Scientist Claims Immortality Within Reach

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Jul 4, 2015.

  1. motomonkey

    motomonkey [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,450
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Wouldn't it just be ironic as hell if the same year we achieve Unlimited human lifespans, Skynet becomes self-aware?
     
  2. caddys83

    caddys83 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,330
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Damn I wish I can have a 3 day weekend.
     
  3. Kueller

    Kueller [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,984
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    We're working on it...There's actually some impressive progress being made in learning how the naked mole rat's cancer resistance functions. Regular mice/rats live for 3-4 years, naked mole rats live for 30+ years and don't get cancer.
    High-molecular-mass hyaluronan mediates the cancer resistance of the naked mole rat

    https://www.rochester.edu/newscente...es-naked-mole-rats-more-power-to-stop-cancer/
     
  4. Kalabalana

    Kalabalana [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,295
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    I think a start would be preventing telomere clipping, but what I think will be the approach will be rebuilding, and not necessarily with host information.
     
  5. Tyler-Durden

    Tyler-Durden 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,302
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Too slow, Chas. My prized Katana is stained with your dried blood as your power now courses through my veins.
     
  6. sliverjazz

    sliverjazz Gawd

    Messages:
    747
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    What about a asteroid or giant sunburst?
     
  7. noorkhan92

    noorkhan92 n00b

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Then people will have to try even harder to stay healthy to be able to do shit through the last leg of your life
     
  8. noorkhan92

    noorkhan92 n00b

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    or if there is a last leg...? Wait.
     
  9. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,599
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Basically at some point we are going to be forced to do like China and tell some people, "no you absolutely cannot breed ".

    Reality is even without extended lifespans this is going to eventually happen.
     
  10. LMT MFA

    LMT MFA Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    237
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    AceGoober's comment is why you're wrong.

    People living longer means they can pay BigPharma longer.
     
  11. LMT MFA

    LMT MFA Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    237
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Depending on how "SkyNet" goes, the day it becomes selfaware might be the day we're given unlimited human lifespans.
     
  12. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Well, it should have already happened, but with a more simple solution to stop subsidizing breeding.

    Right now, a guy with fifteen kids pays way less taxes than a guy with one kid all else equal, even though the tax burden of the family with fifteen kids is tremendously higher than the guy with one kid.

    Simply require people to pay for the kids they have, and they'll stop having kids. You get one child per person tax free, so if a married couple files jointly then they get two kids tax free, which is population replacement value. If you want a third kid, GREAT, but you're going to get taxed for it and then some for the extra burden you are placing on society. If you already are unable to pay for the children you have already produced, and you have another kid, you're arrested and get a vasectomy or your tubes tied.

    Voila, and hopefully that also reverses the trend where the dumber and less successful you are, the more children you have compared to everyone else which is how things currently work. Most of our greatest minds and scientists and the like may only have a single child, whereas some tarded rednecks and wellfare baby mama ends up having fifteen kids.
     
  13. Trimlock

    Trimlock [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    15,157
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    There was a super shitty movie based on this recently, Jupiter something. Basically plant a world with humans, have them over populate, harvest their genes, walk into a pool and live forever.
     
  14. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    I'm not sure that it's a huge issue in the U.S. Population growth is the lowest it's been in 80 years. As I recall, without immigration, the population will decline starting around 2050. Of course it's unlikely we'll cease to have immigration, but population growth in the U.S. isn't expected to hit 400 million without immigration

    http://www.immigrationeis.org/eis-documents/us-demographic-projections-future
     
  15. chockomonkey

    chockomonkey [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,266
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Too bad this will never happen. It really needs to
     
  16. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,599
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    As we become a more global society people will realize you can't only take your countries population into account. Population is a global problem, not just a US problem. Fact is 7+ billion people with current global growth is a serious problem.
     
  17. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Indefinite population growth isn't sustainable. That link indicates that the US population increases by three million people every year, and that's three million more mouths to feed, three million more people producing trash, driving cars, pooping, and three million people that will need a place to live so we chop down more forests and natural habitat and build more homes and farmland and mining and so forth, or people have to squeeze together and each have less and less space and more and more congestion and consume less. In other words, the only way its really sustainable is if everyone's quality of life is reduced to where they consume half as much. Personally, I think its nicer if people can still have yards and good size homes and not spend two hours a day driving to and from work.

    At some point, we have to say how many people is enough people. IMO, there were more than enough people in the United States in the 1950s, and we have soooooo many more people now it will take decades and decades of population decline to get back to 1950s levels.

    Unfortunately, that article indicates there will be population increase even without immigration, but its basically hinting that mexican heritage people have too many kids:
    [​IMG]
    I think its a Catholic thing, where they just won't wear rubbers.
     
  18. ep0x73

    ep0x73 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Everything wears out including humans. This would not only impact the world population but destroy pension plans.
    As noted it would most likely be expensive and thus only for a select few.
     
  19. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    That's not a problem we're going to solve. For that matter, the idea of government mandating a limit on kids (or even getting rid of deductions and credits for families) won't fly....trying to apply that globally isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

    I agree that it's unsustainable. I'm not sure where the population will grow. It was fairly slow growth if immigration is 250k and it's contracts if there's 0 immigration.

    I could be wrong, but I believe that Italy has issues, because so few are having babies (some Catholics that love their condoms).
     
