digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

If You're Alive in 20 years, you may be able to Live Forever

viewzone.com — Human Immortality: A Scientific Reality? From the moment of birth, we begin the battle against death -- against the inevitable. Statistics say that a newborn child can expect to live an average of 76 years. But averages may not be what they use to be

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • YumYumKittyLoaf, on 10/12/2007, -11/+368I just hope I can become a cyborg one day. Screw flesh and bone if I have gun arms! And chainsaw legs...

    • ngsayjoe, on 10/12/2007, -47/+35Insurance premier would become 1000x higher, as you still could die from car accident, flight accident, suicide bombing, natural disasters, and so on. So don't hope for too much, as given a person who lives forever, he/she would definitely face one of these in some part of their lives. Hmmm, how about preserving your DNA in case human cloning becomes feasible?
    • Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -5/+189If you can live forever, insurance costs would be the last of your concerns, really.
    • robphillips, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22an interesting video hosted by Michio Kaku. same topic. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5634490469902803358&hl=en
    • Azerael, on 10/12/2007, -53/+41The day the technology for immortality is in our grasp is the day the day religion becomes obsolete. There will, of course, be those who fight it. But as they wither and die, ignorant to the last, we can have the satisfaction of knowing that humanity has finally rid ourselves of our greatest enemy. From that point forward we will see and do truly amazing things.

      And they will be left behind.
    • slsanity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Great website with specifics of active research against aging:
      http://www.sens.org/
      "SENS is a detailed plan for curing human aging. SENS is an engineering project, recognising that aging is a medical condition and that medicine is a branch of engineering. Aging is a set of progressive changes in body composition, at the molecular and cellular level, which are side-effects of essential metabolic processes. Many of these changes are eventually bad for us -- they are an accumulation of damage, which becomes pathogenic above a certain threshold of abundance."
    • ngsayjoe, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7>>>If you can live forever, insurance costs would be the last of your concerns, really.

      The article talks about healing your damage cells, theoretically you're NOT immortal! You're still vulnerable to accidents!!
    • spider-man, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44How would this make life insurance premiums higher? Seems like it would make it lower or be relatively unchanged. The higher the risk of you dying would increase premiums whereas the lower the risk would decrease premiums. This would lower the risk. Granted, your chances of being killed by an accident or disease would be higher during your lifetime, but it would only be because you are living much longer which one would think would outweigh these other factors. The insurance companies would typically be collecting money from you much longer than usual.
    • EbilPhish, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Assuming a large corporation doesn't patent it and charge excessively for it. How much would people pay for a injection that lets them live forever? People would probably be willing to pay more that the cost of their car or their house and the cost of the treatment to produce would probably only be a few bucks. Corporations could stand to make excessive amounts of money from it.

      Also we would now need to deal with overpopulation.

      Memory and sanity would be another big factor although people don't recall too much of when they where young so I guess memory isn't such a big factor and maybe if you do go insane, you would forget the insanity with enough time anyway.
    • greevar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39>>>The article talks about healing your damage cells, theoretically you're NOT immortal! You're still vulnerable to accidents!!
      Actually that's incorrect. You would be immortal, but not invulnerable. Immortal only means that your life does not end due to age.
    • robbiemuffin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I'm all for living forever but somehow I think the odds are against that ... even though I feel like I am immortal. ;-p

      Did anyone else notice the statistic; in the 1700s people lived to an average of 24. ??? 24? I am pretty sure lifespan averages were above that! I know I read that in ancient Egypt people lived into their mid 30s.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -31/+10Umm, this is a bad thing.

      As soon as we figure out how to live forever, we lose our humanity.

      We all have certain primal natural drives. To eat, to sleep, and to procreate, the latter being the strongest of them all. The problem is, if we don't die, we cant have children, lest the world be overpopulated in a few short yearrs.
    • towca, on 10/12/2007, -23/+30Yes. I see. But who wants to live forever?
    • Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6if you look at survival curves even in non-ageing populations, everything dies in the end
    • waxoff, on 10/12/2007, -10/+136And flying cars, cold fusion generators, AI, and all that other crap "they" promised are just around the corner. Don't believe it. Predications about the future are always over dramatic. If doctors come up with a pill that'll extend a life by 3 years in the next 20 I'll be impressed. Predictions are easy, the work to reach those goals almost always ends up much harder than anticipated. In the meantime, GOTO THE GYM AND STOP EATING THAT *****.
    • frikk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+46The thing is - we as a society are not ready for this. Death causes change and refreshment.

      Think about if the guys who were running the place 60 years ago were still alive. There would be no women's rights, no voting for blacks, etc. Social change is brought on by the radical youth of every generation. Until we solve global poverty, racial issues, etc, we are not ready (and I bet will not discover) eternal life.
    • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@ Azerael
      Lol, i wish it was so easy, but sadly, religion will not be stopped by something as small as no death. Sure, maybe Christianity would die, but other religions would come into existence to replace the outdated ones. Also, I highly doubt the technology will be made available to everyone. Imagine if all the "bad" people in the world lived forever.
    • Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6why am I being dugg down? ive studied non-ageing populations suich as hydra, and they still die eventually
    • mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11If you could be immortal, would you really want to be? Sure, I wouldn't mind living a few thousand years, but forever? It reminds me of two things, a Star Trek Voyager Episode and a Rush song.
      Voy: Q (Quinn) explains that when you have explored all there is to explore, and learned all that can be learned, what more is there? He, as an immortal, wanted nothing more than to die.
      Rush: Xanadu: Based on the Samuel Taylor Coleridge poem, this is about a man who quests for immortality, and when he finds it, "A thousand years have come and gone but time has passed me by...I must taste my bitter triumph as a mad immortal man, prisoner of the lost Xanadu."
    • PFS1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62>> Did anyone else notice the statistic; in the 1700s people lived to an average of 24. ??? 24? I am pretty sure lifespan averages were above that! I know I read that in ancient Egypt people lived into their mid 30s.

