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.
"So we've got a long way to go before we would need to actively restrict childbirth . . "
How much do you know about forced abortions in China and India (already been happening for quite some time now)? And I don't suppose you know about the Georgia Guidestones "commandments" calling for the (world government) maintenance of a WORLD population of 500 million (currently 7 BILLION - 14 times the set limit), and "guiding reproduction wisely." . . . .
2) When the time comes to die, unless they have had a particularly rough life, they are almost never ready to go. They still long for a continuation.
Do you think any of that would change if you lived to be 1500 years old?
No. At least not most people and I do not think I will want to die. There is so much to see and explore that it will take me a lot longer then 1,500 years.
Last edited by Josseppie; 05-24-2014 at 12:08 AM..
"BTW there will be more [than] enough land for everyone . . " ?
You DO have a LOT of faith! Getting individual explorers to Mars is proving to be quite a challenge. But I will grant you, a space colony on Mars is not entirely inconceivable. Venus, on the other hand, with surface temps over 800 deg and extreme atmospheric pressures (and sulfuric acid rain) IS inconceivable, and so are planets on either side of those two neighbors.
So it becomes a race against the Earth-annihilation clock - can we develop the technology and get to Mars and establish an AUTONOMOUS colony before that much anticipated "Extinction-level event" takes place here on Earth? And how safe would that colony be on Mars? To begin with, it is guaranteed to be far more fragile than civilization on Earth, and there is MUCH MORE bombardment activity there (it is far closer to the Asteroid Belt, you know)!
So your easy answer (or Michio Kaku's, as the case may be) seems quite tenuous at best.
Its impossible with today's technology but with how information technology advances exponentially it should be possible by 2100 or 2200.
Its impossible with today's technology but with how information technology advances exponentially it should be possible by 2100 or 2200.
Gee . . . thanks for reminding me about yet another "end times" prophecy that I forgot to put on a growing list I am compiling. An angel talking to Daniel told him:
"But Daniel, keep this prophecy a secret; seal it up so that it will not be understood until the end times, when travel and education shall be vastly increased!” (Daniel 12:4 - NLT)
So - it would appear that two of the signs of "the END" will be people "running to and fro" (frantic traffic from place to place with airplanes and automobiles, et al?), and a notable increase in knowledge - enough so that at least two translations (both notably predating computers) say "knowledge will MULTIPLY," which I think can arguably be pinned on computer technology, since prior to the advent of that innovation knowledge has always been additive rather than multiplicative as it NOW is.
Added to all the others, I think the prophetic-convergence would indicate that we NOW live in the "time of the end," and that you and I and perhaps our parents as well will see Christ's return and (for those to whom it applies . .) the time of the Great Tribulation ("the Singularity"??).
Yes, I know that "religious fanatics have been saying that the end was at hand and Jesus was coming for hundreds of years, and yet Christ has not returned - and everything just keeps on going . . ."
But that TOO is an end-times prophecy fulfilled by many I have blogged with recently:
". . knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:3-4)
Last edited by DoTheMath7; 05-24-2014 at 10:53 PM..
Gee . . . thanks for reminding me about yet another "end times" prophecy that I forgot to put on a growing list I am compiling.
Moore's law might sound like a prophecy but its not. Its not even a crystal ball. Its just a term that referees to information technology advancing exponentially. You can see it with computers as when I was a kid in the 1970's a main frame computer took up a entire room. Today Google glass has thousands of times more processing power and is thousands of times smaller. That will happen again in the next 10-15 years so by 2030 a computer the size of a blood cell will be thousands of times more powerful then the Google glass today.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,159,764 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath7
"So we've got a long way to go before we would need to actively restrict childbirth . . "
How much do you know about forced abortions in China and India (already been happening for quite some time now)? And I don't suppose you know about the Georgia Guidestones "commandments" calling for the (world government) maintenance of a WORLD population of 500 million (currently 7 BILLION - 14 times the set limit), and "guiding reproduction wisely." . . . .
Well, China's stopped it's program from what I've heard, and I don't know about whether India has one. But I wish them the best in stabilizing their populations, which should start happening soon if their economic expansion continues.
I see no real problem with the Georgia Guidestones ...... they are some unknown group's opinions, I guess. I think the world population would be ok at 3 billion or so, of course that should be done through contraception rather than genocide or abortions.
Welcome to the incredible world of innovative anti-aging healthcare, which growing numbers of future followers believe will become widely available and affordable as we move through the next decade.
With new clinical trials popping up almost daily, experts predict that by early-to-mid 2020s, doctors will use stem cells loaded with non-degrading telomeres, along with low-cost 3D bioprinters to replace aging skin and strengthen frail bones and muscles. These replacements promise to cure or make manageable most of today's age-related illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and most brain disorders.
More hyperbolic speculation. I remember when I was in my early-teens in the early 80s, hearing such grandiose statements such as, 'by the year 2000 scientists will have virtually stopped the aging process'. Well, hear we are 14 years into the new millennium and while people are living longer they're still dying of age-related natural causes.'
