What's wrong with skepticism? I'm not sorry that I don't put as much faith in science (as someone who's actually studied it) as you do.

Nobody's yet proved they can make people live indefinitely, so I won't believe it until they do.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:27:40 PM

So the correct response to promising new technology is to resolutely insist it'll never happen?

That's beyond skepticism.

In your defense, though, it has a long history.

12/17/2006 10:32:26 PM

Being skeptical is fine, but what's the reason behind your assumption it can't be done? You have to have a reason to be skeptical.

Besides, I'm sorry if I don't trust your minor involvement in the sciences, but you have less than a completed undergraduate education in it. I'm going to ride with "you don't really know" on this one until you can provide an argument as to why it should be physically impossible.

Nothing that's possible is proven as 100% doable before it's done.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:33:36 PM

Based on the nanotechnology research I've done, yes, all I can see is that it's not going to happen. I'm not sorry for saying or believing it. I just think you guys are going more on hearsay and theory more than coming from the engineering required to generate nanotech devices.

12/17/2006 10:39:15 PM

Why don't you drop some actual knowledge on us instead of just claiming that you did the research already and think it's impossible.

12/17/2006 10:40:04 PM

No, I didn't say I did it and said it was impossible. I just said I thought it was progressing too slowly to ever culminate in what you're suggesting.

Most of my researching grad students had been working on one facet of such a device (I never saw a complete one made) for all 4 or 5 years of their study.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:41:13 PM

Based on what, an undergraduate summer research gig? Why do you think it's moving too slowly? How long do you estimate it taking? Why? Where is your fucking argument?

4 or 5 years? Are you kidding me? You like to give up early.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:43:09 PM

Quote :

"Based on the nanotechnology research I've done, yes, all I can see is that it's not going to happen."

Yeah, well, a lot of people thought heavier-than-air flier machines weren't going to happen.

Quote :

"I just think you guys are going more on hearsay and theory more than coming from the engineering required to generate nanotech devices."

I'm mainly, though certainly not exclusively, going on Kurzweil's technological predictions. As far as nanotechnology goes, nobody has had much success debunking Drexler's claims. Nanotech is real, and it is coming.

12/17/2006 10:45:52 PM

^Uh, where did I say it wasn't real?

I'm willing to be wrong- I just haven't seen it yet.

^^ McDanger, think all you like, but you know even less than I do about the nature of these things. I don't think forty years is enough time to make humans last forever.


[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:47:17 PM

What you've basically said is that sometimes things in science take a long time. I don't get your point. Just saying "hey look I did the numbers! Seriously! I did it! Just take my word for it!" isn't going to cut it in a debate and discussion forum.

12/17/2006 10:48:41 PM

I didn't say I crunched any numbers! Believe what you like, I just gave my opinion!

I don't think either of you know what's involved and therefore can't say that it's definitely going to happen in the future. Just as you're saying I can't know that it won't happen, I'm saying you can't know that it will (as GoldenViper has suggested several times).

12/17/2006 10:51:33 PM

Have you looked at Drexler's nanotechnology predictions?

12/17/2006 10:52:21 PM

Why would she have to? She's an undergrad, and armed with a team of pre-PhD's she's got the answers. All nanotech researchers can go home now.

12/17/2006 10:53:39 PM

McDanger, you haven't read a single thing I've written. But please, continue being sarcastic and ridiculous, since that's what "works" in a debate forum.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2006 10:54:45 PM

Quote :

"Based on the nanotechnology research I've done, yes, all I can see is that it's not going to happen."

Sounds like they're all wasting their time, to me. If only they had listened. Think of the talent wasted.

Don't backpedal. You claimed it can't be done (it's not tractable, whatever). You haven't provided any evidence to this tune other than the fact that you and some NCSU grad students couldn't produce anything. If you're this bad at posing an inductive hypothesis, it's little wonder no progress was made.

12/17/2006 10:56:31 PM

Cornell grad students. And like I said, you know less about it than I do.

Yeah, I don't think can be done and I haven't been shown otherwise. And I'm not going to argue anymore, since nothing said has changed my opinion.

12/17/2006 10:58:48 PM

If I know less about it than you do then drop some of that knowledge on us. I'm inviting you to instruct me in how it's not tractable. I really am. Saying "me and some Cornell grad students couldn't do it" doesn't mean jack shit.

12/17/2006 10:59:38 PM

Quote :

"It has led to overcrowding"

Did you know you could fit the whole population of the whole world in a place the size of Wake County. This world is not crowded. If you think it's crowded move out to Montana or something...

We do consume a lot of resources though.

12/17/2006 10:59:55 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying you can't know that it will (as GoldenViper has suggested several times)."

I stand by that claim. Obviously, nobody can perfectly predict the future, but I consider it the most likely possibility. Unless research stops or hits a major roadblock, we will greatly extend human longevity for those who can afford it.

Of course, even a hundred years in the future is an unbelievably long time. A thousand might as well be forever. I can't imagine death still being a problem in a thousand years. But it does depend greatly on how society reacts to advancing technology.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 11:01 PM. Reason : d]

12/17/2006 11:00:05 PM

Quote :

"but if we aren't supposed to, why the fuck are we trying to?"

Stupid Wright Brothers! Didn't anyone tell them man "aren't supposed to" fly!?!?

