Can Life Extension and Death Reversal Become A Reality by 2017?



  • Okay I was just checking, it's to my mild understanding of DNA that there is two parts, the genes and the epigenome. The latter can change though out life and I assumed that would be what you were trying to change. I will do some more reading on that link. Dispite being not vary interested in this, still want to see ware this goes.

    John Doe
  • Life extension: see

    "Death reversal": makes no sense, the definition of death is permanent irreversible cessation of life. Once your brain is destroyed, you can't be brought back no matter what.

    With regard to the recent media stories about "reanimation" - that's more like repair of a mostly dead brain than actual resurrection. I fully expect any success to result in patients with a lot of brain damage.

    Personally i'm signed up for cryonics and i'm placing bets on the process actually preserving sufficient information in my brain tissue such that I won't actually die (as I defined death by losing all the information permanently).

  • For those talking about overpopulation and "death ceremonies", i'd like you to google, read and understand "fable of the dragon tyrant", or just have some simple ethics and realise that life is a valuable thing and nobody should be required to die.

    Death is a bad thing, human life should have an expiry date just because that's the way it's always been - if we can eliminate it we should.
  • I don't know if we should be trying to end death just yet. There's too many powerful dictators that would live forever.

    "For so long as dictators die, liberty will never perish"
  • If you end death you can still be killed. "powerful dictators" will get shot and killed sooner or later, the idea of living forever is not, in any of our life times going to fix your brain being blown up. and telomeres are not the end all be all of stopping aging. If I was asked this question i'd say no way in hell we will live forever within a year from now. and really think about it, would you even want to? longer, maybe, but forever? I know i'd like to die at some point.
  • If you took the "mind replacing" or "mind uploading" path, I had an idea for that. I would take my artificial neurons and separate them, with high speed links connecting them. It's gets pretty difficult to kill a billion individual neurons. I don't know any solutions for biological immortality.
  • Chironex:  Me not thinking of a possible solution, that doesnt sound like me...

    We design a system that works thusly:
    A system of a couple of billions of nanobots, with a distributed programming/storage/intelligence, each able to communicate and if needed by something in the electromagnetic spectrum, or even travel in the bloodstream.
    Each also having (besides the personal/distributed code) a fake DNA-string as a storage device.
    When a new bot is created, it gets a copy of the Fdna and can verify its integrity with the MASSIVELY redundant distributed storage. (and will have a standing order to re-verify the integrity)

    1. One part of the system consists of nanobots who's monitor the connections of neurons in the brains, somewhat monitoring of the weights/usage & astrocytes, and keep a so-so monitor on the levels of neurotransmittors & hormones & glial cells.
    (Some neurons have thousands of dendrites (hope spelled that correctly) but it really that hard to store the information of the connections.. (Alot of bots for some cells, one for many cells in most cases)) 

    2. In their lifecycle (2-3 times?), each monitor-bot gets replaced by another from the bloodstream, and itself updates the rest throughout the body. 
    (Using the bloodvessels seemed prudent, as the portions of the brain thats most heavily used, will also need the most blood (generally the same for the rest of the body))

    3. IF/when damage occurs the swarm now enters a more active state and repairs the cells, connections and somewhat the state of the brain. 
    Sure, you'll miss a few hours most likely (nanomachinery isnt fast...)
    And sure, you'll have a massive seizure while this is going on..

    4. Daily memory dump. (Would look like dialysis, i guess?)

    But what the hell, you live to die another century.
  • "If you took the "mind replacing" or "mind uploading" path, I had an idea for that. I would take my artificial neurons and separate them, with high speed links connecting them. It's gets pretty difficult to kill a billion individual neurons. I don't know any solutions for biological immortality."

    Uploading is not a path to personal survival, a copy of you is not you.
  • A copy of you is you as much as you are you, provided the detail is fine enough. They are immediately divergent, but up to the point of duplication they are identical. Immortality is about preserving your past more than your future.
    Erasing your memory to live another lifetime would be no better than dying.
  • edited May 2016
    man i sure love me some science fiction nanobot brain dumping immortality circle jerking
  • garethnelsonuk: If i understood correctly, i would see a problem with the communication. If you have enough signal strength (somehow solving the energy problem) you'd cook from the inside with that many transmitters, if you communicate in the same way as axons, you'd have the same problems as those have. (space/glial)
    Thats why i'd imitate cell functions and use a constant migration for updating.
    As to the copy, meh i dont see the difference. Neither would a copy of me.
    Heck, i think i would be one of the few who actually would like a copy of me, and if i cant find a suitable mate within a few years, i'll rent a womb for a genetic copy of me. 

