Is immortality will ever possible? (Just like in the movie Mr. Nobody)

[szputnyik]

It wouldn't be immortality, just a gigantic life extension. At the end of the Degenerate Era, the protons that make up your body will decay, making you effectively disappear.

[Mazon Del]

It wouldn't be immortality, just a gigantic life extension. At the end of the Degenerate Era, the protons that make up your body will decay, making you effectively disappear.

Assuming of course over the trillion+ years required to get to that point, you never figured out how to move to a different universe or fix entropy (hey, I'm willing to believe if we can survive to be a billion that we are just blatantly gods here.).

There was a race in a certain book series that had an interesting way of living 'forever'. They uploaded their minds into a planet sized computer that was also a planet sized energy converter. All (most) heat, light, etc that hit the planet was converted to energy for use in the computer. Compared with the rest of the universe, for a while they proceed at many thousands of times speed. As their local sources of power die off (stars) their computer begins slowing down more and more. But because they live inside the computer, they cannot tell if it has been 100,000 years or 0.01 * 10^-9999 seconds between the last instant of time they experienced. As a result, they would just be going about their lives enjoying 'eternity' and just one day all of a sudden they wouldn't exist.

My favorite immortality plan was the memory backup combined with quick clones.

You die, they can take either the chip from your brain, or if irrecoverable your most recent backup and jam it into a clone of yours. Problem solved.

Now, I've had a giant argument with people on a different thread who argue that it is horrible because the backup isn't "me". I'm just going to head this off and say I really don't care, the thing that continues on thinks its me and is soo me that I couldn't possibly tell it apart from myself if I didn't know I was the original. Good enough.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mazon Del

[Creature]

Assuming of course over the trillion+ years required to get to that point, you never figured out how to move to a different universe or fix entropy (hey, I'm willing to believe if we can survive to be a billion that we are just blatantly gods here.).

There was a race in a certain book series that had an interesting way of living 'forever'. They uploaded their minds into a planet sized computer that was also a planet sized energy converter. All (most) heat, light, etc that hit the planet was converted to energy for use in the computer. Compared with the rest of the universe, for a while they proceed at many thousands of times speed. As their local sources of power die off (stars) their computer begins slowing down more and more. But because they live inside the computer, they cannot tell if it has been 100,000 years or 0.01 * 10^-9999 seconds between the last instant of time they experienced. As a result, they would just be going about their lives enjoying 'eternity' and just one day all of a sudden they wouldn't exist.

This is also a convenient explanation as to why we haven't heard of any advanced alien civilizations - they hole up in their computational center as simulations and don't want to venture too far away because of latency issues.

[MC.STEEL]

This is also a convenient explanation as to why we haven't heard of any advanced alien civilizations - they hole up in their computational center as simulations and don't want to venture too far away because of latency issues.

Guess we humans are not the only being fearing the all dreaded low wi-fi connection then.

[Everten P.]

We could put our conciousness into a clone like in eve online right?

[ansaman]

I think that it is theoretically possible in a physical sense, but would be a social and psychological disaster. The rate of social and technological change is very stressful now with our normal lifespans. It may make things untenable with a massive extension. My grandfather lived from 1900 to 1991 and saw massive changes. He could not adjust to some of them. Being born in 1959, I have been able to keep up with things, but in some senses I am exceptional regarding education and curiosity.

[KerbMav]

We could put our conciousness into a clone like in eve online right?

Actually killing the clone('s mind) in the process?

[LvL]

We have something. It's called botox.

[NASAFanboy]

We have something. It's called botox.

I'd rather not have the nasty side effects.

[Mazon Del]

Actually killing the clone('s mind) in the process?

That depends really. In some sci fi that have this technique, the author has us get around the ethical consequences of "killing" the clone's mind by having the clone be genetically engineered in some fashion so that even though it is a fully adult human clone, the section of the brain needed for cognition never developed. So it is a born vegetable. The reason the 'old' person can use it is because technology makes up the difference in the body.

