E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe quest for immortality goes back to Adam and Eve, but now some smart people are getting serious about actually bringing it within their grasp. And they're getting more attention as well.
Let's take Aubrey de Grey, for example: The British gerontologist has been beating the drum for anti-aging therapies for years. He plays a prominent role in a recently published book on the immortality quest titled "Long for this World," a new documentary called "To Age or Not to Age" and a just-published commentary on the science of aging.
In this week's issue of Science Translational Medicine, de Grey and nine other co-authors urge the United States and other nations to set up a Project Apollo-scale initiative to avert the coming "global aging crisis." The experts' prescription includes a campaign to raise the general public's awareness about lifestyle changes that can lead to longer and healthier lives; a lab-based effort to develop anti-aging medicines; and a push for new techniques to repair, restore or replace the cellular and molecular damage done by age.
"There is this misunderstanding that aging is something that just happens to you, like the weather, and cannot be influenced," another co-author, Jan Vijg of Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a news release. "The big surprise of the last decades is that, in many different animals, we can increase healthy life span in various ways."
When it comes to translating anti-aging research into real life, however, the experts face at least three types of challenges: First, the basic lifestyle advice is pretty pedestrian: Eat wisely and exercise moderately. Some folks might wonder what the big deal is all about. "To enjoy the fantastic voyage, stay with the tried and true," Jonathan Weiner writes in "Long for this World."
Genetic factors also affect longevity, of course, as pointed out by a recent study (which has come under question, by the way). But it's hard to tease out exactly how those factors interact with each other and with the lifestyle factors. There's no magic bullet ... yet.
The second challenge has to do with anti-aging therapies, which could offer a magic bullet someday. Some substances do seem to extend longevity, and caloric restriction has been found to be a life-extender as well ... for worms and mice. But it's not yet clear how these strategies will work for humans. It could well turn out that what works for mice would make humans sicker, or make life so unpleasant that it's not worth living that much longer.
The third challenge involves the same issue that Adam and Eve faced: Reaching too hungrily for the fruit on the tree of life might make you seem presumptuous. In his review of "To Age or Not to Age," New York Times film critic Stephen Holden complains that the movie "beats the drums so enthusiastically for a pharmaceutical fountain of youth that you have the uncomfortable sensation of being harangued by snake-oil salesmen."
Ptolemaic Productions
Ray Kurzweil is a prophet of the singularity.
Like de Grey and his colleagues, futurist/inventor Ray Kurzweil has been facing these challenges for years - not as an anti-aging researcher per se, but as a smart guy who has made his name by predicting trends in information technology that bring benefits on an exponential curve rather than a linear progression. He has applied the "law of accelerating returns" to the rise of artificial intelligence, predicting that A.I. will match human intelligence by 2029 and lead to a technological singularity by 2045 - beyond which predictions can't be made.
Extreme longevity is part of Kurzweil's vision for accelerating change in the decades to come. The way he sees it, medical scinece is becoming just another form of information technology, thanks to advances in genetics and molecular biology. And he intends to ride those advances all the way to immortality.
Kurzweil and X Prize co-founder Peter Diamandis have set up an institution called Singularity University at NASA Ames Research Park in California's Silicon Valley to train leaders to deal with accelerating change (at tuition rates ranging from $15,000 to $25,000). Next week, there's a special treat in store for the students and invited guests: a two-night double feature about Kurzweil and his ideas. "The Singularity Is Near" is closely tied to Kurzweil's book with the same title, while "Transcendent Man" focuses more on Kurzweil and his fellow travelers on the path to the singularity.
Kurzweil and I had a wide-ranging conversation about the movies and his visions for the future this week. In fact, the discussion was so wide-ranging that I'm saving some of the quotes for later, when the movies are out in more theaters. But because the quest for immortality is so much in the news, I thought this would be a good time to roll out Kurzweil's perspectives on radical life extension. Here's an edited transcript:
Ray Kurzweil: I've written three health books. The last two have been with a co-author, Terry Grossman, M.D. That's "Fantastic Voyage" and "Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever." We talk about three bridges to radical life extension. Most of the books are devoted to Bridge 1. That's the bridge you can get on right now - basically, aggressively applying today's knowledge to slow down the aging disease processes as much as possible. In fact, you can do that a lot more than people think. ... People say, 'Well, following this lifestyle and taking these supplements [150 pills a day], do you really think that's going to help you live hundreds of years?' The answer is no. The goal of Bridge 1 is just to get to Bridge 2, because it's not a static situation. In fact, Bridge 1 is constantly changing as we get more information. We get new approaches every week now.
Bridge 2 is the full flowering of this biotechnology revolution, where we can really reprogram our genes - turn off genes that promote disease and aging, add new genes that protect us from disease and aging. There's that recent study that showed certain genes, if people have them they live a lot longer. Add those genes. There are many different levels of information processing that underlie biology. It's very much an information process. Craig Venter gave a powerful demonstration of that a few weeks ago by turning a computer file into a living organism. We can reprogram the information that defines our biology. We have 22,000 software programs called genes, and we can change them. There are other ideas as well: regrowing our cells, tissues and organs, using our own DNA. These things are moving along at an exponential pace. They'll be a thousand times more powerful in 10 years, a million times more powerful in 20 years. Fifteen to 20 years from now really will be a different era.
So that's Bridge 2. The goal of Bridge 2 is to get to Bridge 3, which is the full flowering of the nanotechnology revolution. Really going beyond biology, not just reprogramming biology, but rebuilding it. Already there's not a single organ that's not being rebuilt or augmented in some way. As we get to the means of re-engineering things at the molecular level, we can do a much more powerful job of that. Eventually this will provide very dramatic extensions to human longevity.
Cosmic Log: I was just reading in "Long for this World" that although mean life expectancy is dramatically increasing due to improvements in public health, there still seems to be a maximum time limit around 120 years.
Kurzweil: That's not inexorable either. It's for very specific reasons: telomere shortening, increasing rates of genetic errors ... All of these things can be engineered around. There are mitochondrial DNA deletions because they're not protected. They reproduce using single-stranded DNA, which has a high error rate. But you can use gene therapy to put those genes in the nucleus. Each reason why there's a limit of 120 can be engineered around. There's really no absolute limit.
Aubrey de Grey uses the metaphor of a house. How long does a house last? Well, it doesn't last a long amount of time if you don't take care of it. If you kinda take care of it routinely, maybe it'll last longer. But if you're very diligent, and constantly fix everything that goes wrong and occasionally upgrade the house, it can go on indefinitely. It can last a very long time, many centuries. The reason we can't do it with the human body right now is because we don't have all the required tools, or the right level of understanding. But that is exactly what is progressing exponentially, and I make the case that we will have those tools pretty soon.
This is really a wakeup call to my baby-boomer peers. It's not too late for the baby-boomers to aggressively slow down the aging processes so we can be in good shape just 15 years from now when Bridge 2 comes around. It's not like it's going to arrive on one particular day, it'll pick up speed. Starting a decade from now we're going to see some dramatic advances.
Q: I'm sure you hear the criticism every once in a while that this quest promotes a have vs. have-not society. That there'll be one level of society that has access to technology for life extension, and the other level of society will be left out in the cold.
A: Well, my response to that is to say, 'Yeah, like cell phones.' Fifteen years ago, you had to be wealthy to have a mobile phone. When somebody took out a mobile phone at a movie, that was a signal that this person was powerful and a member of the wealthy elite. They actually didn't work very well. It took 10 years to put up the first billion cell phones, and three years to put up the second billion, and 14 months to put up the third billion. We're now at 5 billion cell phones for 6 billion people. A third of the individuals in Africa have cell phones. According to industry projections that they will all be smart phones within two or three years. So everybody in the world is going to have access to the Internet from these extremely inexpensive mobile devices.
The reason for that is that the law of accelerating returns applies approximately a 50 percent deflation rate for information technology. It's true of every form of information technology, whether it's genetic data, DNA, brain data, bits of computing, bits of memory, bits of communication. Every year the cost comes down by about half. Ultimately, by the time these technologies work well, they're extremely inexpensive.
It's also true of health technology. AIDS drugs were about $30,000 per patient per year 15 years ago, and they didn't work very well. Now they actually work pretty well, and they're $100 per patient per year.
So at any one point in time, there is a have / have-not divide, based on the current snapshot of circumstances. When it comes to things like AIDS, we should do more than we're doing. But the technology is moving in the right direction, not the wrong direction. Ultimately these things become almost free, and by that time they're extremely powerful and work very well. It's not the case that these are very expensive interventions. They're expensive at the point where they're experimental and don't actually work.
Q: Another issue that people talk about is whether, evolutionarily speaking, we're putting too much reliance on technology. People might be concerned about being in such a techno-reliant society that when things break down, some sort of crisis comes about that wipes out a whole segment of humanity.