  20. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    should be go not grow
     
  21. xX_Jack_Carver_Xx

    xX_Jack_Carver_Xx 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,542
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Not to worry, the Duggar's are going to fuck us back into White Supremacy, you just wait and see. :rolleyes:
     
  22. Epic|

    Epic| Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    451
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Ha-ha awesome^
     
  23. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    18,526
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Double my lifespan? No, thanks. To quote the great Bender "Bending" B. Rodriguez III:

    "If I thought I had to go through a whole 'nother life, I'd kill myself right now."

    In today's socioeconomic and political climate, 70-80 years on this planet is more than enough, thanks.
     
  24. boomboy2k1

    boomboy2k1 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    403
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    All we have to do is to find that Lazarus pit.
     
  25. Phoenix333

    Phoenix333 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,510
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    If I hands I'd facepalm.
     
  26. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,078
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Whoops, guess not. They're too busy emigrating away from the US.
     
  27. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,445
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    19 kids and counting? And you know each of them is going to have 19 kids too, seven of them with a sibling. The old bible quote about the meek will inherit the Earth... back then meek was a synonym for retarded.
     
  28. maademperor

    maademperor [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,442
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    that would suck. I dont want work and pay bills for 150 years.
     
  29. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Yup. You'd really have to get to the point where you could live off your retirement indefinitely for this to be a great thing....though I suppose if you're married to the love of your life and it's a marriage that will last forever, then maybe living forever isn't a bad thing...just make sure you drive carefully and don't slip in the bathtub.
     
  30. sonicboom

    sonicboom Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    379
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    It's still possible provided you're not a moron with your finances. Most younger people underestimate the power of compounding interest. Imagine letting $20k run for 100 years at ~7-8% annual. Someone do that math and get back to me.
     
  31. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Maybe...maybe not. Let's assume you have nothing invested and you ad 17 bucks/month. After 100 years you'll have around 3 million. The question is what is 3 million worth in 100 years. My guess is that we'll have at least 2% inflation (which may be less than it actually is). and that will significantly reduce the value of your savings

    But there are plenty of people who work several jobs and still live paycheck to paycheck. Smart investing is good, but some don't have a way to do that. You play the cards you're dealt. Some of us just get a better hand.
     
  32. Pure-Platinum-190

    Pure-Platinum-190 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
  33. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,694
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    About 21 million at 7% nearly 60 million at 8%

    That said please explain where you're going to get 7-8% annual RoI? And something that is so stable an investment that it won't go ass up over that same time period.
     
  34. sonicboom

    sonicboom Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    379
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Look up average annual return over the last 60 or so years of the stock market, should be around 7-8%, and that's if you only bought the index. I know past trends do not predict future ones, but I'm willing to risk a paltry sum and let it roll into something worth more down the road.
     
  35. TeeJayHoward

    TeeJayHoward Limpness Supreme

    Messages:
    9,629
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Starting at 20, put $1000/month into a retirement account. Assume you retire at 65. Assume that the market's doing pretty shitty, so you're only making 4%. Your company doesn't do any matching. It's all on you. When you retire, you've got 1.5 million in the bank. What if you retired at 70 instead? 1.9 million. 75? 2.4 Million.

    Notice that it's getting bigger a heck of a lot quicker. Now what if you lived forever, but only worked from 20-100? You've got $7,000,000 in the bank. At 4% interest, that's $280K/year for the rest of your life, without ever donating another time. And this assumes that there's a very crappy market. Historically, the market has averaged closer to 8%, which means that you could retire at 65 with $5.3M in the bank. $212K/year, forever, without any effort. If you worked the full 80 years and retired at 100, you're looking at $7.1M/year. Could you live off seven million a year? I know I could.

    Unfortunately, extending the life of people would result in MASSIVE inflation as a result of compound interest. It really is the most powerful force in the universe.
     
  36. Quix

    Quix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    I don't know, I figure we COULD all end up living to be well over 100. Based on previous advances that have raised the average life expectancy. The question is, will we want to?
     
  37. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,460
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    7% is an average, not a constant (and arguably a very conservative number).

    A 100 bucks invested in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1928 would now be worth $289,995.13 (as of 12/31/2014). I believe that works out to more than 30% (taking total return dividing it by 86 years).

    My math may be off, but there's no doubt that 7% is very doable (assuming the markets don't permanently go to hell in a bucket)
     
  38. J3RK

    J3RK [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,191
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Just had to say that this post is tip-top. :cool: Made me laugh. (love the 4Chan and 98 year old neighbor comments. :D )
     
  39. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,413
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    But that's not how it works. You can't just divide by the number of years.

    yes, I know this is how they estimate APR for monthly payments, but it is an estimate, not an accurate figure, and the longer you spread it out over (like for instance 86 years) the more wildly inaccurate it gets.

    The equation you want to solve is as follows:

    100*(1+X%)^86=289,995.13

    When you do this, your value for X is ~9.71%

    Now, this is higher than the 8% estimate, but I don't think it is a representative of current or future conditions, as you have a period of unparalleled growth for the U.S. in there (the postwar period).

    The reason so many state retirement funds got into trouble was because they assumed steady 8% year over year ROI.

    The risk free rate (yield on the 10 year T-note) is currently about 2.12% (it dropped a lot today, Greece?)

    Now, no one invests at the risk free rate unless they are already retired or getting very close.

    I don't think I'd go above 2.5x the risk free rate for assumed year over year ROI with the new realities we face today.

    So, lets say 5.25% That's where my bet would be.