Man was given intellect, if you want to think of it that way, so we are "supposed to" do whatever our intellect allows. So, if we are smart enough to figure out living indefinitely then by golly we were supposed to do so.

[Edited on December 17, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/17/2006 11:26:13 PM

I'm not too sure how much farther you can extend life expectancy at this point. Basically, humans have always had this ceiling and we are getting close to reaching it. The choices you make in eating, stress, and drugs are really what can limit you(or even preserve you).

You know why your hips break, you go blind, your cognitive abilities go at a certain age?

It's because you are supposed to die.

12/18/2006 12:44:32 AM

There's no "supposed to" about anything in nature. What about that is hard to understand? We're the ones that inject the should's and ought-to's.

12/18/2006 1:15:28 AM

Since you appear to be retarded let me rephrase that.

When you get to be older, AND ARE FAR PAST YOUR PRIME REPRODUCTIVE ABILITIES, you are supposed to die.

I don't wish death upon anyone but if you make it to age 75 you have lived a full life and should not struggle to hang on.

12/18/2006 6:36:37 AM

I think you misunderstand us. We don't want to look 75 when we turn 200, we want to look/feel/act 40 when we turn 200. Since you care so much about reproduction, I want to be able to start a family at the age of 200.

12/18/2006 9:38:00 AM

My point is why anyone would want to be 200. I understand the fear of death.

And yes, I see your point. If it were ever possible to be 200 but look and feel like 21 who wouldn't jump at it......

But this isn't magical marshmallow free hugs land.

12/18/2006 10:29:42 AM

what were those people in Gulliver's Travels?

12/18/2006 11:01:40 AM

It weirds me out when you say
"Why would anyone want to be 200"
and then in the next sentence, you give an example of what would make you want to be 200.

Quote :

"Why is longevity the most important thing?"

What should be the aim, if not living?

12/18/2006 11:01:40 AM

Fermata: Yeah, I'm the retarded one but you're the one talking about teleology in nature. You're either an ancient Greek or a Christian, and either way you're painfully wrong.

None of us are "supposed" to die. We just do.

What's so hard to understand about wanting to live longer? I have shit I want to do with my life, things I want to accomplish. If I could get longer to do it, then I'd take it. How do you not understand this? If you're in such a rush to die, what's the difference between now and 90?

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2006 11:03:18 AM

If we defeat age-mortality then all of us are going to die in car accidents.

12/18/2006 11:21:36 AM

I do have a question though: The brain has to deteriorate over time, I'm assuming. So are we talking about the point in time when we replace brain functionality with nanotechnology? If we are, then I'd like the hear a discussion of what exactly life is anyhow. The old Thesius' ship problem comes to mind.

12/18/2006 11:26:12 AM

Yeah that's a good question. No idea.

12/18/2006 11:39:31 AM

^^ Not everyone's brain responds to aging the same way. Some people are completely lucent at the age of 110. So, the goal is to make everyone's brain age in a similar fashion.

Or, halt the aging process all together. There is no fundamental law of physics why your cells must act differently over time, perhaps it's as simple as using nanomachines to trick your cells into believing you're only 30.

12/18/2006 11:46:35 AM

Well, I am totally fine with finding ways to make the organic cells not age, if that is plausible. The problem for me comes in replacing the cells. Still, I am probably ok with it, but it brings up so many philosophical questions about what life is.

I loved my Philosophy of Science class, but I hated that we never got any answers (though it was understandable).

12/18/2006 11:50:50 AM

Well if you're skeptical enough, it's hard to tell that you're fundamentally the same person from moment to moment, or day to day. How do you know you're the same person when you wake up? Maybe each time your consciousness reforms it's fundamentally different.

Maybe our view of identity in general is flawed and fictitious. It could be that replacing our parts with perfect mechanical replicas would work just fine. Why wouldn't it, if the necessary functions are modeled?

12/18/2006 11:52:37 AM

Well, I'm not skeptical enough, lol...but here's the problem with mechanical replacement.

Lets say they do it one cell at a time and put the organic cells all together again, working as before. Which is my identity? The mechanical me or the organic me?

12/18/2006 11:56:21 AM

Quote :

"If we defeat age-mortality then all of us are going to die in car accidents."

Well, hopefully we'll have AIs driving our cars soon, and that'll reduce crashes.

That's a good point, though. That is why Aubrey de Grey says a thousand years. However, good enough medical technology should also make deaths from trauma extremely unlikely.

Quote :

"So are we talking about the point in time when we replace brain functionality with nanotechnology?"

That's certainly an option. The SENS idea, as I understand it, is to just repair the damage as you go along.

Quote :

"Still, I am probably ok with it, but it brings up so many philosophical questions about what life is."

All those questions are coming. Unless something changes, we will have human-level AI within fifty years (and probably much sooner).

12/18/2006 12:07:38 PM

Quote :

"The fascism that exists in the Medical-Industrial Complex is to blame. Nearly the entire practice of medicine in the US constitutes a giant cartel."

that isnt facism

it is corporatism

12/18/2006 12:25:28 PM

^ True enough. But that also means the Nazi's were not fascists, they were nationalistic corporatists.

We used fascism because corporatism was not part of the lexicon.

12/18/2006 2:17:51 PM