5 Ways Science Could Make Us Immortal
We'll take back every bad thing we've ever said about science if it will just make us immortal. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.
The thing is, it might be closer than we think. There are a lot of different ways to keep a human body and mind going long after its expiration date, and experiments are ongoing. The most promising techniques involve ...


Bob Barker has none of that.
So if you've decided you want to live until squid evolve to start swinging from trees, the first thing you should know is that while we accept aging as an unquestioned constant of the universe, it really isn't. The breakdown in our cells that causes us to get frail and wrinkly is a specific set of defects that science is just now starting to pin down. By all rights we shouldn't have to get old. After all, nature has plenty of examples of animals that suffer the whims of weather and disease, but if left alone in a germ- and disaster-free habitat would effectively live forever (including tortoises, certain jellyfish and some plants).

I WILL NEVER DIE.
With us, there is that enzyme, telomerase, which acts like the little plastic thingy on the end of your shoelaces for your DNA -- it keeps the ends of your DNA from unraveling. Unfortunately, every time your cells divide, some of this is lost, meaning you are breaking your body's ability to regenerate itself every time you grow or heal. Medical scientists are finding ways to either rejuvenate telomerase or prevent its loss in the first place. If they succeed, that could effectively halt or even reverse the aging process. At that point, youth could not only be wasted on the young, but also completely blown on the elderly, who would likely forget all their hard-earned wisdom with their reinstated endurance and sudden return of fully functioning boners.
And one way or the other, the answer to aging is in our genes. And gene therapy -- that is, manipulating the genes inside our cells to treat disease -- is already a thing. It's just a matter of getting better at it. Futurists Ray Kurzweil and Dr. Terry Grossman think that eventually we could not only block disease-causing genes, but even introduce new genes that, in addition to preventing aging, also make awesome augmentations like changing your eye color or making you glow in the dark.

And, one glorious day, the prehensile cock.
None of these techniques will save you from a fiery car crash, obviously (we're getting to those), but the point is there is no reason to think of a lifespan as something that has to end in 80 or even 800 years, barring deadly intervention from a jealous husband.

Mind uploading is exactly what it sounds like: backing up your entire mind to a computer.

Right along with the porn.
This is one of those ideas that sounds ridiculous but could be closer than you think. The hardware certainly isn't far away.
Scientific estimates vary wildly as to how much computer hardware it would take to mimic your brain, because the human brain stores information in a completely different way than your computer. For instance, if you just count up the neurons, its raw storage is only a few gigabytes, i.e., less than the thumb-size USB drive you have at your desk, but the brain uses a flexible system that lets it store something closer to 2.5 petabytes (that is, 2,500 terabytes) worth of information.

One day, we'll be able to fit a drive with twice that much data in the crack of this model's ass.
That kind of storage is commonplace in computers. Blizzard uses 1.3 petabytes just to run World of Warcraft on it servers. Obviously, we don't have computers capable of mimicking or hosting human thought processes, mostly because we don't understand enough about how the brain retrieves thoughts and memories. But in terms of sheer hardware horsepower, we could probably build something capable of doing it once they figure out how it'd work.
So this may actually be less sci-fi than the rest of the list; scientists have already made working neural interfaces for computers and robots and have even created simulated animal brains using supercomputers. These are the first steps to recording a human mind digitally (called whole brain emulation). Then you could create a digital backup of you, in case something awful happened.

If only we could do the same thing to a franchise.
And from there, the possibilities of this particular method of immortality are limited only by our imagination. You could be downloaded into a robot, or a cyborg body, maybe a fancy synthetically engineered biological body.

Which would mean that out of all the science fiction ever produced, fate chose Virtuosity.
Obviously, that's thinking several steps down the line (particularly the tricky process of going the opposite direction -- transmitting data stored on a computer to an organic brain or something that can otherwise be hosted in a body). But, hell, maybe you like your new digital home and don't want to return to that messy "real world" thing. Imagine being able to save yourself to a computer and then live out the rest of eternity in World of Warcraft, or even one of the many hyper-realistic virtual porn worlds that will eventually crop up in our future.

