The Quest for Immortality

[BridgeTheGap]

Within 30 years, humans could be immune to disease, unaffected by the ravages of aging, and able live to 150 or perhaps 1,000 years old. We could be, Bryan Appleyard writes for Cosmos Magazine, “medically immortal.”

Medicine and biotechnology may soon begin advancing more quickly than nature can find ways to kill us. “Ultimately,” Appleyard writes, “the forward movement of technology will outstrip our own forward movement through time, and death, the old enemy, will have been vanquished.”

There is safety in arguing that people will soon become immortal. Most people predicting immortality will be dead by the time they can be proven wrong. If they are still alive, they will have been proven right. It’s a win-win bet. And anyone arguing against them is called “fatalistic” and in favor of people dying.

http://www.utne.com/2008-06-10/Science-Technology/The-Quest-for-Immortality.aspx?blogid=36&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

[Jim__]

1. Does the article talk about the effect on population?

I didn't see it on the linked page. If people were living to be 1,000, seems like we'd have issues with resources.

[BridgeTheGap]

3. The major studies done on hunger / development found that population rates of increase

tend to decline the more developed a country becomes. Some countries in Europer actually have negative population growth rates.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. There'd probably be a restriction on how many kids you can have.

[Occulus]

12. And/Or a push for colonization and expansion into other areas

Underground on the moon, in space stations orbiting the Earth, Mars...

We will need to be able to get off this rock. It's only a question of when.

[Warpy]

2. I've seen too much of death to consider it an enemy,

an idea that seems to be most prominent among the young and healthy. When death has come to patients and family members, it's generally come as an old friend, releasing people from suffering.

I'll leave the search for immortality to those who think they want it. I don't.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. But that wouldn't apply

People wouldn't be in pain and suffering the effects of old age and disease.

[Phoonzang]

5. If this technology is created there needs to be

strict limits on reproduction. It would also need to be distributed fairly so all people can benefit from it. In other words, we'd be in for a wild ride.

[Indenturedebtor]

9. Or we could just colonize the universe :D n/t

[Nihil]

10. Yeah, right ...

> If this technology is created there needs to be
> strict limits on reproduction. It would also need to be
> distributed fairly so all people can benefit from it.

The chances of that happening are a damn sight less than the chances
of medical science progressing far enough that immortality becomes
possible.

[Occulus]

13. We could always implement Clarke's policy of optimization and termination

the policy that he assigned to his octospider species.

We'd need to retard our sexual drive into the bargain, so optimization could take hold. Clarke's Law.

:silly:

[mainegreen]

6. And we'll have flying cars and AI in 30 years too!

:sarcasm:

[BridgeTheGap]

7. Hey, they laughed at the Wright brothers too! n.t

[Occulus]

14. Actually, biotech really is advancing at an astonishing rate

and if you put nanotech and biotech together, you get a Golden Ticket.

[That Is Quite Enough]

8. Too bad the 'immortality' granting medicines and technologies...

Will only be available to the richest of the rich. Whatever.