It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist


www.telegraph.co.uk


The 61-year-old American, who has predicted new technologies arriving before, says our understanding of genes and computer technology is accelerating at an incredible rate.

He says theoretically, at the rate our understanding is increasing, nanotechnologies capable of replacing many of our vital organs could be available in 20 years time.

Mr Kurzweil adds that although his claims may seem far-fetched, artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
20 years... I'll be alive and well at that time I hope. Maybe if the world turns into the better place I'll consider this option. However, it will probably only be available to the millionaire club.

This will be the future "stem cell" topic. Research will be heavily regulated and production should be restrained.

Personally, I don't want an immortal Hitler. But if someone wants immortality it's their choice. It might be a curse as well.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The world certainly does not need immortality. The population growth is out of control now can you imagine what it would be like if people did not die to make room for the up and coming generations?

What would the retirement age be if you never die. You could be 150 years old and still have to work. (ughh what a grind that would be).

Immortality? No thanks, I have no desire to hang around on this planet for that long. Give me 80-90 years and thats enough for me..



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
With all the nanotechnology in the world, you still wouldn't survive a bullet in the head, meteorite impact or nuclear bomb.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Well everything dies. This will not lead to "immortality" the blood vessles in the brain cannot be replaced nor can the brain. You would be able to add a good 15 years or so by replacing vital organs but the brain can't be replaced. Plus if you get hit by a bus,shot in the head or catch a bad case of AIDS you are done.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Fair points.

But I believe your basing your feelings on the world the way it is now.

But the world is always changing, who knows how you will feel in 20 years, wait even 5 years, it's changing fast.

Also population problem will probably be solved soon, especially if the it's with the great minds of the "wiser" humanity that will be the result of older generations.

Imagine a world with humans who have lived for so long and have learnt so much from past mistakes, imagine if people like eintein was still alive today for example


I know there are some negatives to this reality. But I feel that a older human race that doesn't have generations repeating mistakes again and again sounds pretty good.

But I think wether we like it or not, it's gonna happen anyway, even if it takes 200 years.

Technology is humans new evolution, humans are going to evolve wether we like it or not. And in a way it's Natural....



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
People who say population is a problem have never been to montana, north of Los Angeles California, New Mexico, Arizona and on and on.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Imagine for a moment that in twenty years someone does put it all together.

They figure out the latest and greatest technologies available to prolong life and offer it as a package.

You could go down to your local "Long Life" center and get equipped for a long life.

Would you do it?

Personally, I"d love to have the body that was mine 40 years ago. I'd love to wake up in the morning and not have any aches or pains. I'd love to be able to work out and get stronger, rather than working out and just getting tired.

I'd love to be able to see and play with grand children, great grand children and great great grand children.

But, if few people die, the world could get really crowded. Who would have the right to have children.

Would this technology be available for people in countries that don't seem to have a concept of population control?

The future is going to be very interesting.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I know there are some negatives to this reality. But I feel that a older human race that doesn't have generations repeating mistakes again and again sounds pretty good.


Imagine those same people repeating the same mistakes over and over again for a hundred years or more because they're convinced that this time they'll get it right. Gives me chills honestly.

In theory living forever sounds like a good thing. You'd have time to accomplish everything you want to do, see everything you want to see, etc. The reality though I think wouldn't be quite as nice as that.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Kurzwiel is dreaming. He has been campaigning for Immortality since the 80's, he's the foremost author and reference regarding the Technological Singularity, in fact one might even say he's responsible for the theory in the first place.

Ergo, this is nothing new. Kurzwiel has been desperately pursuing his own immortality by any means since before I was born, and will continue until he toddles off down to Alcor to have his head frozen in a tank as his last bid for infinity.

View this as a press release for his work, not news.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
From what I've read, within twenty years we will have the technology to download our consciousness onto a computer and live forever.

Of course, maybe we're already on a computer.............the simulation argument



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by yadda333
 


Yeah we have all seen the matrix. There is another theory that we are all living
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away


But hey why stop there? You can always get into a long generic unresolvable deabate about the glass being half empty or full or over what is reality.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zaiger]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by yadda333
 


Yeah we have all seen the matrix. There is another theory that we are all living
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away


But hey why stop there? You can always get into a long generic unresolvable deabate about the glass being half empty or full or over what is reality.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zaiger]


My link was to an Oxford Professors paper on the subject. The concept is not new, and is being discussed by a lot of brilliant people.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by yadda333
 


Well Time magazine is written by a team of brilliant paper they just happened to vot Hittler and Stalin man of the year. Brilliance does not make anything correct or right.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


There was no argument about whether or not it is right. I simply stated that a lot of people, including modern philosophers, are discussing it.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Immortality living in a physical body is pretty stupid, and lacks any understanding of what "infinity" is. There's always a chance however small that you'll die, times infinity and there ya go. Might live thousands of years but equal in length to 85 years if multiplied by zero.

So immortality, no, longer life yes.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I think it is all bull. And I hate to be one of those people who just dismiss something as stupid but this is stupid.

For one, with the wealthy and powerful going on and on about overpopulation, despite the contrary (that is, there being no actual scientific evidence or research but rather fear mongering, even the food crisis seem a bit of fluke), you really think they would not be selective about this technology?

Another thing is who in the hell wants to live that long? Even the most fittest elderly (and there are a few of them out there) would eventually lose not the will or drive but possible the ability to keep fit at the pace they are used to. Such pleasures as sex would be completely disgusting and laborious at such an age beyond 100.

The impossibility of staying update as the generations go forward would be a tiring effort of relearning, learning new things, new history, etc. And I speak of this because not everyone will simply go to the countryside to live or stay in their homes forever.

And must we forget how elderly people are treated already? It is bad enough the U.S. government screws over our vets, but having extra people who should have been dead long ago would do more to cause a problem of overpopulation and create a sinister solution.

What if one of those old immortals wanted have a child? There are a ton of questions that all make this impossilbe. Not to mention, Agenda 21 will soon in place in the next 50 years or so.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by DevilJin]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
They should be working to cure a disease. Something they have yet to do.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
They should be working to cure a disease. Something they have yet to do.


You can't make money by helping people and curing diseases, though I really do think they can cure SOME diseases that they won't.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


"Agenda 21 will soon in place in the next 50 years or so."

You got my attention. More details on Agenda 21 please.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join