Scientist Claims Immortality Within Reach

Wouldn't it just be ironic as hell if the same year we achieve Unlimited human lifespans, Skynet becomes self-aware?
 
Yeah, I don't think there's much new here.

And he also doesn't address that protecting/replacing telomeres isn't the hard part, for it to actually matter you have to cure cancer too.

Even with no telomere degradation, every time a cell replicates that there is a tiny chance it will mutate and become corrupted, multiplied by bazillions of replications multiplied by time = total cancer.
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/
 
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.
 
Then people will have to try even harder to stay healthy to be able to do shit through the last leg of your life
 
Yup, and honestly it'd be better for society. As human knowledge keeps advancing, it takes longer and longer and longer for a person to master even a tiny specific fraction of it in their lifetime, to the point that for about 16 years at least most people are borderline retarded, and you don't really scratch the surface of understanding much until you're around 30. That's a huge percentage of someone's life expectancy that they aren't all that useful, and for the most part a burden on society. And then you have another long period of time on which the natural decay process of human aging again makes you a burden again.

So if you could eliminate aging and extend lifespans, with people dying of other causes and not slowly going "downhill" as they age, then average quality of life and total economic output would massively increase.

The real problem though would be that we already have exponential human population growth rates, most often from the least successful people on the planet... so you'd probably need to surgically drop some neutron bombs on select areas to cull the population to maybe around 5 billion and try to maintain that so we don't have to live like sardines and take too huge a toll on limited available resources on the planet.

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.
 
Two Things:

- His basic theory is correct about Telomeres and has been taught for a long time.
- His statement falls apart with this key sentence:

"believes that he can find a small molecule that will trigger the production of Telomerase in the body"

Meaning he hasn't found it. So no news is news?


If he did, what would happen is that a BigPharma company would purchase (or acquire) the patent for such a product. They would then put such a high price on it that only the upper echelon of rich people could afford it.


TLDR; This doesn't affect us common folk.

AceGoober's comment is why you're wrong.

People living longer means they can pay BigPharma longer.
 
Wouldn't it just be ironic as hell if the same year we achieve Unlimited human lifespans, Skynet becomes self-aware?

Depending on how "SkyNet" goes, the day it becomes selfaware might be the day we're given unlimited human lifespans.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

Too bad this will never happen. It really needs to
 
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

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.
 
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
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:
In addition, considering the zero net migration series shows that even without any net in-migration, the U.S. population is set to grow considerably over the coming century: by 103 million people, according to this projection. Meanwhile, comparison of the middle or “most likely” series with the zero net migration series demonstrates that immigration is ready to make an immense contribution to population growth, with the difference between the most likely series and zero immigration standing at 194 million people over the course of the 21st century.
PHC-2013-05-mexico-1.png

I think its a Catholic thing, where they just won't wear rubbers.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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:

PHC-2013-05-mexico-1.png

I think its a Catholic thing, where they just won't wear rubbers.

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).
 
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).
should be go not grow
 
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.
 
that would suck. I dont want work and pay bills for 150 years.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Who really wants to live 200 years unless they are rich? I mean if you are living fairly pay to pay it would stink. In every movie where someone is Immortal they have money but in reality I doubt it.
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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)
 
Yeah, I don't think there's much new here.

And he also doesn't address that protecting/replacing telomeres isn't the hard part, for it to actually matter you have to cure cancer too.

Even with no telomere degradation, every time a cell replicates that there is a tiny chance it will mutate and become corrupted, multiplied by bazillions of replications multiplied by time = total cancer.

And I'm not talking centuries here.

Within a normal lifespan your chances of getting cancer of some kind are pretty high, even if you you do the things proven to reduce cancer risk (don't smoke, eat healthy, exercise, avoid excess UV light and don't visit 4chan), you're still more likely to get it than not. Even if "Aging" is fixed, you'll still be lucky to live 50 -100 years beyond current normal lifespan, before you get some form of terminal cancer.

Beyond that there's a wide range of things that kill humans which are relatively unlikely to happen in a normal lifespan, but will tend towards certainty over a longer timeline.

If cancer doesn't kill you, you'll be hit by a drunk driver, or slip in the shower and bust open your head, be eaten by hyenas, get murdered because you banged your neighbors hot 98 year old wife, or get ebola or some some shit.

Basically immortality is statistically impossible.

Obviously a longer, healthier life would be cool and I'd totes be up for that, but I think people overestimate the societal impact it would have.

Just had to say that this post is tip-top. :cool: Made me laugh. (love the 4Chan and 98 year old neighbor comments. :D )
 
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).

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.
 
Back
Top