Others have it so that the technology provides the knowledge of the 'old' person such that it is impossible for the clone to create a conciousness that isn't the person it is intended to be.

And still others just leave the clone unconcious till the memory implant is done. With no memories, can you be said to be causing someones identity death?

[Everten P.]

Well in eve online the year is like 3500 and the clones have a cybernetic link in there heads (it looks like the matrix) where the brain of a previous clone a younger age. In eve the have machines that "edit" your character to the point of ridiculousness like hair color, eye color, scars, hair cut, etc. and the changes seem to be genetic.

[Moss]

Won't the Universe eventually collapse anyway?

[Arran]

Each and every time when this comes up, the most obvious reason not wanting to have any form of immortallity is somehow beeing ignored, or even adressed.

Even in our current "short" lifespan, the number of total humans is growing, but its kept to a certain degree in check by that humans die as well, allthough the rate of humans be born is bigger as the rate of humans dying (unless we start a other WW where millions die)..

When all the offpring of the humans also going to be immortal, well overpopulation will become a serious problem quicker as when we stay Mortal..

Thus if we really want too pursue inmortallity we have to consider space kolonisation, since Earth can only sustain for an XX amount of humans life.

Now you can theorize that with Technoligy and science we could extend food production to keep people fed, but with immorality the number of humans on earth will grow exponentionally so fast, that within a few centuries there are to many humans on earth there is no ground left to support us.. IE we need to clear allmost any forrest to keep it for agriculture for food production, and towns. Fast forward a millenia and we prolly reached a point that earth cannot sustain the numbers of humans, and the demand for food is so great, we have litterly emptied the oceans, drained all fertile soils and thinned the animal kingdom to a point only lifestock animals havent gone extinct.

So we have to push ourselfs when immortal into space and kolonize other planets like we are some acient virus that is spreading itself, without any possibility to stop that virus.

So i think nature has the answer in this, that is inmorality is unarchievable, how hard we will try, dispite i too would like to live forever, i'm just too curious how the world would look in 100, 500 even 1000 years or more from now..

Even kinda curious to see our sun turn into an Red Dwarf, and curious to see if The universe expands so far that everything fades into oblivion, or that the big crunch in gonna happen.. Still i know my mortality is there for an reason, everything HAS to come to an end, its nature way to renew and replenish itself.. Only humans are so egoistical to think themself above Nature..

[xcorps]

Earth can only sustain for an XX amount of humans life.

Source?

Fast forward a millenia and we prolly reached a point that earth cannot sustain the numbers of humans, and the demand for food is so great, we have litterly emptied the oceans, drained all fertile soils and thinned the animal kingdom to a point only lifestock animals havent gone extinct.

Source?

Still i know my mortality is there for an reason

Free radicals are the biggest reason. Lack of oxygen to the brain through disease, trauma, or lack thereof is the second biggest reason, did you have another?

its nature way to renew and replenish itself.. Only humans are so egoistical to think themself above Nature..

I'm puzzled. Is nature some entity?

How does the end of a creature renew or replenish this self known as Nature? Does this entity feed off the decay of organic matter?

[SargeRho]

You should read a little about how ecosystems work.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Hey Mr Time, a few words about immortality ?

"hum you know it's just boring with or without a universe to swatch, ahem, i mean watch but you get the i feel bored pun switch right from what left ; do you?"

Edited July 20, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''
why not ... & also why not etc.

[xcorps]

You should read a little about how ecosystems work.

What's that got to do with anything I posted? If you point me at a book that says that Nature does this or that, or it's Natures way, or any other "Gaia" nonsense, I'll drown a kitten.

[Arran]

Source

If you cannot comprehent the growth of mortal humans its population just by looking back in history and are not capable to project this growth into the future, and then take into consideration that no-one dies anymore, then i doubt i never can make you grasp this concept since you lack the capability to grasp such a thing

Simple put, imagine that since the dawn of Homo-Sapiens, noone ever had died by old age, really NO-ONE ever have died, so you still had your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents around that are now about 30.000 years old.. Well granded even my brain is having troubles to insame amount of humans around today, and i have to explain it even to you since you cannot grasp it at all.

