Posted on 03/02/2011 3:56:45 PM PST by Strk321
I'm just wondering if anyone on FR read this and what they think of it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138,00.html
I myself think the idea of man becoming one with machines is nonsense, but the idea of slowing or reversing the aging process is very intriguing.
If it happened, what would it mean for society? Would we all live to 300 and have the body of a 40-year old (or something to that effect) to the end? There's a lot to think about.
As Glenn at Instapundit says...Faster please!
I had a discussion with this on another site, and I said “So, if everyone doesn’t age, it would mean you’ll never want or need to retire from your job. Which means that young people will have a hard time finding work.”
And someone suggested to me (with a touch of humor) that “They should just give Social Security checks to everyone when they turn 18. You then live on the public dole for 100 years until your elders die at 300 and you get their job.”
I’ll wait for my resurrection body, thank you. it will be infinitely superior to any bionic body that man can devise. (And that body, too, will die.)
That’s the whole POINT of the Singularity: things will suddenly change out of all current recognition. Between Infotech, AI, and Nanotech. . . things are already changing fast.
Hold on, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet. . .
We are the Borg; you will be assimilated.
Just think of the consequences that a slower aging process and lower global mortality rates would do to a world population of 9 billion expected by 2050.
Not in our lifetime!
Ray Kurzweil is a mad scientist.
I’ll be 88 in 2045. Just my luck... I will turn 65 the year Social Security goes bankrupt, and die the year before mankind becomes immortal.
As we’ve already achieved with current technology.
I stumbled across an article yesterday about South Carolina. Said that in 1900, only 3% of that state’s population was over the age of 65. It’s now nearly 25%. Because in olden times, people died young of what are now easily treatable conditions.
However, by allowing longer lifespans, we’ve created a host of new medical problems. Things like Alzheimer’s and other conditions of advanced age that didn’t exist back then because most people didn’t live long enough to be affected by them.
I have a theory on aging that I came up with. Goes like this:
If you live to an advanced age, but are in poor health, you likely don’t have good genetics and probably would have died young in an earlier time. If you enjoy good health, you likely would have lived to advanced age at any time in history.
Just imagine if a tyrant like Mao, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein could buy the power to live forever...
I saw a man become one with a machine. It took the fire dept. over half an hour to undo it. The car and the man died when separated.
“I’ll be 88 in 2045.”
Incidentally, I don’t think simple longevity means that you have good genetics. All that proves is that modern medicine is able to keep people with poor genes alive longer. It’s the kind of health you’re in that counts.
For example, go in a nursing home and see people with Alzheimer’s, people with walkers, etc. They’re the kind (IMO anyway) who probably would have died young before modern medicine.
Probably never happen. It seems to me that western civilization has reached its peak and is now being dragged down the other slope by the political correct toleration of degeneracy promoted by radical Islam, multigenerational welfare dependency, and the various other fruits of liberalism. I do not think that scientific progress can continue when society as a whole becomes a cesspool.
I wouldn’t sweat it. Hitler would have still offed himself in his bunker.
What about Oprah?
I don’t have anything against Oprah.
Well, it sounds like H-— to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.