Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Future" - weblog - navigation bar

Expand Messages
  • Marilyn
    here s a news site you might like to add to your navigation bar on the Future site. http://nanotech-now.com/ i have been following nanotech, off and on,
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 31 1:40 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      here's a news site you might like to add to your navigation bar on the
      "Future" site. http://nanotech-now.com/ i have been following
      nanotech, off and on, since 1992 and this site, along with Kurzweil,
      are the only places i go on a weekly basis.

      every now and then, i ask this question. what is the latest estimate
      as to when we will all be young and beautiful and live forever? being
      old, this is all i really care about at the moment. i mean, if you're
      dead, the rest of the wonders of the future don't mean much.

      ^_^

      marilyn
    • wayne radinsky
      ... I ve been getting my nanotech news from NanoDot, http://www.nanodot.org/ I think everyone on the bafuture list already reads the kurzweil site. ... I don t
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > here's a news site you might like to add to your navigation
        > bar on the "Future" site. http://nanotech-now.com/ i have
        > been following nanotech, off and on, since 1992 and this
        > site, along with Kurzweil, are the only places i go on a
        > weekly basis.

        I've been getting my nanotech news from NanoDot,
        http://www.nanodot.org/

        I think everyone on the bafuture list already reads the
        kurzweil site.

        > every now and then, i ask this question. what is the
        > latest estimate as to when we will all be young and
        > beautiful and live forever? being old, this is all i
        > really care about at the moment. i mean, if you're dead,
        > the rest of the wonders of the future don't mean much.

        I don't think there is a "latest estimate as to when we
        will all be young and beautiful and live forever". I don't
        think there is any consensus. There's a variety of
        "experts" with a variety of "expert opinions". (Rumors are
        that if you look at when the "expert" says immortality will
        be possible and when said "expert" turns 70, they are about
        the same...)

        If you want *my* opinion, my opinion is never. It'll never
        happen. While life expectancy has increased over the last
        100 years, you can't just extrapolate life expectancy out
        exponentially to predict what it will be in the future.
        Remember people predicted that we'd have personal
        supersonic airplanes and nuclear vacuum cleaners? If you
        put the assumptons that immortality predictions are based
        on under the microscope, you'll find that they aren't solid
        and don't hold up. Perhaps we can lower death rates and
        improve life expectancy so that most people can live the
        full 100+ year human lifespan, that might be realistic. But
        saying we will extend the human lifespan much beyond that,
        we will be immortal, we will all be young and beautiful and
        live forever ... I just don't see that happening. Our
        bodies are literally not supposed to live forever. The fact
        is natural selection has chosen the lifespan that we have
        because that's the optimal lifespan over the evolutionary
        past. The way to immortality is reproduction. Life is about
        survival and reproduction, not immortality. True, you don't
        survive intact, you get recombined with someone else. But
        that's life.

        Having said all that, there's always the possibility that
        I'm wrong. I've been wrong about other things before. It
        makes perfect sense to me that you would sign up with
        Alcor, give the immortality thing a chance, and see what
        happens.

        Wayne





        --- Marilyn <marilyn1mew@...> wrote:
        > here's a news site you might like to add to your navigation
        > bar on the
        > "Future" site. http://nanotech-now.com/ i have been
        > following
        > nanotech, off and on, since 1992 and this site, along with
        > Kurzweil,
        > are the only places i go on a weekly basis.
        >
        > every now and then, i ask this question. what is the latest
        > estimate
        > as to when we will all be young and beautiful and live
        > forever? being
        > old, this is all i really care about at the moment. i mean,
        > if you're
        > dead, the rest of the wonders of the future don't mean much.
        >
        > ^_^
        >
        > marilyn
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      • markfinnern
        Hi Wayne, Marilyn was referring to our weblog navigation bar at http://finnern.com/future where NanotechNow was missing. I added it just between KurzweilAI and
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Wayne,

          Marilyn was referring to our weblog navigation bar at
          http://finnern.com/future where NanotechNow was missing.

          I added it just between KurzweilAI and NanoDot.

          So all major Nano sites just nanos, well mega-nanos, away from each
          other.

          Enjoy, Mark.

          --- In bafuture@yahoogroups.com, wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> wrote:
          >
          > > here's a news site you might like to add to your navigation
          > > bar on the "Future" site. http://nanotech-now.com/ i have
          > > been following nanotech, off and on, since 1992 and this
          > > site, along with Kurzweil, are the only places i go on a
          > > weekly basis.
          >
          > I've been getting my nanotech news from NanoDot,
          > http://www.nanodot.org/
          >
          > I think everyone on the bafuture list already reads the
          > kurzweil site.
          >
        • wayne radinsky
          ... Assumption #1: You can extrapolate life expectancy in the same manner that you can extrapolate computing power as per Moore s Law. Assumption #2: That
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:
            >
            > wayne radinsky wrote:
            >> Remember people predicted that we'd have personal
            >> supersonic airplanes and nuclear vacuum cleaners? If you
            >> put the assumptons that immortality predictions are based
            >> on under the microscope, you'll find that they aren't solid
            >> and don't hold up.
            >
            > Which assumptions are these?

