Immortality: Coming to You in 2045

Comments (7)

  1. Dr John Andersen says:

    I agree with Ray Kurzweil this is a quote of what he says “I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies’ stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever. “ whether he is correct or not who can say, regardless the fact remains that Biotechnology and Nanotechnology are both progressing very quickly although Biotec is ahead of Nanotec by 10 to 15 years although it seems to be moving faster in the last 18 months. To grasp where Kurzweil is coming from we need to consider that we are already adding two or three months each year to our life expectancy and this has been consistent for the last thirty years or so. If you then consider that Ray Kurzweil is not the only person who sees a better than 50% chance of controlling aging within 30 years the whole issue starts to become very interesting. For years people spoke of a cure but I believe that is at least 100 years away. There is however a shortcut which is by rendering aging a manageable condition albeit a chronic one, this is quite possibly within striking distance and I feel we are 15 to 25 years from bringing aging under a decisive level of clinical control. This is because we know the 7 types of damage which arise due to aging and they are as follows (1) cell loss, (2) death resistant cells, (3) nuclear DNA mutations, (4) mitochondrial DNA mutations, (5) intracellular junk, (6) extracellular junk, and (7) extracellular crosslinks. This might sound rather daunting but the key is that we don’t need to stop the damage actually arising we just need to control it and repair some of it. This gives us a shortcut to radical life extension.


  2. A. Baron says:

    Technology aside, who decides who gets the treatment/procedure? Is it only people at the natural end of biological life who qualify or is it accident victims. Is this technology wasted on youth. Do psychopaths get a shot at living indefinitely.


  3. adver says:

    I have no doubt that, at some time, we’ll live for ever as I know, from all the evidence, that aliens (out-space) have been and are here. I only hope that common sense will prevail before we destroy each other.


  4. Meaghan says:

    Not everybody wants to live forever, as evidenced by the results of this poll…only about half of people would choose immortality if it were scientifically possible.


  5. Skyla says:

    This amazes me, but I don’t think I want to live forever. It would just feel too weird to me to be put inside an “avatar” when I die, and see my body on the ground lying next to me. We were all born to die, and it seems like you’re interrupting it in a way. With that being said, this is just my opinion. I know a number of people who would love to be brought back to life and live for 100’s of years. But personally, I think I’d feel as if I was drowning in technology.


  6. Geoff says:

    Don’t get me wrong, but this article isn’t the best written thing out there. Light on the citations, lacking a good chunk of historical depth and explanation and using the film ‘Transcendence’ as a reference, implying that any of the ideas therein were in any way new or unusual? That film was a string of referencea to older and better works, some of which are by now so old they are commons and could have been linked to for further reading.

    It wouldn’t have been hard.


  7. Name says:

    Can technology cure death?
    The answer is NO!
    But nothing suggest it can’t prevent it.

    While preventing death doesn’t seems feasible in the present, there are no laws of physics in our universe that to make it physically impossible for a being to live at least as long as the universe itself perish; so as long as humanity exists and continues to advance in technology, it is possible in the future for humans to avoid senescence and so to become immortal at least as it comes to aging.

    But as we talk about immortality, the way of immortality presented here is more of a “Unit’s design” immortality than a person’s immortality.
    In the same way a jar can be broken but its design remains immortal, so new jars can be created.

    Personally I would prefer having immortality of myself as a being than immortality as a “design of my prior self”, but if immortality as a design is what is near then it would take much more time to get actual immortality for biological human beings as themselves, which might be achievable through genetics, nanotechnology and tissue engineering. Until that time comes, the only real immortals would be AIs designed to be immortal.

    So as this is immortality of the design and not of the being, while this would give us the chance of leaving something very like us in the universe to live for an indefinite amount of time, the actual “us” our prior selves as the mortal humans we are would most probably die, and so it would be for all other humans until immortality for biological humans as beings be available.


Add Comment