Of course, cosplayers will quickly lose all sense of themselves, much to their delight.
It is also the least invasive and least terrifying method for possible immortality, as it doesn't require any injections or, you know, work, on your part. You just hook up your brain to a computer and hit "save." You don't even have to be plugged in. Finally, we can all live the dream of living forever. And in the virtual world, ordering another beer is as easy as copy and paste. So what if you manage to live a few billion years and the sun is about to go nova? Don't worry; they'll just move your backup brain to a space-based hard drive. Suck on that, entropy!
So how far off is this? The conservative estimate is 50 to 75 years, while the liberal view has us backing ourselves up by 2030. Obviously nobody knows for sure -- there are predictions from 30 years ago that look pretty stupid now. And zombies may have eaten us all by then. Still, when you look at how fast computing power advances, it's hard not to imagine it coming eventually.

At least our zombies will have badass cell phones in their rotting pockets.

Nanotech (i.e., microscopic machines and materials that can build and fix stuff) is quickly becoming to our culture what atomic energy was to the 1950s -- a world-changing technology that, in science fiction stories, always creates monsters. It's easy to get carried away with what nanotech will be capable of. There will be limitations, just as there are with any technology. But it's also hard not to get excited.
Because these techniques aren't just theoretical. Scientists have successfully used nanotech to repair optic nerves in blind hamsters by building a custom synthetic molecule that, when injected, arranges itself into a nanofiber to repair the nerve. They are working on nanorobots that would target and kill cancer cells like tiny hunter-killers.

"We're injecting a tiny army into your shoulder, Mrs. Patterson."
The futurist we quoted before (Kurzweil) thinks we are less than 20 years away from a nanotech immortality revolution, but again, we admit it's hard to stick a deadline on this sort of thing (he tends to be way on the optimistic side). Still, the concept is sound; it's simply a more advanced, less invasive form of medicine that could someday detect and repair body disease and trauma at a cellular level. It would make today's surgeons look like clumsy cavemen.
Kurzweil takes it even further, saying that if we make our tiny machines advanced enough (again assuming the continuing decrease in size and increase in power we've seen with computers since they were invented), then we could theoretically replace the nuclei of our cells with nanocomputers that would do a faster, more efficient job than the shitty nucleus that evolution left us with.

Instead of going into GNC to buy celery juice and algae supplements, you could walk in and buy a red blood cell upgrade and adjustable boobs, for those lonely nights when World of Warcraft and Cheetos aren't enough to fill the void in your new extended life.
Yes, technically if we project nanotech that far into the future, it could also be used to turn people into monsters (monsters with super strength, in fact), and we stand by our argument that nanotech could easily lead to a zombie apocalypse.
Actually, we're pretty sure every item on this list could lead to zombies somehow. That shouldn't stop the forward march of progress, should it?

That'd be like dropping fewer nukes, just because the first couple killed a few tens of thousands of people.