            Assumption #1: You can extrapolate life expectancy in the
            same manner that you can extrapolate computing power as per
            Moore's Law.

            Assumption #2: That because immortality is physically
            possible, allowed by the laws of physics, it will happen.

            Assumption #3: That technology is created for human benefit
            (and immortality would of course be the ultimate human
            benefit).

            I approach the question with a different set of
            assumptions. I assume that change happens by evolution by
            natural selection driven by competition for greater energy
            leverage. Because the system is driven by using computation
            to compete for energy, we see Moore's Law, MEST
            compression, or whatever you want to call it -- you see
            greater computation with less energy, and you see the
            "software" that directs the computation "crossing
            substrates" from DNA to language to digital computing. The
            competitive aspect is important because it's what gives
            evolution its "directionality"; without it, evolution would
            just be random, and go in no particular direction, but as
            we all know, a quick glance at Carl Sagan's Cosmic Calendar
            will show you it isn't so.

            From this frame of reference, assumption #1 fails because
            each organism evolves an ideal lifespan; yes the lifespan
            could be longer (and in some organisms it is much longer)
            by laws of physics, but natural selection does not favor
            the longer lifespans so we don't have them. Moore's
            Law/MEST compression transcends the lifespan of any
            particular species.

            From this frame of reference, assumption #2 fails because
            many possible things are never created. Such as personal
            airplanes and nuclear vacuum cleaners. Natural selection
            could have evolved a primate with a foot on its head,
            right? It's allowed by the laws of physics, but no, natural
            selection is never going to create it.

            From this frame of reference, assumption #3 fails because
            natural selection does not favor any particular species.
            Species are created and species go extinct all the time.
            The human species dominates the earth right now, but there
            is nothing special about the human species in the big
            picture. I will grant that you could say right now
            technology is created to benefit humans, because for any
            technology to succeed, somebody (human) has to be willing
            to buy it. The assumtion, however, is that this situation
            will persist forever. I think it won't. (I'd also point out
            that just because humans buy something doesn't mean it's
            beneficial -- it may give an immediate benefit but have
            long term costs and unintended side effects.)

            So you see, which prediction you believe in depends
            entirely on which underlying assumptions that you make :)

            This is why I think immortality is a pipe dream. Why would
            natural selection create humans with an infinite lifespan?
            I think it wouldn't, so I predict it won't. Even if we get
            the computing resources needed to upload our brains into
            computers, why would natural selection favor immortal human
            brains in computers? If we do transfer brains into
            computers, they will probably not be immortal. Being in a
            computer does not mean being immortal. Ask Michael Korns
            how many of his genetic programs are immortal.

            > I'll deal with biology below. But societal and
            > technological factors are mostly indicating that we will
            > want to, and will develop tools to, engineer the body at
            > least enough to achieve good health as long as possible. We
            > didn't get many of the techno-toys because, basically, we
            > didn't want them. They wouldn't have made a big lifestyle
            > difference. Extended health will.

            Oh, I agree that we will want to. I just disagree that "we
            will want to" will mean it will happen. This is what I'm
            trying to get at with my explanation of assumption #3.

            >> Perhaps we can lower death rates and improve life
            >> expectancy so that most people can live the full 100+ year
            >> human lifespan, that might be realistic. But saying we will
            >> extend the human lifespan much beyond that, we will be
            >> immortal, we will all be young and beautiful and live
            >> forever ... I just don't see that happening. Our bodies are
            >> literally not supposed to live forever. The fact is natural
            >> selection has chosen the lifespan that we have because
            >> that's the optimal lifespan over the evolutionary past.
            >
            > There are many highly developed species, in a variety of
            > families, that do not appear to age. Sure, our genes let
            > us age. But we know it's possible for a vertebrate not to
            > age. All we have to do is figure out how, and then tweak
            > our chemistry (possibly including DNA). Do you doubt that
            > we'll be able to develop the appropriate chemistry-tweaking
            > tools?

            No. I agree with you, I think we will be able to develop
            the appropriate chemistry-tweaking tools. I tried to
            address this issue as assumption #2, "can happen" != "will
            happen".

            >> The way to immortality is reproduction. Life is about
            >> survival and reproduction, not immortality. True, you don't
            >> survive intact, you get recombined with someone else. But
            >> that's life.
            >
            > Now you're arguing philosophy, not practicality.
            > Reproduction is one way to preserve a part of yourself. Art
            > and other creative endeavors are another. What's wrong
            > with simply not dying?

            Nothing is wrong with simply not dying. That's why I say,
            you should gamble that I'm completely wrong and sign up
            with Alcor. Why not?

            Wayne

            p.s. Maybe Mark should change the bafuture list reply-to
            setting?




