Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 22348. (Read 26610084 times)

I think you missed the point NotLambChop.

In any case, believing technology which could benefit the privileged few will not be developed to preserve the well being of the many is silly. No individual will choose not to have life extension technology, instead they will actively pursue it.

As I said before this is the drop before the huge rise

This is the calm before the storm, gentlemen.

*Slightly* off topic, but this is the global trend here on this wall, so please allow me to express myself:

1. Aging is nothing but degradation of our DNA information via replication of our cells. We happen to age every single second, mind you. When the DNA chain reaches the end, due to the disability of our mechanism to reproduce its cells without errors, we have the telomerase that is nothing more than Poly-A chains to eliminate the duplication errors. During our lifespan, those chains are getting shorter and shorter while the duplication reproduces more "errors" due to lack of them.

TL;DR: More Telomerase = More life.

2. What is life? What is the difference from your life and mine for example? The answer is simple. It's our memories. Memories are stored into our brains via biologic synapses which (in essence) are not very good way to store information. But this is what we got. I presume it won't be hard for next gen (quantum? ) computers to be able to "store" the memories of a person inside their "hard drive". The tech is already here - we now know what our brainwaves look like when we ie: move our hands, that's how scientists are able to produce bionic legs and hands and the person who "wears" them is able to control them via their brains.

3. Evolution NEEDS immortality (or if you prefer infinite lifespan). It's the way that we humans can evolve to better beings and develop our "next" versions. This is feasible right now (in theory) via several ways. I'd say we're in infancy regarding the tech we need to "make it happen" but "we know it's there".

Question is: Will we be here to see it happen? Or some redneck will "press the button" and "restart" the engine? It would be so pity.

Anyone not expecting life extension technology to become available in the future is being rather shortsighted.

Ask any old man, say Warren Buffet, if they could trade all their wealth for their youth they would in a heartbeat.

More interesting to me is simulating the human brain. Lots of great Scifi written on that.

You missed the point.  Of course a surgeon's scalpel is unwelcome to a boil, and penicillin is unwanted by the syphilis spirochete.
The doctor must weigh the feelings of boil/spirochete against the general wellbeing of his patient.  It's a choice.

http://s24.postimg.org/6etcnt1mt/1412545914187.png

Coin
Explanation

You just indicated yourself that even without eternal life, overpopulation is/ is going to be an issue.Maybe if we know we are going to stay around forever, we'll actually have a strong incentive to figure out a solution for overpopulation.

I stopped thinking in such grand terms ["I got nothing."].  A system attempting to describe/define itself intrinsically is bound to run up against something like Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Oh the irony..

oh yeah ... good call on error there ... fixed it ... thanks ...

do you have any thoughts on the nature of order and disorder in the universe , whether the singularity at the presumed start of the universe was chaotic in nature or ordered in nature , the nature of or existence of time as compared to entropy as the basis for accurately describing the universe , or what if any influence these ideas would have in regards to overcoming death / greatly extending life , or any insight to offer in regards to the biomechanics required to accomplish such a feat ?

also ... yeah ... if we all lived 1000 years , we'd want a lot less people running around , for sure ... and i can assure you , if i were near immortal and ran a nuclear country , you can bet your ass i'd be starting ww3 or 4 or 5 or whatever ... living in a bunker for a couple decades is a small price to pay to get rid of those other 10 billion normals ...

Fact is, there is probably no stopping it.

Besides, having driven across several continents, I can confirm there is more than enough room and empty space.  We just need to be more civilised and become better at using resources.

http://egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/42-16991558.jpeg

Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging: https://youtu.be/8iYpxRXlboQ

WATCH IT!!

7 billion mofos on the planet and "eternal life desirable for society?".
U w0t m8?




I think it might even be possible eventually, but definitely not desirable IMHO. Fuck no.


By the way, some species ARE immortal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMOkXkw5TKc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

Evolution can do it to a certain extent.


I'd argue we can do it futurama style, have our head detached from our lump of meat and organs and placed in an artificial body of a robot.

We're obviously very far off and I don't think I'd want to be the trial run

Always in bad taste to linger too long & overstay one's welcome.  Besides, your grandkids have already bought you a nice plot.

Sorry for the off-topic everybody, but it's not like the bitcoin price is doing anything interesting   .

1) You provide no arguments that eternal youthfulness is not feasible, you only state that it is indesirable for a species.  Personally, I think it is very desirable for an individual, and probably for society as well.

2) Aging is not a 'planned removal of individuals'.  Please describe how the gradual loss of strength, memory functions, etc..  is evolutionary positive.  How does the presence of elderly people that need help for everything benefit society?  Wouldn't evolution program death in a way that individuals suddenly drop dead after a certain time?
Your reasonings sound like rationalisations to calm the mind to me ("I shouldn't worry, everything is as it should be, everything has a reason")

Sure, there are some genes that can be deleted for a longer life in certain species, but these are generally trade-offs versus other properties (for example lower activity and metabolism).

I do believe that the evolutionary need for a long-living individual wasn't very high (partially because most individuals died much sooner), so our metabolic programming isn't perfected to keep cells functioning forever, resulting in wear and tear.

Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms circularity.

Coin
Explanation