      Even if it's technically true, that average is incredibly misleading. People weren't conking out at around 23/24/25 years of age...the 24-year "life expectancy" is just a more normal life expectancy being dragged down by a much higher infant mortality rate.

      That stat is being misused to create a false trend that we will live to be 200 by the year 2056.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12>>I just hope I can become a cyborg one day. Screw flesh and bone if I have gun arms! And chainsaw legs...


      Can I be an adrian barbobot?
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Xanin

      "ive studied non-ageing populations suich as hydra, and they still die eventually"

      Yeah,but only because SHIELD killed Baron Wolfgang von Strucker...
    • ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32To paraphrase Lewis Black, "Only the good die young, but assholes live FOREVER!"
    • screamingfit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4"Predictions are easy, the work to reach those goals almost always ends up much harder than anticipated. In the meantime, GOTO THE GYM AND STOP EATING THAT *****."

      Actually, free radicals are created by "going to the gym" and working out hard. Thereby, more free radicals = more cellular degeneration. Eat healthy and just be active - "working out" will usually speed up the death process.
    • DEADB33F, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7>> "If you could be immortal, would you really want to be? Sure, I wouldn't mind living a few thousand years, but forever?"

      We'd have to invent suicide booths.
      They'd have to be well labeled though, to prevent people like Walt Disney confusing them for phone booths.
    • becominglumberg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Insurance premier would become 1000x higher, as you still could die from car accident, flight accident, suicide bombing, natural disasters, and so on. So don't hope for too much, as given a person who lives forever, he/she would definitely face one of these in some part of their lives. Hmmm, how about preserving your DNA in case human cloning becomes feasible?"

      If anything, those would be lower premiums. Life insurance is effectively a bet that you will die before your premium covers the cost of the payout. Of course, the insurance houses put it in their favor. If you (largely) take away natural causes as a source of death (the leading source of death in the country) then you would expect lower premiums.
    • ngsayjoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@spider-man

      >>> How would this make life insurance premiums higher?

      Well, if people are immortal, then life will become priceless. Hey my life is worth plenty knowing that you have eternal time to acquire wealth, material things, chicks, and so on, you can just keep on trying until it works. On the other hand, if your live up to 70 years, then basically the value of your life depreciates more as you age.

      Life insurance premier is calculated based on the worth of your life, the more it's worth the higher it is.
    • Al3x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10http://www.duggmirror.com
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@"Think about if the guys who were running the place 60 years ago were still alive. There would be no women's rights, no voting for blacks, etc. Social change is brought on by the radical youth of every generation."

      Umm... I would disagree mostly because the radical youth weren't often that youthful but rather great mean or women who happened to see things differently.

      And imagine if you will if say Lincoln, Jefferson, Einstein, Mozart, Beethoven, Ghandi, and where around today. (Yes Lincoln and Ghandi were shot, but let us consider that you had the technology to not die from gun wounds as well).

      The point of the matter was that it wasn't the old people died off but rather exceptional people stood up.

      And I would like to counter argue that today's youth wouldn't stand up for much at all and after the older generations die off we might be worse off because of their sheep like American idol mentality.
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"If you could be immortal, would you really want to be? Sure, I wouldn't mind living a few thousand years, but forever?"

      Yeah, I think I would. For all the downs in life, there is more about living I enjoy (obviously, I haven't committed suicide). I would also love to see how we keep advancing and how things will change. I don't believe in an afterlife, so what is there to look forward to being dead? If you really couldn't stand living anymore, you can just kill yourself.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Also people are complaining about resources and too many people, but we don't even consider the fact most of us if we are alive in 200 years won't have a human body.

      If you have ever seen Ghost in the Shell TV series you will get where I am coming from when I saw the future will be Jamison Boxes and Second Life.

      There is not need for the human body if we just stick our brains in life support boxes hooked up to the net. We could just simulate our bodies on whatever online simulation and we really couldn't tell the difference between it and the world.

      There fore we could need any food or personal comforts because we could just simulate those. Not only that we could stack us all side by side in large complexes (think matrix) and we would leave a very small imprint on earth's environment. Then we could simply remote control everything from the "Matrix".
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know. I'd rather be living in the real world. I suppose at some point they would be able to transplant the brains into robots and we'd be in the real world again.
    • magicmarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think this "living forever" has a similar idea that Gmail has with "infinite storage space". Just because it is increasing, does not mean that it is necessarily infinite.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Take a look at Viewzone's front page if you want to evaluate the veracity of this source. 1/4 of their front page is devoted to "Conspiracies", to give you a taste.
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So basically I'd turn into an elf from LOTR: an eternal natural life, dying only on the field of battle...or something like that.

