Imagine a world in which Xi, Kim Jong *, and a host of other wealthy dictators were immortal, and the rest of us pee-ons were not. I believe that is the future of high tech immortality.
All medical advancements that enhance or prolong life get to be used first by wealthy individuals. Eventually, they reduce in price and reach more people.
Just because only a few people could afford a CT scan when it first came out doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep developing it for the wife benefits we will see in the future.
Mind backups do nothing for me. Imagine if your airplane ran out of fuel over the ocean. You're going to crash and die, so you get on the radio, and air traffic control says "don't worry, your estate already restored a backup of your mind into a cloned body. just go ahead and plow into the water at full speed, the new you is already awake and seems happy and comfortable."
Would you think "whew, I really dodged a bullet there", or would you think "fuck that clone, I don't want to die!" ?
I can't grasp this view point. A clone with a "mind upload" is more like a twin. You'll still die and will not exist anymore to see what you're clone/twin does.
wow. so you're perfectly at peace with death if someone convincingly tells you that your family won't be able to tell the difference between the old you and your clone?
I think we'll see anti-aging treatments before that happens, so yes, a shot in the face would probably be effective until the singularity comes. Then a shot in the face will become some powershell script.
hm... but wouldn't they still fear death-experience? also, mind-on-usb != my-mind imho... (it could be a ctrl-c,v of my mind, but can be said as someone else with my thoughts?)
I've been thinking about this lately too, it almost feels like we're here already.
I often read stories about innocent younger people dying from something tragic; However, why do I almost never wake up to, "<evil tyrannical dictator> has unexpectedly and peacefully passed away in their sleep?"
I don't think immortal is the right word here. You can still die from physical harm, no matter how many stem cells you consume. So in theory if someone abused the pee-ons for enough time, probably one of them would get mad enough to overthrow the power. Just like many revolutions throughout history.
Most dynasties in history were overthrown by competing heirs, not the people. It is actually very rare for dictatorships to turn into democracies. Many reigns only end in death. Do you think Putin will ever be overthrown?
It is actually very rare for dictatorships to turn into democracies.
In the last half century give or take some years, half of Europe and Latin America nations have successfully and peacefully made this transition. And only Venezuela has returned to dictatorship.
Do you think Putin will ever be overthrown?
No idea. Formal democracy is still in place, so there's hope.
Universal suffrage is as recent as 1906, and only for male voters was introduced in American and French revolutions. So with some back and forth, (modern, real) democracy has been steadly advancing since it was born two centuries ago, with a much clearer trend last half century.
No, because he:
a) has a very high approval rating,
b) minimized a lot of corruption problems for Russia where people were stealing absolutely everywhere after the soviet collapse
c) does not commit humanitarian crimes
I'm not involved in any way, but from the news I watch, both a) and c) claims are debatable. I guess he's not worse than what he replaced, but that doesn't make him good. At least that's the spin in the media in my country, possibly very biased for a lot of reasons.
nah, I’m imagining a different world. I get bored with always imagining the world where “only the rich...”.
At any rate, very few people are actually working on “immortality”. Most of us squander our time bullshitting on the Internet. There’s little danger of solving immortality for several generations.
A better way to put is that, without death we wouldn't have progressed as a race as much as we have done. We need new people with fresh ideas to come to top, take higher roles and make radical decisions. People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive. In a longer stretch, conservationism, which grows like age, is an impediment for innovation and progress, IMHO.
If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline as people worried less about continuing through progeny and more about continuing through their own lives.
How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under? How many people die in car accidents after 30?
There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
>How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
We've got killer robots for that now.
>How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under?
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
>How many people die in car accidents after 30?
Self-driving cars sounds like a good solution
>There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems. The imaginative power of the child is something highly undervalued and suppressed in our society.
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
Well, since US elected national office is pretty much 30 and over, that's the only way wars can be declared.
But there's a reason why there's the movie cliche of the old cautious king being toppled by the young warmonger. On average, young people are a lot more prone to violence. Put them in charge of a nation, and I have no doubt that wars would increase rather than decrease.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems.