            --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > wayne radinsky wrote:
            > > Remember people predicted that we'd have personal
            > > supersonic airplanes and nuclear vacuum cleaners? If you
            > > put the assumptons that immortality predictions are based
            > > on under the microscope, you'll find that they aren't solid
            > > and don't hold up.
            >
            > Which assumptions are these? I'll deal with biology below.
            > But
            > societal and technological factors are mostly indicating that
            > we will
            > want to, and will develop tools to, engineer the body at least
            > enough to
            > achieve good health as long as possible. We didn't get many
            > of the
            > techno-toys because, basically, we didn't want them. They
            > wouldn't have
            > made a big lifestyle difference. Extended health will.
            >
            > > Perhaps we can lower death rates and
            > > improve life expectancy so that most people can live the
            > > full 100+ year human lifespan, that might be realistic. But
            > > saying we will extend the human lifespan much beyond that,
            > > we will be immortal, we will all be young and beautiful and
            > > live forever ... I just don't see that happening. Our
            > > bodies are literally not supposed to live forever. The fact
            > > is natural selection has chosen the lifespan that we have
            > > because that's the optimal lifespan over the evolutionary
            > > past.
            >
            > There are many highly developed species, in a variety of
            > families, that
            > do not appear to age. Sure, our genes let us age. But we
            > know it's
            > possible for a vertebrate not to age. All we have to do is
            > figure out
            > how, and then tweak our chemistry (possibly including DNA).
            > Do you
            > doubt that we'll be able to develop the appropriate
            > chemistry-tweaking
            > tools?
            >
            > > The way to immortality is reproduction. Life is about
            > > survival and reproduction, not immortality. True, you don't
            > > survive intact, you get recombined with someone else. But
            > > that's life.
            >
            > Now you're arguing philosophy, not practicality. Reproduction
            > is one
            > way to preserve a part of yourself. Art and other creative
            > endeavors
            > are another. What's wrong with simply not dying?
            >
            > Chris
            >
            > --
            > Chris Phoenix cphoenix@...
            > http://xenophilia.org
            > Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (co-founder)
            http://CRNano.org


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
            http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
          • Peter C. McCluskey
            ... There s certainly no consensus. I posted this url on the subject in May: http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/ Here s a more concise summary of those ideas of why
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              spodware@... (wayne radinsky) writes:
              >I don't think there is a "latest estimate as to when we
              >will all be young and beautiful and live forever". I don't
              >think there is any consensus. There's a variety of

              There's certainly no consensus.
              I posted this url on the subject in May: http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/
              Here's a more concise summary of those ideas of why we might be able to
              cure aging in mice within a decade, and in humans shortly after that:
              http://www.speculist.com/archives/000056.html

              I suspect he's being a bit optimistic about the effort required to get
              solutions to the right places in our bodies. Most attempts in our evolutionary
              past to alter our biochemistry have come from hostile forces such as viruses.
              This means that our bodies are rather clever at resisting externally imposed
              changes, and people who take an engineering approach rather than an
              evolutionary approach to understanding medical problems tend to underestimate
              this difficulty.

              >If you want *my* opinion, my opinion is never. It'll never
              >happen. While life expectancy has increased over the last
              >100 years, you can't just extrapolate life expectancy out
              >exponentially to predict what it will be in the future.
              >Remember people predicted that we'd have personal
              >supersonic airplanes and nuclear vacuum cleaners? If you

              I agree that extrapolation of life expectancy trends is not a good way
              of supporting predictions that aging will be cured.

              >put the assumptons that immortality predictions are based
              >on under the microscope, you'll find that they aren't solid
              >and don't hold up. Perhaps we can lower death rates and

              True immortality (surviving wars, the heat death of the universe, etc.)
              is beyond my ability to predict.
              But the assumptions behind predictions that aging will be cured this
              century seem sound:
              a) We have identified most or all of the important mechanisms by which
              aging causes harm.
              b) None of them look impossible to fix.
              c) The costs of fixing any given medical problem are declining, and the
              resources being devoted to fixing them are increasing at an exponential rate.
              Few medical problems have taken more than a century to solve once the
              mechanisms by which they cause harm have been understood.

              >improve life expectancy so that most people can live the
              >full 100+ year human lifespan, that might be realistic. But
              >saying we will extend the human lifespan much beyond that,
              >we will be immortal, we will all be young and beautiful and
              >live forever ... I just don't see that happening. Our
              >bodies are literally not supposed to live forever. The fact
              >is natural selection has chosen the lifespan that we have
              >because that's the optimal lifespan over the evolutionary
              >past. The way to immortality is reproduction. Life is about

              That's not because staying young for centuries would have had negative
              consequences for our genes, but because devoting resources towards
              reproducing and towards avoiding lions was more productive than devoting
              resources towards staying young. We now have enough resources that we
              can afford to devote more effort towards staying young than was optimal
              a million years ago.
              --
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of
              http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the
              | President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
              | and servile, but morally treasonable to the
              | American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.