This is an amazing science documentary put on by the Immortality Institute ( The documentary includes interviews with authors from the Immortality Institute’s book, The Scientific Conquest of Death, plus more than 80 other individuals working to advance Life Extension. It is 1 hr. & 45 min. that is well worth your time.

I can't figure out how to embed the video, so here is the link: Exploring Life Extension (Click with middle mouse button [scroll] to open in new tab. It is more convenient.)

Views: 51

Replies to This Discussion

150 years is the upper limit I'll bet., even constructs. Entrophy is real.
Who'd want to live that long, anyway?

Just imagine being 150 today. You were born in 1859. When you were born, the American flag had 33 stars. The fastest form of travel was the railroad. You lost family in the civil war. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated when you were six years old. The first Motorwagon was invented when you were 26. The Wright Brothers made their first successful flight when you were 44, Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic solo when you were 68 and man landed on the moon when you were 110. Just imagine what that would be like, the changes you would cope with.
My father in law died at 98 last month...his wife is alive and losing her memory at 95. He was doing OK up to 93 and then he became dizzy and essentially remained so. They changed with 100 years of progress and adapted to it very well. I am quite sure the two of them would have kept adapting to 150, and living well as long as they were active and clear minded.

We cope very well.
Well I'm only 22 and distressed that kids today don't know who Bill Nye the Science Guy is so I can't speak for everyone. =P
Organisms have already achieved lifetimes much much longer than our own. Certain jellyfish have the ability to live on indefinitely.

Theoretically there is no reason a tree, for example, should even die. In fact the oldest one we know of is Pinus longaeva at 4,862 years old.

The Hydrozoan species Turritopsis nutricula is capable of cycling from a mature adult stage to an immature polyp stage and back again. This means that there may be no natural limit to its life span.

Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.

There are many other examples. The point is there is no biological rule that life MUST end. The reason it does end is evolutionary and certainly not immutable.
Something like that. There is healthy living and there is life extension. I'm betting that life extension by manipulating basic processes such a telomere shorting will not necessarily prevent disease, even when combined with caloric restriction. So, how long do you want to exist in a decaying state. Maybe in 200 - 1000 years from now when quantum computing allows representation of the entire organism and all its processes, but not before.
The same way manned flight looked like utopian dreaming? The same way going to the moon did?
I am distrustful of immortality. Personally I don't think it would be as wonderful as it is made out to be.

Right now I think humans probably do potentially top out at around 150 years, I could be argued as high as 200 perhaps.

But immortality would be frightening, who chooses who gets to be immortal?

There was a similar discussion a while back about the consequences of life extension. We don't really understand the impact of the kind of life extension we already have on ourselves as a species. It can be truthfully said we crowd our ecological niche. Hopefully we will plateau population wise at some point. But extending human life doesn't help this problem it only adds to it.

Right now the average human life span is about 65ish years world wide, 100 years ago it was close to half that.

In that same time period we have advanced not only on the aging front, but on the infant mortality rate, that is to say less of us die and more of us live longer.

We have had more population growth in the last 1000 years then in the last 10,000.

Estimates project about 9 Billion people by 2050.

So I ask again, how many get immortality and who? A select few, some but not all, everyone?

Unfortunately by its nature immortality isn't for everyone, I can't imagine it would be cheap, or that something like that wouldn't be abused.

I am not against lengthening the human life span to its maximum natural potential, but it should be done with care and forethought with an understanding of whats involved, and what kind of social pressures it will bring.
"But immortality would be frightening, who chooses who gets to be immortal?"

Well, it's not like anyone would be forced into it. All who are against immortality (or just life expansion) need not undergo whatever processes that would maintain your health. For all those people they can be content with deteriorating and eventual death.

As for everybody undergoing the process, I doubt everyone would get too. In fact the vast majority probably won't. And just as in Robert Sawyer's "Flashforward" novel, it would be very expensive, and at first those chosen to undergo the process were Nobel laureates.

And it's important to point out the distinction between invincibility and immortality (at least in the way we're using it). People can still die through incident or will. But it wouldn't be due to aging processes or disease.

As far as population is concerned, let's assume the masses DO get to have access to immortality. As the video stated, the current resources of the world can support population growth on orders of magnitude from it's current state. If it's room that is of concern, remember we only inhabit a fraction of the thin layer of crust that blankets the earth. We can carve entire nations into the earth--below the surface. We can also expand outwards building up, and with colonies in space, on the moon, in the moon, around the moon, on Mars, in Mars, around Mars, etc, etc, etc.
Living to 100 in good health and sound mind would be great. 150, i think, would be the upper limit without some truely remarkable develoment.
Immortallity, however, would be the distruction of the biosphere unless we develop a way to transport humans to other habitable planets quickly or we accept an uploaded personality and choose to live in a cyber reality.
I disagree with your statement that "Life without end is a meaningless and empty life."
IF it could be extended without decay.
IF the resources existed for all to benefit.
THEN Life without end could be an infinite adventure.
Dream on.
Yes, and I'm considering contributing to the cause.

Even if it doesn't eventually lead to immortality, it's still a good cause because they are contributing to the overall betterment of the human condition.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service