A: What sort of breakdown would wipe out a segment of humanity?
Q: Well, let's say it's the kind of bioterror attack you've talked about. Or maybe ... for example, here in Seattle we had a big windstorm and electrical outage a couple of years ago, and it struck me while we were sitting in the dark how dependent my family was on electricity. It made me think ...
A: My response to that is that technology is definitely moving toward decentralized solutions. Solar power, for example, can be very decentralized. It doesn't have a point of disruption. There are new water technologies emerging that are very localized, like Dean Kamen's water machine, which could sell for $1,000 and meets the water needs of 100 people. These decentralized solutions aren't subject to that kind of centralized breakdown. It's really more the First Industrial Revolution technologies which are centralized and potentially damaging in that way.
That being said, there is intertwined promise and peril in all technologies. That's always been the case. There are dangers in these new technologies that I've talked extensively about. There's no simple pat answer, but the right answer is twofold: Have ethical standards for responsible practitioners, like the Asilomar guidelines for biotech, which have been very successful. And have a rapid-response system for irresponsible practitioners, like terrorists, so we can respond to them and protect ourselves.
We've been a technological species for tens of thousands of years, and it's been the case that the technologically superior species has prevailed. There's discussion now why Cro-Magnon man prevailed over Neanderthals, and it appears to be due to fairly subtle differences in our tool use. Our tools were more advanced than the Neanderthals' and that's always what prevails. We've been a human-machine civilization ever since we picked up a stick to reach a higher branch. We've extended our reach with our tools, physically, mentally. We've already done that with our health. Life expectancy was 23 a thousand years ago. I recently told some gifted middle-school kids that if it hadn't been for this progress they all would be senior citizens.
Q: I wanted to make sure I touched up your efforts to bring the memory of your father back alive, through cloning and artificial intelligence. Some people have portrayed it as a Frankensteinish exercise, but I'm sure you see it differently...
A: It's no more Frankensteiny than people keeping movies and pictures of their loved ones who have passed, which is basically what I'm doing. He was kind of a pack rat like I am. He kept 60 or 70 boxes at his house, all his letters, all his music, he was a great musician. Vinyl records he recorded, old movies, things like that. The scenario is that future A.I.s will be intelligent enough to create avatars that are convincing as people in a virtual-reality environment. Some of these will be imaginative people, like Ramona in my movie. Others will be re-creations, as best as we can do it, of people who have passed, based on the information we have about them. That would include these actual documents of all kinds, video, his works, pictures. It would also include our memories, their DNA if that's available.
Would that sort of avatar be my father? You could certainly make a strong case that it's not. But it would probably be closer to my father than my father would have been had he lived, because he'd be quite different today. He would be 98.
Q: Is the aim of this to create a sentimental memory, or to keep his legacy alive? I'm sure you've thought deeply about the purpose for doing this.
A: Well, this is a good example of the value of information. To me, information is not a dry database. Ultimately, we are information. I believe that we're fundamentally a pattern of information. There's an analogy to water in a stream. The pattern that water makes as it goes around a particular rock can be the same for years, but obviously the water is different from second to second. Am I the same person that you talked to years ago? Actually, the particles are completely different. The pattern isn't exactly the same, either, but the pattern does have continuity.
So we are a pattern of information. And that information, ultimately we'll be able to capture that. That's another aspect of extending our lives. Right now we can back up all the valuable information we have on our computers. But it's not just a poem or a metaphor to say this information in our brains, it's very literally data, but we have no backup for it. Ultimately we'll be able to back it up and retain it.
How valuable is a person? You could say it's the ultimate value. But a person is information. Information is of sacred value. In fact, going back to the origins of my family, knowledge was sacred in a way. My grandfather came back from Europe, and described how he was actually given an opportunity to handle some original document created by Leonardo da Vinci. He described it in reverential terms. These were documents created by a human, but they contained some precious information.
That's really the main point I'm trying to make here. We treasure this information because it's the ultimate value of a human being. We are information - and when I say that, it's not intended to denigrate who we are. It's really intended to elevate the concept of information.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
There is far too much emphasis on genetics and molecular biology to reliably predict the evolutionary path during the next thirty years. For instance, we do not yet know whether cell phone use increases our risk of having brain tumors. We will know for certain in 30 years, at which time artificial intelligence and anti-aging regimens will be useless, if all cell phone users are walking around with inoperable brain cancer. If electro-magnetic radiation can penetrate concrete, it seems logical to assume that it can affect the human brain which is comprised of 80% water.
Molecular biologists and geneticists do not know the effect of the large number of toxic industrial chemicals present in human blood on future lifespan. This is yet another experiment in progress. There is also the effect of endocrine disruptors on future offspring where someone with Kurzweil's intelligence could predict that males are becoming extinct, e.g. the male predicament.
There are other practical problems with no solution based on present science. What should be done about that large collection of plastic in the Pacific Ocean that is endangering marine life? Perhaps, you should ask Sylvia Earle about the future prospects of life on earth, in light of the fact that the ocean is being used as a garbage dump for materials developed using advanced technology.
If we do nothing about global warming and other climate problems, such as ocean acidification, in the next decade, I can predict that it will be too late, Ray.
You're obviously not qualified to make the statements you've posted here, and completely ignorant of Kurzweil's work. If you think global warming and ocean acidification will ruin the planet within a decade, then you need to take off your tinfoil hat and step outside (preferably off a bridge). Hell, if you think those would ruin the planet within FIFTY years, you're still a complete fool. Technology to address those problems is advancing just as rapidly as every other technology. And you think cancer will be incurable forever? Please... get a clue.
A few extreme conspiracy theories have obviously worked their way into your weak, gullible mind. Spending a little too much time on pseudo-science instead of the real thing, maybe?
Bullsh!t, just pass that collection plate so i can buy my way into heaven.
Haha! Thank you for making me laugh early in the morning.
What about the problems that overpopulation will cause? Satrvation, lack of housing, overwelmed infastructure, ect. Have the scientist concidered this? Or does strict govermentally regulated birth control laws go along with this new technology?
Just wondering
We'll already have those issues popping up without extended life for a majority of people. Tis why we need to continue developing our space travel technology. Or we could start WWIII and kill off a bunch of people. Whichever comes first I guess....
I totally agree with you. Without death, there can be no life worth living.
This question always gets asked by people when they first start to really examine the consequences of curing involuntary death. Obviously there is not a definitive answer, we won't know until we get there! But, there are several plausible answers:
1) Population growth natural declines in wealthy and educated societies (e.g. Japan). It is reasonable to assume that society will generally become more wealthy and educated when people have indefinite lifespans, and therefore population growth will level off. I personally suspect that our culture does not currently produce individuals well-adapted to indefinite lifespan and that the first generation of "immortals" will very probably have a high suicide rate, but that is a little beside the point here.
2) Technological advancement will increase the carrying capacity of the earth, i.e. population growth will stay within sustainable bounds. Thus far our species has done an impressive job of exploiting the planet for our own gain, assuming the pattern continues we will find new ways of adapting and keep the threat of overpopulation forever over the horizon. Personally, I think our civilization is unlikely to survive this century and our species will face a massive die-off as a consequence. Finding a cure for aging could be the radical game-changer that provides the motivation to find better ways of adapting, assuming it is already not too late for us.
3) Space is full of space. We have the basic technologies necessary to begin permanent human settlements off of Earth, and/or to begin harvesting resources from space (e.g. asteroid mining).
wolfthewulfman, don't confuse healthy life-extension with unconditional immortality. Just because you're a 150 year old, have the nominal body of today's healthy 20 year old, doesn't mean you can't be shot to death, or run over by a truck. Plenty of people die of non-age related causes, right now.
This only removes the inevitability of death through aging. It's merely one less way the Universe can kill you. For whatever morbid 'meaning' this may give you, there will still be death.
REALLY Wolfman?
So, let me get this straight: Assuming you were healthy, at what point do you plan to die in the future so that your life in the past would have been worth living?
Your logical flaw is with the very thing Ray is trying to change: The fact that life 'must' run downhill.
Look at it another way: What if the "end of life" age was 80 instead of 120 max? Now, at 80, let's say you had the health of Jack LaLanne at 80. Would you... what? Want to die in a year or two? Why?
The truth is you don't want to die now OR later. The only time death is "natural" or "welcomed" is when we are in pain to the point of no return.
I'm not an idealist. Right now in the timeline, that pain in inevitable. But Ray's predictions have been rather remarkable over the years. You may want to give it some more thought.
>> Kurzweil says "...reason why there's a limit of 120 can be engineered around. There's really no absolute limit."
