Is life extension and biological immortality just memes, or can they actually be achieved within this century?

Life extension already exists.

Biological immortality is just a technocultist fantasy though.

You are sick.

Ensure you do not find immortality, you would be miserable forever.

Do not take a actions on my, or anyone else's behalf.

If "we" find a way to become immortal than leave us be.

Would nano machines that could repair damaged tissue appear within this century though? Aren't we just starting gene therapy?

>Biological immortality is technocultist fantasy
>fantasy
>Jellyfish are biologically immortal

>Life extension already exists
citation

It could become a reality, the future knows no bounds in terms of possibility.

You're exactly right, and you're saying that like it's a deficient view, when on the contrary it's /exactly the way that one ought to approach this possibility/. Not recognizing this is your philosophical error.

May no crab ever, /ever/ escape the bucket. And why should it? Or if it does, let us hope that entropy and the increasing boredom of the universe drives it to do itself in after an aeon.

It is a very specific delusion of the animal, that it wants a better world for its children, rather than wanting it for itself. The man who plants a tree that he knows its shade he will never rest in, is not therefore wise. The superiority of delayed gratification is again a delusion to which the adult animal betrays itself, lies to itself. You could /die/ before receiving the delayed gratification!

I most certainly won't.

I gotta agree: That is fucked up.

If any form of immortality exists for me, my family, and friends and we all agreed to get it. Why should you fucking care? Why should you harass and try to kill me. Leave me and others who got it alone brah.

Life extension literally just means living longer. Life expectancy is higher today than it was before, therefore we have life extension.

We aren't jelly fish you turbofaggot.

Maybe, it depends how much time and effort we put into developing them.

"Gene therapy" has been around since the 20th century, all though now we are learning to utilize it in a more targeted fashion. It is dangerous in its current state though.

He's the crab in the bucket as said, it is sad...

...

Because it is an /ontological game changer/.

The theorization of the real, ontological, divergence of rich and poor has been underway for some time. One example:

rt.com/uk/263133-rich-human-god-cyborgs/

Happily, in the initial fits and starts, the would-be escapers shall still be dependent upon a very specific, very interruptable supply chain. And interrupt to the point of destroying it we can, should, must and will.

None of us deserves to escape.

C A N C E R
A
N
C
E
R

>None of us deserves to escape
I really don't say this much, or joke about it. But you are a person who should really kill yourself.

None of us deserves to escape?

I would not mind if some rich men and their cyborg/robotics fleet left earth in search of planets to colonize.

it was or is , "god" "yahwh" broke us .
they set our life span to 100 years used to be 5000 .
read the bible it tell us how "god" has destroyed man over and over to be made in there image, but relentlessly reminded that we do not have there mind. we are immortal we are broken by our enemy yahwh.

Good shitposter to derail the thread, or you're the best fedora tipper of Veeky Forums

>It is dangerous in its current state.
Why is this? Is it because we do not have information on the end results of such target changes with CRISPR and other tools?

>Depends on how much time and effort we put into developing them.
How much funding and energy is being put into them now? Isn't the US Army studying nanomachines for medical purposes?

"Gene editing and genetic mutations", search.

The more effort we put in now the sooner we will arrive at the desired result, though the same technology could be used to terminate all of humanity so....

Maybe..... Go on please.

The latter. The latter, let's go with the latter.

>The more effort we put in now the sooner we will arrive at desired results.
Which is a good thing with CRISPR being used by China with embyros and other test subjects. I wish the US and most of West Europe weren't so strict and allowed testing it doesn't allow now.

Why do you hate humanity so?

We could be so great given the proper opportunities.

He's either trolling or just hates himself and is taking it out on humanity. Or he will go with my nihilist strawman.

Just ignore and continue discussion.

Well... I would not want to be "the test gone wrong", if these embryos were to be allowed to grow.

Advanced computer models are beginning to be used which are much more reliable than living subjects, so we hopefully won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.

The future is limitless!

It's not that I hate humanity, you misunderstand. Humanity has consisted of a very definite state of affairs throughout the entirety of its existence, which as I've said have included a few merciful ontological /equalizers/. What I hate is the ambition to remove these equalizers, when so many have already died. And this because, ironically, I actually value life. To a point.

