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

edited April 2016 in Everything else
I have studied many aspects of Transhumanism and one that really intrigues me is the Renanima project on which I had the privilege of interviewing Bioquark CEO Ira Pastor. With 30 years of experience in the industry, Ira said that life extension and death reversal can become a reality through reanimation. Can gene editing work? What is the scope of neuro-regeneration? Can we create the perfect world? Live Longer? These are the big questions that are coming up even as CRISPR gene editing makes the impossible possible. It's a bright, brave new world alright!


  • I am not convinced you can jump start the brain and then the person just wakes up, I believe they will ever changed.... Now I like the Idea of a hardcore punk rock Steven Hawkings as much as the next.... (I know he is the only I can think of that might do that) what do you think the brain damage will be or even the PTSD?
  • My question would be, when tampering with Telomeres, how do we address the potential increased cancer risk? Has the research come that far yet?
  • More Neurogenesis & life extension?
    Meh, gimme a 40%-ish to survive, and ill do it.
  • I don't know how that would even be a good thing. Don't get me wrong I understand no one wants to die but at what point do you say enough? The avg life span just in 50 years has increased so to say extension I say we succeeded.

    Death reversal or stopping the aging process well nothing good can come from it. The world has just about hit carrying capacity now imagine what happens when we stop dying all together....a world of pollution and tightly packed people is going to cause so many other problems that I wouldn't want to be alive to see that day.
  • As i see it, extelligence-wise, the part before adulthood is wasted...
    And doubly so when almost all knowledge is lost at the end.
    That, and i feel that if i can improve, its my obligation to improve.

    Overpopulation will be an issue either way, the added research/extelligence will help there too.
    But thats just me. :)
  • I'm confident in humans ability to find some solutions. Without killing and or taking wealth from everbody.
  • edited April 2016
    Im more sceptical. 
    If humanity survives AI, nanotech & bioengeneering.. Then ill be positive. 
    I would love a semiconscious nanobot swarm for realtime changes tho...

    Edit: I foresee a violent revolution or two in the process, tho..
  • lets just make something really clear. Death reversal is never going to be a thing. Once you're dead, you're dead. the closest to that we'll ever come is making a copy of your brain and running it as a simulation. However that'll most likely require it gettting setup long before you die and there is a very easy argument that it's not even really you. As to life extension, ya it's a thing and it'll be better and better as time passes. While overpopulation is a problem, the birth rate is very much on the decline and if no one was dying, they'd have very little incentive to have kids. kids exist to replace us once we die. If we're not dying much, we won't have many kids. And at that point, it would mean so many humans are modified that way that a 1 child policy type thing could be benificial and is a very probable outcome. However, with space tech improving steadily (thank you space x) the argument can be made that extreme life extension isn't an issue as we'll have other places to populate. Also when everyone is living for way longer, people are forced to change their perspective. they'll go from "global warming? why should I care about that, I'll be dead" to "well shit, we should probably do something about that eh?"
  • Err... Death reversal could very well be possible with nanotech.. Given that its not too much damage, and very little time had passed. (before cascade problems)
    And if we reach advanced levels, then a backup would always be kept up to date.

    I do agree with the space-part tho..
    I find it sad that we havent put more effort in colonies on other planets/moons.. 
    It would remove parts of the risk of death as a species. (as in, colliding asteroids, massive solar flares, and the like)
  • nanotech isn't a magic wand you can wave at a problem and voila it's fixed. if we're going to make statements like that then it's just as valid to say an alien with a magic death reversal pill will arrive and help us out. How exactly do you propose the nanites would fix the whole "you're clinically dead" thing. Generally if you're only mostly dead and stand some chance of being revived, you're not considered dead yet.  Once you're out for a few hours your brain is suffering irreparable damage. Damage that nanobots can't just magically fix. if the cells are dying, you're losing structures that form your memories. Even if the nanites could repair the cells, the connections would likely be destroyed so you'd still suffer brain damage or memory loss. If we're going to make conjectures then we need to also add that constant memory backups would need to be taken incase of accidental failure, the bots would need to be able to repair the connections accuratley and also, this all begs the question, what did you do that requires un-death treatment? cause chances are, that's a bigger problem and we should be using the nanites to fix that rather than try and revive the dead. And nanites that complex would not only be technically difficult to produce, they'd have far better uses, like as I mentioned, preventing your death in the first place. If youre saying that they'll fix you after a bullet to the brain, then no, not a chance. 
  • Dying/dead.. Semantics. :p

    Well, what i meant by "very little time" is that that the cascade of dying connections could be halted, and so on..
    Its not a wand, no, but it is a technology that could be used to imitate neural cell firing, and thus keep a dying brain from complete brain death.
    As in, a small part would be "dead", but as a whole it might survive.

    As in complete reversal of a completely brain dead patient.. Yeah, you would need  a way to rebuild the connections.
  • Would overpopulation be an issue if we acquired nanotech that advanced, anyway? I mean, if we can keep someone from dying, making it so they can spacewalk with no EVA gear seems like child's play. Global warming would be laughable too. Technology that advanced would make all of the present problems in the world look silly. But, the world wouldn't be perfect. There are always new problems. 