Mr Kurzweil, the way of this universe is that sub-atomic forces acts on atoms all the time. And this is seen as the frictional force, heat and wear/tear of a physical system. In other words, as time goes on, a system becomes more "broken" and "disordered" (the "entropy" of a system increases with time). So, you may try as hard as you want to become immortal, but everything will die one day. You may prolong it but there is a maximum time limit.
Regarding, "A.I. will match human intelligence by 2029", I am not convinced that will happen. Computers/AI are better than the human brain at number crunching. What AI lacks is creativity and the innate ability to look at nature and inquire into it. And that's an important sign of intelligence. For example, AI cannot look at the falling apple and find a Newton's law. To ask this kind of question, the intelligence has to be "conscious". But I'll wait till 2029.
Entropy is not an absolute limit to lifespan. Life, at it's most basic nature, defies entropy. Live regularly exports entropy to it's surroundings (waste heat and materials), producing a locally low-entropy environment to function in (the cell). Given enough resources and a stable internal system, there's no absolute limit to a lifespan. This can be seen in several tree species which have no natural lifespan limit (instead die due to disease, fire, lightning, drought, etc.) and the Immortal Jellyfish.
As for AI, I agree 100%. Wherever there are quantifiable criteria, computers are already showing themselves to be better than humans (with a few fascinating exceptions like Air Traffic Controllers). However, they are absolutely incapable of any judgment-based, qualifiable, or creative decision making. It's like saying high-speed jet travel will surpass cruise ships. They operate in two completely different realms.
Right... Has anyone tried the AI of today for interactiveness? I have tried every nonMilitary AI program I can find to test it out. And so far, not a single one is even remotely impressive. I first started following this in 1999, when "HAL AI" (Zabaware) was the most respected example.
This program was nothing more than a collection of pre-programmed responses looking for keywords. It's merely an if-then program, and it did a pitiful job of it's only function. I checked it again last year and it's still supposedly the leader. It now has more pre-programmed responses, but it is still just as pitiful.
I came to realize that you could have millions of pre-programmed responses, and it'll still be obvious that you're talking to a nonIntelligent computer because it's not really understanding what you're saying. You think that would be any different with a billion responses? No. In fact, it will probably convolute itself into illegibility at some point.
My conclusion is that the human brain has neural pathways that unexpectedly bridge themselves for a more dynamic response. And if we like that response, we nuture it into permanence. A computer cannot do this. It can accidentally create a new temporary connection through an overheat or electrical spike, but it has no ability to "like" the result and therefore force it to happen again.
Whatever the random element is that allows this to happen, we don't know it yet. As such, my opinion is that the AI today is no better than the AI of 30 years ago. We know what has failed to achieve it, which is helpful, but that's all thus far.
"...Mr Kurzweil, the way of this universe is that sub-atomic forces acts on atoms all the time. And this is seen as the frictional force, heat and wear/tear of a physical system. In other words, as time goes on, a system becomes more "broken" and "disordered" (the "entropy" of a system increases with time)"
Yes, and...?
A system left to itself, you'd be more-or-less right. But as DeGray often notes, we keep mechanical systems functioning for extremely long periods by maintenance and upkeep. Life-extension is largely about carrying out repair on our biology, in ways it can't completely carry out for itself. Any time you refurbish or overhaul something, or engage in any kind of preventive maintenance, you are indeed fighting entropy (at the expense of increasing entropy somewhere else, but that's true of anything we do, even using solar power, as the Sun cannot continue forever)
You want to maintain biology, you go to the trouble of keeping it in its most desirable state. Simple as that. Life-extension involves learning how 'to go to the trouble.'
About A.I intelligence. If you limit the defination of intelligence to scientific reasoning and measuring those things that can be observed or hinted at, then perhaps A.I. could one day rivil human ability. But if you round out the defination of intelligence to include theology and philosophy then I doubt A.I. can ever come close to human intelligence. If your A.I. has never been given a name and if asked "what is your name, what shall I call you?" I doubt it would come up with a meaningful answer. If asked "how do you feel?" or "what is your favorite color and why?" or "do you exist and why?" I bet the computer would drop into an unending subroutine loop that would either cause a stack error or require human intervention to return processing to the main program flow. Theres just more to human intelligence than can be recreated by science.
I've got a place chosen---I just hope I can get clear of you idiots when the @!$%# hits the fan...
Mike...
Theres no place you can go to escape that you wont be found or that hundards of other surivalist havent also chosen for their refuge. Lets just hope this kinda science doest become manifest in the first place.
A fascinating read. Theoretically, I think it is all possible. I often fantasize about what's in store for future generations. Realistically, though, I think many things can and will go wrong with this scenario. Only time will tell, I suppose.
Something's only impossible until it's not.
No, you are wrong.
All you really are is information. Im sure you have heard this before, but the atoms in your body are no longer the ones you had 3 years ago. Its simply their configuration, their informational value, that remains. This is your identity. And that 'matrix of identity' has remained despite every single in your body being replaced by the food you ate during those 3 years.
Hence, if you can simply retain the 'shape' of the 'information matrix' and change the 'particles that comrpise it' slowly....not quickly, hence destroying the configuration, you can live forever.
After all, your heart can be replaced (so you understand) with an artificial machine....why would you die then if it can be replaced regularly, despite this 'friction and entropy' you describe?
The identity in your brain is simply a thought process of information, being re-organized constantly from experience...so if you can replace and repair neurons, keeping this 'PROCESS' going...if necessary destroying some neurons but replacing them immediately while monitoring the 'flux process' to make sure it is 'continuous' during the micron procedures...then why couldn't your brain be replaced every 50 years through a nanotech slow process, yet the information be preserved?
I get where you are coming from, Ive been in your layman's perspective before..you are thinking, this guy is a nutjob, another snake oil salemen...Im not saying what kurzweil is saying is correct, that we will acheive immortality by 2045....I don't know...but I do know his law of exponential returns. And this means that at every iteration of complexity, you are not running on the previous platform plus the one you create on that one...
kind of like those strips that move u at the airport? just think of one that moves you from stationry...but then you get on another moving strip, and then another ontop of that other...
eventually you will be going very very fast, pretty quickly actually....You might no realize it, but you have gone through an personal computing revolution, a chip miniaturization revolution, and exponential curve in processing power, and an internet revolution..
that,...to nanotech based robots and AI by 2029? yes, why? look at what is going on around you, the computers we developed in 20 years, are now being used to simulate the NEXT WAVE OF REVOLUTIONS, much faster, which would have previously taken 50 years, in 5...by accelerating the pace of experiments..We can now SIMULATE experiments, as the yare only information, based on EQUATIONS..
nanotech has been advancing at a breakneck pace. Just recently a superconducting breakthrough was announced, a new energy material discovered based on a crystal that has more energy content than nuclear, advances in PRINTABLE ELECTONICS, lowering the price of a 2005 supercomputer by 2015 to the price you usually assign to a PRINTED NOVEL...
you add advances in quantum computing and cheap manufacturing from roll to roll printing of thin film displays and printed electronics, and hey,....
you add 10-15 years, this might not seem so crazy after all. I am not saying kurzweil is right on the timing. I really don't know. There could be an economic collapse, problems could come along.
But to anticipate based on current technology is to commit the malthusian error (the guy assumed the world would be covered in crap due to horse carriages....to say the least ,he never forsaw the industrial revoltion, the discovery of oil, or the automobile....go figure)...
so what Im saying is that humans have a nack for not understanding the exponential function. You assume progress based on steps and the nyou say, oh, its going to go so far. You assume, yea, iphone 4's ,we dicovered some pretty cool crap during my life, and its been fast and coo, BUT THAT FAST? why would it take so long, naw, this is a snake oil salesmen.
And I wouldn''t blame you, there have been many claims by such people in the past, and they have not panned out. But this is a purely intellectual excercise. You are seeing the progress made in your lifetime and putting a best fit line (you do it subconciously but your doing it nonetheless) to the data...
so you say, based on this line, hell we will have flexible displays maybe even realy erally small iphones and probably electric cars by 2030, but we won't have thinking computers..
b
ut you are applying a straight line to an exponential graph which you mistake as linear because of our short lifespans. When in truth, if you keep on extrapolating beyond your timeframe, youll see the new graph is steeper in its line, and then steeper and steeper, and then if you could see this, you would say, huh, maybe it is faster. But from your perspective it is not intuitive, so its not your fault either. Neither is it your fault not to trust kurzweil, I wouldn't either.
But his mathematical assumptions do ring a, how do I say, logical truism in my mind.