It honestly bothers me that not a single other person in this thread has thus far arrived at my correct philosophical conclusions, or even sincerely entertained the content of my thought. You are all beta-STEM cucks writ large, only enabling some future Chad's immortality. This ought to disgust you. You are all "temporarily embarrassed Americans" who still limbically want to believe that you yourselves will be the millionaires, the immortal, the gods. And I really think that most of you know deep down inside that you yourselves won't be the lucky ones.

You should not be noble, magnanimous, only so that some idiot generation a generation or two removed into the future can fuck off into the galaxy. What you should properly do is to say Fuck That, Non Serviam, and pull the rug out from under the logical conclusion. But you won't because of the delusion of the will to life, because you falsely believe that you will participate in the gains, somehow.

>He thinks he's a rebel for a cause.
>He thinks only his life matters and nobody else should have the right to long life, even it surpasses the norm.
>He thinks only "Chads" will obtain long lives.
You sound like an ass brah

>You are all best-STEM cucks
>You are all temporarily embarrassed Americans
>You won't be the lucky ones.
You better be trolling me because this is some high ass projecting. Stop posting mate.

>Well... I would not want to be "the test gone wrong", if these embryos were to be allowed to grow.
This is true and sad. Though such embryos would be heroes to prevent other embryos from being messed up, and should be respected.

>Advanced computer models are beginning to be used which are much more reliable than living subjects, so we hopefully won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.
Which is a good thing and hopefully we won't have to worry about ethical boundaries.

>The future is limitless.
Postive comment man.

This is disingenuous on multiple levels.

the people who are immortal, or who live an aeon, are by definition the Chads of the world, as we use and understand the phrase in this Balinese puppet show, so this comment of yours is nonsensical, or else you simply haven't understood what I meant, which is what Chad popularly means in a rhetorical sense, these days.

We are not talking about merely "long life" or even "much longer life". What we are talking about is the accident of history that certain people have it within their grasp to live orders of magnitude longer than those who had just gone before. The former group ought to be denied that possibility, on the very simple general principles which not a single other poster has thus far even understood or wanted to understand (you should) thus far.

It /should/ disturb and upset you, this possibility of future humans living for millions of years, while you yourself are about to croak . It /should/ cause you to want to prevent that state of affairs. It /should/ impel you to throw your own body into the gears, to stop them turning.

You seem to toss out "projecting" as an insult where it doesn't actually work in context, in this discussion. What exactly is it that I am supposed to be projecting, in these examples? Think about that for a little bit and get back to me.

Ben?

hm, maybe a reference? If so I don't get it.

>Is life extension and biological immortality just memes,

No.

>or can they actually be achieved within this century?

No.

This is edgy.

>I didn't win so I should screw the other person over.
If somebody found 100$ would you go out your way to make sure they don't keep it?

You still don't get it. We're not talking about a hundred fucking dollars (false analogy), or even five more years of life. This is what every single person in the thread apart from myself has continually failed to understand. Because the only really proper reaction to such a thing, from the present human point of view, is revulsion with a will toward destruction.

/IT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ONTOLOGY./ Don't you get it (I said as much above)? And the abrasion of the one next to the other is above all what creates the intolerable absurdity; which requires the upsetting.

None of you has actually done the thought experiment of what the world will actually be like in a state of affairs where there are some human beings who are, say, 400 years old and spry and rich, as opposed to the sub-100 set. It is going to naturally start occuring to the latter bunch that maybe just maybe they ought to start offing the former bunch if at all possible, on general principles. You haven't tried this both because you falsely aspire to the former group, and also because of Muh Scientism. More Science, More Progress = good, is the culture.

It's very lonely, being this right about things, and being this alone in the rightness. It disturbs me.

>biological immortality becomes a thing
>no hope of dying peacefully in your bed anymore
>everyone is now guaranteed to eventually die a gruesome, painful death in some sort of horrible accident

most hopefully the gruesome envy-killing wrought by the underclass, as I have rightly harped continually on in this thread.