    ElectricFeel: I agree that if i'd lose my memories, i'd no longer be "me, But with the circle-jerk-nano-system(tm) i'd be able to recover from being shot in the head, memories included.

    ighden: :p
    Circle jerk theories/dreams today, reality in 50-ish years.
  • How do you know you would get memories back with a hole in your head...

    Wyldstorm you sure do use the term mate a lot for someone who wishes to leave the human side behind. that's more animal term then human term.

    Just to try to help you in the finding a "mate" issue I would start by not calling them mates lol.
  • I don't like the idea of copying either. That's why I said mind replacing. As in replacing the brain slowly, over time.
  • Meanderpaul: You'd never know ofc. But if the brainstate is close to the saved one, you'd have the memories. (afaik)

    And yea, i suppose. Dont think i've used it to a great degree, but then again i am involuntarily single for the first time in 18 years, so dont take my word for it.

    Why, if i might ask? 
    Biological replacement, or artificial replacement.. Whats the difference that feels wrong?
  • Could you clarify? I not sure what your question is.
  • I mean, if your brain would be rebuilt memories and all.. A copy of your brain at another time would be (re)created. 
    Why the odd feeling about it? 
  • I have a thing for consciousness. It's very weird and very unexplainable. Consciousness is one of the only things I see as a necessity to preserve. If I was to make a copy, I don't believe it would be the same consciousness. That's why.
  • Death is a natural part of the life cycle for all organisms on earth, if it wasn't, then the earths resources would have been used up long before humanity ever appeared. Now, I'm all for life extension, a human being living to be 150+ years would be very cool, however, besides the obvious problems of mass longevity like over population and what-not, one issue that is overlooked is scientific progress.

    idk if any of you have read some of Isaac Asimovs earlier work, but in one of his books he makes the idea that, in a society where the typical life span is centuries long, scientific and technological progress slows down tremendously, why? because human ego is to blame. right now we all live really short lives, thus prompting us to share our knowledge and discovery so that we can build a foundation of our ideas that future generations will use (isn't that we're all doing on this site, at this very moment?) 

    however, what if we had three centuries to live, we wouldn't need to share our knowledge immediately would we? while we would have time to refine and perfect our ideas, we wouldn't want to share the knowledge of how to replicate our inventions. 

    this can lead to a stagnation of human civilization, we are currently seeing the symptoms of the last stage of a stagnant period right now (at least in the U.S.). 

  • edited May 2016
    Methinks we've kicked nature in the balls on the matter of life span...
    Mjeh, ill fight entropy to the death! (pun intended)

    As to asimov: 
    Ego does spur scientists to publish papers for scince-cred, too. So it should be fine.

    About stagnation.. Well, true. 
    But there are so many bigger other issues that cause that. 
  • Of course if people thought they would be around for a hundred more years they might start taking the problems of climate change and pollution a whole lot more seriously...

    I tend to think we're actually closer to super extended life than most suspect.

    Humans age and our organs decrease in size (about 10% every decade) but that decay stops at about 90+. If we can trigger the transition to the "stasis mode" of ageing earlier then we might live for a very long time.

    I tend to think that something like the hypothetical "respirocytes" [LINK] would massively increase human survivability... the blood loss and trauma from most accidents would no longer be fatal, a heart attack victim could recover in days because there would be no oxygen loss damage.

    What ever happens to extend human life it's likely to something we didn't expect.
  • Aliens.....
  • Or pixies... you get less probing from pixies.
  • Hm... I do like the concept of respirocytes.. 
    Especially a self-refilling one.
    But what biochemical function could be coopted to bind oxygen until the levels are too low?
  • Interesting coming into this forum and seeing this post in 2019. Just yesterday I picked up a copy of the New Scientist magazine who's cover is about 'A cure for ageing?'.

    It seems that a bona fide longevity drug is about to come on the market this year, by who and what they wouldn't (couldn't?) say. However, they warned is was like Resveratrol in that there was no hard science to prove its efficacy as a longevity solution.

    In addition the article goes on to discuss other compounds that are attempting to negotiate the US's FDA approval process, this being expected to get to final human trials in 5 years. So, 2017? More like 2019 to 2024 at the least.

    1 in 10,000 success rate for new compounds so don't hold our collective breath.


Sign In or Register to comment.