For example, you mentioned AI not being good at anything b ut number crunching..thats correct. But thats because researchers have not written in common language to create a critical mass of neural network learning database...and because memristors have not yet been implemented in the architecture..
thgats right, a new circuit element was discovered in 2008, called the memristor. And this memristor will give, according to many projections, computers the analogue capacity of the human mind (it acts like a synapse, can store information when turned off, process logic functions at the stored memory, without ta centralized processor...just like the brain...), and the capability of it b 2020-25...When you combine nanotech advances and quantum computing advances...It becomes very self-evident that due to such advances and memristors, a new entire class of computers will emerge. In fact, they may be more apt in being called 'neural information matrixes' because that is exactly what they are. They will not simply be digital processors that process commands sequentially, but will integrate various data in parallel, mimicking the function of the mind.
Hence, from that data alone, it seems entirely rational to me, and modest actually, to assume an intelligent machine, or AI, will emerge by 2029.
But then again, you are thinking in a different sort of process and not self-aware of the things I just said or the perspective I have...so it is entirely rational for YOU to assume the things you have assumed.
But the thing is, if you are self-aware of what I have just said, then you realize that kurzweil may not simply be another snake oil salesmen, and there may in fact be an intelligent machine somwhere along that time-frame but definitely whithin the first half of the 21st century, assuming no catastrophic event derails this exponential curve..such as say, a failed United States due to government debt, and angry socialist policies that purportedly attack the rich and end up harming the economy..., but that is neither here nor there....or an enviromental catastrophe, or oil becoming very expensive, slowing growth increasing interest rates...you get the picture..
the only way to acheive the very humane world we are aspire to live in is to sacrifice, to learn that some inequality may exist now, but it is NECESSARY for the END of acheiving greater innovation that will eventually sovle the oil problem witht nanotech (batteries, supercapacitors for cars) and then an intelligent awarenss might write a special AI that is subconcious (we don't have robot slaves, that is) and does all of our bidding.....
we then integraet with the intelligence and ...well, beyond the singularity things become unprerdictable, but you get the picture.
We need to reach for the stars now, with scramjets, with innovation, with technology. If we get bogged down in ideology, we might never make it..we might go extinct..., but anywho, thats kind of tangential thinking.
Thats just a perspective of how your assumptions may not hold going forward. I think ray kurzweil thinks that THIS IS IT, this is the bridge period into the singularity...so although there has been exponential growht since the industrial age...ONly now, will we reach an intelligene singularity due to the exponential curve in information technology, which will seep over to biology, and then to nanotech, which to him and to me actually, makes it seem entirely rational that we will acheive immortality. If not this century, the 22nd.
But back to my tangential, if we start politicizing everything and becoming little morons about who has and who doesn't, ignoring how much better off we are today relative to just 50 years ago...then we might as well commit suicide now, because we are on artificial support off of oil, the 7 billion world population of ours. And if we all of a sudden start going socialist RIGHT NOW, at this critical period in human history, then we will starve the economic engine necessary to drive us past the finish line to a different energy source through innovation, and to a different world where material wealth rises and transportation increases to a point where wealth gets diminishing returns and your LITTLE SOCIALIST UTOPIA CAN A CTUALLY BE ACHEIVED....and instead, will keep on consuming oil since none of the necessar ydiscoveries will be made due to a collapsed economy...and we will GO EXTINCT, as food prrices skyrocket in the third world first, and mass starvation ensues, later on leading to ugly collectivst policies such as human harvesting to feed people hiding out in fortress cities operating on renewable power that was not able to be scaled up to help all people...It will be the essence of greed....false hope to gain power....with the biggest ponzie schemes in history for political expedience at the expense of the future of humanity..
all the global warming problems later on, we may not be able to weather, despite the survivors in vaults and domed cities, because we will not have the technology to combat it...
If we go through a singularity, all of these problems will be a thing of the past. We may design nanotech robots the size of microbes to clean the atmospehre of co2, techs that once only favoured the rich, through genetic enhancement, will then be cheap enough to be spread like a music file or software on kazaa...everyone will have it...but that will never happen if the economy collapses due to socialist policies...
you will inheret a wasteland for a planet...and what a shame...you may say, well, why should I put so much sacrifice for people that will never know the worth of what they have...but where are you? are you not enjoying the thousands of inventions and economic prosperity created by those before you?
IF you falter now, not only will you let down all of those people down, but everyone that comes AFTER you...And what pathetic fools we will look like, when the future generations look bakc and realize, we MAY HAVE EVEN HAD A STAKE IN SEEING THAT FUTURE COME TO BE, HENCE ENJOYING IN ITS BENEFITS, UNLIKE THE GREAT TITANS THAT BROUGHT US THE CURRENT PROSPERITY BEFORE US...
they died, and they created a great country in 200 years, the greatest, richetst most powerful nation on earth..
and then you, the degenerates, squander it due to notions of entitlement? and then let down the generations that came after you?
no no, I think you may just be better off, going through sacrifice.
Science is a history of sacrifice. So is progress.
And I do beleive people that want socialism beleive this also. They simply see economic perils as sacrifice. But let what I wrote here be a bit of self-awareness, perhaps you should wait...just a little bit if only. If by 2035-2040, things have not panned out technologically, then do your worst. But wait. For i do think we are entering a rapid revolutionary stage here, and it would be a horrible waste to not reach the eventual utopia you all held so dear in your days of idealistic youtth, just because of your impatience whith progress in your small lifespan on this earth in your cynical later years.....
what a fateful and unbearable curse that would be....
I was actually answering another commenter...but I guess I made a mistake..I don't want to go through and find it, and repost this long a-- post so ill just let it be.
I think youll find my post an interesting read. Give you some perspective that might actually make a socialist or marxist think twice...about the private sector....in order to acheive the ideal of what he seeks.
In many ways what I am saying is...sacrifice may be needed now so your grandchildren or even you, if you make it, will be able to see a day, where wealth rises to a level where there are diminishing returns and people are more equal, perhaps due to mind machine interfaces, allowing people to see how the math genius solves things, themslves becoming geniuses, until we, although seperate, become about the same in ability, both due to that, and due to genetic engineering, which will become inexpensive (no price), as it will be copied like software on the internet.
But if you don't sacrifice and get aggresive with socialist polices RIGHT NOW, we may very well go extinct.
It may be a good idea for another age...but not day, not now, with the innovation that could make such an ideal world come about, only possible through the engine of capitalism.
you could basically have a scenario outlined by the onion...Where the world's life support systems have been destroyed, and can no longer sustain humanity, so its just a matter of time before everyone dies off. So no one cares about the future, and no one values life, as there are very few resources for many human beings. The asimov hypothesis on resources. So it may seem outrageous and stupid, but the onions version may not be too far off the mark...
if we don't get our rhead out of our a-- and develop technology to reach out to space through a strong economy, solving our mineral problems through asteroid mining. Develop nanotech to solve our energy problems through decentralization, through innovation and a strong economy. Our water shortage problems with lab on a chip technology and material comforts through a subconcious self-assembling robotic AI, that does our bidding as well as that of the actual machine intelligences, which may become one and the same.
But if we don't and start whining about entitlements, we may just not solve any of those problems, and wake up in a nonesensical future where everyone is happier to be dead than alive..
thanks onion.
We'll have to do away with kids, of course.
Otherwise the world will collapse from overpopulation.
So we will be left with sad, selfish adults.
Yay.
Even without this technology Earth is headed for a population crisis. Why do yo think I scoff at people that say space exploration is unimportant? There are a few solutions to overpopulation: 1. Very large war (WWIII pretty much) 2. A nasty disease breaks out 3. Develop the technology necessary to colonize other planets/suitable moons.
"Sad, selfish adults"
"The bright side of that Moon": Kids brought up by dramatically longer-lived adults should make for better adults. We don't need to reproduce every other year. And this is only for a transition period: one or two hundred years from now things will probably be unpredictably different, including overpopulation as we know it.
There are too many people for this planet to sustainably support as it is. So, by all means, let us increase the number of people artificially outliving their design lives in the technologically advanced countries which are using up most of the earth's resources.
Kurzweil's example of the availability of cell phones in arguing for the trickle down effect of this anti-aging technology is specious BS. How many Africans have access to good health care versus access to cell phones? How many Africans could afford AIDS drugs if they were not being underwritten by the West? What would a world with a cadre of immortal dictators and billionares working dilligently to concentrate more and more power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands over several lifetimes look like? Not one in which I'd care to live. That is what would result from the "haves" getting to the technology first. And immortality does not guarantee greater intelligence or wisdom or compassion or humility. Our mortality is what levels the playing field between begger and king, and between one generation and the next. Kurzweil is an incredibly immature and greedy man. Not liking the rules of the game, he seeks to change them. And in so doing, hopes to steal from future generations in order to provide material comfort to himself. Where have we heard that debate lately, I wonder?
