Quantcast

wanna live forever?

  • Come enter the Ridemonkey Secret Santa!

    We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

lovebunny

can i lick your balls?
Dec 14, 2003
7,317
245
San Diego, California, United States
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/one_man_s_immortality

By JAY LINDSAY, Associated Press Writer

WELLESLEY, Mass. - Ray Kurzweil doesn't tailgate. A man who plans to live forever doesn't take chances with his health on the highway, or anywhere else.


AP Photo



As part of his daily routine, Kurzweil ingests 250 supplements, eight to 10 glasses of alkaline water and 10 cups of green tea. He also periodically tracks 40 to 50 fitness indicators, down to his "tactile sensitivity." Adjustments are made as needed.


"I do actually fine-tune my programming," he said.


The famed inventor and computer scientist is serious about his health because if it fails him he might not live long enough to see humanity achieve immortality, a seismic development he predicts in his new book is no more than 20 years away.


It's a blink of an eye in history, but long enough for the 56-year-old Kurzweil to pay close heed to his fitness. He urges others to do the same in "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever."


The book is partly a health guide so people can live to benefit from a coming explosion in technology he predicts will make infinite life spans possible.


Kurzweil writes of millions of blood cell-sized robots, which he calls "nanobots," that will keep us forever young by swarming through the body, repairing bones, muscles, arteries and brain cells. Improvements to our genetic coding will be downloaded via the Internet. We won't even need a heart.


The claims are fantastic, but Kurzweil is no crank. He's a recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT prize, which is billed as a sort of Academy Award for inventors, and he won the 1999 National Medal of Technology Award. He has written on the emergence of intelligent machines in publications ranging from Wired to Time magazine. The Christian Science Monitor has called him a "modern Edison." He was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002. Perhaps the MIT graduate's most famous inventions is the first reading machine for the blind that could read any typeface.


During a recent interview in his company offices, Kurzweil sipped green tea and spoke of humanity's coming immortality as if it's as good as done. He sees human intelligence not only conquering its biological limits, including death, but completely mastering the natural world.


"In my view, we are not another animal, subject to nature's whim," he said.


Critics say Kurzweil's predictions of immortality are wild fantasies based on unjustifiable leaps from current technology.


"I'm not calling Ray a quack, but I am calling his message about immortality in line with the claims of other quacks that are out there." said Thomas Perls, a Boston University aging specialist who studies the genetics of centenarians.


Sherwin Nuland, a bioethics professor at Yale University's School of Medicine, calls Kurzweil a "genius" but also says he's a product of a narcissistic age when brilliant people are becoming obsessed with their longevity.


"They've forgotten they're acting on the basic biological fear of death and extinction, and it distorts their rational approach to the human condition," Nuland said.


Kurzweil says his critics often fail to appreciate the exponential nature of technological advance, with knowledge doubling year by year so that amazing progress eventually occurs in short periods.


His predictions, Kurzweil said, are based on carefully constructed scientific models that have proven accurate. For instance, in his 1990 book, "The Age of Intelligent Machines," Kurzweil predicted the development of a worldwide computer network and of a computer that could beat a chess champion.


"It's not just guesses," he said. "There's a methodology to this."





Kurzweil's been thinking big ever since he was little. At age 8, he developed a miniature theater in which a robotic device moved the scenery. By 16, the Queens, N.Y., native built his own computer and programmed it to compose original melodies.

His interest in health developed out of concern about his own future. Kurzweil's grandfather and father suffered from heart disease, his father dying when Kurzweil was 22. Kurzweil was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in his mid-30s.

After insulin treatments were ineffective, Kurzweil devised his own solution, including a drastic cut in fat consumption, allowing him to control his diabetes without insulin.

His rigorous health regimen is not excessive, just effective, he says, adding that his worst sickness in the last several years has been mild nasal congestion.

In the past decade, Kurzweil's interests in technology and health sciences have merged as scientists have discovered similarities.

"All the genes we have, the 20,000 to 30,000 genes, are little software programs," Kurzweil said.

