[OT] Wanna be immortal? (for real)

[Hikaru]

Al: If we reach biological immortality through nanotechnology (as it is envisioned today, at least), we would be immune to all illnesses too. In fact, immunity to illnesses would come way before biological immortality proper, as the "easiest" way to use nanotechnology would be to have nanobots act as white cells: programed with the DNA pattern of the body, they would destroy everything that is not it. Of course, such nanobots would have to be disactivated should a transplantation be required (unless we've learnt how to clone body parts, too, or unless whole bodies are cultivated to serve as "spare parts" ressources, but there comes the moral dilemna) since we would still be prone to accidents. Including deadly accidents, which would certainly bring some of the new immortals to live very paranoid lives, sheltered in self-designed prisons.

Nightfall: If you ever buy the Finger of Death ring from Fade, could I present you to some persons?

 

[Gwarthkam]

AI:as mentioned by another poster aging is genetic trait. the number of cell divisions in a given tissue is limited by a "timer".

Free radicals in the air are not a serious problem regading aging (compared to the inevitabilities of other factors)

Hikaru: "nanobots" that does what you say are not in the immediate future, cloning specific tissues and bodyparts from stem-cells can be done within 2-3 years.

Meepo: Many living cells (for instance human cells) are indeed programmed to die, and the equilibrium between cancer and reproductive age would seem to reflect this. But it might be a coincidence.

aging makes pefect sense in an evolutionary perspective, our genes are selected for reproduction and what happen to us after we reproduce is not of any consequence to the genes (a truth with modifications, but it's close).
Survival after reproduction will only be tolerated in evolution so far as it helps the progeny.

The degree of altruism that would be required by the humans in postreproductive age, in order for them to benefit the progeny enough to make them evolutionary viable, is observable in society today but pose a problem in evolutionary bilology because such altruism would initially be to costly for the individual...uhm enough rambling from me, sorry

 

[Zappo]

Meepo seems to recall reading recent research that indicated that scientists had discovered that part of the reason that living cells are programmed to die, is that it prevents cancer. In creatures where the built-in self-destruct is turned off, the incidence of cancer increases dramatically. So it seems that living creatures might be at the optimum balance between longevity and lethal cancer risk.

Death as a way to prevent cancer? It somehow doesn't sound right.

More seriously, I understand. But there's got to be a way. I just hope they find it within the next 60 years or so. Some way to make backups of your mind (like in that Arnie flick, the 6th day) would be nice too. Even though using them would involve adult clones... uhm, I think that if someone found out a mean to immortality tomorrow, the moral problems would probably delay its application until I'm dead anyway. Bummer.

 

[Rackhir]

This guy selling the rings showed up on the Daily Show a number of years back when Craig Killborne was hosting it. Now if you know anything about the Daily Show and their "special" guest segments, that should give you a good idea of how much validity to place in this guy.

Death as a way to prevent cancer? It somehow doesn't sound right.

Meepo has it right, Zappo at least as I understand it. There is a line of thinking that cancer cells do offer a potential path to immortality, since they are cells in which the "clock" has been turned off and they can keep reproducing and replacing themselves indefinitely.

Frankly there are a lot of downsides to immortality, even if only from a societal view point. Just imagine a world where people who's view points were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago. Now add to that the people who are ruling, are in charge because they had amassed a dominant position in wealth or power and never had to give it up because they died.

Imagine a world where Bill Gates got to live forever. Please kill me if that happens...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Some random biology:

It's quite a bit more complicated than "death as way to prevent cancer." It's more like one of the various anti-cancer mechanisms uses apoptosis (programmed cell death). Stopping that apoptosis would certainly result in more cancer. It's not clear whether stopping the cancer AND the apoptosis would result in longer life. Probably not. Alot of those mechanisms are necessary for proper growth, development, and coordination of a multicellular organism. If the right cells aren't doing the right things, in the right places, our bodies don't work. Most of the limits on cell lines in the body are used to keep everything running in the same direction. Remove those mechanisms, and I think we'd pretty much self-destruct.

Gwarthkam had a point in that longevity has nothing to do with our genetic programming. Reproductive viability is key. When you no longer contribute to the reproduction of your genes, it's in their best interests to arrange "exit- stage right" for you so you're not a drain on the resources of your offspring. We could have a 500 page debate on altruism and whether it applies to this situation, but I'm supposed to be working, so I'll drop it.

Whoever brought up free radicals... that stuff was mostly debunked years ago. Free radicals are much LESS important than people think.

As for nanotech, there are a LOT of problems with mortality that would be hard to address. You may be able to keep the heart, lungs, muscles, viscera, etc. operating indefinitely, but the brain is another matter entirely. Assuming we can figure out how to reprodice them and keep them alive, how much can those cells be manipulated without changing the fundamental nature of the person? We don't know. (I'm a neurobiologist, trust me on that part)

Nanotech and stem cells will probably give us extended life in the relatively near future (our kids or grandkids, at best), but you eventually hit the brain ceiling. I don't think that back-ups of a person's mind will ever be possible. Even if you ignore the spiritual ramifications, there's a theory that a given system can only understand systems less complicated than itself. Therefore, we will never truly understand the workings of our own brains. Therefore we will not be able to replicate them. Incidentally, following this theory we will also never be able to make computers as complex as our brains.