As for AI - we can't even sustain intelligent debate and derive workable solutions to the world's biggest problems right now (one of which is NOT longetivity, btw). I think the supreme irony to this whole topic would be for AI to be developed and placed in charge of making the hard choices to solve our problems. We all know how that story ends through countless tales.
"There are too many people for this planet to sustainably support as it is. So, by all means, let us increase the number of people artificially outliving their design lives in the technologically advanced countries which are using up most of the earth's resources."
The flip side of that is, can you take someone, an 'old' but healthy and physically youthful person, and say, to their face, "Sorry, you've lived to long. You have to go?"
Jeann Caulmet made it to 122. Granted, she looked as youmight expect a 122 year old to look, buther mind was fuly intact to the end. If you spoke French, she would have understood you. Could you say it to her?
How long is too log? And how would you enforce it? Slow or fast, this technology will come. And much of it will sneak up on us, it won't be a dramatic announcement of one anti-aging 'pill' or the like.
We all support the cure/prevention of age-related diseases...at what point does that become changing 'normal' aging? Some of what we want to know, will naturally fall out of other research, like cancer. When you fully understand how to correct abnormal cellular development, you understand how to alter 'normal' development, too.
Oh, and by the way, plenty of dictators cease to dictate for reasons other than dying of 'old age.' We call that 'revolution.' (and when a dictator does die while in power, there's no guarantee that the dictatorship ends with him...there's usually plenty of descendants/cronies, ready to take his place.)
"Not liking the rules of the game, he seeks to change them."
Yes, and we call that 'technology.' We call that 'being human.'
I live in a house with central heating, because I 'don't like' living outdoors in sub-freezing temperatures (it's hot today, but I know that won't be true at all, in 6 months)...and I refuse to wait for a million years of evolution to produce a variety of human with fur (which would require a lot of individuals who happened to have inadequate body hair, dying unpleasantly before they could pass that trait on.)
We 'change the rules,' because they suck. They require suffering and (slow) death for ourselves, and those we care about. Check out some nursing homes some time, and tell me that that's a desirable inevitable condition for a person.
I'll wait.
I am absolutely struck dumb. I'm speechless. Since I live in a bubble out here on the prairie I rely on Cosmic Log to keep me current on developments in science and technology. I have never heard of Kurzwell and upon first seeing the movie trailer posted above I thought it was a "mockumentary". But based on Alan's report and the comments above I now see this guy is for real. Terrifying.
This whole concept chills me to the bone. What about the natural order? We are born, we live and we die?
Sorry, Mr. Shatner, but I am NOT afraid to die. No, I'm not born again, but I do know that to live and to die are part of the natural processes of life.
I fear pain. I fear crippling disease and most of all I fear being warehoused and forgotten in some nursing home. But I do not fear death.
Frankenstein? Mary Shelley's creation cannot hold a candle to the horror this man proposes.
There is a line in JURASSIC PARK, I'll have to paraphrase it, but I think it is to the point, "You were more concerned with COULD you do it and never stopped to think SHOULD you do it." Exactly.
My first thought was overpopulation, but that won't happen. If such technology ever comes to pass it will only be available to the super-rich who will never grow old, only more powerful. It will be one more level between the "haves" and the "have nots". This will end in a class struggle that will take care of their immortality irrevocably.
Artificial Intelligence by 2029? One could argue this entire theory is evidence of "artificial intelligence".
Hey, Kurzwell, if you've got such a great big giant brain how about solving the current worldwide financial crisis? How about coming up with a cure for cancer, mental illness, learning disabilities and birth defects?
How about a way to create a non-fossil based fuel and a way to feed the billions who are hungry?
And when you've done all that, why don't you use your billions of dollars and that great big giant brain of yours to figure out a way to help us understand each other and be more tolerant of those with different beliefs, languages and cultures?
THEN, this world might be worth hanging around to enjoy and we might be worthy of extended life and new technology. Until then you've just created your own JURASSIC PARK.
If this guy is serious then this is some scary stuff. Far more frightening than Islamic radicals or Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe you should stick to watching the prairie...
Great comment, Skip!
I can understand about us being educated (again) on how we can extend our lives by taking better care of ourselves. I think most of us get that by now.
But it seems that only the very narcissistic would push for immortality. With their giant egos, it's probably hard to feed them in a hundred yrs. or so. But the egos would continue to grow the longer they live. What a quandary. Those poor brilliant minds. Thank God people like that don't live forever. But of course there are brilliant minds who don't have a huge ego. Those are the ones who help mankind.
But the very basic question of having so many people on Earth. There are some families like the Duggards who need to realize that they've done more than their fair share of populating the Earth. "Go forth and multiply." God, we're back in that garden. I guess there's no escaping it.
But as I wrote Alan, I couldn't read the whole article due to Adam and Eve coming out of the garden, not once but twice.
Damn.
Kurzweil theorizes about the future. How can you feel so threatened by someone's ideas?
TomcatOne,
When you write "you", which "you" are you referring to? If you're referring to me (you tagged onto me), I don't feel threatened by his ideas or theories--one reason being that I don't take him seriously. I DO take some theories about the future seriously. There are some that I'm very concerned about. And yes, some that are downright scary. Being afraid isn't necessarily a bad thing. You know what they say about bravery. I would be afraid to take a tour of the Moon in a shuttle (of course), but I would go. Anyway...
I'm really not impressed with this article in any way. Seriously.
It's brings up religion, after life, etc.
I'm just going to start avoiding articles that bring up Adam and Eve (even if it's used as a metaphor), and people quoting Bible verses, wanting to know if we know where we're going...
If there's an after world or another world in which I could escape all of that...well, there's hell. But then Satan would never let us heathens forget about how we ended up in hell...I imagine the devil in drag constantly saying "They told you so!!"
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Skip, uh...didn't you leave out another very scary / crazy person?
I hate to even write his name.....G.B.
As for Kurzwell, maybe he's got a huge brain and ego...and nothing else to show for myself...know what I mean?
Thank Darrah, I appreciate your support. I have been out taking my wife to the doctor and running a couple of errands and was not available to defend myself so I truly appreciate you stepping in....good job.
Well, as for Brokenarrow, I know he'll benefit from some artificial intelligence so we'll hope they make the 2029 deadline for his sake.
As for "he who whall not be named", I'm still trying to forget about him and what he did to the country. What a putz.
Have a great weekend, I'll see you on the rainbow bridge.
PEACE
Har har, I'm just saying you need to be a little more open minded. And fyi - the correct spelling of Broken arrow (which you so aptly pointed out) was taken when I went to create my gamer tag. Thus, I used Brokinarrow, and I continue to use the same spelling on multiple things because I like to keep things consistent.
Anywho, I love seeing the new technology we come out with. Not really too sure about the singularity thing hitting in 2029, but who knows? Anything is possible. Those that don't believe that are woefully naive.
Skip, that was the perfect comeback.
You know I forgot about that G.B I was referring to Glenn Beck.
Excuse me while I get ready for my G B U lessons. ;-)
Brokinarrow, don't be soo sensitive about your name. And don't be so mean. And, no. Anything is not possible. Only the naive would believe that. You know we do have some really mad scientists running around. I don't consider Kurzwell one though. I put him in the same category as Mr. Sitchin--their theories to be taken with a grain of salt.
Just because some of us don't take one or the other seriously doesn't mean that we discount science. In fact it might be just the opposite. You have a few extreme views responding to this article.
Some of these can be akin to sci-fi, fantasy, and religious fanaticism. A lot of people fall somewhere in the middle of all those, which is a really great thing for our society. Checks and balances --that's needed in a society. Someone has to do the dirty work of sorting out the brilliance, arrogance, ignorance and plain old insanity that sometimes goes on the world of science and / or religion. Immortality falls into ALL of those categories, no matter how you slice it.
But to each, his own. Live and let live, so on and so on...
AAAAAHHHHHH! You wrote Glen Beck! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I hope you washed your hands REALLY well afterward. Maybe use some hand sanitizer.
If there is such a thing as SPAWN OF THE DEVIL then he, Rush Limbaugh and Laura (known as "Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS") ingram win the triple crown.
Ahh, a gamer, ok, now it makes sense. I can dig it. I won't go through my whole diatribe for you and ol' TC again. But the whole AI and "immortality" thing scares the be'jeezus out of me. I am certain we do not know what we are doing.
Hey, game boy, how do you think the BORG came to be..huh? But I digress.
And there are many "ideas" that worry me. Let's not forget that Hitler, Stalin and even George the II had "Ideas" and look where that got us.
Oh crap! What if Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingram attained IMMORTALITY? I won't sleep a wink tonight.
PEACE
"...but I do know that to live and to die are part of the natural processes of life."
And because that's how it's always been....inherently makes it good?
"If such technology ever comes to pass it will only be available to the super-rich..."