>Alone in rightness
Wew lad. There is no greater evil than the man who views himself and his beliefs as absolutely righteous.

>Everyone is guaranteed to die a gruesome painful death.
You can still die a peaceful death with biological immortality, man.

>Implying the next thing humanity won't work on is a way to cheat painful and gruesome deaths.

So what is your reasoning as to why the "underclass" wouldn't have access to it? Are you one of those conspiretards that believe that muh elites would keep the tech to themselves?

He actually is user. If you read his rants he's not on the up and up, mentally or he is a good troll.

To be honest. Any form of biological immortality and life extension that comes out would be marketed to everyone because the person who does it would become rich as fuck. It's stupid to have it locked within an elite circle which would become impossible considering how connected everything is, and that doesn't secure the secrets to it.

A company offering life extension services stolen from the elite could be created to be sold in another country, or in the black market.

>It's stupid to have it locked within an elite circle which would become impossible considering how connected everything is, and that doesn't secure the secrets to it
Exactly what I think, every scientist knows what the other is doing, internet also makes think easy for spreading infos, etc... once latin nobles could fuck over the peasants at court because only them knew the law, it's not possible anymore.

Plus the potential gain far outweighs the cost

To add on you would also have a continued economy of skilled workers, some who wouldn't have to retire due to becoming too old now.

Though this would harm the younger generation coming into the work force, this would also give them time to acquire more skills to compete against the older workforce, and older people to acquire new skills and learn new things to pursue different interest. Birth rates would also drop (even more) and people would put off having children around their 20-30's.

Suppose that they did, and that the tech were equitably shared. Even if they did, then they shouldn't. Because then they get to live "forever", or as along as amounts to same from our perspective. Have you understood nothing? The aspiration itself can, should, must and will be destroyed, and this is blessedly possible due to the the stupidity, fragility, and sociability of man.

I would like for a single person to actually try to get right by thinking as I do, even while not agreeing with the ideas, at this point. Just try it on, see about getting into the mindset. You really haven't thought through the long game?

>humouring the fag who read too much nietzsche and can't stop tipping his fedora
Veeky Forums pls

to be fair my posts have dominated the thread and so anyone who reads the thread has had no choice.

There are multiple ironies in your projection (here I am using the word correctly whereas an earlier user did not) here, the first being that I've never read any Nietzsche, and the other being that I am advocating a contrarian "anti-progress" view which is required in view of proper perception of subjective reality, which is at odds with the popular scientism-friendly atheist.

yeah ok senpai, your posts reek of a 16-year-old who discovered nietzsche for the first time and cringeworthily trying to imitate his diction.

>scientism-friendly atheist.
he wasn't even an advocate of scientism, you're espousing all the same crazy regressive shit he did.

>it's another Nietzsche interpretation shitfest

I wish commoners would really stop trying to discuss Nietzsche.

>My posts have dominated the thread
Because you fucking derailed it with long ass fucking paragraphs over why you are right, why humanity shouldn't obtain any form of longevity, how only the elite rich will have it, other people should have your mindset, being a crab in a bucket and admitting to it, projecting, and the fact you can't be happy for other people without being edgy.

>Anyone who reads the thread has no choice.
You fucking posted rants paragraph long, the moment somebody sees you're bat shit insane they'll hide your posts.

user he'll keep posting no matter what you do.

>Samefagging

So the whole telomere thing is a red herring?

Messing with telomere can be the key.

If I remember correctly some scientists back in 2013, at Harvard messed with the telomerese of mice, helping their cells and self to become younger, though the mice developed tumors and cancers which isn't good.

The mice got younger which is a good thing, however.

Who is the old guy in OP?

Cancer is a problem that we have to solve if we want to extend our lifespans anyway. The longer the live, the more likely you are to get cancer after all.

Why companies like his don't relocate to India or something? Can't they make more progress that way?

would it still be the case if people stayed 20 years old biologically all the time?

I know nothing about that kind of things, I know that dying from cancer at 20 is extremely unlikely but what I do not know is if it's because our immune system is efficient enough to keep cancer from happening or if 20 years is not enough to get cancer.

