U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,705 posts, read 2,210,039 times
Reputation: 830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhanu86 View Post
Watch that movie IRobot with Robin Williams, it's a story of an immortal household robot that chooses to become human so he can live a full life, even if it means becoming mortal, great movie....
You're thinking of Bicentennial Man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2011, 11:16 AM
 
4,502 posts, read 6,892,237 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophane View Post
Are there any drawbacks to extreme longevity (apart from the obvious)?
By the obvious, I'm guessing you mean over-population. If extreme longevity were made available to anyone interested, population control would have to be part of it. If not, then we'd have to be absolutely certain that migration elsewhere in the solar system, etc., can in fact be a viable solution.

There would still likely be problems with regard to extreme longevity though. Let's say it would be possible to extend life expectancy to 500 years, 1000, 10,000, or whatever. Early death would still be a very real possibility due to unforeseen accidents, diseases, etc.

While thinking in terms of extreme longevity, let's say somehow it could be possible to completely eliminate death from old age altogether, and you could potentially live longer than trillions upon trillions of years, essentially immortality. You still couldn't live forever considering that the universe itself will eventually come to a complete end and cease to exist. If there are other habitable universes besides the one we live in, we'd have to find a way to be able to get to them. If there are no other universes, just an infinite static vaccum, then it's game over and you're dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,718 posts, read 18,227,641 times
Reputation: 3833
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
Boredom. for some it may take 100 years for others 1000 years but sooner or later the passion for life is going to become just the same old been there done that type of experience.The main ingredient in lifes vitality is newness of experience and transience of life itself..
Living forever? theres only so much a human can do before it becomes boringly repetitive as in Ho Hum just another trip around the world or just another day of glorious scenery,or just another day of exciting adventures etc,etc, etc, it will all become boring sooner or later..
If we were stuck on the planet or galaxy for our entire lives I would agree with you but we won't be and there is so much to explore and lean in the universe so I don't see how we could get board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,718 posts, read 18,227,641 times
Reputation: 3833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
By the obvious, I'm guessing you mean over-population. If extreme longevity were made available to anyone interested, population control would have to be part of it. If not, then we'd have to be absolutely certain that migration elsewhere in the solar system, etc., can in fact be a viable solution.

There would still likely be problems with regard to extreme longevity though. Let's say it would be possible to extend life expectancy to 500 years, 1000, 10,000, or whatever. Early death would still be a very real possibility due to unforeseen accidents, diseases, etc.

While thinking in terms of extreme longevity, let's say somehow it could be possible to completely eliminate death from old age altogether, and you could potentially live longer than trillions upon trillions of years, essentially immortality. You still couldn't live forever considering that the universe itself will eventually come to a complete end and cease to exist. If there are other habitable universes besides the one we live in, we'd have to find a way to be able to get to them. If there are no other universes, just an infinite static vaccum, then it's game over and you're dead.
Over population will not be a issue because technology will solve any issues we could have. Just look at Courescant on Star Wars as it shows with the right technology earth can easily hold trillions and trillions of people. That being said I suspect we will leave our planet and galaxy, I know I will, and it will be impossible for us to "overpopulate the universe". You bring up a interesting point about sudden death and the universe coming to a end. The answer to sudden death is backing ourselves up like we do a computer so if we die they will activate the back up and it will it seem like we went to sleep and woke up. As far as the end of the universe. If we manage to live that long the kind of technology we will have will enable us to do things that we cant even imagine now. So that is something I am not even worried about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 05:01 PM
 
4,502 posts, read 6,892,237 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Over population will not be a issue because technology will solve any issues we could have. Just look at Courescant on Star Wars as it shows with the right technology earth can easily hold trillions and trillions of people.
I hate to disagree, but Star Wars is a fictional movie. We don't have Star Wars technology. Keep in mind that I was speaking in terms of extreme longevity. After all, the title you provided for this thread is "I want to live forever".

Sure, the earth can hold a lot more people than there are now. Current world population is around 6.74 billion. In 1927 there were about 2 billion people worldwide. That was only 84 years ago. 3 billion in 1960, which was 51 years ago.