#4 reminded me of the show "Dollhouse" in a really good way.
ReplyActually #5 is the only way to go if you believe in the existence of a soul. The rest of them do not guarantee it will be you the one being saved, but a copy of you. You would actually die and a copy of you would survive. Not the same as living forever.And it would be possible if scientist would realise that the human DNA has constantly being deterioted since the time of Adam.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesJust out of curiosity, are you talking about a spiritual, supernateral soul? Or do you mean something like what part of our mind makes up our personality, capacity for love empathy, and such?
Either way, what makes you so certain that neither version of a "soul" absolutely could not be copied or transferred?
On the same subject, say you cloned/copied yourself perfectly and transferred all your thoughts and memories to the new "you". Obviously YOU do not believe that your "soul" gets transferred for whatever reason, (maybe you're right, I don't claim to know) ...so I'm just wondering, in your opinion, does the new you now not have any "soul"? Or does he/she now have a new soul of his/her own, different from whatever you considered your origional soul?
If you believe the "copy" is "soulless" so to speak, then how do you think this effects the copy? In practical terms, how will the copy differ from the origional? Do you believe he/she is now inherantly evil or something? And what exactly would that truely mean?
Why the "soul" always have to be something "supernatural", religious thing etc? People could think of the soul as an ENERGY, an NATURAl ENERGY, a thinking, with consciousness, self aware and misterious energy that animate these bodies, give them LIFE and make humans what they are as living beings. The same with animals, plants etc: maybe they have a some kind of vital force that make them living beings but diferent from the human soul, in less or major degree.
It's sad that people negates the existence of the "soul" even without thinking about it, or studying it logic and scientifically (this including the materialistic scientists), just because they think that religion created it and because they think that nature can't hide anything from them (and WHO said that the existence of the soul can't be tested and experimented? Just because we cannot see them flying from the dead bodies? This means that everything that we cannot see don't exists, so things like ultraviolet or radio sound waves doesn't exist too? ), and forget that maybe the soul do really exists but it all was disfigured by religion with all this things of heaven, the religious god, hell etc.
It's the same desfiguration that the materialism did with the real science. Some "Materialistics" can even believe in the theory of the "multiple universes", but they can't accept something much more simple and logic like the soul just because they think it's something created by religion and because religion is bad and they hate religion.
This is something called pseudo skepticism and it's the real pseudo science, something as harmful as the religious fanaticism. I'm sorry, but this is what a real skeptical thinks about all this.
As for the question made by BryFry, it's not that a soulless person would be evil and this religious bullcrap. Maybe a person without a soul, a vital force or wathever, would just be DEAD, nothing more, nothing less. It' would be just a piece of meat without energy and consciousness, just like a car without a driver would be a piece of metal, plastic etc without a consciousness being to drive it (maybe a computer can drive a car, but the computer is not self-aware of himself, it's not a consciousness being and it's just following the programm made by humans. It's like a zombie - that it's "programmed" to eat people- car....LOL...).
I'm sure about all this? Of course not, but with this closed minded materialistic "science" that people thinks it is the "real deal' in their crusade against religion, maybe we'll never know (at least before dying, of course).
Sorry for my bad english.
SEVNEY, claiming that there may be an "energy" inhabiting our bodies that is self aware and possesses consciousness independant of our bodies IS A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.
How do you suppose this energy works? Where does it come from? How is it self aware without possessing a mind? Where does your claim even come from? What supports it?
What are you even talking about when you say that a soul can be measured or studied? ...You are also quite wrong in comparing an *idea* like a soul to something tangible like ultraviolet waves. Just because those waves are not visible to the naked eye doesn't mean they do not exist *duh* because we have other ways to test, measure, record, detect, and observe them. No one has EVER found a way observe or detect a soul.
Making up something then choosing to believe in it does not make it real.
You can make up, or imagine any fanciful thing you want, that doesn't make it worth a damn unless you can come up with something tangible, or demostrable to support it.
Until then, it is nothing more than fantasy.
SEVNEY, haha.... I think I just figured out where you got the sentient, body inhabiting energy idea from.... You don't happen to be a Dr. Who fan by chance? :)