For instance say your immune system is permanently 20 years old, would it be eventually powerless against the spreading of cancer cells?

there are kids under 10 dieing of cancer

yeah but it's because their immune system is shit already

I'm19 and got thyroid cancer.

Being nihilistic is cool and so, but think about science.
Imagine if all the great minds of history would have been immortal, think how much things these genius could have discovered.
But I get your point, I wouldn't like to see evil elites like George Soros living forever. But I think that there will be always bad people, and even if immortality doesn't exist these elites have heirs that continue their legate.
In the other hand great inventors are pretty rare exceptions, and they can't continue their legate like the rich people since there is something called "regression toward the mean": that mean that if some genius with 200 IQ have kids with a women who have the same IQ (I know that they can't have too much, but it's an example) the kids will have less IQ, like 120, and after some generations they will tend to have the average IQ of its respective human sub-specimen. So it would be pretty useful to have immortal scientists.

One of the problems is that the immune system doesn't always find cancer. Even if you are young.
That's why engineering killer cells to find cancer is probably the best way to kill the bastard. Since cancer cells are already mutations, you can theorically pinpoint what killer cells have to kill, which is what I think CRISPR will try to attempt, and what the chinese are doing right now.
Of course this isn't easy becauese we don't have 100% control, wrong edits happen etc. But it's a step on the right direction, even though "oh, genetic engineering is so UNHETICAL" will only serve to cockblock progress, fuck.

Aubrey the Grey, cousin of Gandalf the Grey.

I read a Dutch book on this subject of aging, and he pretty much said that it all comes to hormosis and avoiding certain foods.
He also discussed some animals living really long. Such as bats (relative to their size).

>witnessed
Biological immortality is illogical for the human race so long as we are earth-bound. However, once we have capabilities for interstellar travel and able to have theoretically unlimited resources, then immortality will not be immoral but rather a necessity.

I'm assuming that you are talking about overpopulation right?
I think it's a non problem because the only places where it might be a problem are thirld world shitholes which would never have access to that kind of tech. Even if they did get immortality (and anti-aging is not enough as they don't die of aging anyway), longer lifespan might lead to a decrease in the fertility rate

daily reminder that doing anything but giving money to Aubrey de Grey won't help you to reach LEV

>witnessing a person who said they rather all humanity dies than one person surviving

Listen the earth has enough resources for the current population not only that overpopulation is a god damn joke and meme literally. Not too mention any form of life extension Nd biological immortality would want and get people into space travel you dumb fuck. As you get to live to see the return of your investment, one reason we aren't putting much into space travel now.

See as well.

I'm assuming you two don't care about climate change?
And the same with other issues that are non-issues to the both of you.
(Note I am not stating this as an argument against biological immortality per se)

what do you mean?

I assumed - perhaps wrongly - since the two I commented to don't see any problems with a large populations that they might be the kind of persons that don't care about the environment at all.
But I don't want to suggest that biological immortality makes that worse. Though I think both population and energy + resource use does affect the environment and perhaps more importantly the future of humanity.

Some stuff does run out you know, and innovation can over solutions but not in all cases.

A guy who will be dead in a few decades on the outside, like everyone else who has ever lived, or ever will life.

You're still stuck in the scientism frame, but kudos for being the first person in this thread to provide even a hint of understanding/rightheadedness.

>since the two I commented to don't see any problems with a large populations that they might be the kind of persons that don't care about the environment at all
That's probably true, still in european countries for instance ecology is starting to be a somewhat major political point. You can argue about the sincerity of said european policies of course.

What I was saying is that demography wouldn't change that much with biological immortality as the only countries that might flood the world with babies wouldn't have that tech and wouldn't find any use in it anyway.

Therefore ressources depletion and ecological impacts would be more or less the same with or without immortality, I'd even go as far to say that since people would have to live sooner or later with the consequences of their livingstyle, they would be even more inclined to adopt an eco-friendly way of life.

But yes at some point stuff will run out more or less quickly, I'm not disputing that.

