Damn, it looks like I'll just miss the cut. Oh well, so much for immortality. I can't speak to the pure efficacy of this, but there are some intriguing possibilities. Stem cell technology seems to be having some remarkable results, to name one currently.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/...how-to-live-forever/

Another 30+ years for me, I'm out. Even if I made it, who would want to live forever at 93?

I would be 66. Hopefully, they can grow new organs by then.

No interest. Sooner I get to the Bridge, the better.

Somebody just watched “Altered Carbon” now they are a futurologist.

He'll by then I will be 114!

Only if I can have my 28 yr old body back, the wisdom and perspectives I have now and the money I'd be sure to gain over a three hundred year trial and error effort.

I suspect that'd play hell with annuities, to say nothing of retirement planning. And Social Security getting put on a solid financial foundation? - fuggedaboudit.

What about my picnic device? Will it still work?

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
Somebody just watched “Altered Carbon” now they are a futurologist.

Haven't seen Altered Carbon yet, but this theme is already been explored on screen in Bicentennial Man and Surrogates, and those are just off the top of my head. The "Bioethics and Law" class I took in 2001 delved pretty heavily into this stuff and the professor was pretty adamant that even though cloning a humans was illegal basically everywhere in the world, that it was already quietly happening, and the first public integration of that would be using stem cells and DNA from the organ recipient to grow their own organ transplants. I'll need to look around a bit, but it seems to me that in recent years, that part of it has come to bear.

I wouldn't mind if there is some kind of antigravity supportive amenities.

Unsure how my sesquisentennial birthday celebration would proceed if I had to rely on dragging my own saggy parts out onto the tango floor.

Oh, wait....I'd only be 105!!! Things are looking up already!!!

Forever? Heck, no.

One of my best friends has said for quite some time she didn't want to go past 50... frankly, I'm beginning to understand why.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
No interest. Sooner I get to the Bridge, the better.

This !

Exactly.

This.

Why can't I be included just because I was born before 1970? I'm only 49 and that means I've got 71 more years anyway.

While I think technology can extend biological life, I think there's a limit. As cells divide and reproduce, errors are added, eventually the accumulated errors make the divide cells non-viable. Also IIRC, some cells don't divide and reproduce (neurons?) No matter what medical technology they throw at this problem, time will eventually take its toll.

I do think there is one way something like immortality could be achieved. At some point medical and computer technology will merge, and some organization will figure out how to download human consciousness into a computer, and the computer will allow the consciousness to continue processing.

Our DNA is programmed to age all of us. I sure hope I don’t live to see man’s attempts to ‘reprogram’ that.

2050? I'd be 103. Pass

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
Somebody just watched “Altered Carbon” now they are a futurologist.

Well you know, just like somebody watched A Trip to the Moon and 67 years later it happened.

The world seems to accept Malthusian population theory at the same time it tries to make humankind immortal. Go figure. Even a consciousness living in a virtual world has a resource footprint. Processing power and electricity aren't free and limitless.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
I suspect that'd play hell with annuities, to say nothing of retirement planning. And Social Security getting put on a solid financial foundation? - fuggedaboudit.

No problem. They'll just increase the full retirement age to 300. How would you like a 280 year career?