I just caught an episode where other dimentional energy based entities were inhabiting our recently deceased corpses, and reanimating them. ....Sounds pretty much exactly what you are talking about, but the funny thing is that: IT"S JUST A TV SHOW! (spoiler) IT'S NOT REAL!
You might as well be talking about Smurfs or magic wish granting leprechauns. But you are referring to the subject like it's completely plausible simply because somebody thought it up and put it in a TV show.
...just sayin.
Hate to spoil the fun, but what, exactly makes you think that you will be included among the immortals?
ReplyAll im saying is that whole "supply versus demand" aspect could raise prices a wee bit.
I love this article. #5 is what I want to be a part of (career wise) when I get older. #1 and #4 are both represented incredibly well in a Anime called The Ghost in the Shell.
ReplyHow do we know there isn't already a way to prevent death? Does anyone really think that the release of such a thing would result in anything but pretty much the end of the world anyways?
ReplyPeople hate death, and there are still those who would stop a person with a terminal illness from ending their own life, so when such a thing came around EVERYONE would be keeping their families alive, and who are we to decide who lives and who dies in a situation like that? And at the same time nobody would want to stop having kids, so the population would absolutely boom, shortages would be rampant and over time we'd get the point in which there would be wars over the smallest of things and it wouldn't matter because human life would be so worthless anyways.
The fact is that death is what keeps the world running, and I view living forever the same way that I do time travel; even if such a thing existed, either the person who first discovered it would keep it all to themselves, or the technology would be forever locked away so that no human could ever touch it. Or actually in the case of a time machine either the first person, or one of the first people to have access to it would just go back and change history in their favor, so who knows, maybe someone did find a time machine and everything we know is a result of them going back in time and changing things? Oh, and another thing to consider with living forever; think of the dictators and terrible people who have died and the world is a better place for it, and then think about the fact that they would probably be some of the first people to be able to pay to use such technology. When someone's in charge that shouldn't be there's always the fact that they'll die; without that we'd have a lot of bad people living for a long, long time.
Either way humans never dying would be disastrous, but I'm sure I'm far from the only person to realize that.
Entire species is babies. Death is the last true adventure. For all the asserting and postulating, no one has the faintest amount of certainty as to what happens when you die. Nobody on Earth knows what happens, and everyone on Earth gets to find out. It's the truest mystery and no one can spoil it. It's exciting, bro.
ReplyI'm against mind uploading just because I can't stand those "I'm a fat nerd who doesn't do anything but they're going to upload my brain onto a server with the greatest minds in the world" transhumanists and I don't want them to be right.
ReplyLots of World of Warcraft references in this one
Replyafter reading 2br02b (speak it out loud with 0 pronounced 'naught') i find death to be a theoretical marval since the alternative is too terrible to immagine. In practice we all hate it, i, myself, had a NDE not long ago and freaked as expected, but in theory it is a good thing. The issues with overpopulation alone convinces me that death is good. Which is more ethical, losing your right to give birth, being forced to starve in a war and famine plagued environment or dying. One option has to take effect. Everyone wants (which perfect evolutionary cause) the right to live as long as they can as well as to be fruitful and multiply, but what about the big picture? I didn't exist an infinite amount of time before i was born and i have yet to be inconveinienced by it, why would death be any different?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesHumans are wonderful, but keeping the old and still creating the new would mean that eventually no one would have their basic needs met.
Sure, a world where no one ever dies, yet we continue to procreate, simply doesn't work in the long run for obvious reasons.
That still doesn't change the the fact that most people would gladly choose a much longer, healthier life if given the oportunity. Most likely the only people who would have anything close to that, would be the super rich 1%'ers, so it wouldn't be a huge impact on overpopulation anyway.
Unfortunately, wars are going to continue to happen regardless, and seem to be a great way to thin the population.
Most of the really crazy life extending stuff is probably far enough in the future that if we get it we'll probably have figured out how to colonize other planets too. Every faction can have its own little bubble of space where they circle jerk and stroke each other's egos until they're so far up their own asses they can't comprehend viewpoints other than their own.
In other words, the internet.