See :He basically typed everything I wanted. People with life extension would want better future results than present and become more eco-friendly.

no you got it backwards, it's memes that are life extensions and biological immortality.

how about balanced diet, exercise and avoiding anything detriment to our health

That is a given if you're not a retard

I can agree with you.

Life extension doesn't sound that bad. An extra century to live your life and do things you didn't do before, study more, get new breakthroughs in mathematics and science. You'll still die, maybe???

Is there a valid reason to be against such a thing? (In before that one guy) Not only that, but within the century you live better and new methods of extending your's and others people life will come out, and the old methods become cheaper for others to get.

Apparently Aubrey believes by 2036, we will have the beginning form of life extension services out.

People sure are optimistic. Which isn't a bad thing.

organic chemistry is not stable enough.

you'll eventually be so run down that, you'll be in constant gene therapy and other reconstructions.

This guy is like bait, minus the intention of being bait.

Pls stop talking in words that attempt to sound fancy, but aren't.
>as we use and understand the phrase
And pls stop attempting to use memes you apparently have little command of.
>this Balinese puppet show
Also pls stop using strange unnecessary syntax that no one else is using.
>/should/, /should/
Thank you for your time.

I'm 100% sure he's autistic. I can't even imagine how someone who writes like that actually communicates with people IRL.

Explain I'm genuinely curious.

user he believed his views to be a crab in the bucket to be right, and only "Chads" will be rich enough to use and have any form of life extension.

Hi, I'm new to this thread.

Here's why I'm trying to help make biological immortality a reality:

I like living.

And,

If someone else likes living, and they shit the bed, they have to sleep in it.

Therefore, it's in the interest of people who enjoy living to not shit the bed. If you shit in the corner of the bed someone else is sleeping, guess what, there is still shit in your bed.

The problem isn't living forever, the problem is shitters, who already exist today and say "well I'm gonna be dead before I realize there's shit in my bed or anyone else realizes it was me so, fuck it"

Basically, I think you're full of shit, and you're getting ready to lay a steamy one on some freshly made science bedsheets just because you think you know better than everyone else

>what is the body?
The body is a mass of cells which can not live forever, and so, to make the body living longer, they reproduce and replace each other
>how do they reproduce?
Thru division based on the DNA
>what is the process of getting older?
When reproducing thru DNA, sometimes appear DNA mistakes. Each new generation of cells will carry over the mistakes made up to that point and their own as well as giving the new generation of cells those DNA faults. After enough circles of cell replacement, the number of faults is so great the system falls down.

Wrinkles appear as you get older because the cells making up the organ called skin, are not as good as when you were born. Muscles lose their flexibility, bones lose their resistance, organs lose their efficiency and so on until one of those, is so bad, it can't sustain life anymore and you die of old age.
>therefore, how can you delay the process of aging?
Slow down the metabolism of the body, less cell reproduction in a given time means less DNA faults adding up.
>how can you stop the process of aging?
Improve the cell division so that no DNA changes are made in this process.

_________________________________

>are all DNA changes, mutations bad?
No. Thru mutations, evolutions happens. Thru mutations, individuals which are better at surviving appear, in the same way faulty individuals do.

We ourselfs are a product of mutation which gave us bigger brains which in change was used for ..., well, you know what the brain is used for.

In conclusion, I ask you:
>If you could choose right now for indefinitely longevity, would you give up on the change for your future offsprings at evolution? would you stagnate the human evolution for not dying of old age?

There are animals in nature right now which don't die of old age, so I don't believe ''if it's possible'' is the right question, but ''if we should do it or not''.

Aubrey al-Grey (PBUH) will save us all

They won't solve heat death

they won't solve any deaths caused by environment, why are you referring to the heat specifically?

>life extension? Lmao that's ridiculous you would be able to live max only millions of years

im actually so fucking scared of dying I want to change my major from physics to genetics or something where i can at least have a chance of developing a way to live forever

This guy is right. If immortality is available to everyone, the world would get overpopulated. If it is available only to the elite, the masses would revolt to get the immortality drug. So you would need a third solution like sterilizing the immortals or something.