Yeah, right. Just try keeping that secret in the Internet age...
"...who will never grow old, only more powerful."
Like Bernie Madoff? Some things have nothing to do with age.
"Hey, Kurzwell, if you've got such a great big giant brain how about solving the current worldwide financial crisis?"
He doesn't claim to be a financial expert. Being knowledgeable on one thing doesn't translate to everything.
"How about coming up with a cure for cancer, mental illness, learning disabilities and birth defects?"
One: Other people are working on those.
Two. Most people will never suffer from those conditions, yet you reject someone who wants to change the one thing that is certain to kill all of us.
Which is also why I don't by the 'It'll only be for the rich.' myth.
You may be familiar with the concept of 'orphan drugs?' Drugs to treat conditions so rare, that a pharmaceutical company would never make back the money it sank in research and development to produce it?
Any drug that has a serious, beneficial impact on human aging is just the opposite of an orphan drug. Everybody ages, therefore, everybody is a potential customer. 'Greed' works in our favor here.
Make it available to 100 'billionaires' at 1 million dollars each, and how much do you make?
Make it available to 100 million people at 100 dollars each, and how much do you make?
I'm not a financial guy either, but that's pretty clear.
And like anything else, secrets get out, others discover it completely independently, patents expire (where they're respected to begin with) there are competitors, world-wide just itching to undercut you, for this market that consists of...everyone. (And when we all see Joe Blow rich guy not getting older, everyone will know something's up. They'll know it's possible. You can't hide it, and still live a life.)
"...and a way to feed the billions who are hungry?"
But isn't that also a form of life-extension? To not have people die of malnutrition? Remember, it wasn't that long ago that just getting past 40 was exceptional.
"And when you've done all that, why don't you use your billions of dollars and that great big giant brain of yours to figure out a way to help us understand each other and be more tolerant of those with different beliefs, languages and cultures?"
Kurzweil isn't God. Those are not issues of technology. Be real.
"THEN, this world might be worth hanging around to enjoy and we might be worthy of extended life and new technology."
So, we're all condemned to an inevitable slow death (that's what aging is) until the world is...perfect.
If offered, I'll decide for myself, thanks. As may you.
Dick Cheney has to use pump to help his heart work. If he had lived after 20 years , he would've gotten a completely new heart with some cure for his aging problem. Singularity that Ray Kurzwell has been talking about means in 2029 not one would look old any dying.
Visit my blog for more cracking thought like this at Vidhi Computer Blog
Dick Cheney has a pump implanted to help his failing heart . If It were year 2029 he would have had a heart of 25 years' and also would've had treatment for aging too.
For More thought like this visit my blog at Vidhi Computer Blog
Sorry Alan,
I was turned off by Adam and Eve being referred to twice before the actual scientific discussion began.
Can't we leave them and the rest of the Bible out of anything, especially when it comes to a science article? Maybe you were being satirical? One can only hope. ;-)
@Darrah:
Beginning with Adam and Eve makes a lot of sense from the perspective of science, no matter how one perceives the philosophical and religious aspects, since even if one views the story as a folk tale, (a) it is one of the oldest written records and (b) it is curiously similar to the historical records of other cultures . . .
For example, as you might recall I am working on a Flamenco song based in part on David Bisbal's stellar hit song, "Bulería", since initially the entire genre was so alien that I was using (a) Flamenco metronomes to make sense of the rhythm patterns, (b) songs by Paco de Lucía to make sense of the elaborate guitar phrases, and (c) "Bulería" by David Bisbal to make sense of the singing style, which actually is starting to make a bit of sense several months later, for sure . . .
http://www.ravennaflamenco.com/compas/#buleria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9vNSA0WNlw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfbjK155dI
For sure!
And since the rhythm patterns are so complex, I decided to use computer-based music composition software to create the basic rhythm section for the song I am doing, which incidentally is done a new style that I call "Surrealería™", which uses the standard 12-beat Bulería rhythm pattern for the verse and chorus but has a 36-beat rhythm pattern for the interlude (in the middle of the song), which is where for the YouTube music video I plan to do a Flamenco Dance and Mime reenactment of The Mayan Story of the Creation of the World, which among other things is based on the general idea that two deities created people from stalks of corn, albeit after a bit of experimenting, really . . .
http://www.surfwhammys.com/Surrealeria-06-22-2010.wmv
Really!
In my version, instead of Adam and Eve, it is Mary the Moon Child and Paul the Firecracker (Maríta de la Luna y Pablito el Petardo), but the concept is the same, and the general observation is consistent, which to be specific is that, "It's not so much what it is, as what it's not" ("No Es Tanto Lo Que Es Como Lo Que No Es"), although I am using the Google translator for the Spanish, since I am not conversant in Spanish beyond a few very simple phrases . . .
And all this stuff is relevant in another way, since for the most part all the various historical documents suggest that people tended to live considerably longer in early days than today, where some of the early figures in the Bible lived perhaps as long a 900 or so years and were continuing to be new parents when they were 400 to 500 years old, which all things considered I take literally, since no matter how little about science the various scribes new in those days, they were well aware of day and night, as well as calendars and the two astronomical events that define a "year" on this planet (summer and winter solstices), so while all the information might not be so accurate, I think that the timelines and ages are reasonably accurate . . .
And while I might expand a bit on this later, my general perspective on "aging" is that the modern flavor actually is a disease that causes people to grow old at a significantly increased rate as compared to the way things were a long time ago before whatever event happened that altered the genetic algorithms of most people . . .
Whether it was a virus, gamma ray burst, meteor strike, or something else is another matter, but I think that some "event" happened tens of thousands of years ago, and the consequence for most people and their descendants has been significantly shortened lifespans, which among other things is one of the reasons that doing manned missions to Mars is so important, because outer space is such an hostile environment and the length of the roundtrips are so long using current technologies that it will be possible only when our knowledge of human anatomy and physiology increases geometrically, which in the grand scheme of everything might map to discovering enough detailed information about the human body and its inner workings to be able to cure the disease called "aging", with the result that instead of 100 years being a "long life", it will be more in the range of 1,000 years, which in the grand scheme of everything is the primary reason that I am so annoyed by the patently goofy new direction in which NASA appears to be headed, where apparently its new foremost goal is to make Muslims feel good about themselves . . .
Explained another way, I want NASA to be focused on solving all the problems associated with extended human travel in outer space, since solving these problems is quite likely to map to extending the lifespans of everyone on this planet by several centuries, which for those folks living today quite literally makes this map to a ruthlessly ticking clock, and I much prefer that the solutions be found while I am alive, so that I will have a chance to benefit from the improved technology . . .
When one respects the brilliant "I Am Somebody!" advice provided by Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1970s literally, this is one of the best arguments for focusing on advanced manned space travel and learning as much as possible about the human body and the universe in which we live, since the fact of the matter is that most of the people who focused on sitting underneath coconut trees waiting for the gods to drop food on their heads are gone, but the folks who sat underneath apple trees and took the time to connect the dots when an apple hit them in the head have been able to do enough with science at least to extend lifespans for many people by decades, as well as curing a lot of diseases that just over a century ago had the cruel consequence of causing the early deaths of perhaps half or more of the children on the planet, since in the 19th century it was not so uncommon for children never to attain their fifth birthdays before some now completely avoidable and easily cured disease took their lives . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTB1h18bHlY
I Am Somebody!
The clues are there, somewhere, and while for example one might suggest that the Egyptians were not the brightest candles on the cake in some respects, I do not think it is simply a patently curious coincidence that their efforts to build elaborate tombs and to preserve their bodies actually might have accomplished what they imagined it would accomplish, although in a different way, since it is possible to extract DNA from some of the more well-preserved Egyptian mummies, and one might expect that in the not so distant future it will be possible to clone these early Egyptians using DNA extracted from mummies, hair, or wherever else one can get viable DNA . . .
Hence, while all these stories have different connotations and uses with respect to philosophy and religion, they are written records of history, and when one considers them from the perspective of science, I think that they provide useful clues, albeit perhaps via analogies, fables, legends, metaphors, parables, similes, and so forth and so on, which is fabulous . . .
Fabulous! :)
However you need to see it, my friend. I still like your comments and always will. What's up with Angela these days? Put it another song.
Daylight 2000. I completely agree with you. God created us, and I believe with all my heart that he will bring an end to history one day. It won't then matter how long you live. This is the fate of the world and of humans.
On another note. Someone commented that living forever is theoretically possible. Well, so is time travel. But that won't ever happen. Just like immortality. The bible says that it is appointed unto man once to die. And die we all will. God will not allow us to be immortal apart from his Grace. The scientists are constructing another tower of Babel. Thats in the Book of Genesis for those out there who aren't familiar with the Bible.