    As to the kids thing, @chironex, I think that there's a great deal more to the question of whether or not someone wants to have kids than needing a replacement. I'm under the impression right now that, in a (probably) infinite universe, as a race that likes to conquer and expand, we'll need more people. No matter how advanced and impactful a single person gets, you're still trying to fill the infinite with a finite number. 

    By 2017? Not likely. If everyone in this community did absolutely nothing but work on it (excluding essentials to survival), maybe? But we'd need to pool a huge amount of capital to actually figure it out in the time we have left. Maybe by 2020, though. I'm still not sure we've hammered out exactly what genes we could use to extend ones life, though. So, we can crispr all we want to, but we don't know what we're sticking in...
  • I definitely wouldnt say having kids is just to replace me. There is something more but I don't think words can really describe what it is. Also I forgot to mention stoping death and extending life by next year....that is kinda wacky of a prediction we don't know LOTS.

    But the extended life really is happening every year people keep living longer and longer I really do think this way of expanding life is going to keep going because it's based on the way we are living. It's just going to keep improving.

    Over population will still be a problem the difference is we could go some place else but that isn't going to fix the fact that there is still going to be more and more people with less and. Less resources.

    even a one kid rule won't help. How many rules have you actually broken? How many times do you break the law? What's gonna stop people a fine? Did a fine stop you from speeding?

    Also people tend to have kids with intending is fun after all.
  • I'd be interested to see what pairing the telomere-gene hack (the one bioviva's been talking about)  with C60 would do, since C60 purportedly has a lot of anti-cancer effects. Is immortality worth taking a pill every day/week/month?
  • Building upon that the human lifetime would be around 40-50 years, living nowadays 80-90 years is extremely advanced compared with ancient people.

    Death reversal can, some day, become true, probably in 2030, but that would cause a much more impact and discussion in the social-cultural side.

    Death is an important event in every noticed culture. Having the chance to make your relatives' life longer (maybe infinite) would be awesome, but then, if people don't die, we'd need to change our culture alot. 
    Maybe creating "death cerimonies" to control some region population? As I know, people won't stop having babies.
    Without dying, the phrase "live your life as if there is no tomorrow" wouldn't have sense. We would spend more of our lifetime working and getting stressed out.

    In my opinion, people would live just 50 years: Less lifetime = Less suffering
  • This could also end up being something enjoyed by those afraid to die at Ritchie like Bill gates or Donald Trump.... What suffering could those two possibly have....
  • You say that you don't think people will stop having babies, even though there are quite a few people who decide not to have children and the birth rates in developed nations are decreasing greatly.... but you talk about how death reversal could become possible, you give it a possible date, and you don't back up your statement.


  • Well I'm not sure who it is your mentioning glims. My reasoning is that people are choosing to have long careers that are putting off the children. We are also on the down side of baby boomer generation which skewed the numbers because of how many people were having kids. This is currently (mine included) a generation where work comes before family.

    I don't believe that it will stay that way. Human population fluctuations are the same as any animals they go up they go down and the middle ground is the true number. There have been countless surveys on woman who are choosing layer age (late 30s early 40s) to have/start their family's.

    I'll try and find articles if you need me too.
  • I was replying to @zHotIce011z and the statement made in their comment before mine.

    As for later ages to start having families, currently, there is a steep spike in offspring having genetic issues the closer you get to and the more you pass 35...

    I agree populations flux. I just think it's weird to make a declarative statement about one thing without evidence and then make another declarative statement about another thing contrary to evidence.
  • Ah I see. Your correct about that and that is something I'm trying to convince my buddies about but that's a whole other story.

    I wonder what kind of I'll effects might happen if your looking at people having kids even later?
  • A side-question.. 
    Is crispr/cas9 a viable way to change the dna in a fully grown subject?
    Can someone gimme a scientific article about this?
  • Wyld, there's no way that'd work. Every cell in your body has a copy of your DNA. There is no way to change every single one. Probably not even nanotech could do that. I reckon your best bet is to build yourself a new body and upload your mind to it.
  • Have fun with the B2B interfacing....
  • edited April 2016
    There has to be a way, and ill find it.. Even though that might not be it.

    Edit: Would i do that to my kids, if i found a mate... Im not sure.
    On one hand i'd feel its my job to give the best possibilities, but that moral choice is something that even *I* have problems with.
  • @wyldestorm
    Would you need to change every cells DNA?
  • I think so.
    I pondered injections past the brain blood barrier and marrow and immunosuppressants, but im at a loss sofar.
    Meh, ill figure it out, somehow.. 

    But please gimme hints if you got 'em.
  • So what are you exactly trying to do?
  • Boosted Neurogenesis & long life.
  • In detail what is you line of thought that neurogenesis and life span is tided to DNA?
  • edited May 2016

    Lifespan, is more complicated, there are so many theories.
    Oxidative stress & telomeres would be the targets.
Sign In or Register to comment.