      On that note, I don't really know that I'd want to live forever.
    • Absinthminded64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The problem with living forever is that the mind often goes before the body. We'll have a lot of crazy people in what is now a monument of sanity we call Earth.
    • TheRealToma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Id like to be a cyborg one day too, YumYumKittyloaf. :) Then i could watch DVDs without leaving my own head.

      Doesnt anyone think about over population? You let people live for an extra 20-30-100 years, and youll get a population explosion. Personally, after losing family members to heart disease, I hope they never find a cure, as it will create an over populated world :( Imho anyway.
    • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+110% of the world's population wants to live forever. Probably less. That is until we make the world a better place.
    • joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I want to see how Lost ends. I NEED to live forever............. of course when I get to year 2511 and series 507, I'll also need to travel back in time in the year to 1981 to see what the ***** this "incident" was. That's because after the viewing figures went down to 4 people in series 476 they spent some money and just built the island, made the cast with robots and put it in the real time it's set. The audience rose to 7 people and they were installed into the background. Hence those random people who never speak which we currently see milling around on the beech.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is more likely that immortality will come in the form of uploading our brain to a hard drive.
      We will never beat the entropy of our pathetically fragile bodies.
    • TheNuf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0you'll never have metal legs....

      (Grandma's Boy)
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Death is a natural part of life.
    • omgbanana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just want to point out that preserving DNA would not preserve your memories. While the clone may be an exact replica to the eye, its personality would probably be quite different. I'd hardly call that living forever. It's more along the lines of having a child.
    • SIRBERUS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the 2 biggest issues to this are:

      -Overpopulation

      and

      -Suicide. Technically if you can "live forever", you will most likely--at some point--have to "choose" to die. It has huge ethical/moral complications that, currently, are taken care of via nature.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let me be the first to say this isn't good for the planet. It's already overpopulated as it is.. Hopefully this comes with some sort of genius method of interstellar travel so we can get out there and colonize other planets.
    • soupnrc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm thinking of getting metal legs. It's a risky operation but it will be worth it.
    • ickingfudiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>> Can I be an adrian barbobot?

      Just don't expect any mercy during the great robot wars..
    • swiftekho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hate to sound cynical but has anyone read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley?

      Basically the same topic...

      Immortality really can't bring one good thing without bringing a bad thing along with it.
    • liveforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a whole Institute dedicated to the pursuit of immortality. (conveniently called the "Immortality Institute") http://www.imminst.org
      They appear to have a lot of members and produce movies and books and things too. Interesting...
    • KyotoWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Personally I'd rather become either

      1) 1 with the force kind of thing

      or

      2) Ascended being (Think of the Ancients or Ori)
  • AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -30/+19Well it's one way to finally get rid of religion. Since believers would not want to live forever since they would miss out on JC and the crew in heaven or there 72 virgins either.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11Not really. I really doubt this will get rid of religion at all. It's not as simple as living forever. It's living forever in paradise. People aren't going to just give that up. As a Christian I have no interest in living forever because I already believe I will live forever. And being a very liberal Christian, I am 100% positive other more concervative christians will not only feel the same way but some of the crazies will consider imortality a gift from the devil to keep us away from God and heaven. But I don't think imortality would be a bad thing myself. It just doesn't pose as an interest for myself because I already think I will live forever.
    • ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9And such is the detriment of religion that you would actually kill yourself like that with the possibility of living and learning without aging. That just really sucks man.
    • trazor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Science can't seem to shake religion... Living forever just means they can be fanatical for a much longer time.
    • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7I don't like the idea of living forever... Unless the human body and mind do not exist in the afterlife and a soul simply exists in a state of pure bliss, eternity would take it's toll on a human being. Live in the torture of forever or live without my thoughts and self-awareness - I don't really like either scenario. For this reason, I do not like the idea of eternal life or immortality. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of simply dying when the time comes. I'll have lived my life and eventually I'll just want to be at peace and rest. Besides, I don't believe in the afterlife, anyways.

      Not to mention the damage immortality might do to the population and the economy.
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26You'll end up with 3 groups of people

      1: Gnostics
      The religious types that beleive in an afterlife and would not accept an Immortal life as a human as a substitute, they would, of course, choose to turn down the life extention process and die in order to go to their afterlife, whatever that may be. These people may accept an extension of up to 1000 years possibly, but in the end would choose death over immortality

      2: Athiests
      The non-religious types that don't beleive in God, nor do they beleive in an afterlife, they would choose immortality and would consider the life extension process a part of their routine possibly forever, or as long as the universe holds out.

      3: Agnostics
      These are the fence-sitters, I reside in this group, i don't know if a God or afterlife exist, and I would have many sleepless nights trying to determine if immortality is the right answer or not. We agnostics don't beleive there is enough proof either way and would be subjected to a limbo of wanting to live forever, but unsure if a potential afterlife would exist.

      Personally, there would be a lot of variables to calculate before choosing life or death, My parents for example. My mother is a devout Christian and I would be quite sure of her leaning towards the idea of going to heaven instead of immortality as a human. My father, i beleive is in the same group as me, unsure of the outcome. If both chose death, I'm not sure if I could live immortal knowing there is the possiblility they are waiting for me. Even if one of them chose death, and the other life, I'm not sure what I would do.