But a lot of that is because your gray matter doesn't work as well as you become elderly. If that weren't the case, we could have young energetic minds that also are wise dominate in society.
What about the habitual thought patterns and prejudices that have been "hard wired" from the life experiences of the elderly, which make it so difficult to think outside the box?
If rejuvenation techniques keep the brain's neuroplasticity youthful, then those hard-wired experiences should be no worse than those of younger people.
Would a hard wired prejudice include being fundamentally biased against old people?
I think that this topic went from next year's stem cell therapy to "What if you could live forever" territory from the top comment way up there.
Within the context of the pie-in-the-sky subject we're discussing, calling for citations seems kind of pointless. We're all just speculating and talking about what-ifs.
I suppose my main concern is that if learned prejudices (against race, religion, ideology, age, economic status, etc.) cannot be eliminated by regenerating brain matter, then a potentially fatal error could arise for society since some prejudices can be virtually insurmountable for many humans. Such an error is often solved naturally when the leaders of the previous age die out.
Just like when a computer system has become corrupted or broken, turning it off and on again can be the most simple and effective solution, so can death and rebirth be an effective solution for when our collective mental processes become corrupted.
> If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline
Would it? In modern, low reproduction societies the dominant interpretation of the universal "honour thy father and thy mother" focuses on care. Even the slightest resemblance to a chain of command that might be present earlier stops at adulthood. But with people forever overshadowed by their undying ancestors, we might see a massive resurgence of the competing interpretation which sees it as a natural power structure. If that happens, well, welcome to pyramid scheme hell.
I'm not sure about this argument. You could manage the issue in other ways eg enforced fixed terms for jobs.
Also, it's difficult to predict how immortality would affect human psychology, let alone how the technology would work. Perhaps we will be able to 'freeze' someone in their mid to late twenties, at some optimal point of physical health, maturity and risk taking behaviour.
I personally don't think we can take the very old and keep them alive forever. This will almost certainly result in a permanently sick state requiring constant therapy to maintain. The chance of getting cancer will approach unity at some point. Not exactly the ideal of immortal youth.
could you consider the notion, that all the progress and innovation impediments you link to age-related conservatism are actually at least partly related to the disease of aging itself? how would that change your opinion?
Only partly agree. Even adults are very conservative. A bunch of forever-40 wouldn't work very well. Luckily this can be fixed. Experimental brain plasticity drugs also increases forgetfulness, which is what we really want. Knowing the old ways of doing things means that new ways won't be explored.
i think there is a subtle difference between being conservative and being experienced.
experience gives, sometimes false, impression of knowing with some degree of certainty that a certain direction is wrong or won't yield results. young people don't have that bias.
conservatism is instead aversion to even agree with the results themselves if they don't conform with one's worldview.
This sounds like darwinism. Evolution is a law of nature, not a law of society.
What you say is true for species that don't have language or civilization. But since humans have technology, evolution happens in our minds, not in our DNA.
And new ideas don't necessarily require new people.
> radical decisions
Like what?
> People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive.
> Like what?
Take any norm breaking innovation in the pass 2000 years. Any idea that sounded arcane at its time: Earth is not Flat, its not the center of universe, light is a wave and a particle, etc. Perhaps decision was not the correct word to use, "ideas" would be better.
> What kind of prediction is that?
A prediction like any other. I think we tend to become risk averse as we age, risk averse people don't like changes, without change you don't have a chance to fail, or succeed. If people to live longer I would think that every other stage of life would start to stretch. Take presidency as an example, its a four year cycle. If life expectancy was 200 years, would it not make sense to have presidents for 8 years? Would you retire after 30 years or 60 years?
This makes the assumption that life is simply about progressing the human species. Progression to what though? One should aim to lead a happy life, of which making things better for the next generation is a byproduct.
Indeed. That is the assumption I made. Personally, for me life without progress is a meaningless one. But I can imagine the opposite as well. Once you have gotten all you need you try your best to preserve it as long as you can, anything new or different is a default no, because, why change something that is not broken? That is depressing, again from my perspective.
