←back to thread

215 points XzetaU8 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ggm ◴[] No.45081331[source]
Remarkable hostility and strange circular logic from some people posting here. Clearly belief outstrips evidence.

If research suggests there's an observable asymptotic trend, public health dollars at the very least might be better spent on quality of life as much as quantity.

The posts saying an atom of oxygen is potentially infinitely long lived (ignoring radioactive decay?) As a "proof" that life extension has no limit is about as reductively silly as it is possible to be.

Bills of mortality bootstrapped Financial investment in annuities. You think the money people aren't tracking this trend now, when they have for the last 400 or more years?

replies(8): >>45081536 #>>45082290 #>>45082412 #>>45082509 #>>45082701 #>>45082940 #>>45083066 #>>45083913 #
nabla9 ◴[] No.45081536[source]
Radical life extension within our lifetimes has become secular religion substitute. It’s driven more by hope and faith than by scientific fact.

While a lifespan has no limits in theory if technology is advanced enough, the belief that it can be achieved by a living person is based on hope rather than evidence.

- Possible in our lifetime.

- Affordable to the faithful.

You remove these two, and the faithful lose their interest in discussing the matter.

replies(6): >>45081649 #>>45081807 #>>45081821 #>>45083620 #>>45084871 #>>45085831 #
brabel ◴[] No.45081649[source]
What theory says that human lifespan has no limits with technology assistance? Anything involving replacing biological systems with artificial ones is not really extending human lifespan, it’s replacing human life with something else.
replies(4): >>45081697 #>>45082123 #>>45084189 #>>45085065 #
kelnos ◴[] No.45082123[source]
I won't touch on whether or not you're still you as you replace your biological components with artificial ones.

But who says that's the endgame? Presumably an advanced enough medical technology could remove the internal byproducts of aging, and get your cells to stop dying / running out of steam / going cancerous. Obviously we have no idea how to do that, and maybe we never will, but it seems plausible.

replies(2): >>45084212 #>>45084732 #
jajko ◴[] No.45084732{3}[source]
You can replace almost whole body and its still you as the mind. But once you replace brain then its just a copy, you can't literally move biolectrical complex that makes us into silicon in any possible way. And brains age like the rest of the body, telomeres issue applies too.

The best possible outcome would be watching your digital copy having digital life, while you yourself wither away regardless. More akin to having a child than oneself preservation. Not really something special, having physical children still beats this.

replies(1): >>45088717 #
1. Tadpole9181 ◴[] No.45088717{4}[source]
Ship of Theseus it. Slowly replace the brain bit-by-bit, taking breaks in between. For each component, use three in a democratic redundancy (for future maintenance).

I wouldn't personally do that unless I was already dying. But, I see no reason believe it wouldn't preserve the soul. Your organic brain is already doing it all the time on a small scale.