/sci, don't even kid yourself you don't want to die just as much as i do. ffs can we do something about this already...

/sci, don't even kid yourself you don't want to die just as much as i do. ffs can we do something about this already? not to dismiss whatever else you're up to but you can get back to it when we're through fixing this.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHEpT2bmYY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I agree, there does need to be a collective goal shift.

I wouldn't worry we should have it figured out within 20-30 years even earlier if AI is good enough to assist in the research. There are a lot of smart people from all over the world working on this not just Aubrey.

yup, i reckon it'd take something like a global push akin to what happened culturally in the us during the height of nasa for any realistic hope of these breakthroughs in our lifetime. it's just depressing this isn't recognized as a bigger issue for most people, not to say the other issues aren't relevant but they're only relevant while we're living. seems to me like survival is logically the main priority. even though i understand eventually everything will end one way or another thanks to the 2nd law of thermo. but how many trillion years that is into the future may as well feel like an eternity.

There is no such thing

Genghis Khan tried

I doubt society will shift itself until society lets go of the notion that the world only turns if 7 billion people work as HARD AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

We've already invented the new race of slaves: computers

We just haven't transferred that to a social understanding.

oh for sure may brilliant minds are on it and i'm counting on advances in computing to help tonnes. these systems are just way too complex to solve without the assistance of watsons. i'm just looking at the mainstream culture and this stuff seems barely on the radar for most people, it'd develop so much more if we all pitched into, even those not directly contributing. i just seems as though this is so underfunded for the gravity of the undertaking. that's what concerns me.

that is the crux of it, and i'm not sure how we'd get society excited about it enough to feel as though it's something they could involve themselves in. i've discussed this with friends and random peeps and they all would like it even though some more strangely begrudgingly than others. but that's usually the extent of it. and of course i hardly have the influence necessary to make this change in people. at best i had some luck getting a few people to donate to lifespan.io, still it's disappointing watching the difficulty those projects go through to get chump change funding but scams on kickstarter are sold through the roof so often.

*many

I think in the early 2020's the general pop will start to realise "holy shit" technology is actually starting to get surprisingly good. I still think we are in a transition period(2000-2020) of where tech is improving fast but its hard to really notice unless you pay attention. I think all it will take is a breakthrough but in the medical field to get people really interested in the possibility of longevity, something like crispr or tech being integrated into the human body.

crispr definitely looks promising. perhaps if we get good enough with synthetic proteomics we can use crispr to introduce novel proteins that can repair all that accumulated damage. there is also rna nanostructures, immunotherapies, and even tissue engineering that could greatly help. so many people die of single organ failure because there aren't enough donors, and well the goal would be to never have to rely on donors since there shouldn't be any.

I would say it only requires A.I. because geopolitical funding (sorta like gerrymandering) gets in the way of actual scientific collaboration.

Why isn't there like a U.N. of research that unifies all cancer research and is given a GLOBAL funding initiative? I don't understand why countries still feel the need to differentiate/have an US versus THEM mentality when it comes to science.

SCIENCE!

That sounds like a good idea and all in practice but competitiveness between countries can accelerate progress in certain fields of research. Also won't everyone working together typically start to think the same and cause an issue where no one is thinking differently or outside the box?

I would have thought having to separate parties working on the same thing would generate two results increasing the chance of success.

two*

doesn't the who sorta do that? but its definitely not on the level it should be anyway. so to answer the q probably because countries like to hold onto the tech to give themselves an exclusive advantage but this would mostly make sense of military tech than anything else. big pharma which operates mostly in a select group of countries maybe? it's pretty clear if they're in it for the money a cure is the last thing they want to develop, rather milk the sick indefinitely for treatment cash. very myopic thinking considering one day these execs will need a cure for something, and idk how well they could keep that whistle from blowing if they had it. good thing to see there are billionaires who get it. and i'm willing to bet most researchers don't care about borders when it comes to research.

and about ai, yeah probably the key. most of the longevity research positions i was browsing were in bioinformatics. once we get accurate models of these biological clusterfucks of systems that'll be the signal we're getting there.

Well, Veeky Forums is the counter-argument to the hive-mind mentality. I know it is the joke du jour but there is a sort of intellectual contraction/expansion effect that has applied to Veeky Forums over the years in terms of its social impact on the world.

You can have X people in a room with Y opinions, the Y being modified by Z (being their own cultures/background/individual preferences).

I don't understand why 'competition' accelerates research when in the end a cure for cancer (that's just the example) would be for EVERYONE. Why compete in that scenario?

When scientists have to fight for funding and meet arbitrary criteria to get it then the capitalist effect sort of takes over, oui/non?

The WHO, I guess... kinda? They act more like a global Center for Disease Control as far as I'm aware.

But yes the milk the sick/wounded + military spending > healing according to current capitalism. I think that's still because society doesn't understand that computers/robots are in essence the next 'slave race', but established 'success' is based on screwing over your fellow man.

As for longevity research I would say as soon as we have understood 'brain resetting' and stem cell reproduction/implantation we are pretty much set. You store some stem cells/copy a neural imprint: restore human functionality. OH NO BUT WHAT ABOUT BIOETHICS?!

I love how people utilize 'future' problems to delay 'current' progress, which is only being undertaken in order to solve 'current' problems. Just leaves us in stasis.

What's the point of living that long if humans will become obsolete soon after? You should know that future-proofing is dumb.

Is he just too optimistic? Or does he have some reasonable chance for his goals?

Please let him be right.

I'm in constant fear of death, I hope he works out.

His work has gotten some results back and he hasn't been proven wrong by anybody else.

Not too mention throwing in your own millions of dollars into your research is proving he is in it for the long run.

I kind of agree with that.

The real deal.

I'm surprised he hasn't' been had money thrown at him.

Hopefully.

What does Veeky Forums actually think of his work?

I don't mind death, I am a Muslim. I am completely comfortable with death. Much better use of our time to try to make the quality of life better for everyone. Making life longer will just create more suffering. And nothing is permanent here, that is a guarantee. Mountains waste away, Planets burn up or hurl into the dark, stars blow up... Eventually you will die no matter what you do.

Ok thanks bye.

Ive read this entire fucking thread and i still dont know what this man does.

And ive even seen him in a lecture and i just thought:
>philosophy

Alright guys so im trying to aquire the equipment and regents to grow a skin cell culture. Then when im done with that ill use viral vectors to turn it into a stem cell. I dont know how they change a stem cell into a cardiac cell but i bet google will tell me. The big question harvard has is how can a immature heart cell turn into a mature heart cel and then implent that into cell replacement therapy for aged and damaged hearts. One study suggests placing immature heart cells in mice that have dysfunctional immune systems. Check out my video of me skitching on a weed skateboard m.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHEpT2bmYY

>I dont know how they change a stem cell into a cardiac cell but i bet google will tell me.

Its a tough question. But apparently stem cells turn into different cell types depending on stimulus. So i'd try electrocuting them and obviously having lots of flowing liquid around them.

I didnt want to belive it. But your literally a weed head that wants to do science. Choose one.

He's doing a lot of work on the process of aging and blunting it's progress.

Visit sens.org

He is fighting the good fight.

Read his book "Ending Aging", you can get it off libgen. You should understand it easily if you've done high school biology.

I'M SORRY BUT THERE'S REALLY NOTHING MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I DO ADMIRE YOUR PLUCK IN TRYING THOUGH.

I HAVE ATTACHED AN IMAGE OF AN AMUSING CAT.

fear fear fear