This test isn't for life longevity, but to combat the frailty common at the end of one's life. You still get the 80 years, but the last 15ish aren't plagued by a slow, beleaguering death march, while you drain the resources of your children (also, so you can be a more productive member of society, I guess).
Office workers on 50th floor will certainly be highly motivated to pay the price. Also, there will be medications which mitigate the urge to die (What's the word? Antipsychotics, I guess).
I agree, there are many details which an author will need to explain. People can be protected by mighty authorities and live in a safe environment. But those medications will be prohibited of course. In other case people just will not be working!
The phase 2 study primarily looked at safety. There was no correction for multiple hypothesis testing on the efficacy endpoints. So it seems that the only conclusion that is warranted is that the study shows no adverse health effects and that "larger clinical trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of hMSCs in this multisystem disorder." as they state in the conclusion.
It is interesting if it works, but lets wait for the next phase before assuming it does.
“In the first trial 15 frail patients received a single MSC infusion collected from bone marrow donors aged between 20 and 45 years old. Six months later all patients demonstrated improved fitness outcomes, tumor necrosis factor levels and overall quality of life.
The second trial was a randomized, double blind study with placebo group. Again no adverse affects were reported and physical improvements were noted by the researchers as "remarkable".
"There are always caveats associated with interpreting efficacy in small numbers of subjects, yet it is remarkable that a single treatment seems to have generated improvement in key features of frailty that are sustained for many months," writes David G. Le Couter and colleagues in a guest editorial in The Journals of Gerontology praising the research.”
I am not criticizing the study. I am highlighting that the conclusion that the paper arrives at i the correct one: That it warrants large scale studies.
This work is a prime candidate for being misrepresented as showing that this stem cell treatment is effective for age related health issues.
There are 30 participants in the phase 2 trial. There are two treatment groups (100M and 200M) with different dose and one placebo group. Each group has 10 participants.
None of the treatment groups showed adverse effects.
There is a difference between asking "Are there any adverse effects?" and "are there positive effects for parameter 1 to n"? If you ask the second kind of question and do not correct for multiple hypothesis testing, you will make many errors.
The small dose treatment group (100M) showed improvement in many parameters vs placebo, whereas the other (200M) showed improvement in fewer parameters vs placebo. Since no corrections where made for testing, this only tell us that there where no statistically significant adverse effects.
As I noted initially, I think it is interesting. Once we have seen the results of a couple of large studies, we can talk about the effects of this treatment.
Thank you for your reply, in particular for the specific issue with the results. I quoted the article to show that the researchers seem to believe that the trial results are more promising than a formal analysis would suggest. I agree that further studies are required.
As others pointed out this study may not be scientifically conclusive and I am not in a position to comment on that.
What strikes me is our lack of preparedness for advances is anti-aging treatments that will inevitably come. Even adding as little as 20 years to the average lifespan will have enormous (devastating?) implications for the economy and society. Especially if the treatment will be expensive and not available universally.
I keep hearing about the urgency to focus on research in the safety of AI, but I have not noticed any urgency regarding the consequences of anti-aging medicine.
> I have not noticed any urgency regarding the consequences of anti-aging medicine.
Because that medicine is usually a hoax of some sort. Saying that, people are living longer and longer, and changes are being made to prepare for that. More people = more houses and jobs. In the UK having a pension is mandatory now etc
First, let's see some real movement on anti aging. AI can play go and drive cars, what'the anti aging equivalent.
2nd, we've already added those 20 years of average life in most places, without much anti aging. Antibiotics, sterile surgery, vaccination, geriatric medicine. Childhood deaths went down a lot. Mid life deaths too. Old age is much longer than it was with life expectancy at retirement trending towards 90.
We've already had the economic/societal consequences in the west/north/rich places. The first (childhood survival) too in the form of population explosions still in play in some places.
I doubt anti aging has bigger effects than that within the next 50 years, even if life expectancy at birth leaps to 100 tomorrow. Anyway if it really slows aging it'll extend people's productive middle life, which is mostly good economically.