I'd guess perhaps up to around 20 billion could get by, but trillions and trillions of people? Not on this planet. Do you have any idea what a trillion is? Where would they all live? There has to be enough land space for food? Where would you grow enough to feed trillions and trillions of people? Holographic meatloaf won't help. There are all kinds of problems that can and do affect food supply. Drought and floods are just a couple that can and do cause problems for food production.

I stand with what I previously said. If extreme longevity were available to anyone who wanted it, then it would be essential that population control would have to be globally accepted and practiced, or we'd have to be absolutely certain we can immigrate elsewhere off the planet. The global population isn't getting any smaller, so that's not working out so well. As for living on other planets, the most likely would be Mars, but I suspect it will be a scientific outpost for a very small number of people for a long time, much like Antarctica. Getting to any other potentially habitable planets in other star systems in the galaxy (disregarding how long it would take just to get there), isn't something that will happen any time in the near future. We don't yet know if there are any planets of any 'nearby' stars (within a range of 1000 light years away) that are Earth-like and habitable for humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,718 posts, read 18,227,641 times
Reputation: 3833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
I hate to disagree, but Star Wars is a fictional movie. We don't have Star Wars technology. Keep in mind that I was speaking in terms of extreme longevity. After all, the title you provided for this thread is "I want to live forever".

Sure, the earth can hold a lot more people than there are now. Current world population is around 6.74 billion. In 1927 there were about 2 billion people worldwide. That was only 84 years ago. 3 billion in 1960, which was 51 years ago.

I'd guess perhaps up to around 20 billion could get by, but trillions and trillions of people? Not on this planet. Do you have any idea what a trillion is? Where would they all live? There has to be enough land space for food? Where would you grow enough to feed trillions and trillions of people? Holographic meatloaf won't help. There are all kinds of problems that can and do affect food supply. Drought and floods are just a couple that can and do cause problems for food production.

I stand with what I previously said. If extreme longevity were available to anyone who wanted it, then it would be essential that population control would have to be globally accepted and practiced, or we'd have to be absolutely certain we can immigrate elsewhere off the planet. The global population isn't getting any smaller, so that's not working out so well. As for living on other planets, the most likely would be Mars, but I suspect it will be a scientific outpost for a very small number of people for a long time, much like Antarctica. Getting to any other potentially habitable planets in other star systems in the galaxy (disregarding how long it would take just to get there), isn't something that will happen any time in the near future. We don't yet know if there are any planets of any 'nearby' stars (within a range of 1000 light years away) that are Earth-like and habitable for humans.
You keep thinking linearly but information technology grows exponentially. I know I keep saying that but it makes a big difference as technology will improve as such a rate we will have things in 2050 that right now we can't even imagine and the impact the new technology will have on society will be profound. I know the city I was referring about from Star Wars was from a movie but science fiction today tends to become science fact tomorrow. Going with my theory that we will live forever and I think its unethical to have forced population control society will have to come up with a solution for the billions and billions maybe even trillions of more people who will be living. There will be more cites that are super large and dense. Take the largest above 100,000 people now in the united States as they will most likely be over 10 million people. Where I live in Colorado's Front Range urban Corridor I could see 50 million plus people living in the 150 mile region between Pueblo and Fort Collins. We will have to find a way to feed and get enough water to everyone and right now the technology does not exist but in 50 to 100 years with the exponential growth it will. Then terraforming other planets while impossible with current technology will be easy in 100 to 200 years. So easy that I could see humans terraforming not only Mars but our Moon, Venus, many of the moons around the other planets and Pluto. We could even use our moon as a way to sustain the humans on Earth if its population would get so large we could no longer have farms here. Kind of a Earth base, just a very large one. Yes this seems like science fiction right out of star trek but in 100 years I would bet it wont and I plan on being alive to see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 11:44 PM
 
4,502 posts, read 6,892,237 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
You keep thinking linearly but information technology grows exponentially. I know I keep saying that but it makes a big difference as technology will improve as such a rate we will have things in 2050 that right now we can't even imagine and the impact the new technology will have on society will be profound. I know the city I was referring about from Star Wars was from a movie but science fiction today tends to become science fact tomorrow.
Are you serious? So then you're saying the growth rate in global population over the years is not considered exponential? It's more than doubled in the last 51 years, from 3 billion in 1960 to almost 7 billion at the present time. You said with the right technology the Earth could hold trillions and trillions of people. Perhaps, if the technology shrinks people to the size of ants.