So i dont need an source, i just need a good working brain that can comprehent expensional growth without any limitation, in Medical terms such a phenomonon is called an Tumor, humans with just a immortal lifespan, can be considered a Tumor.. It grows exponetional without limitations, till the point its natural habitat cannot sustain it anymore, just like a Tumor grows inside your body, to a point your body dies due the tumor. IE we would go extinct. Immoratlity is course to extincion.

Free radicals are the biggest reason. Lack of oxygen to the brain through disease, trauma, or lack thereof is the second biggest reason, did you have another?

Kinda lost here, some attempt to throw in an insult, or are you trying to tell that dispite inmoratity people still can die, and hence this would keep the numbers in check.. Well clearly you missed alot on History lessons i guess on school, even mayor cathostropic events like WW1/2 or desease outbreaks where millions of people lost their lives, on global scale those millions hardly even made a dent in the human population.

So unless you are planning for mass executions to keep the population in check, i doubt with inmortal human life, depending of illnessenes is historically seen hardly will even be of any consuquence.

I'm puzzled. Is nature some entity?

How does the end of a creature renew or replenish this self known as Nature? Does this entity feed off the decay of organic matter?

This answer borders to trollism (if that is an word) or makes clear you really have to pay more attention to the teachers instead of that blonde girl in your class, i just cannot add more to this, or you indead are victim of poor education and in that case i appologize. But clearly shows you lack of understanding in the world we life in, and proves my point that some humans really think they are Above nature and arent part of nature, and are creationistal raised and do not believe in evolution nor grasp the concept of evolution and how life and death are related to each other, and how renewal works..

For me, without turning this into a converance it shoud suffice as answer, and if you cannot grasp it why i do believe immoratilty is a thing unwanted thing that neglected in many scifi topics, and are countered with hardly any founded comments as Need Source, and other oneliners without really backing your own view and thinking up.. i think i dont need to continue..

[xcorps]

If you cannot comprehent the growth of mortal humans its population just by looking back in history and are not capable to project this growth into the future, and then take into consideration that no-one dies anymore, then i doubt i never can make you grasp this concept since you lack the capability to grasp such a thing

Simple put, imagine that since the dawn of Homo-Sapiens, noone ever had died by old age, really NO-ONE ever have died, so you still had your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents around that are now about 30.000 years old.. Well granded even my brain is having troubles to insame amount of humans around today, and i have to explain it even to you since you cannot grasp it at all.

So i dont need an source, i just need a good working brain that can comprehent expensional growth without any limitation, in Medical terms such a phenomonon is called an Tumor, humans with just a immortal lifespan, can be considered a Tumor.. It grows exponetional without limitations, till the point its natural habitat cannot sustain it anymore, just like a Tumor grows inside your body, to a point your body dies due the tumor. IE we would go extinct. Immoratlity is course to extincion.

Kinda lost here, some attempt to throw in an insult, or are you trying to tell that dispite inmoratity people still can die, and hence this would keep the numbers in check.. Well clearly you missed alot on History lessons i guess on school, even mayor cathostropic events like WW1/2 or desease outbreaks where millions of people lost their lives, on global scale those millions hardly even made a dent in the human population.

So unless you are planning for mass executions to keep the population in check, i doubt with inmortal human life, depending of illnessenes is historically seen hardly will even be of any consuquence.

This answer borders to trollism (if that is an word) or makes clear you really have to pay more attention to the teachers instead of that blonde girl in your class, i just cannot add more to this, or you indead are victim of poor education and in that case i appologize. But clearly shows you lack of understanding in the world we life in, and proves my point that some humans really think they are Above nature and arent part of nature, and are creationistal raised and do not believe in evolution nor grasp the concept of evolution and how life and death are related to each other, and how renewal works..