      Once immortality becomes a reality, the next big research project for the world should be to proove, either way, the existance or lack thereof, of an afterlife. The biggest resistance to this effort, of course, would be by religious fanatics, whom by that time will have chosen death anyway, so it would not be quite as contraversial at that time. All that would be left would be people who actually want a solid answer to that question instead of those who beleive it shouldn't even be questioned.

      thats my $0.02 anyway
    • robbiemuffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33@Zippo: don't worry overly much about living forever. They don't mean you, they mean the rich. ;-p
    • azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@incubusnb

      so you don't think atheists might have any reservations at all about immortality? i'm an atheist, and i have a wealthy supply of reservations about immortality. i value my life because it is so short, so i'm compelled to live it to the fullest extent.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@azurechaos: I don't think you actually value your life because it is short. In fact you can't tell if your life is short before the end, there are people who lived to their 70s and said they lived a long life while others lived to their 90s saying it was never enough.

      What I'm trying to say is -not only that how long your life is, is relevant to your experiences and your aspect on living but also- that you live your life as though you are immortal already, you can understand this by asking yourself if you want to die tomorrow morning, if your answer is "no" then you see yourself as immortal regardless of what you say you believe, if you say "I'll think about it" it is because you actually value your finite life", while the "yes" answer gives you the viewpoint of a mortal. If it sounded too philosophical to you I'll try to straight it out, what would you say if you lived up to your 90s (the depicted "roof" of our lifespans), while being in a perfect health (not a perfect relative health), the same of a 50 something man and had no psychological issues (you had your family around you and the experience to avoid harsh situations between you and your loved ones), while being active in a project you actually liked by then, in a similar question? Would you actually take the bate and actually die the day after or would you choose to continue living to see your grandchildren growing up while the whole world would be progressing around you?
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Killing yourself is a sin to Christians. It is considered the ultimate act of selfishness and gets you sent straight to hell. So no, Christians wouldn't kill themselves to get to heaven. I would make every attempt to live. However I would not fear an event where medicine would not be able to save me.
    • azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Stevethegreat

      your point is very cluttered. Not wanting to die tomorrow does not correlate with viewing yourself as immortal. Of course I don't want to die tomorrow, I love life, but that doesn't mean I think that life will last forever. I know my life is very finite and that in all likelihood i won't live to be immortal.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@azurechaos: You obviously didn't get me: will there be a day -regardless of your age- you 'll say "that's enough I don't want to live anymore", you don't have to kill yourself just lose the will to live any further, terminating any medication you may be taking by then. As a person without serious physiological and psychological problems I can't imagine how can there be any person in my position to say "that's it, that's enough", I don't believe the universe is finite, I don't think we are finite if we manage to outlive our physical limitation., I can't grasp the idea of a man wanting to die without an obvious reason (either a physiological or psychological one) ...

      You understand your mortality in a deeper layer of reasoning, not in day-to-day affairs, but you live all your life day-to-day.
    • Arosophos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Use of technology to attain immortality is not mutually exclusive with religion or spirituality. Such may be mutually exclusive with dogmatic conservativism or fundamentalism, but these are not exhaustively characteristic of the religious phenomenon. Here is an example of religious persons that explicitly embrace the idea that science and technology will lead to immortality: http://transfigurism.org
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Here is an example of religious persons that explicitly embrace the idea that science and technology will lead to immortality: http://transfigurism.org"

      looks like their mormons though.... mormans are dumb....

      What? Next time you wake me up at 8 in the morning to tell me about Jesus you'd better bring a 6 pack of beer and a pre-paid *clean hooker

      *Clean is optional provided she has condoms
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@stevethegreat

      Good points all. I remember reading an Iain M. Banks book once - about a space-faring culture who have effectively perfect medicine. In that society you COULD live forever if you wanted, however hardly anybody chose to. Most people would pick an arbitrary lifespan and then stick to it, so they'd still go through the phases of life, except instead of taking 100 years, it'd be 400 or whatever.

      Which I thought would be the most sensible option, because I reckon you'd go mental if you didn't have some sort of bounds to your life.
    • AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So it seems this thread is saying that: (disclaimer: forever is to cloudy. let's say 10 000 years)

      A) Atheist would want to live forever in so far as they keep meaning in their lives, and those that find none don't want to.

      B) Gnostics would not accept it since it would be "Playing god" and would simply live a natural length of time until for whatever reaoson they die because "god" called them back.

      C) Agnostics would want to live for as long as needed to either prove or disprove once and for all the existence of an afterlife. And then decide again what to do.

      All three sound rational within there beliefs, but I must mention that the B group will have children and these children will grow up in a world where if they choose to believe as there parents they would miss out on everything they see their immortal brethren doing. How many children growing into rebellious teenagers would stay religious when across the street is the promise of immortality instead of faith that one exists after death
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>believe as there parents they would miss out on everything
      >they see their immortal brethren doing. How many children
      >growing into rebellious teenagers would stay religious when
      >across the street is the promise of immortality instead of
      >faith that one exists after death

      excellent point. how many of us want to die at 25? thats our natural life span without being supported by a more complicated society. if you live long enough you will become rich and be able to do the good stuff at some point. that also means that the odds of dying will be 100%. sounds fun to me.

  • Trax78, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Bye God! Not gonna see ya for while.
    • Zoids, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What, so that means no beer volcanoes and stripper factories? DAMN YOU FSM!
    • tensvb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wanna bet?
  • imeddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38So, you think you have problems now? Just wait until you're immortal. THEN you'll have some real problems.
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48500 year mortgages *forehead slap*
    • waxoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Year 2346: Receives court summons for unpaid parking ticket dating back to 1991.
  • goodbeershow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+55"There can be only one!"
    • DocMalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12MACLEOD!
    • crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8if this article is true, then there will be sword fights....lots and lots of sword fights. Mwahahaha!