I have no doubt the future in 2050 will have some very impressive things in store which will indeed have an impact on society. The thing is that it's hard to pin a date, such as a year, because what we might envision now, could be very different later, especially when it comes to technological advances.

Case in point, in the middle of the last century (actually even before then), futurists at that time envisioned by the 1990's we'd have gleaming, streamlined cities, people would travel around in flying cars, we'd have colonies on the Moon, and a gigantic wheel-like torus space station (ala 2001: A Space Odyssey) orbiting the planet. These things are feasible, but that's not how how things turned out.



Quote:
Going with my theory that we will live forever and I think its unethical to have forced population control society will have to come up with a solution for the billions and billions maybe even trillions of more people who will be living.
You're not reading what I wrote. I said population control would have to be globally accepted and practiced. I said nothing about forced population control, if by that you mean some kind of governmental regulation. In other words, people will have to have their own understanding about limiting the size of their families. Certainly some people may choose not to have kids at all. The point is that everyone has to eat, everyone needs water, everyone needs shelter of some kind. There's a limit as to how many people the planet can actually support. It certainly can't support trillions of people. We're currently at almost 7 billion people. That number is a miniscule fraction of what a trillion is.


Quote:
There will be more cites that are super large and dense. Take the largest above 100,000 people now in the united States as they will most likely be over 10 million people. Where I live in Colorado's Front Range urban Corridor I could see 50 million plus people living in the 150 mile region between Pueblo and Fort Collins. We will have to find a way to feed and get enough water to everyone and right now the technology does not exist but in 50 to 100 years with the exponential growth it will.
You're exactly right, we will indeed have to find a way to provide food, water and shelter for everyone. There is no guarantee that technology alone will solve it in 50 or 100 years. If it fails, then what?

Just curious, but have you ever been anywhere else in the world, such as Asia?



Quote:
Then terraforming other planets while impossible with current technology will be easy in 100 to 200 years. So easy that I could see humans terraforming not only Mars but our Moon, Venus, many of the moons around the other planets and Pluto. We could even use our moon as a way to sustain the humans on Earth if its population would get so large we could no longer have farms here. Kind of a Earth base, just a very large one. Yes this seems like science fiction right out of star trek but in 100 years I would bet it wont and I plan on being alive to see it.
Terraforming other planets sounds pretty cool, and it might be possible, but you're saying it will be easy to do in 100 to 200 years from now? I don't think you have any real idea what terraforming involves. It's not just shaping the surface. You'd need to have an atmosphere. You'd need to have a stable planet-wide magnetic field to help hold the atmosphere in place. Good luck with trying to terraform Venus or Pluto. Gravity is another thing to consider. Mars is a possibility, but I'd guess living there as an alternative for a growing population migrating from Earth would probably be in large contained structures underground. Frankly, it'd be easier to construct large space habitats than it would to terraform a planet.

Look, it's nice to dream about things, and that can lead to potential solutions. However, we still have to deal with things in the here and now. We still have to work on developing solutions for the future, even if we don't see the results of it now. I see no reason to simply say 100 or 200 years from now people will be ble to solve various problems. I would think that's the case, but like anyone, whatever people in the future will do will be based on what we do now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,673 posts, read 63,680,271 times
Reputation: 35342
Not me. I watched both my parents live to their mid 90s. They were both in decent health and lived at home and died in their sleep, but old age is still an indignity that Id prefer not to endure.

The only good thing is that the older you get, the quicker time goes by. I moved here four years ago, and it seems like just yesterday. But I've been here longer than I was in High School!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,718 posts, read 18,227,641 times
Reputation: 3833
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Are you serious? So then you're saying the growth rate in global population over the years is not considered exponential? It's more than doubled in the last 51 years, from 3 billion in 1960 to almost 7 billion at the present time. You said with the right technology the Earth could hold trillions and trillions of people. Perhaps, if the technology shrinks people to the size of ants.
Once societies get to a certain level of development people tend to have less kids. It happened in the U.S. and Europe so there is no reason to think it won't happen in the rest of the world once they become advanced. Especially if we can live for a long time as there would be no rush to start a family until you are much older.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
I have no doubt the future in 2050 will have some very impressive things in store which will indeed have an impact on society. The thing is that it's hard to pin a date, such as a year, because what we might envision now, could be very different later, especially when it comes to technological advances.