For me, without turning this into a converance it shoud suffice as answer, and if you cannot grasp it why i do believe immoratilty is a thing unwanted thing that neglected in many scifi topics, and are countered with hardly any founded comments as Need Source, and other oneliners without really backing your own view and thinking up.. i think i dont need to continue..

Whoa there parder. There's no need to start casting personal attacks and insults. I attacked the rhetoric and logic of your POST, not you. So get your knickers out of that knot they are currently bound up in and chill out. The next time you respond to a post, you might consider that the person you are responding to isn't out to get you. Heady stuff, I know.

You start off about population pressure and food production without any facts at all. There's no evidence at all that any population size cannot be supported with CURRENT food production technologies. The fact is that we produce currently more than double the food necessary to provide full nutritive needs for the entire population of humanity. Distribution and access are the present challenges. There are presently more humans alive than have ever existed in history. I asked you to provide information that leads you to the conclusion that humanity is not capable of continued population growth.

That's what source means.

As for the rest of it, you're too insistent on gibberish and attacks to make sense of.

But I still want an explanation of this entity your refer to as Nature.

[Arran]

You start off about population pressure and food production without any facts at all. There's no evidence at all that any population size cannot be supported with CURRENT food production technologies. The fact is that we produce currently more than double the food necessary to provide full nutritive needs for the entire population of humanity.

You clearly forget again the simple fact, with immoratlity the population never inclines, current caculations and predictions are done with the simple fact in mind, people DIE remove the factor that peope die, and thus only grows and keeps growing till the end of days, and keeps growth indefently and you just ansered you own question, with even having to parry my rethoric, in time, the planet has just to many people, to sustain life, just like Cells in an Tumor. to a point the tumor drains so much of the body, the body shuts down..

It also clearly makes a good analogy on how nature works, and i had this discussion so many times over and over with people that refuse to see the simple basic fact humans are part of nature

But I still want an explanation of this entity your refer to as Nature.

I dont understand the idear of Nature as entity, and tbh you shouldn't even ask this question, nature isnt an entity, so the question is void, thus imho an attempt to troll, Nature aint a god, visa versa even, God IS nature..

Maybe you arent really directing it as person to me, but the whole way you questioning the obvious in imho a poor attempt to troll, and i have really not much patience with trolls

Edited July 20, 2014 by Arran

[xcorps]

You said "my mortality is there for a reason".

The only reason is that the body ceases to perform functions necessary for life. That's the only reason.

Then you said something about "it's natures way of cleansing" or something like that. There is no "nature's way". Nature doesn't have a way because nature is not a thing. It is a concept.

Then you said something about people "being above Nature".

Again, there is no Nature. There is nothing to be "above".

What makes you think that the population would run unchecked if life were eternal? There would be no need for reproduction because there would be no pressure. Evolution alone would take care of that.

[Arran]

You said "my mortality is there for a reason".

The only reason is that the body ceases to perform functions necessary for life. That's the only reason.

Then you said something about "it's natures way of cleansing" or something like that. There is no "nature's way". Nature doesn't have a way because nature is not a thing. It is a concept.

Then you said something about people "being above Nature".

Again, there is no Nature. There is nothing to be "above".

What makes you think that the population would run unchecked if life were eternal? There would be no need for reproduction because there would be no pressure. Evolution alone would take care of that.

Do you really believe with immorality the human (or blunt said Life's) phyche would change on the need for reproduction, reproduction is the foundation of life itself, you can say its allmost hardcoded into the genes that makes up every living beeing, everything alife around us is an product of reproduction, from mircroscopic bacteria to yourself.