In his latest book, Kurzweil defines what he calls his three bridges to immortality. The "First Bridge" is the health regimen he describes with co-author Dr. Terry Grossman to keep people fit enough to cross the "Second Bridge," a biotechnological revolution.

Kurzweil writes that humanity is on the verge of controlling how genes express themselves and ultimately changing the genes. With such technology, humanity could block disease-causing genes and introduce new ones that would slow or stop the aging process.

The "Third Bridge" is the nanotechnology and artificial intelligence revolution, which Kurzweil predicts will deliver the nanobots that work like repaving crews in our bloodstreams and brains. These intelligent machines will destroy disease, rebuild organs and obliterate known limits on human intelligence, he believes.

Immortality would leave little standing in current society, in which the inevitability of death is foundational to everything from religion to retirement planning. The planet's natural resources would be greatly stressed, and the social order shaken.

Kurzweil says he believes new technology will emerge to meet increasing human needs. And he said society will be able to control the advances he predicts as long as it makes decisions openly and democratically, without excessive government interference.

But there are no guarantees, he adds.

Meanwhile, Kurzweil refuses to concede the inevitably of his own death, even if science doesn't advance as quickly as he predicts.

"Death is a tragedy," a process of suffering that rids the world of its most tested, experienced members — people whose contributions to science and the arts could only multiply with agelessness, he said.

Kurzweil said he's no "cheerleader" for unlimited scientific progress and added he knows science can't answer questions about why eternal lives are worth living. That's left for philosophers and theologians, he said.

But to him there's no question of huge advances in things that make life worth living, such as art, cultural, music and science.

"Biological evolution passed the baton of progress to human cultural and technological development," he said.

Lee Silver, a Princeton biologist, said he'd love to believe in the future as Kurzweil sees it, but the problem is, humans are involved.

The instinct to preserve individuality, and to gain advantage for yourself and children, would survive any breakthrough into biological immortality — which Silver doesn't think is possible. The gap between the haves and have-nots would widen and Kurzweil's vision of a united humanity would become ever more elusive, he said.

"I think it would require a change in human nature," Silver said, "and I don't think people want to do that."





uhhhhh.....yeah i think itd be cool but i doub within the next couple decades
 

Broken_Spoke

Mr. Big Hot Pastrami
Feb 26, 2003
2,410
0
Bozeman, MT
No way I would want to live forever. It would become extremely boring and doing crazy things wouldn't have any meaning anymore.
 

ito

Mr. Schwinn Effing Armstrong
Oct 3, 2003
1,709
0
Avoiding the nine to five
"Death is a tragedy," a process of suffering that rids the world of its most tested, experienced members — people whose contributions to science and the arts could only multiply with agelessness, he said.
Sure, but this also means we have to deal with the idiots for ever as well.

Really, it kind of makes me sick. As many have said, the last great adventure is death. I look forward to having a long, healthy, and successful life, with a nice long nap at the end. I also dislike the idea of robots keeping me alive. Though it might make the healing process quicker for all those mountain bike accidents.

I think I'll go put another steak on the bbq and crack open some beers in the name of good health.

The Ito
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,841
19
So Cal
lovebunny said:
how would you control the population if you never die? whould evryone just get neuterd/spayed at birth?
You should read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you haven't already, that is.

I don't know about eternal life but I think it would be cool to have an extra hundred years of youthful life
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,750
8,749
kurzweil is a nut. just because he is a genius when it comes to certain programming things doesn't mean he knows squat about how to live long.
 
D

d-sop

Guest
"All the genes we have, the 20,000 to 30,000 genes, are little software programs," Kurzweil said.

wow. freak. jk but thats kinda strange.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
d-sop said:
"All the genes we have, the 20,000 to 30,000 genes, are little software programs," Kurzweil said.

wow. freak. jk but thats kinda strange.
Not really. It's a great analogy, and one that gets used by biologists. I don't know if he's got the number of genes right off the top of my head (because the numbers I've read seem to point to a higher number.)
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,750
8,749
Silver said:
Not really. It's a great analogy, and one that gets used by biologists. I don't know if he's got the number of genes right off the top of my head (because the numbers I've read seem to point to a higher number.)
that number is definitely in the ballpark for current estimates. what it doesn't account for are the many-fold effects of non-coding regions. what aren't genes still have a HUGE effect on what is transcribed, when, and how.
 

