Immortality WHEN?

>2030-2035 for biological immortality
lmao

try 2090

No I mean until information processing is physically impossible in the universe

Earth will die before we ever achieve immortality.

>become biologically immortal
>get hit by a bus, car accident, plane crash, get stabbed etc

The longer you are alive, the more your chances of dying from other means increases.

Singularity will probably happen by 2040 so you just have to survive until then.

>Singularity will probably happen by 2040
proof

His ass cheeks

It will come long after baldness is cured. Do you see ANY cheap permanent cure for baldness?

That'll still be pretty cool.
"My father died at 945, due to being struck by a meteor. All 12,000 of my family members attended the funeral."

Immortality is already a thing, just not for the peasants.

>not knowing about quantum immortality

When did this meme even start?

/thread

Quantum immortality is the stupidest thing ever anyway. It relies in chance NOT being independant, i.e. it relies on dice having memory. Even we are to assume EVERY part of quantum immortality is correct, after you stop doing the QI shit you're just as vulnerable as ever. It's like rolling a hundred dice, and if they all come up sixes, you decide you will always roll sixes. And if they don't, you shoot yourself. Monumentally retarded.

Agelessness is pretty feasible, and beyond that just comes durability. Granted that doesn't stop cosmic shit like heat death but you'd have a lot of time to mess around with physics knowledge.

shills on /pol/ and lefty pol trying to make memes out of old /r9k/ jokes in an attempt to divert genuine information.

If time really is infinite, aren't I just going to exist again?

Genetic research takes way longer than that. I spent all summer growing soybeans just to see how their aquaporins were expressed. Not to mention evolutionary mismatches create new diseases every generation. Im praying to the machines.

No. It's infinite non-repeating. Sorry.

>eternal void
Nice meme, we're all getting reincarnated

I hope you enjoy getting reincarnated as an ant and being gassed a million times before you come back as something slightly larger.

How does that make any sense

My consciousness will be reincarnated

>How does that make any sense
It's like Pi. It's infinite and irrational.

>My consciousness will be reincarnated
No it won't. Consciousness is just a function of your brain. We made-up souls/spirits/mind-body duality to make us feel better about mortality.

No I mean the literal exact atomic structure of my body will be recreated

I just won't have any memory of my past self

Infinite irrationality ensures this as the probability of it happening converges to 1

You know it's true because you wish reality was different.

>Consciousness is just a function of your brain

Something something dualism something something "what makes this you and an unrelated person experiencing you-ness different?"

Different bodies, different genetics, different atoms, different plainly visible appearance.

I mean the actual sense of self, which is immaterial. This isn't even necessarily about reincarnations but minds in general. How have two "minds" never accidentally fucked up and picked up where another left off?

one can only dream
>one can only meme

Immortality will come when we can repair damaged chromosomes and find a way to let every cell in the body use such a mechanism.

That might be difficult...

Evolution's response to this problem has been for us to simply expire and renew our genetic materials every once in a while.

I think death is still the best solution to immortality.

We'll have immortality in the next 100 years, it's gonna cost millions to have your brain put in a vat and hooked up to digital sensory input, but it'll be out there. Maybe closer to 500 years before we have biological immortality, probably much sooner given current CRISPR research and the amount of cash being poured into it.

One can assume you don't double-die yeah.

I feel like we'd probably have sufficient cryonics in 100.

This is likely the timeline unless we have a major breakthrough. Breakthroughs happen, they're rare but they do happen, using the hundred dice example, if you roll a hundred dice for only all 6s every year for 20 years, there is a very small chance statistically that we'll have that breakthrough. Or we could be complete nihilists and say that the perfect conditions have to be met to roll all 6s and that luck doesn't exist if you know all the factors.

>2030-2035 for biological immortality

Just take a minute to compare 2001 to 2017, and think again.

How would they know if they did?

We all know we're not going to outlive our universe. Usually when people talk about immortality it's about biology.
Meaning no aging and no diseases.