Even if an infinite lifespan eventually becomes theoretically possible, how is this in any way desirable? To me such endeavors are indicative of how disgustingly and indefensibly detached this society is from our natural origins. In order for new life to emerge, old life must eventually. Period. This is how natural evolution works. In order for mammals to become so widespread the dinosaurs had to die. In order for the next dominant phylum to emerge (probably insects and/or arachnids) humans must eventually perish.
Even if I could live forever I have absolutely no desire to; I would simply opt out, and commit suicide if necessary. To me the inherently finite nature of biological existence is something beautiful that fills me with a sense of tranquility and humility: we emerge, live, and eventually die, and we're probably gone forever. Some find such a prospect depressing, but it actually evokes solace in me.
More hyperbolic speculation. I remember when I was in my early-teens in the early 80s, hearing such grandiose statements such as, 'by the year 2000 scientists will have virtually stopped the aging process'. Well, hear we are 14 years into the new millennium and while people are living longer they're still dying of age-related natural causes.'
Even if an infinite lifespan eventually becomes theoretically possible, how is this in any way desirable? To me such endeavors are indicative of how disgustingly and indefensibly detached this society is from our natural origins. In order for new life to emerge, old life must eventually. Period. This is how natural evolution works. In order for mammals to become so widespread the dinosaurs had to die. In order for the next dominant phylum to emerge (probably insects and/or arachnids) humans must eventually perish.
Even if I could live forever I have absolutely no desire to; I would simply opt out, and commit suicide if necessary. To me the inherently finite nature of biological existence is something beautiful that fills me with a sense of tranquility and humility: we emerge, live, and eventually die, and we're probably gone forever. Some find such a prospect depressing, but it actually evokes solace in me.
Back in the 80's it was all speculation as no one knew how it would work. Why most of the predictions were off.
In fact I just happen to get this article from Wired that talks about it:
At Ito’s Media Lab, infusing the rest of the world with digital intelligence has always been a part of the culture, a cornerstone of the lab’s experiments in creating better, more useful and pleasing ways for people to interact with technology. Among the materials he’s most excited about is DNA, information encoded into living form. The cost of manipulating life’s building blocks, he says, is falling at a much more rapid clip right now than Moore’s Law predicts for silicon. “If you think that diminishing cost is what drives innovation to startups and to dorm rooms, I think bioengineering is coming really fast and is going to catch up,” Ito says. “It’s neat to think about not just computational biology but computation in biology.”
This is why we will see major advancements not in 100 years but 10 and that will impact many things including reverse aging and our ability to live for "forever".
Now if someone wants to live "forever" or not is a personal choice and I'm not going to say one person is right and another wrong. What I can say is personally I want to make that choice myself not have it taken away from me as I get older by deteriorating health.
This is why we will see major advancements not in 100 years but 10 and that will impact many things including reverse aging and our ability to live for "forever".
Now if someone wants to live "forever" or not is a personal choice and I'm not going to say one person is right and another wrong. What I can say is personally I want to make that choice myself not have it taken away from me as I get older by deteriorating health.
You'd better hope the solution to live "forever" comes along soon. While you might have a good number of years ahead, none of us are getting any younger, including you. While major advancements might come up in the next 10 years, you're speculating that the abilityto live forever will be sufficiently developed by then. There's no guarantee of that happening within a decade, therefore it just amounts to speculation and wishful thinking. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it's fair to call what it is. What is more realistic is that life might well be extended longer, but not necessarily forever. If such an advancement as you envision does not happen within your present lifespan, then your life will come to an end like everyone else.
I think what you're failing to understand is that every cell in your body undergoes change. As they perish, they are replaced by new cells. The exception are the cerebral cortex neurons. When they die, they are not replaced. Some undergo such change more slowly, but each one eventually ends. Let's say somehow the cells can be prevented from dying off. How well would that work out? Not very well because you'd still have new cells forming, piling up on existing cells. Okay, so let's say not only can you stop cells from dying, but you can also prevent new cells from forming. In effect, you'd remain exactly the same indefinitely. And that would probably mean you'd no longer advance in any other way. That wouldn't exactly work out as planned either. http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-repl...7-or-10-years/
The only other solution to avoid the inevitable would be to upload your memory into a computerized system and discard your entire body. There you'd run into a different problem. Just because your memory now resides solely as digital data, will it still be you? Not unless you constantly feed information, all your memories and experiences, to the digital system right up to the very moment you die, then the digital system "wakes up" and takes over from there.
And what happens if both you and your digital replacement co-exist for a while? Your organic you will still be perceiving you as you. The organic you will never be able to perceive things in the same way as the digital you. It's not like you can have the thoughts and perceptions of both at the same time because the digital you would be an entirely separate and different entity. The digital you would not be you.
First I agree that we can't live "forever" why I put it in quotes. It's more a theoretical goal. As no matter how long you live you can't say there I have done it and lived forever. Plus it won't be one magical pill but a bridge to a bridge to a bridge. Right now the key is to exercise stay safe and not get hit by the proverbial bus. The second bridge is starting by 2020 and will be the bio tech. The third bridge will be the nano tech where we start to merge with computers and that will be by 2030. The fourth bridge will be our ability to back up our conscious to a computer and will occur by 2045. At that point we will be sufficiently advanced enough to settle the debate on how and why it is still us.
Last edited by Josseppie; 05-27-2014 at 03:08 PM..
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.
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.
