Ray Kurzweil: Immortality within 15 years.

Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?
Answering hard questions at the World Transhumanist conference.
Ronald Bailey | July 27, 2007
"...The final speaker was inventor and self-acknowledged transhumanist
Ray Kurzweil, who argues that "The Singularity is Near." The
singularity is a metaphorical social event horizon in which
accelerating technological trends so change society that it is
impossible to forecast what the world will really be like. Kurzweill
believes that humanity will accelerate itself to utopia (immortality,
ubiquitous AI, nanotech abundance) in the next 20 to 30 years. For
example, he noted that average life expectancy increases by about 3
months every year. Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are
accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase more than
one year for each year that passes in about 15 years. In other words,
if you can hang on another 15 years, your life expectancy could be
indefinitely long. He projects that by 2030, AI will be ubiquitous,
and most humans will be physically melded to information and other
technologies. Kurzweil argued that we must reject the fundamentalist
desire to define humanity by its limitations. 'We are the species that
goes beyond our limitations,' he declared."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121638.html

Indefinite lifespan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_lifespan

If so, that might alleviate the problem of the very long times for
(sublight) travel between the stars: indefinitely long lifetimes.


Bob Clark

Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei

Jon Schild writes:

Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

I kind of suspect that given an infinitely vast stretch of time
to work on the problem people might be able to figure out a way to treat
knees so that they get back to working comfortably like what they should.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make excellent progress on commercial fusion power plants,
too.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild wrote:


Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

Which mostly only means that the English language doesn't yet have the
right terminology for discussing "immortality".

Any technology capable of vastly extending the human lifespan, would
almost certainly be capable of ensuring that all the assorted body
parts work the way they should. After all, it is the increasing
dysfunction of many of those body parts that causes mortality in the
first place; it seems highly unlikely that we'd be able to perfectly
repair only those parts relating to the duration of life but not the
ones relating to the quality of life.

So, "immortality" in the body you had at twenty-five? Because I think
that, barring a short transitional period, that's the only sort that's
really in the cards.

And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
within fifty years.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Dec 24, 11:57 am, John Schilling wrote:

So, "immortality" in the body you had at twenty-five? Because I think
that, barring a short transitional period, that's the only sort that's
really in the cards.

And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
within fifty years.

What's your definition of "immortality"?

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 11:57 am, John Schilling wrote:

So, "immortality" in the body you had at twenty-five? Because I think
that, barring a short transitional period, that's the only sort that's
really in the cards.

And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
within fifty years.

What's your definition of "immortality"?

"Eternal youth" (with "youth" being around 20-30 years physically).

Of course some would add an INability to die--period.

-- Ken from Chicago

On Dec 25, 4:59 am, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:

What's your definition of "immortality"?

"Eternal youth" (with "youth" being around 20-30 years physically).

This would require continual tinkering with the brain, with unknown as
yet effects on its function.

"John Schilling" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild wrote:


Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

Which mostly only means that the English language doesn't yet have the
right terminology for discussing "immortality".

"Eternal youth".

Any technology capable of vastly extending the human lifespan, would
almost certainly be capable of ensuring that all the assorted body
parts work the way they should. After all, it is the increasing
dysfunction of many of those body parts that causes mortality in the
first place; it seems highly unlikely that we'd be able to perfectly
repair only those parts relating to the duration of life but not the
ones relating to the quality of life.

Nanotech and adult stem cells seem the less controversial choices scientists
are working on.

So, "immortality" in the body you had at twenty-five? Because I think
that, barring a short transitional period, that's the only sort that's
really in the cards.

And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
within fifty years.

-- Ken from Chicago

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:57:28 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:


"John Schilling" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild wrote:


Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

Which mostly only means that the English language doesn't yet have the
right terminology for discussing "immortality".

"Eternal youth".

Closer, but still inadequate. "Youth" often implies childhood rather than
early adulthood, and "eternal" often implies, well, something longer than
"until you step in front of a bus, which will probably happen sometime in
the next six thousand years".


Any technology capable of vastly extending the human lifespan, would
almost certainly be capable of ensuring that all the assorted body
parts work the way they should. After all, it is the increasing
dysfunction of many of those body parts that causes mortality in the
first place; it seems highly unlikely that we'd be able to perfectly
repair only those parts relating to the duration of life but not the
ones relating to the quality of life.

Nanotech and adult stem cells seem the less controversial choices scientists
are working on.

More like the buzzwords SF writers use when they want to provide a bit of
faux technical detail from which to suspend disbelief. Which isn't to say
they won't both be useful techniques, just not magical ones.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:57:28 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
wrote:


"John Schilling" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild wrote:


Robert Clark wrote:
Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
posthuman world?

Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
worldcons:

"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"

Which mostly only means that the English language doesn't yet have the
right terminology for discussing "immortality".

"Eternal youth".

Closer, but still inadequate. "Youth" often implies childhood rather than
early adulthood, and "eternal" often implies, well, something longer than
"until you step in front of a bus, which will probably happen sometime in
the next six thousand years".

Youth is relative. To folks in the 40s and older, 20somethings are oft
considered "youth". Look at uproar about the Clinton / Lewinsky scandal.
Many compared it to near-pedophilia. There are similar reactions to college
professor and college students affairs even when the student is in their
20s. Soldiers in armies are routinely referred to as "boys and girls",
despite being in their 20s.

Any technology capable of vastly extending the human lifespan, would
almost certainly be capable of ensuring that all the assorted body
parts work the way they should. After all, it is the increasing
dysfunction of many of those body parts that causes mortality in the
first place; it seems highly unlikely that we'd be able to perfectly
repair only those parts relating to the duration of life but not the
ones relating to the quality of life.

Nanotech and adult stem cells seem the less controversial choices
scientists
are working on.

More like the buzzwords SF writers use when they want to provide a bit of
faux technical detail from which to suspend disbelief. Which isn't to say
they won't both be useful techniques, just not magical ones.

Who said they were?

--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

-- Ken from Chicago