Case in point, in the middle of the last century (actually even before then), futurists at that time envisioned by the 1990's we'd have gleaming, streamlined cities, people would travel around in flying cars, we'd have colonies on the Moon, and a gigantic wheel-like torus space station (ala 2001: A Space Odyssey) orbiting the planet. These things are feasible, but that's not how how things turned out.
For most things you are right, information technology is not one of those things, just look at More's law. The gaming industry uses that to figure out when to develop games so the computers will be capable of playing them. That is all Ray did, build a model that goes out 20 to 30 years to figure out what computing technology will be like he does not make random predictions of what the future will be like which is what most people do. To be honest I don't listen to them and movies while cool are not something I would listen to when it comes to specific date. For example in Star Trek they break the light barrier in 2063 but that was just a random date a writer picked and will have no significance in the real world. Same with Space Odyssey.




Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
You're not reading what I wrote. I said population control would have to be globally accepted and practiced. I said nothing about forced population control, if by that you mean some kind of governmental regulation. In other words, people will have to have their own understanding about limiting the size of their families. Certainly some people may choose not to have kids at all. The point is that everyone has to eat, everyone needs water, everyone needs shelter of some kind. There's a limit as to how many people the planet can actually support. It certainly can't support trillions of people. We're currently at almost 7 billion people. That number is a miniscule fraction of what a trillion is.
How do you know the Earth can't support trillions of people especially if we use the moon to grow food?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
You're exactly right, we will indeed have to find a way to provide food, water and shelter for everyone. There is no guarantee that technology alone will solve it in 50 or 100 years. If it fails, then what?
I have more faith in technology then you do. In my opinion science can answer any question and solve any problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Just curious, but have you ever been anywhere else in the world, such as Asia?
I have been to every continent on earth except the Antarctic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Terraforming other planets sounds pretty cool, and it might be possible, but you're saying it will be easy to do in 100 to 200 years from now? I don't think you have any real idea what terraforming involves. It's not just shaping the surface. You'd need to have an atmosphere. You'd need to have a stable planet-wide magnetic field to help hold the atmosphere in place. Good luck with trying to terraform Venus or Pluto. Gravity is another thing to consider. Mars is a possibility, but I'd guess living there as an alternative for a growing population migrating from Earth would probably be in large contained structures underground. Frankly, it'd be easier to construct large space habitats than it would to terraform a planet.
If technology increased linearly then you would be right it would take hundreds or thousands of years for us to have the kind of technology to terraform Mars or the Moon. However, since information technology grows at a exponential rate it will be much shorter. Honestly I am not able to make a good prediction of when we will develop such things as atmospheric condensers but I would not be surprised if we had a better idea of how it could be done this century and actually done next century. This is just me guessing but with exponential growth of technology things will start moving really fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Look, it's nice to dream about things, and that can lead to potential solutions. However, we still have to deal with things in the here and now. We still have to work on developing solutions for the future, even if we don't see the results of it now. I see no reason to simply say 100 or 200 years from now people will be ble to solve various problems. I would think that's the case, but like anyone, whatever people in the future will do will be based on what we do now.
I agree the key is what we will do in the next 20 to 40 years out. That is nano technology and re-engineering genetics and virtual reality to solve current problems allowing us to live longer. Then we can work on the problems living longer will create.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 10:19 AM
 
29,349 posts, read 32,492,555 times
Reputation: 23749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
If we were stuck on the planet or galaxy for our entire lives I would agree with you but we won't be and there is so much to explore and lean in the universe so I don't see how we could get board.
After 1000 years or so it would be just another planet/star system/galaxy/another species of intelligent beings.
Sure sounds like fun and interesting in the short term but the human condition doesnt lend itself to doing the same thing over and over again for eternity, sounds like a form of living hell to me..
Also this living forever could have some unwanted side effects like what happens if you get stuck in a situation thats not so great like inadvertently getting buried alive or your trans galactic space ship breaks down in the middle of nowhere.,then that eternity wont be so great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top