Perhaps the ultimate question is whether or not there is an afterlife. If we live forever after we die, the point of expending energy here to delay the transition seems so much less relevant.
Conversely if there is no afterlife, then ultimately nothing really matters... nothing. You may as well live it up. You can either burn through your body having a good time, or you can put yourself on the extended plan and eat boring food and never leave your house out of fear that you'll die in a car accident, or from a fatal STD, or terrorism. Either way, it makes no difference whatsoever. Across the universe, what does it matter to some alien slime mold that some creature on a distant planet called "Earth" died from murder or natural causes, or even existed in the first place? We're just a collection of molecules anyway.
On the other hand, if there is an afterlife... the game changes radically.
Why is it that in our "enlightened" scientific (and when I say scientific, I mean naturalistic science) world where we think we're the ultimate achievement of nature do we still suffer from the same struggles that have plagued mankind since the dawn of recorded history? Disease, hunger, war, greed, and so much more. If we know so much now, why do we still face these plights? Why must we still overcome our innate desires that lead to such destructive behavior?
Science cares not for human suffering... or pain. It doesn't care whether we live 60 years, or 120, or 969. It is a cold, factual, unswerving juggernaut of merciless destruction. Even if we managed to extend lifetimes indefinitely, what happens when the sun burns out, or a nearby supernova obliterates our minuscule solar system? Science cares not.
Don't get me wrong. I greatly respect and appreciate science. Through scientific discoveries we have harnessed the power of the atom, greatly improved healthcare, invented labor saving devices, vastly improved food production, and more. But at the end of the day these are simply tools, tools that can be used for good or for evil. The science behind them is cold, unconcerned, and void of compassion. It cares not.
What if, in our endeavor to understand the intricacies of science (the naturalistic kind only), we are not seeing the whole picture? What if there is another aspect to science (the "science" that simply means knowledge) that includes more than what we can see? More than what we can measure with yard sticks, microscopes, telescopes, atom smashers, or with our five senses? Is this not worth pursuing?
What if, in our search to answer the questions of life, we abandoned the most important one of all... is there life after death? Global warming, nuclear war, or galactic cataclysm all pale in comparison to this question. Why is it we discard the possibilities so quickly? Pretending that an afterlife doesn't exist will not nullify its reality... nor conversely does it prove it, but why ignore the chance when there is so much at stake?
I already know I'm going to live forever. I also know that everyone else will, too... the only question is: Where? I know where I'm going... do you?
"Conversely if there is no afterlife, then ultimately nothing really matters... nothing."
Just because there is no divine purpose, it doesn't mean that nothing matters. It just means that we are free to make our own purpose. We can decide what matters.
"Science cares not for human suffering... or pain."
Science isn't a conscious being. It is our responsibility, as good and moral people, to care for one another and to alleviate human suffering and pain as much as possible.
"I already know I'm going to live forever. I also know that everyone else will, too... the only question is: Where? I know where I'm going... do you?"
It is very obvious that you don't know a lot of things. There is no life after death. This is life! We need to make the best of it. Global warming and nuclear war matter. You (daylight2000 and Greg Smith as well) need to join the 21st century. Living in a fantasy world is not the answer. Open your eyes and your mind. You will see what a fascinating and wondrous life this really is.
I'm sure nothing I say will alter your perception one way or another, but I have just one more thing to say. There may be a very slight probability of an after life, but there is a 100% chance that this life exists. That matters.
Drifter... I'm pretty sure I live in the same world that you and about 6 billion other people live. I read the news each day, including the *gasp* scientific stuff. I love astronomy, physics, chemistry, and mathematics. They are beautiful in form and structure, a masterful composition of simplicity and complexity. The laws of nature are truly breathtaking. This life is absolutely filled with fascination and wonder.
However, there is more to this life than formulas and periodic tables. You yourself talk about purpose... I wonder, where does that come from? Does science have a purpose for you? For any of us? Like you said, it is not a conscious being. Thus, our purpose must be derived from our own mental processes. I still fail to see how this matters. In the grand scheme of the universe I am nothing more exciting than the violent nuclear storm that occurs in the hearts of countless billions of stars.
What I find of incredible interest is the fact that many people believe that the massive complexity of a brain used to ponder such deep philosophical subjects as purpose and intrinsic human value could arise through genetic mutations, or "drifting" :) I understand the massive complexity of computer software as I occasionally write code and I know that it would never, ever come into existence except through the intelligence and creativity that I possess. How could a brain develop such incomprehensibly powerful cognitive properties without massive intelligence to drive its design? Seems it takes more faith to believe that than to believe in God.
I am not blind, nor do I exercise blind faith, for that is pure folly. I see the same evidence as everyone else. I hear the same theories as everyone else, and yet I do not arrive at the same conclusions. Is it because I do not like what I see and am happy to live in my "fantasy world"? Or is it because of other evidence that I also cannot ignore? Do I come to the table with a motive in mind? With some kind of preconceived world view? Absolutely... and so does everyone else, whether we want to believe it or not. We are manufactured from our experiences and they lead us to differing conclusions. Do you think an atheistic scientist wants to find God in the evidence? Do you want to find that kind of evidence?
You have no doubt heard from the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead. There is written evidence that says it happened. Archaeological research has verified much of Biblical history. Writings from other authors of the time period reflect the events and people therein. What conclusion do you draw from that evidence? From the other posted comments I see that many toss the evidence aside. The door swings both ways.
If there is no God (or god(s)), then any morality from the past or present is man made. Whose is superior, I wonder? Why is mine invalid? Why is mine wrong? It was made by man (for the sake of this argument), yours was made by man. They are all relative. Why are 21st century ethics better than those of the first? Why would I want to espouse those beliefs when I see them violate the innocent? (abortion)
How can a morality based on personal relativistic ideals be any better than those based on a deity (real or imagined)? Especially if they are in conflict? Morality in a godless world is about as reasonable as using both metric and standard to put the Mars Climate Orbiter in orbit around Mars... which didn't work very well. There must be a standard.
It is this standard which compels me to serve others in this life. I am commanded to help the poor, the weak, the struggling. I have been assigned the task to alleviate human suffering. Do I succeed in every way? Far from it... just as we all fall short. However, what is more important is showing people the way to an afterlife. If there is one, and it is eternal, then the suffering and sadness of these short lives pales in drastic comparison to the potential for eternal suffering. Is it not better to alleviate eternal suffering than the short term suffering? It is far better to suffer here for the short term than to suffer in the long run. Is this an excuse to throw concern to the wind and let people suffer here on Earth? Absolutely not. In fact, it is through acts of kindness that I may better share the hope and peace that I have about what happens in the next life.
You claim that I am closed minded. I think to a degree we both are. But, I have become the person I am today because of deep contemplation of the possibilities that science has to offer. I have studied and learned. I have considered the evidence, the theories, and taken them to their ultimate conclusion... emptiness and death. In this journey I have returned again and again to my God. His incredible Word to us is an instruction book of what grace, compassion, and mercy should be. It has given me hope. Hope in a future, hope in mankind's redemption, hope for an afterlife. This is not the nail-biting, gee-willikers, "please, please, please," kind of hope... it is assured, 100% without a doubt, I know it's coming, and looking forward to it kind of hope. Do you have that?
Thanks, Drifter, for the comment. I appreciate you taking the time to read and share your thoughts.
And thank you for responding as well. Your post was actually a pleasure to read. I just have a few quick responses.
"How could a brain develop such incomprehensibly powerful cognitive properties without massive intelligence to drive its design?"
It is difficult to comprehend the time-line of evolution, because our individual life-times in comparison aren't even a blip on the radar. But even the smallest genetic changes in each generation are more than enough to explain the differences in all life when we are talking about a time-line that stretches over a few billion years.
"Do you think an atheistic scientist wants to find God in the evidence? Do you want to find that kind of evidence?"
Science isn't about what people want. That's what I love about it. The scientific method effectively rules out bias. It is only about observation and reason.
You seem like a bright guy. I think the big difference between us is that I'm ok with not having a divine purpose. You need god to exist because you can't fathom the thought of everything you know and love only existing in this life. I understand. Years ago, before I really knew anything about science at all, I studied religion and went searching for god. But I'm a logical guy, and over and over and over again, the evidence pointed away from god.
It's funny, actually. For a long time, I wanted nothing more than the stories to be true. Do good and believe in god and you'll live forever in the cloud city and have whatever you want. That sounds even better than a fat guy in a flying sled who drops free toys down the chimney. I guess I just had to grow up at some point. I know too much to believe in fairy tales anymore.
Nice chatting with you, Big Dave.