We could begin expansion onto different planets and learn about new areas of the universe around us! We haven't figured out everything in the universe in this lifetime; when we do, we can then decide to pull the plug and explore death. =)
"With us, there is that enzyme, telomerase, which acts like the little plastic thingy on the end of your shoelaces for your DNA -- it keeps the ends of your DNA from unraveling."
Reply*Ahem* A-G-L-E-T, AGLET, don't forget it! We're gonna tie the world together...
How can death be able to freak me out if, as you said, there is nothingness. For there to be nothingness in death, there is to be no thought. Therefore I wouldn't need to be freaked out if I know I am not going to freak out at the period of death.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesThe freak out part come from the antisipation of death.
Not knowing or feeling anything after dying doesn't lesson the fact that most people REALY like existing, and do not want their existance to come to an end.
If the fact that your life and everything you know, think, feel, or love will come to a complete and permenant end dosen't freak you out.... then you are either an idiot, or mentally unstable and place no value on your own life. (or the life of others)
Fear is a survival instinct. If you know you won't survive, why fear it?
Meerk38, Well the Op said "freak out" not fear. And what do you meen by "know you won't survive"? Won't survive what?
I supose if you want to argue about the feeling or concept of fear, one would first have to agree on the the definition or what fear means.
...continued from last post... As you said, "fear is a survival instinct" That is it is a natural, primal emotion. You don't consciously CHOOSE to feel fear, and you can't consciously CHOOSE not to feel fear. You may be able to overcome fear to some degree, by conscious effort. But the underlying fear is still there.
For example, to say that skydivers or bungee jumpers have "no fear" of hights or death is wrong. Their ability to overcome that fear enough to make that leap is what gives them such a thrill. If there were no fear, there would be much less of a challenge, and much less thrill. You see?
Claiming to not fear death just because it is inevitable, is kind of like saying you don't fear pain under threat of torture, just because you know the coming pain is inevitable. People may deal with that fear in different ways, but I believe they still feel it.
And I stand by the death vs pain comparison because even though we don't know what comes after death, and even though it may be likely there is absolute nothing after death... it doesn't matter. We are not talking about being afraid AFTER the fact. We are talking about what you feel while you are still living. The anticipation of death and the unknown.
It's already been proven that most often the "anticipation" of pain is actually worse than the pain itself.
I someone tells me that the thought of true imminent death doesn't affect them at all.... I would call BS. Because if they say they are in love with death, or think that death is prefferable to life... then why are they still here? ...And I believe that even the folks who do purposely end their own life still feel the fear, but like the skydiver, they overcome it enough to take that leap.
And if someone claims they simply lack any ability to feel fear of death. Then I would say they are either deluding themselves, or they are unnatural, and lacking some important part of brain function. IMO.
...If you step out into the street and notice a fast moving truck bearing down on you, would you jump back? ...or just stand there? .....Jumping back = healthy dose of fear. ....Standing there = evolutionary fail as a living being.
How can you NOT be freaked out by the idea that someday, everything you are may just simple end. n absolute end to existence is an inherently terrifying prospect. The only way most people muster up the courage to face the high everyday probability that today will be our last day is the notion that something of us will remain after our body dies.
Now, granted, I can accept that it's possible that the thought of an "afterlife" is a delusion that allows us to face the necessary dangers of life. But, with no proof either way, I'll stick with the most comfortable idea, thanks. :p
Also, for the record, you don't know that there's nothingness. It's just like God, you can assert one way or another as if you know it for a fact but in reality no one has any idea. That's scary.
The Squibbon species is awesome.
ReplyI wish this sort of technology will be figured out by my lifetime.Because death is the worst thing that can happen. Nothingness, Blank and total darkness. Tell me that dosn't freak you out and you're lying.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies"There is nothing frightening about an eternal dreamless sleep."
— Isaac Asimov
You do that almost everytime you go to bed at night.
you wont know your dead, so best not to worry about it
I don't care if you don't care, but having immortal humans would be a plight on our already reckless consumption levels
Replybut as a nihilistic misanthrope, I support anything that causes human suffering (as it is at least lulzy to me)
so bring on the immortals.
IM SO COOL GUIZE CUZ I HATE HUMMANIT....
SHUT UP MOM UM A NIHLIST!!!111!
Number four is a copy, not the original, it's like the difference between a painting the Mona Lisa and the actual Mona Lisa. Identical twins arent the same person either.
