Physical Immortality.

[WhiteRaven]

A while back we got into a short discussion on immortality, Ballzack, I think it was, Argued that nature would not have made anything immortal. Actually, at least two species have biological immortality, which is to say, they are not subject to aging, or have eternal youth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(genus)

Hydras have some amazing regenerative abilities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

A Turritopsis Nutricula can turn back into a kid when it's an adult.

Here's something else, Scientists have discovered an enzyme that basically makes cells immortal, the only problem is there's a chance it could turn them into cancer cells.

http://www.viewzone.com/aging.html

Here's a news article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/60minutes/main1168852.shtm

And then there's the immortality institute:

http://imminst.org/

Basically, there is a pretty good chance future and in the human genome discoveries in medicine, Nanotechnology, and In the human genome will allow us to prolong our lives indefinitely. Of course their will still be accidents.

[buttless_wonder]

Prolong our lifespan yet continue to breed = not enough resources to maintain ourselves.

[WhiteRaven]

Only the very rich would probably be able to afford it. But it will take a long time for the earth to run out of resources, anyway. Time which should be used to learn to find new planets.

[MrJim]

I kinda dig the viewzone article:

"Anti-aging medicine is not about stretching out the last years of life." says Dr. Klatz. "It's about stretching out the middle years of life... and actually compressing those last years few years of life so that diseases of aging happen very, very late in the life cycle, just before death, or don't happen at all."

I always viewed the concept of increasing longevity as dragging out the dying process for old grouchy grandfolks. This is a much more pleasant viewpoint. Maybe in 20 years, I'll find out ;)

Or maybe not, don't really care either way.

Sounds like DNA replication is moving to the digital age (as in exact, lossless digital copies).

[yee-haw]

I can't remember where, I read that the earth could not sustain human life form
By the year 2052 at the rate of population increase we're at now.
I don't know if that holds water or not, Only something i read.

[MrJim]

(@ Yee-haw)

Sounds like B.S. (sprinkled with a pinch of Stephen Hawking). There are many miles of nothing in Texas alone, so space isn't an issue. As far as resources, depends on how we utilize them.

[freakazoid]

I read an interesting article a while back that was about a statistical study done by a major university (Chicago, I think it was) that stated that even if people were immortal (no death due to aging or disease) we would still only live to about 850 years max (based on today's and foreseeable future technology) because of death by accident, suicide or crime.

Technology would increase that lifespan estimation; example - air deaths due to current aviation technology would and should decrease due to advances in aviation technology in the future making that form of transportation safer.

[WhiteRaven]

I read an interesting article a while back that was about a statistical study done by a major university (Chicago, I think it was) that stated that even if people were immortal (death due to aging or disease) we would still only live to about 850 years max (based on today's and foreseeable future technology) because of death by accident, suicide or crime.

The average lifespan would be that, yes. But Death would no longer be a certainty, because there's still the chance that you would not die due to any of those. At least that's what it seems like to me...

[General Septem]

Eventually we will move out of our solar system. It is almost a certainty that this will happen. We have reached a level of intelligence growth that we will find a way to become immortal, and we will find a way to expand into the universe. It is only a matter of time.

[ballzack]

W.R.
What I eluded to was not that nature is UNABLE to make anything immortal, but that it was mostly impractical to do so.
Natural progression dictates that we renew, die, and renew. If we were immortal, and kept renewing, we'd eventually be WAY overpopulated. Outrageously so.
If we were immortal and did NOT renew, eventually we'd go extinct due to accident or other horrible demise.

You either have a finite number of immortals, that have no reproductive capability and hope for the best (not too many fall off a cliff and bust themselves in to tiny little pieces), or you have an infinite number of mortals with reproductive capability to replenish when accidents and disease happen. Hopefully, this balance will serve well through the eons.
Thus, the best plan for nature is to have us mortal, with renewal capability, i.e., reproduction.

It's logical based on all the variables.

[WhiteRaven]

When we find a way to move out of this solar system, the number of humans will be almost irrelevant, and that won't be the end of our advancement.

I think that one day mankind will laugh at the laws of physics, having found ways to use every single one against one another, to make anything happen.

We will be able to pluck the stars from the foundations of the universe, and form new planets from their materials. Create synthetic life forms.

Also, Ballzack, I know what you meant, I just thought it might make an interesting discussion.

[ballzack]

WR
Agreed.
Anything is possible. If you would have told a person in 1919 that in 50 years we would land on the moon - multiple times, they'd have laughed hysterically.
One never knows what we are capable of. There may be new technologies lurking around the next corner that will rock our world.
Interesting discussion indeed.