Bottom line: If you want to be immortal, you better write a great book (or other artistic endeavor) or win a Nobel Prize. Those are pretty much the only options that leave you looking pretty good. (as opposed to the Hitler-Stalin-O.J.-Jack-the-Ripper-Jerry Springer-Osama-Reality-TV method that seems to be gaining in popularity these days)

 

[Zappo]

Ooops, I forgot the smilies. As I said in the following line, I understood what Meepo meant perfectly.

Anyway, I can tolerate a world where Bill Gates is immortal as long as I get to be immortal, too. Which makes me think: immortality is good as long as it's for everyone who wants it. I suspect that if a way to immortality is ever found, it will be extraordinarily costly. That would relegate it to rich and powerful people, and that is very, very bad.

BTW, to make backups of a person's mind, on a theorical level, you don't need to understand it. I can make a backup of my hard disk, but that doesn't mean I know how Windows works (actually, I don't even really know how my HD works - not to the point of being able to build one). Still, that's all theory; I think (fear?) there are practical reasons that make such a feat impossible. And getting that backup into a fresh brain would be even more impossible, not to mention the moral implications. Come to think about it, I would probably settle for a robotic body if nothing better is available.

 

[Omegium]

He, i'm going to live forever, until now it goes well

 

[javapadawan]

The picture on the site shows one ring on each hand...
But I'm pretty sure immortality bonuses don't stack...

 

[Zappo]

The picture on the site shows one ring on each hand...
But I'm pretty sure immortality bonuses don't stack...

That's because one is the ring of immortality, and the other is the ring of three wishes. He probably isn't selling it yet.

Ooooh, I just remembered the funniest thing ever! Well, not really, but...

You see, a long time ago (3/4 years), I used to have a gaming site (it was pretty good too, in the scale of one-man sites). I had new monsters, new classes, new magic items, new spells, free adventures, and all. Now, my policy with magical items has always been not to include the price. Because, I think prices heavily depend on the campaign flavor (hi-magic vs. lo-magic).

Anyway, one day I receive an email stating simply "How much does the wand of Wall of Ice cost?". So I answer "Depends on the campaign; take a look at similar items in your campaign and make a comparison to establish a likely price", or something like that.
The email I got back was something like "I don't know about campaigns. Just tell me how much it costs. Also, do I have to pay wih credit card? What is the shipping time? Oh, and can you give me info on the wand of fear as well?"

I've never been so astonished at an email. Not even at the one advertising the Armageddon Survival Kit.

I mean, that guy read about a thingy that creates 3 meters tall walls of ice and which has "the spirit of a Gelugon bound into it", and instead of reading the big "Dungeons and Dragons" logo three centimeters to the left of it, he asks me price, payment and shipping information?

Sometimes, I still think I should have picked up a chinese food wooden stick, slapped a "if it doesn't work, it's your problem" disclaimer on top of it, and charged him 50 bucks for it. Not really for the money, but just because he really deserved it.

Instead, I sent him a suprisingly polite email explaining the misunderstandment, and never heard from him again.

 

[Gwarthkam]

Rackhir: I think you got the cancer-cell/immortality concept a bit backwards

Zappo: The idea of making a "backup" of a persons "mind" and loading it back into a "fresh brain" has several problems, one of them being that the "mind" might be occupying a much larger portion of the body than the brain, cases like adopted traits through organ transplants would indicate this (don't know much about this).
As far as I know (Canis might correct me on this one) there's not much evidence suggesting that the entire memory is confined to the brain. There are several hypothesis floating around, the latest I heard was an american scientist (don't remember her name) suggesting that there might be singled celled memory due to rearrangement of microtubuli, if that were the case the maximum possible amount of "memory" in the brain would be extremely high compared to any current estimate.

Regarding the age after reproduction issue I regard it as the genes not really caring about your well being after reproductive age, not intentional execution. But that's a viewpoint only supported by my subjective guesstimation of the evolutionary pressure due to resource consumption and the fitness benefit from non reproductive close relatives (that and because I would like to belive that neutral drift is an important factor in selection pressure for aging people).

Canis: I was just briefly mentioning the problems with Altruism in evolution because it seems fair (to the elderly) not to imply that they are useless

There's another evolutionary problem, besides altruism, that makes the whole subject even more muddy and that's the "benefit" gained from fitness through adaptability. It could be argued that short generations could be an asset to a population since it makes adaption through evolution faster and thus more resilient to changes in the environment. The problem with this viewpoint is that there's really no immediate benefit for the individual who is carrying this "potential" and though it might benefit the population in the long run, it's bound to be a genetic trait that would be ruined by any mutation yielding longer reproductive age to an individual. Fitness through potential that doesn't help the individual right here and now is very "risky", and if the potential is costly in any way it is not likely to be succesfull in an evolutionary perspective.

My advice to immortality seekers would be to belive in reincarnation of some sort.