      /goes to basement to sharpen his blade
    • PremiumBitter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This kinda reminds me of that Highlander movie.
      What? I never saw that.
      It was nominated for an academy award.
      For what?
      Best movie made ever.
    • Hockey37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Note to self: Look for real estate on/near holy ground.
    • wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You got that wrong. The correct call out is, "THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ONE!!!" Get it right.
  • herro, on 10/12/2007, -41/+9i would absolutely hate to live forever.

    our world is too ***** up for that to be a good idea.
    • adrenaline33, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28Why dont you go slit your wrists?
    • kitsonk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36I would absolutly hate for you to live forever too...

      Glad we could agree.
  • drsvijay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11hacking the genes is a cool way..
  • BillGoans, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I have a good friend who is pursuing his doctorate in some field of Biology, and he has thrown this idea around before, saying it may be possible in the near future.
  • AtraSolis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20All I want is a hoverboard.
  • Misterm65, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Too bad you can't stop the comet that is going to wipe out all life on this big blue marble.
    • Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Did you miss both Armageddon and deep impact ;)
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17once we're immortal, we can start colonising other planets and not have to worry about one asteroid, after a few hundred years we may even have planetary sheilds that would vaporize an asteriod on contact.

      yes, I've seen Star Wars too many times :P
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@Yoshi39

      personally, I think I'd rather die of old age than live forever knowing I owe it all to Ben Affleck...
    • GoatMonkey2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We should start work on the Dyson sphere now.
    • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@cartoonal

      Bruce Willis set up us the bomb
    • skjalff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1immortality != invulnerability

      i say you're a bigger pimp if you're just immortal
  • nyx210, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16But would that really be worth it? If people could live forever, then there wouldn't be any retirements. You'd be a slave working everyday for eternity...
    • rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I agree. The only thing I would want to live forever for is to find out what the future would be like. Would be nice to be able to jump forward in time to see the future and ultimately the end of the world, like the Time Traveller in "The Time Machine".
    • ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Maybe this would force a restructuring of society as we know it. With the infinite amount of knowledge that could be gained within the people who have the ability, many new innovations would be sure to come about. Off hand, highly advanced robotics taking over all physical labor oriented tasks, etc etc etc. I wouldn't see a problem in the direction you speak of. Many things can happen that bring about huge changes to how we perceive our lives. You cannot keep those thoughts when thinking about what could happen. Things change.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Do you get paid to work? If so, you're not a slave. I get paid to do my job, and it's one that I don't hate. And my job allows me to have nice things like a Macbook Pro and 8Mbit cable internet.

      Also, if you're living forever, you just work for the first 40-50 years of your life saving up every penny you earn.. and make some smart investments, you could be work-free for the rest of "forever."

      I read something interesting about human immortality, too. The writer said that being able to live forever (or even just to 200 or 300) would change everything about how we live our lives. Instead of leaving home at 18 or so, we could stay with our parents two or three times longer, and get tons of higher education.

      It's really interesting, and I hope that I'm around to see it.. Although in 20 years I'll be 42.. :(
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Do you get paid to work? If so, you're not a slave. I get paid to do my job, and it's one that I don't hate. And my job allows me to have nice things like a Macbook Pro and 8Mbit cable internet."

      Ever heard of Wage-slaves?

      You have no rights to the products you create, you have no choice in what products you create, and you have no ability to affect the complete scope of the product you complete. You get paid to shut up and do what your told while someone else reaps the full benefits of it. Sure, you could quit, but then what about your bills and payments, what about your toys(like your macbook and cable), what about your retirement?

      Face it, you are a slave to the company you work for.

      on a lighter note, you may be 42 in 20 years, but in 200 years you could be 222 and still be in the same, or better health than you are now
    • nepawoods, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4@Lyph4
      "Also, if you're living forever, you just work for the first 40-50 years of your life saving up every penny you earn.. and make some smart investments, you could be work-free for the rest of "forever.""

      Investments don't pay off without people working to make them pay off. So either there are people working forever, or there is an ever increasing population of young workers supporting the old (which could work, in theory - on an infinite size planet).

      What we would need is robot slaves to tend to our needs.

    • halfmvSquared, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Not to forget carrying for hundreds of years the hurts and bitterness caused by day-to-day life.
      And to believe that experience is a substitute for wisdom.
      And to say no to every new idea because you no longer have the enthusiasm.

      Oh yeah, will the sanctity attached to monogamy be thrown away? (And not just in Western culture?)
    • poxonyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would you rather be bored out of your mind not working? Many have jobs they hate, but not every job sucks, not everyone hates their job. If you absolutely despise working for any reason you do have the option of living a homeless lifestyle, or perhaps saving up enough to buy some land in the middle of nowhere cheap and living a self-sustaining lifestyle, or moving to a country that helps those who don't work a bit more than we do in the US. If you want to travel the world and vacation all the time, that comes at a huge price that you have to work to afford.
    • zeero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i think the top 2% of the population will use this "magic pill" or whatever, and just have all us run around working for them our whole lives until we die and new slaves are born from us while they live like kings. and who's to say this isn't happening already? there would be no incentive for these top people to give the rest of the regular people this immortality.
    • shaka999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exponential growth doesn't change! If I invest a portion of my income I will still end up with a nice war chest.