Pau11y

Turbo Monkey
d-sop said:
"All the genes we have, the 20,000 to 30,000 genes, are little software programs," Kurzweil said.

wow. freak. jk but thats kinda strange.
No, he's right about them being little programs. But they're also construction blue prints and a calender. I mean, if he's talking about nanobots repairing the system (our bodies), those things will have to interface w/ us on a genetic level so they can repair (debug) those programs, and also generate new code for the program so the calendar is extended. From my research w/ life spans (actually aging), it has a curve much like the very top of a bell curve. There's an incline (birth thru development), a plateau (maturity - altho not entirely flat), and a decline (when the body starts to deteriorate from aging). If you stretch that curve out to forever, then the incline part of the curve will be soooo long that in the end, everyone will be friggin' kids. Can you imagine what could happen to a body when it's in the state of an infant for say...2000 years? Illness, accidents, ect would be a HUGE concern? Yeah, those little nanobot will be there to boost the immune system, but how much good are they when a toddler takes a tumble down the stairs and has it's skull caved in? Who in the hell would want to be a parent of a baby that never grows up! The damn thing would be a bloody nightmare in diaper costs alone!

Sorry, just some free-formed thoughts. The dude has delusions of grandeur kinda like Pinky and the Brain almost.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
39,750
8,749
Pau11y said:
There's an incline (birth thru development), a plateau (maturity - altho not entirely flat), and a decline (when the body starts to deteriorate from aging). If you stretch that curve out to forever, then the incline part of the curve will be soooo long that in the end, everyone will be friggin' kids. Can you imagine what could happen to a body when it's in the state of an infant for say...2000 years? Illness, accidents, ect would be a HUGE concern? Yeah, those little nanobot will be there to boost the immune system, but how much good are they when a toddler takes a tumble down the stairs and has it's skull caved in? Who in the hell would want to be a parent of a baby that never grows up! The damn thing would be a bloody nightmare in diaper costs alone!
uh, what makes you think now that development will take longer? if anything puberty has been coming earlier to modern kids, probably thanks to the "magic" of eating all sorts of food laced with growth hormone (like milk).
 

Rockland

Turbo Monkey
Apr 24, 2003
1,880
286
Left hand path
Imagine the kind of slackers this could produce. Why do anything when it could be put off, and put off, and put off... :rolleyes:

Dude's a straight up nut.
 

Pau11y

Turbo Monkey
Toshi said:
uh, what makes you think now that development will take longer? if anything puberty has been coming earlier to modern kids, probably thanks to the "magic" of eating all sorts of food laced with growth hormone (like milk).
What I'm saying is if we start tweaking on a genetic level, it would stand to reason that to extend one's lifespan the aging curve would have to be stretched out. When you do that, development (the incline part of the curve - as related to cognitive development since my original research was related to cognitive performance w/ respect to aging) portion of the curve will also be stretched. But since physical aging is related to cognitive aging (w/ the brain controlling hormone release for physical growth) I don't know of anything that can selectively let you develop per normal pace, then slow to a crawl or stop once you've reached your peak maturity but just prior to decline, unless you get bit by some kind of a bat and forced to chew on other pplz necks.
But you're right growth hormones are really screwing w/ the aging curve. It's noticeable in nations where growth hormones are NOT used. Their populace consistently looks younger than those of the same chronological age in nations where growth hormones are used to produce food (compare Asian countries to North America or the British). I was born in Taiwan, didn't immigrate till 9 to Canada. My diet involves more carbs in the form of fruit, rice and noodles than protein from red meats or poultry. My protein comes more from sea food, beans and soy products w/ the occasional red meat in the form of buffalo or dark meat poultry. I swear if you see me, I DON'T look 34, more like 28/29.