Gwarthkam said:
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.
Hm. From what I've read, it is closer to 25 years for specific parts (like a liver or a hair). We already know how to clone a whole body, but for moral reasons we still don't dare to do it with a human being to use the "corpse" as spare parts. After all, the brain would be cloned too.
Rackhir said:
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.
Cancer leading to immortality. Now that would be ironic. Though maybe no more than vaccination (= protection from a virus by injection of this virus (weakened, of course)).
Rackhir said:
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.
It could indeed be heaven
as well as hell on earth. Something it would open to is space colonisation, though: not only so we can go on reproducing, but above all because the rich, who will not invest in space today because they know they wouldn't see any result from it before they reach the grave, would do so if immortal.
Zappo said:
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.
No, immortality would be costly at first, but soon enough not so. Think about the evolution of computers, in that respect. Does it mean that it will become available to everyone, just as computers are today? Hey, that's another problem, but more on the social than on the technical side. Even if you could pay for immortality, the men in power may not let everyone access it. The costs may be voluntarily exagerated. Now, would this lead to a revolution? There are several science-fiction stories revolving around such a problem.
Zappo said:
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).
But the person who created the HD knows how it works. So yes, here, you need to understand to create the technology, even if not to make use of it.
Zappo said:
I would probably settle for a robotic body if nothing better is available.
Same here, if only because better would certainly become available later on. Or maybe we could all live in robotic bodies to "work" and spend or real lives in a shared (or not) dream (perfect virtual reality).
Canis said:
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 begin deteriorating in our early twenties, looong before the end of our "reproductive viability."
Canis said:
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.
We can clone life, that we still don't understand. On yet another level, if we can improve ourselves (thanks to nanotechnology, for instance, if we learn how to use it to make the information in the brain circulate better), the ancient "us" become a system less complicated than the new.
Zappo said:
Pretty sure. The quotes I made are paraphrased - it was 3 years ago. But the tone was serious.
If he was serious, why refusing to sell him the wands? Because he was not worthy? Am I worthy? Would you sell me the wands? Can I have a rebate if I buy both a wand of frost AND a wand of fear?
Originally posted by javapadawan
The picture on the site shows one ring on each hand...
But I'm pretty sure immortality bonuses don't stack...
[/B]
They do, but that's a special rule: you become able to travel in time.