      If I save up for 30 some odd years I will be able to afford to take a nice long sabbatical. Vacation. Go back to school.... Sounds awesome to me. Sign me up. Every 20-30 years you can reinvent yourself. ,
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@zeero

      I too think that's how society would pan out. Similar to the near-immortal fictional beings known as the Time Lords in *Doctor Who*. It is speculated that they are the top of their society on the planet Gallifrey, and are the ones proven to be smart enough to deserve near-immortality while the regular Gallifreyans do the regular chores of society, or join the outcasts. The Time Lords then receive their DNA altering which allows them to regenerate a total of 12 times which can be brought about by either receiving "mortal" injuries, boredom, or being ordered to change due to some crime or personal deficiency in their current life/incarnation. They also get two hearts out of the deal too:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_lords

  • ijacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27If you are interested in this, I would reccomend "The Singularity is Near", by Ray Kurzweil.
  • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Bring it.

    Anyone who doesn't want to live forever can opt out.
  • eximious, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I have seen talk of this before, especially of the Methuselah project. This title is inaccurate though. The biggest lifespan projection I've seen is 1000 years. The very nature of the universe makes perpetual life impossible.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2On average, an accident or violence will do you in in about 1000 year, absent death of old age. But any other biological limit would be farther out.
  • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This could save the Social Security Program. Current workers could work hundreds of years longer paying into the system. Also your Ira's could be left alone for centuries to mature into monster money machines. Wow I could probably retire to Italy in about 1000 years!
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...or, you could put a penny into a bank account and then by the time of the end of the universe, thanks to appreciation on your initial investment, you too could dine at the luxurious Restaurant at the End of the Universe and have a front row seat at the end.
  • Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Wouldn't it be easier just to track down a vampire and ask him to hook you up?
    • optigon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20You'd have to be a virgin. :P

      Oh! Oops! This is digg! Nevermind!




      j/k
  • everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If we find they key to immortality, i'm gonna change my name to Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged

    :-D
    • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10You're a jerk, everfalling, a complete kneebiter.
    • everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no no, dont bury him. if you read the book you'd understand :P
    • Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I see you have an LM logo.
      My SAC logo is less choppy than yours. ;)
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@silencer7

      ooops. sorry, didn't get the reference until everfalling made me pay attention.

      Someone please digg silencer7 back up for me...?
  • lovkraft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The most interesting researcher in this field seems to be the controversial Aubrey de Gray. He is an engineer-turned-gerontologist through intensive self study - within two months of picking up a biology book for the first time he had published a scientific paper which changed the way we understand the mitochondria. In other words, he's a smart guy. He also believes that the first human to live to be 1000 years may be 60 years old today.

    Grey is heading the SENS project which supports the Methuselah Mouse Prize whose objective is to increase the lifespan of a mouse the most time possible. Significantly increasing the life span of a mouse will raise enough attention, and money!, to pursue the same ambitions for humans.

    What is remarkable about these efforts is "The 300" (battle of Thermopylae, ring a bell?), a commitment of 300 men to pay $1000 every year for the next 25 years. This money will go to life extension research and the effort to cure "the age problem". These 300 men will hold an important place in history as the warriors who fought age. That's the idea anyway.

    Fascinating! These brains really think it can be done. I hope they are right!

    http://www.mprize.org/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey
    http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=thethreehundred
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caAjI5JO_Pw
  • Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2YES! My lifelong dream to become immortal is finally coming to it's fruitation. I just hope that this project will not be banned...
  • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ masterbaiter
    You would have your left hand replaced every hundred years or so .
    • zeero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4no it would just grow muscles so huge that it would outweigh the rest of his body and he wouldn't be able to get off his chair to get it replaced because his legs wouldn't be able to support the large weight
  • garagethrash, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This would never be allowed to happen on a mass-scale, at least until we found/made more planets to live on.
  • sacfdup, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2they will end all humanity if they perfect immortality, the population of the world would sky rocket. if immortality becomes real, i might actually ally myself with those nut ball christians, just to say "its gods will you die,"
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The problem with what you say is that the population isn't the problem right now. You can fit every living man woman and child into the area of Tallahassee with room to spare. The problem is that we overcrowd. We build MASSIVE cities where huge portions of our population live.

      Also, another aspect of prolonged life, or immortality, is that the smartest people we have will be allowed to do their work as long as they want to, without fear of aging. So we could have Mars colonized, the moon covered in domed cities.. everything that SciFi says we should have had 7 years ago, we could take a big step towards once Aging isn't an issue.
    • elev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Lets assume that Tallahassee is the worlds larget city and has 10,000 sq miles of living space. If we tried to fit all 6,000,000,000 people into that area is would be 600,000 people/sq mile. Every person would have only 46 sq ft of living space.