It will be only available for extremely rich people.

only butthurt leftists that don't understand economics and reality say this

anyway we do need to reform medical care to be more like a free market if we want the poor and middle class to get these things

The lines are either ordered by ability to pay or (as it should be) by severity of health (keep in mind that in cases of lethality, focusing on the most severe cases can jeopardize less severe ones, so we leave priority for professionals).

Free market principles can't by definition work with regards to health care. Demand cannot be balanced with supply because the demand is through desperation. You can give someone the option of going bankrupt by buying a drug which should be cheap, or die. All reason flies out the window.

Besides, we quite clearly see in the data that a place like the US spend unfathomable amounts on health care without producing results. Why? Because there's more focus on quantity of care instead of quality of care, much due to profit motive.

No rational person can reasonably defend a profit based health care system above the objectively superior (in terms of cost, efficiency, and quality) single payer health care system. The data is overwhelming against profit based health care. That's just a simple fact which is easily verified by mountains of data.

We already are immortal you dimwit. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

>Free market principles can't by definition work with regards to health care.
Dogmatic idiocy.

A free market would mean prices would constantly come down for healthcare and would be affordable for everyone.

>You can give someone the option of going bankrupt by buying a drug which should be cheap, or die.
LOL The only reason these drugs are expensive in the first place is because the government gives big pharma companies special monopolistic powers that they wouldn't have in a free market.

>Besides, we quite clearly see in the data that a place like the US spend unfathomable amounts on health care without producing results. Why? Because there's more focus on quantity of care instead of quality of care, much due to profit motive.
You're so fucking stupid.
Why does everyone believe the USA has a free market in healthcare. It DOESN'T. That's what the image I posted debunked, if you had actually read it.
Back in the 50s and 60s healthcare in the united states was really cheap and of high quality.
What happened is the government got in the way, which granted big pharma, the AMA and health insurance companies basically monopolistic power.

>No rational person can reasonably defend a profit based health care system above the objectively superior (in terms of cost, efficiency, and quality) single payer health care system.
Then why does Switzerland(which has a mostly privatized system) have the best healthcare in the world
Why is this system a million times better than the NHS?
Explain this.
and don't use dumb excuses like "well they have a smaller population hurrr"

Government healthcare destroys medical innovation. There should be a massive profit opportunity for creating advanced technology and selling it for the lowest cost to consumers.

Also if you are dumb enough to actually unironically believe that the USA has a free market in healthcare then you shouldn't be posting on a science board.

You're too stupid to realize that money in politics (free market) has had a huge influence too. Monopolies are a natural result of 'free market', with the end result being inverse totalitarianism.

A 'free' market is simply ruled by those with the means to manipulate it. Regulations are in place to prevent that.

>You're too stupid to realize that money in politics (free market) has had a huge influence too.
Money in politics is also NOT the free market.
The government isn't the free market, it's the government.
It should be completely separated from the economy. That's what a free market is.

But yes, I agree money in politics is the reason healthcare is so corrupt in the first place.

The only solution to this would be to bring back a free market in healthcare so prices can be affordable like they were in the 50s and 60s.

>Monopolies are a natural result of 'free market'
Wrong kiddo. The free market destroys monopolies.
It's the government that grants monopolies and then delusional kids like yourself think it's a result of the free market. It's not.

>Regulations are in place to prevent that.
Google regulatory capture.
90% of regulations only serve the will of corporations.
It's ironic that leftists in america are the biggest corporate tools.

The government isn't a part of a free market? You're a special kind of retard aren't you?

>The government isn't a part of a free market?
No, the government is what allows the free market by enforcing contracts, private property etc etc.

>You're a special kind of retard aren't you?
You're the one that was actually dumb enough to think the US healthcare system is a free market.

It is though.

Define "a part of"?

In a free market, the government has a very limited role, much less than it would have today.

Money in politics is however NOT the free market, a free market means there is no buying of politicians for special government privileges.
This is what we libertarians have been fighting against.

If you don't fuck off with that --
Consciousnesses can be created and destroyed and that's what I'm trying to preserve

>implying technological progress is linear
More technology makes the rate of even more technology development increase. It's like compound interest.