Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

To live for 1000's of years?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#18 whoa182

whoa182

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 07:11 AM

Think about how Chips are adancing and artificial neurons.

Now if you replace parts of you'e brain with silicon and at any time you didnt feel any different and were still ' you ' Then what would it matter if you were part/all silicon?

I agree that the human mind is the greatest challenge. But its a muscle. If we can some how repair other muscles in the body, Im sure one day we will be able to repair brain functions and you will be quite mentally stable lol.

You're looking at how life is now, But you gotta think of our mental capabilities now. The internet for example is as Extention of the human mind. You get on google and you search, Something like this could possibly be intergrated into the human mind by implant. Mabey it could even stay external, in form of a contact lense that can put you in full immersion reality and other forms of virtual reality where the information hovers infront of you etc...


Mentally we will just be as healthy as our bodies. I believe... This is all speculation but you need to look at the wider picture, its not just 1 technology that might and probably will help us, but its many. So each help each other and give rise to better things when applied together / Nanotech is good for computing nanotech and biology is a god like ability.

#19 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 10:26 AM

If we were to live for a thousand years, there would be a larger population. My concern wouldn't be over-crowding, as we could colonize space, but rather food and water. How much more food and water could we consume without drastic adverse effects on the environment?

#20 whoa182

whoa182

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 02:56 PM

Well if nanotech is to reach its potential then we will create however much food we want

Also nanotech has very promising concepts of Cleaning the air and envionment.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,55024,00.html


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128...tw=wn_tophead_5

Water Filters Rely on Nanotech

AMSTERDAM -- A slow, methodical transformation of the $400-billion-a-year water-management industry is currently in progress, and nanotechnology appears to be leading the way.

Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth, but only 1 percent can be consumed without processing, filtering or melting polar ice caps. That supply appears to be dwindling as the global population grows and industry and agriculture require more and more water.

secret to the nano-enhanced water-management devices, as with all nanotechnology, lies at the atomic level. The chemical properties of basic elements tend to be different and easier to manipulate at the molecular level. This gives companies working at this scale -- one billionth of a meter -- greater control over the material, making it stronger, lighter, more conductive, hydrophilic or hydrophobic (water-loving and water-hating, respectively).


Resources wont be as big of a problem as some make out, not if the technologies are researching and advancing in today are develoed enough, the estimate for mature nanotech is around 2020+

#21 lindagarrette

lindagarrette

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 05:36 PM

Living young and practically forever sounds good on the surface but consider every one living forever, not just you. What about wars and famine? How would relationships be affected?

Besides, you are your embodied memories. I can't even recall what I was up to ten years ago although the end result is part of my overall learning experience. I foresee a serious brain strain to hold enough information after a while. And a revised method of data storage and retrieval.

#22 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 09:57 PM

I think my fear wasn't that we wouldn't have enough food, but that there is only so much biological material. Nature recycles nearly everything, if we were to live that long, there would be so much human mass that it could have an effect on the environment.

#23 jazzn85

jazzn85

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:26 AM

Would 1000 year life span be taken for granted though, if it becomes possible. Sure, we would all be amazed by the possibilities of such long life, but for generations that are raised in it, would they not see it as normal, and still long for more years? This reminds me of voltaire's Micromegas, and a section where the space travellers are discussing life, still siting their 15000 year life span as brutally short. Could a generation ever really be happy with the length of life, once accustomed to the conditions? I honestly believe that people would probably destroy themselves out of lack of interest before reaching their 1000th b day, but voltaire's sarcasm still makes a valid point.

#24 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2697 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:51 AM

Just like to point out something about nano tech; it's no longer what it was billed as 20 years ago.

Modern nano-tech has very little to do with arranging atoms individually, in fact the idea has been discarded by most as technically infeaseable. Modern Nano tech is closely centered around materials that self assemble at an atomic or molecular level, in predictable ways. it also centers maily around (as previously indicated by whoa182 in his most recent post) the properties of mater. I'd wager the water filtration system mentioned above uses shaped 'nano' meshing material that uses brownian motion(see Einstein's paper by that name for specifics) to direct any particles suspended in the water , such direction would eventually create 'clean water' by depositing impurities elsewhere.

more later.

#25 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 09:37 AM

Another question in this matter is the historical process. We are discussing the assumed ultimate possibility of a major increase in human life span not possible by nature itself. An extension to human life based exclusively on intentional human intervention in natural processes. And this is all based on the progress of Medical Science. And it has been assumed by the vast majority over the last few decades at least as a highly benefitial effort. But not by everyone and definately not by many in authority over the millenia.

If the ultimate question on a potential extreme increase in usefull life span is not IF, but WHEN, the question then also must be, why not yet? If we agree that the increase of a productive life span for humans is highly desirable, there should be outrage at efforts to stop this progression. And this should be very strong outrage over the intentional efforts of specific groups in the past (and currently) to stop such positive advancement for the human race.

Religion, especially the revelation based mono-theistic Christian and Islamic superstitions have been the biggest stumbling blocks to the very advancement we are anxious to witness. In fact the question has to be specifically asked, how much further along in this advancement might we be right now if not for the intentional efforts of Christian authority to stop such advancements. The Dark Ages were an intentional effort on the part of Christianity to stop intellectual and scientific advancement with the promotiion of fear and ignorace in it's place.

The biggest question then might be, rather than WHEN will we be able to take advantage of these advances, but how long ago could we have been receiving these benefits if it were not for the intentional promotion of ignorance the Christian superstition has foisted on us?

#26 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 10:45 AM

You just can't resist bashing religion at every turn, can you?