      That is definately not enough room for me.
    • melve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Lyph4
      Good point about overcrowding in cities. However, the main problem we'll face with overpopulation is not lack of living space but lack of resources. How much land is required to produce the food / energy / raw materials we'll need to sustain a larger population? That's not to say we can't overcome these problems, but it will not be easy. I remember reading somewhere about overpopulation in animal species where lack of predators and abundant food leads to exponential growth in population. But eventually a mass die-off occurs within a few generations when available resources are suddenly exhausted. Likely, we'd need to restrict reproduction in some way.
  • Envx, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Just don't give the formula to black people and everything will be okay.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How about we give you AND a whole bunch of black guys the formula, put you all in a big empty room, and spend the rest of our eternal lives laughing at your sorry ass.
    • elev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Right, because if you put immortal "black guys" in a room with an immortal bigot all they would do it beat on him for 1000 years.
    • CartoonAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2'Right, because if you put immortal "black guys" in a room with an immortal bigot all they would do it beat on him for 1000 years.'

      Where did I say that? I don't care if they spend eternity beating him, or just do it once, or maybe go back every couple of days, or do nothing at all. Whatever. The point is, he would be in his own personal racist hell, and that's good enough for me.

      And why the " " around black guys? Guys who are black. What's wrong with that? And don't give me any African American *****. That's only specifically in America. Neither of us mentioned America. There is a world outside the states, you know. Most Africans are perfectly happy being called black.

      Why do you have a problem with this? Latent guilt? Or just white-middle-class discomfort with the whole race issue?
  • xkrwlng, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1for all these "scientific predictions", multiply the year they're promising by 10. So, 20 years == 200 years, at least.

    we'll all be dead by then.
  • jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Time to (re?)define life.
  • jacotyco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2i wouldn't want to live forever, what am i supposed to do for all eternity? It'd get boring.
    • zzzang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If you lived forever, eventually you'd HAVE to win the lottery or come across some big money. That's when the fun starts.
    • trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5... digg?
    • zeero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2wow that must mean your life currently sucks. imagine how awesome it would be to read every book, visit every city in the world, learn everything about everything you ever wanted but didn't have time to, and for the nerds, play every rpg 10x through. I sure would love to play half life 1 all over again, then all the addons for it, wolfenstein, quake, doom........... you'd have time to do all that. i want immortality, because then when you've done all that and really can't find anything else to do then you can just take your own life when you know you've done everything you ever wanted.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@zeero

      Normal people would finally have time to level up in WoW.
    • graberc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@zzang
      "I would have to win the lottery eventually"

      Actually, that is called the Gambler's fallacy. Each lottery play is a independent event, as such living forever does not guarntee that will win. A chance of 100,000,000 1 Even on the 999,999,999 time playing it, the chance still is 100,000,000

      Probality lesson for the day
    • ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...only because you suffer from a lack of imagination.
  • keitarofujiwara, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I think we're effed. Maria Carey, Whitney Huston and Celine Dion just won't stop squealing! Not to mention the ***** republicans, your annoying neighbor and your ugly-rich-wife. What if you are stuck with that amnesia ***** where you cant remember nothing that happened 10 seconds before? What if you get stuck in somebody else's Guantanamo ...as a prisoner? Then, what happens when you're done ***** the whole planet, every single human... animals, birds, trees...! Then what? ***** immortality!
  • futureknight, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Good news for you... You don't have to wait 20 years to live forever! Just accept Jesus and live a life like he did and your prize will be eternity (and even in a much better place!)
    • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16But is there Linux in heaven?
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29"Just accept Jesus and live a life like he did"

      You mean hated, chastisised, persecuted, attacked and finally beaten, tortured and put to death on a cross?

      der... no thanks, i'll wait for the immortality, can't go to hell if you never die
    • cave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Shut up, Jesus is dead.
    • 2Deluxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Y'know Jesus rose from the dead, that means Jesus was a zombie.
    • optigon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In heaven there is no beer!


      That's why I'm not going there!
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@futureknight: How do we know what kind of life that is? By reading a book that was put together by biased bigots over 300 years after the death of the person in question? No thanks. If this "Jesus" person actually was related in some way to God, I don't think he gives a rat's ass about the specifics of how we live our lives, as long as we don't ruin anyone else's life. If I'm right, most people are good to go. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to debate the subject with God Himself on Judgment Day.
    • Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would make an awesome tshirt "jesus was a zombie" with a picture of a zombified Jesus.
  • oglovero, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0SAY WHAT??

  • SaintZiggy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Inaccurate.
    Sadly, even with breakthroughs like this, we're going to blow ourselves up eventually.
  • MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, looks like the 'identify the code' thing isn't working.
  • dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even superman was vulnerable to Kryptonite.
  • woody56292, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2who would want to live forever on earth?
  • rocktopotomus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8dugg for having the awesomest graph evar
  • aaneton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Question how many of the population really die of old age? As I see it it's very rare to die from that. So even if our cell decide never to kill themselves, we would have to battle every decease as well. Never gonna happend, ultimately radiation, pollution and other factors will make us die.
    • 2Deluxe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1People dying of 'old age' rarely makes it on to the 6 o'clock news, retard.
    • navster15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"3 No American has died of old age since 1951.

