't think there's a real neurological problem with information storage

That's assuming that the memory can continue to overwrite itself in a sensible way. If it always overwrites the oldest, or least used memory, then the brain can stay functional. But if it starts writing in odd places, it might not kill, but you may need to wear a hockey helmet for the rest of your immortality.
Any other functions of intellect that can grow over time could face similar, but currently unseen, problems.
The human brain only evolved to last ~75 years, so I'd be surprised if memory was the only part to have issues.

I wonder if accidents, murder, or suicide would be the new leading cause of death in that world?

Good question. I can't even guess.

Is there a hard limit on human lifespan?

24 comments

/s/AskPhuks