If you google stem cells + <disease name> you can find <promising> research for almost any disease, can anyone explain in simple terms, what is so magical in stem cells therapy?
My layman's understanding is that stem cells have not yet 'differentiated' into a specialised cell type which makes them useful for many different types of treatments.
Edit: so you can use them to create "healthy" versions of whatever you need.
This is going to sound slightly tin-foilish, but the question needs to be asked:
Are there rich/powerful people who are benefiting from anti-aging technology already? I'm thinking of Robert Mugabe (age 93) who regularly goes to East Asia, as an example, for medical treatment, but there seem to be others.
Heads of state tend to have staffs watching them all day, so they don't fall and break their hips, and drivers so they don't get into car accidents, and they get immediately rushed to the hospital every time they have even so much as a cold. That's why (US) ex-presidents are now routinely living into their 90's (and longer?).
Very interesting. Kudos to the researchers, who really went for improvement in condition- and not just reported stabilizing conditions and the placebo effect of exercise as a false positive.
Anti-aging is, in my mind, the most important area of research. I'm shocked billionaires are not throwing billions of dollars at it. Everything else can literally wait.
This should probably be considered an anti-inflammatory therapy rather than an anti-aging therapy. Inflammation is a sufficiently sizable driver of frailty syndrome to make that beneficial, but this is not addressing root causes, just compensating a little for one of the secondary consequences.
The scope of the possible in the near term is to find way to incrementally improve the condition, not produce a sizable reversal, but that is an improvement over the current situation, given that there is no effective treatment. The closest thing to a standardized, proven, reliable class of stem cell therapies involves the use of mesenchymal stem cells, sourced from a patient, or from lines of cells grown and engineered for transplantation with minimal risk. The primary outcome of mesenchymal stem cell therapies, or at least the reliable outcome, is a reduction in the systemic, chronic inflammation that accompanies old age. While it is entirely possible that other mechanisms are at work, the cells typically don't last long following transplantation, and thus it is the brief signaling changes that must produce benefits that can last for months or longer.
Chronic inflammation is a major problem in aging. It drives progression of most of the age-related conditions, and high levels of inflammation are certainly considered to be a major component of frailty syndrome in the old. In the context of a general treatment for frailty based on reductions in inflammation, the focus is less on the acceleration of specific age-related conditions over time, however, and more on the immediate consequences of constant high levels of inflammation for cell biochemistry, pain, cognitive function, joint function, regeneration, and tissue maintenance. Many aspects of age-related dysfunction are to some degree being actively maintained in their current impacted state by the presence of inflammation - take away that inflammation, and the problems subside a little, back to the lower level of harm and loss expected due to accumulated cell and tissue damage.
In recent years, it has become clear that chronic inflammation, as opposed to the normal short-term inflammation resulting from injury or infection, disrupts the finely tuned dance carried out between tissue and immune system needed for regeneration. This is an emerging theme in the investigation of how senescent cells cause aging, for example, as these unwanted cells are potent sources of inflammatory signaling. So if we see unreliable or marginal benefits from stem cell therapies that look like enhanced regeneration, it might well be that this is at root a short-term reduction in the age-related disruption of tissue maintenance - perhaps enough to allow a little reconstruction to take place in some patients. This is speculation, of course, and the cellular biochemistry is challenging to investigate; we should probably expect a first generation of moderately reliable therapies in advance of complete understanding of their mechanisms. Here is another point to consider on this topic: if the inflammation model of benefits is correct, then clearance of senescent cells should be at least as good a treatment for frailty as mesenchymal stem cell transplant, and probably better and more lasting.
I want anti-aging, but I believe that our modern society will most likely self-destruct in fire and death sometime in the next 100 years the most likely outcome, which would limit the usefulness of such treatments.
Sure yes, scores of people are going to die of much sadder causes - natural and manmade disasters, epidemics, crime
But a decent number will surive
and since they'll have the arduous task of rebuilding civilization (in a much more thoughtful way this time) - such treatments would prove all the more useful