Telemeres are there for a reason. We may be able to tweak them to get an extra 20 years or so, maybe even 50, but at some point there will be a buildup of mutations through DNA self assembly, cosmic rays, etc... that will break down our systems unless we also have the technology to repair corrupted RNA and DNA sequences and grow replacement parts for damaged cells (nerve and muscle) and organs. At some stage it will become a point of diminishing returns and we'll either need a new replacement body to transplant the conciousness to or the old reliable standby of death.
Thanx, Alan, for the xtensv interview w Mr. K, one of the big brain, big producers of our times. And look at all of the very thoughtful, intelligent responses. This is one of the few blogs I pay attention to for just those reasons. All Mr K is saying, however technolingoist, is what a famous opossum said many years ago:"The future is ahead of us!" We certainly hope and expect the next decades to produce improvements on existing tech, reveal new discoveries and create, well, the future. As I approach 70, I am thinking of longevity and what can I do about it, a subject that never crossed my mind when I was 35. Will any of the research into this sector of Utopia ever reach the common vast herd of humans, enough to be effective and have a direct bearing on the health and welfare of the species? Or will such discoveries and creations become a private precinct of a future elite of ultarrich technocrats, especially educated ubermensch? We can easily see how the current education system favors elitism from kindergarten onward. Only the few matriculate to the rarified upper atmosphere of exclusive thinktanks, corporate board echelons and the privileges of a ruling caste system which, in fact, exists. In my opinion, as well as in the fundamentals of solid geometry, the strength of a pyramid is at the base, not at the apex. Making all of these discoveries concerning longevity available to every human who seeks them will be a far greater problem than the basic research reveals. Knowledge is power. So is long life
I agree Big Dave. I'm secure in that fact as well. Here is a quote that I really like, and I'm not sure who wrote it.
"I'd rather live like there was a God to find out that there wasn't, than to live like there was no God and find out that there was."
Now we've got the bronze age drooling idiocy of daylight2000 {very heavy sigh}. Sport, your deity is doing a triple eternity sentence in the Justice League's [tm] Phantom Zone[tm].
Free Clue 1. The Universe wasn't manufactured {which is the way you're using 'created.'}
Free Clue 2. Making up @!$%#-as the stone/bronze agers in the book of drooling idiocy you quoted did-isn't an answer to anything.
There's a lot more problems, but since reason doesn't enter your universe-in this matter-there's no point in listing more.
The only wonder with superstition {religion} is that anyone buys into the bull@!$%# {start raving terror helps as well as the general indoctrination from birth while the child is defenseless}.
Many Christians then go on to insist they and their deity are then 'hated' and people are 'rebelling' against their fictional daemon deity construct. I point this out and respond to it. I am not indicating you are one of these Christians. You may be, but you haven't made such a statement along the lines I've indicated above.
I don't hate theists who make such a statement {Christian or otherwise}. I pity them. Nor do I hate any deity construct. A fictional character lacks substance.
Its your deity, your book of rules, your Hell. Your problem. If one were to insist their book of rules applies to those outside their superstition then the one has a hefty problem. The rules of all other superstitions then apply to them. OOPS. Such is the problem with such delusions. Still your delusions do not apply to others.
I would like to echo some of the posts above and say that it's time for the scientist and the mystic to join hands if we are to survive and transform into a higher and more intelligent species.
The human quest for immortality is most often misunderstood by the mind. The mind, which is part of the illusion created by the ego and its identification with physical reality, is afraid of death. Thus, the ego longs for the immortality of the body because without the body it cannot survive.
Finding immortality means finding our true inner Being, which is never born and never dies. All we need to do to find it is look inside and transform our unconsciousness into consciousness. The way to do that is through introspection and meditation. This is how humans down the centuries have experienced and know that they are immortal!
For most people looking in and peeling the layers of their unconsciousness is hard work. People are lazy, they would rather take a pill than watch their breathe, meditate and break their identification with their beliefs, emotions, conditionings, fear of death, and pain. To find true immortality we need to wake up from our deep sleep and attachment to the material world. Everything else is a deception. It is like a dog chasing its own tail.
True immortality is within the stillness of our being, or the zero point, as Quantum physics may put it, from which everything arises and into which everything returns. If we want to find immortality, we need to find our pure consciousness.
I'm not a scientist of the outer world, I'm a scientist of the inner world where true alchemy happens! As a founder of an evolutionary new healing method, DHM, I can demonstrate to any scientist who can measure consciousness how, by simply releasing the suppressed thought forms, emotions, and beliefs from the body's cellular memory or the epigenetic code, the body automatically heals itself and transforms unconsciousness into consciousness of inner knowing that I am immortal! Only this kind of knowing will bring peace and joy to our personal and collective lives.
Enjoy these excerpts from the award-winning book, "In Search of the Miraculous: Healing into Consciousness":
Looking In: The Conscious Search
Everything within the universe, including humans, already exists in its true nature. Unfortunately, we try to discover the truth of existence outside of our own nature. Instead of looking within to find the source and mystery of existence, we focus our eyes on the horizon outside of ourselves. Whether we are aware of it or not, our genuine search for truth begins when we ask the most fundamental questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Why do I do what I do? What will happen to me when I die?
To find the answers to these questions we must let go of our attachment to who we think we are. If we keep looking in and continue questioning, we will eventually realize that it is impossible to find the answers with the mind alone. It is not enough to hear or think about the truth, we must experience it for ourselves if we are to truly know it.
In Zen, they call the search for Truth the search for the “original face.” The original face is our pure essence before our personalities, beliefs, and conditionings covered it like layers of the onion covering its inner emptiness. Each one of us is responsible for searching and finding the original face for ourselves. To uncover it, we must embrace the present moment and the unknown it contains.
What stops us from finding the original face is our mind’s fear of losing our ego-identity and disappearing into the unknown. We are afraid of the unknown because in the unknown our ego-mind cannot function. Out of fear, we cling to what we know and are familiar with: our past, our beliefs, and our relationships. Instead of embracing the unknown moment to moment, we avoid it by distracting ourselves with different activities like working, eating, having sex, watching TV, smoking, fantasizing about the future, etc. When we search for happiness in the future, we miss living the abundant joy that is already present inside us every moment.
To live in joy and fully manifest our true potential, we must let go of our desires and attachment to the past and the future and be excited about living in the unknown. If we can live in the unknown, no matter how afraid we are of losing what is familiar and known, all our problems will quickly vanish. The miraculous is the unknown, which is always revealed moment to moment in the stillness of the present.
Healing:
The Journey into Consciousness
Health is a state of consciousness. It has nothing to do with age, illness, or even the health of the body or mind. Whether you are aware of it or not, every step you take towards healing is a step towards consciousness. Everything you do in life is part of your healing journey towards the ultimate health of your true nature.
Only consciousness can heal our pain and suffering. Each moment contains an opportunity to awaken from the suffering of the ego-mind into the health of consciousness. Our bodies are full of suppressed thoughts, emotions, fears, desires, insecurities, and judgments. These create and sustain our ego-mind. In our unconsciousness, we keep our identification and attachment to our body, emotions, desires, and the world. Many unconscious thoughts and emotions are stored layer upon layer as patterns hardwired into our body’s cells. These patterns create energetic blocks in the body and cause physical and psychological pain and suffering. We heal into consciousness by peeling away these layers.
Only in our thoughts is there happiness and unhappiness, right and wrong, birth and death. When we stay identified with this ever-changing play of opposites that only exists in our mind, we fail to see what is permanent – the eternal presence of our being. As we get closer and closer to our being, we gradually move away from the duality of the mind and transform our ego into consciousness.
All our physical and psychological ailments point us to where we need to focus our attention so we can transform our unconscious energy into consciousness. Usually, we believe that our pain is a misfortune that needs to be fixed, but in fact, all pain (physical, mental, and emotional) is a necessary step towards becoming conscious. When we try to avoid pain, loneliness, and death, we also avoid finding our eternal being.
In a very real way, all pains are growing pains. When we are ready to heal from an unconscious belief or behavior pattern, we experience symptoms such as pain, anxiety, depression, and ill health. If we try to fix something on the outside instead of trying to find out the cause of our ailments from within, we continue to suffer. When we let go of our identification with who we think we are our body and DNA literally change.
Healing into consciousness is the most arduous task that can ever be undertaken. There are many fears, obstacles, and ups and downs along the way. You need courage and trust to face the darkness of your unconscious. If you persevere and stay committed to your awakening, the journey will become easier and you will even begin to enjoy it and be excited by it. No matter how intense your pain and suffering, if you stay devoted to your healing journey, you will undoubtedly come face to face with the miraculous universe that abides within your own being.
Uhh anyone ever see Terminator? AI worked out real well there I'd say. On a serious note though, why so much fear of death? Sounds like this is just a cover-up for insecurities about not knowing where or when your gonna go.