      4 That was the year the government eliminated that classification on death certificates. "

      http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-06/departments/20thingsdeath/
    • liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9well he probably means that all those old people actually die from heart problems, diabetes, cancers, ***** immunity systems and stuff like that.... all my close relatives deaths have been diagnosed to one of these things as far as I know. living longer / old age really is making you ultimately more susceptible to these things.

      so yeah, you still gotta watch what you eat, dumbass
  • 1dog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Could you imagine what this will do to the divorce rate. God "you've been on me about fixing that for the last 200 hundred years, give it a rest." "God I new your mother might have to live with us, but not for ever" "Is there something going on with you and the mailman, you've been acting funny for the last couple of hundred years, and we've been getting other people's magi zines forever."
  • Sarajevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Can you imagine the taxes the IRS would want to levy for an extended lifespan? No thanks!
  • linuxhacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Alright, I can handle this, except wedding vows are going to have to include "immortality clauses" in the future.
    "How long you and the Missus been married, Hank?"
    "We celebrated our 10,000th anniversary last summer on Mars."
    "That's great! Congratulations!"
    "Yeah, right."
  • terror96, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15oh well global warming will pwn all you noobs so don't hold your breath!
  • Shlep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Living forever or even much longer than the current average makes no sense until the aging process is completely eliminated. For an example of what I mean, take a look at anyone that is 100 years old. . .they can barely move, they are bedridden, people have to wipe their asses and feed them, etc.

    The length of life is not as important as the depth
    • intangible, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think one of the Gulliver's Travels stories touched on that topic.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've met 90 year olds that are very fit.
  • tokyoD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Buried as pseudoscientific rubbish. Whilst using the right language, this article contains several inaccuracies. Telomeres place a theoretical upper limit on ageing, yes. Responsible for ageing? NO!
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4and which Phd in biology or genetics do you hold
    • tokyoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0epic, I don't YET hold a PhD in molecular biology, but that is beside the point. Any slightly informed person could point out the gaping holes and lies in that article.
  • adamrgolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3if i live forever i will finally win the lottery!
  • KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This makes me think of the Alzheimer's patients being kept alive in a state of confusion in hospitals because while great strides were made in prolonging physical life, the idea of mental deterioration didn't seem to occur to anyone.

    I'm 41 and I have trouble dealing with life in the UK as it is without another 100+ years of social change. Codes of behaviour, morality, ethics and the basic fabric of society are totally different to anything I grew up with and with technology accelerating at an exponential rate 10-20 years could mean as much change as occurred between the Victorian years at the end of the 19th century and the end of 20th. Just learning to deal with the rate of change could be enough to reduce you to a dribbling vegetable at which time the pharmaceuticals and technologists would no doubt offer a chemical/electronic fix. The thought of living in a society of artificially prolonged, neurotic, Prozac fuelled cyborg people continually telling kids how much better things were 300 years ago and that they don't know when they're born just doesn't turn me on.

    Seriously, I don't want to live forever. 70-80 is fine and then I want to leave it to the next generation to carry on. If you want to take a pill and live a thousand years then go for it and good luck to you. I'll be in the ground fertilising the grass.
    • 2Deluxe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I wont even begin to point out all the amusing irony in your pathetic post, but even my 60 year old father isnt as freaked over as you are. Sounds like sour grapes to me =P. Tell the worms (who will live forerver, by the way) that the living rest of us say 'hi'.
    • KingWrecked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sour grapes implies jealousy. So your suggesting I don't want to live forever because I'm jealous of people who want to live forever? Incidently, your 60 year old Dad may coping OK but as the rate of advance and, funnily enough, the growth of individual wealth has risen in the UK so has the rate of mental illness and suicide. I'd imagine it's down to your ability to detach your situation and requirements from those of the society around you so the sociopaths among us will probably do best.

      If you want to live forever go for it. I just can't see how a species that has evolved slowly for 30,000+ years can be suitably equipped to deal with such a fast rate of change. Pills and whatever may help but I'm not willing to have chemicals I know nothing about inserted into me to help me "cope" with it.

      This is not to say that no-one should be allowed to, it's just not for me. By the way, starting a post by calling someone else's views pathetic because you don't agree with them just makes you look a right dick.
  • slapded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1that lead singer from oasis wants to live forever
  • qbyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They told us we'd have flying cars in 2000, too. Don't cancel your life insurance policy yet, people.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yes by scientists that didn't even contemplate quarks dark matter and other discoveries that have changed science...y no flying cars...we cant be trusted on the ground let alone hurtling at hundreds of miles per hour...
    • darlyn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with epiccollision ... imagine some dude just getting supper ***** and deciding that today he will fly his truck into the headquarters of some company that fired him ... I would love to have flying cars, but its just going to ruin us way too much.
  • LordSpam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8All this and no magnetic rings to wear? Sign me up!
  • lewscroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3robbiemuffin, the likely reason for an average lifespan of 24 years in the 1700's was probably due to the high amount of deaths at or near birth. Add a lot of zeros to any average and it is bound to have severely lower it
    • eximious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's exactly right. Infant mortality severely reduces average life expectancy at birth, since averages are easily influenced by outliers. In reality, throughout most of human history, if you made it past puberty you had a good shot at reaching 50 or older.
  • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Murder would be a much more serious crime if people had the potential to live forever. Perhaps infinitely more serious.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I remember reading a lot about this for an anthro class in college about 10 years ago. The ramifications of something like this are pretty serious and VERY negative. Overpopulation, psychological changes/trauma, not to mention the fact that unless you are a multi-millionaire even if it is possible in 20 or even 120 years you certainly won't be able to afford it... it would be a pharmaceutical gold mine (after all, how precious is the fountain of youth, right?)

    Only bad things can come from a population of self absorbed people that can't die of natural causes.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Immortality would be hell on earth. Besides, we need to die to make room for future generations.
    Thanks but no thanks. I want to be worm food by 2057 at the latest.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.