Create an system that regenerate Cell degridation, will not change the simple fact in how life itself works, again that believe human life has placed itself above nature. Only thing that could prevent reproduction is like now as well, that some people just dont want to have kids, or by some flaw in the genecode of that beeing that prevents reproducal organs to function properly, but those are the execption, not the rule

You can call Nature whatever you like, this is more an phylosophical topic as an science point of view, to call nature an concept is imho even in insult. Nature is everything, not just flowers in your garden, its really EVERYTHING to the point nature even provides to a point technoligy, as simple put all the elements we as human use to enhance our modern life, from plastics to superconductors are made of resources coming from nature itself. Our technoligy so advanced that we human can manipulate nature to a certain point, but we cannot control it, nor we ever will be able to control it.

thus so far, i only see you ask questions that are obvious, but i dont see any real founded answers why you think i'm wrong, only assumptions that border trolling, and some vague answers of your part, that holds no ground or logic or arent scientific but of phylosophical orgin.

Hence i have more the feel you do your utmost best to troll, thus my pretty bored attitude.

EDIT : There has been several SciFi movies allready (since we are in the realm of SciFi on immortality) that takes my statement Immoratlity == Extinction into consideration.

Top of my mind coms the Asgard from Stargate, that race faces extinction due their immoratlity and lack of reproduction. Once reproduction stops, even though your immortal you on the fasttrack to extinction, since every life lost cannot be replaced. Thus proves my statement Immoratility == Extinction

Life needs to replenisch itself, or it fades into oblivion. Reproduction is foundation of life and evolution.

Create immortal life with Reproduction, and you have a grandscale Tumor like organiscm, that will destroy its natural habitat.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Arran

[xcorps]

I didn't say you were wrong about anything. I asked to back up your statements. You obviously don't like being challenged to think critically, because that's the fourth or fifth time you've insulted me or called me a troll, so I'm done.

[Arran]

I didn't say you were wrong about anything. I asked to back up your statements. You obviously don't like being challenged to think critically, because that's the fourth or fifth time you've insulted me or called me a troll, so I'm done.

Your are not challenging me at all, nor even make me remotely think critically, worse even in matter of fact, you bored me, since you havent done anything to make it into a discussion, but an attempt to derail my point of view with nonestatements, unfounded and with nonsense, what you allready admit that i was right from the beginning.

But you tried to lure me into an position that i have to prove my point without even a slight attempt to prove yours, while you are attacking my points of view without a sound foundation of beeing critical towards my point of view.

So you in a way now point your own failure to make it into a real discussion what by founded arguements in an onesided conversation on my part, in wich i counter any of your points with a founded explanation in wich why i think in such manner, that even without references to any sources can allready be seen as pretty much as believable and logical, in wich you lack to provide to counter in any real agrumentation, just with oneliners, what in general can be seen as trolling.

Now that you know you cannot put a needle between my agrumentation, you pull the insulted victim role out of the hat.

Again making me believe even more and more that it was an poor attempt to troll a very valid points that i made upon immoratality.

So to put you to an critical test to see where you coming from..

Explain me this in a argumental manner, and not an noconsencual oneliner

* Why is nature an Entity or Concept in your of view, what is you're reasoning behind this statement, since i dont even remotely can grasp why someone would call nature and concept, since nature is the foundation of everything.

* why would the phyche of an human change over reproduction when we artificial archieve immoratlity, and not by evolution, since reproduction is the foundation of life.

* As human life is part of evolution of nature, why do we human beeings at times think and act we arent part of nature.

* Why doesn't in your view apply evolutional and historical facts that can be projected easely into the future not as acceptable feats in terms of this discussion, simple said, why you think that humans will behave any differently in the past as mortal beeings as in an theoretical future as artificial immortal beeings. Past and present allready prove we still basicly are still the same, only we are more advanced. but in our core of our existance we havent changed in the 100.000 years much.

In al in all, what you just said, is applying more to you as to me, i asked you to back up your statements and i explained in more as enough detail my points of view, in wich you lacked in any aspect to do, and you obviosly dont like to be challenged at all, since you didnt even remotely tried to to beargument me, and with my arumentations i wrote here, i proved i DO like to be challenged and i do can explain my argumentation, what you lacked to do.

But i have to thank you in a way, you made me smile now a bit.. I know now i was right on all points, even the trolling

Edited July 20, 2014 by Arran

[SargeRho]

Of course there is such a thing as nature. "Nature" is everything that exists.