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesYeah but twins do not share the exact same thoughts, memories, and personality.
If you were unknowingly cloned, or "uploaded" while you slept, having your entire consciousness copied or transfered so that the copy had all your memories, thoughts, and personality, your "copy" would not know it was a copy, it thinks it's you. And for all intents and purposses.... it is.
Say the "real" you dies durring the transfer while the perfect copy lives on, essentially YOU still live.
Ultimately our physical body is just a shell. We are our minds, and if our minds can be *perfectly copied* we can live on.
Correct that if you and the cloned/copied you both continue to exist seperately, you will be your own individuals from that point on, but share the exact same past experiences.
As far as the clone not being the *real* you anymore.... think about it, physically you are not even the same *you* that existed 10 years ago. Your body and cells are now made up of all new (and different) matereial thanks to the cellular regenerating that takes place when you eat, grow, and age anyway. ...but you don't think of yourself as fake now do you?
It does sound kind of creepy to some people though, and of course there will be those who will ask: "what about my soul?" ....but then I personally don't believe in an actual supernateral eternal soul myself, so I'm not worried about that.
Just my opinion, and the whole topic is an interesting "grey issue" which is at least fun to think about. :)
You have no evidence that you are the same person that went to sleep when you wake up in the morning. Unless you have somebody watch you as you sleep, but would you really trust someone like that?
Meerk38, Yeah, that goes right along with what I was saying.
BryFry, it is still not you. A consciounes is more than the mind and memories of a person, much more. The thing that makes you, you will be lost. If you believe in the existence of a soul then you must realise it cannot be transfered into a machine.
Nightcrawler, Who said I believe in the existance of a soul? Read my comment again.
You are just speculating saying that: "consciousnes is much more than mind and memories". You state it as fact, but have no idea what you are talking about. What are you basing this on? Something your preacher told you?
What is your definition of a soul? What makes you think it exists in a supernatural form? And if it does exist, what makes you so certain that it connot be transfered? How do you claim to KNOW these things?
Tell me, is your "soul" just some part of your brain? ...If not, then what part of you is it? What if you get a heart transplant, does that take away your soul? If it is part of your brain/mind, then what part of the brain is it?
So, in your opinion if you transplanted your brain into a younger/different body.... does that cause you to loose your "soul"? Or is that all good?
Like I stated previously, physically we are not even the same person we were ten years ago, every molecule has been replaced throgh growth and regeneration.... are you still you? Do you still have the same "soul"?
I wonder if Imelda Marcos preserved her husband's body so that she might use technologies like this to ressurect her husband like Nixon in Futurama.
ReplyWhile reading this article, play this in the backgroun:"I am immortal, inside me run blood of kings, YEAH! I have no rival, no man can be my equal, take me to the future of the wooooorld!"
ReplyHuman cells can only replicate for 120 years, so even if we were young for our entire lives, the body would still die, wouldn't it (I'm not a biologist, so don't be too harsh)? Of course, the "mind download" idea would be a nice alternative...
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesPeople have live longer than that (I think)
I don't think it's ever been verified (reliable birth certificate etc.) basically if your the oldest person in a backwoods third world country you can claim to be however old you want. I'm only 23 and I still need to pause and do a quick count when asked how old I am. Multiply by 5 and add some low grade dementia and I'm not sure I could provide an reliable answer at all.
In today conditions it appears that a human cannot expect to live more than 120. But there are two things : in a more humid and rich in oxygen atmosphere we could reach 1000 or maybe more. And second it is a difference between getting at 120 in all your streinght and being so weak and in so much pain you actually want to die
Well... if you combine nano-tech to have nanites replace your brain, with the mechanical immortality of cybernetics, you'd become a literally indestructible machine, AKA a terminator, only far awesomer, cuz you could use upgrades like a flamethrower or a rocket launcher as your arms.
ReplyHeck, at some point in time you'd probably be able to have your ENTIRE BODY made of nanites, allowing you literally go through solid matter(walking through walls, shifting light around you to become invisible), to letting stuff go through you(someone's trying to shoot you? make yourself intangible, and the bullets will simply fly through you)
So the nanites would basically be replacing your cells, except they can disasemble reasemble at will?
Is it me.....or does that model's right arm look a bit like a guy's arm?
Reply