This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Mama wrote on 2011-07-05 16:48
Quote from TA;500824:
It isn't eternal youth. Not at first at least. But maybe eventually. It's the idea, anyways.
well, yeah. I wonder how long that's going to take.
-
TA wrote on 2011-07-05 17:51
Quote from Mama;500998:
well, yeah. I wonder how long that's going to take.
That depends on funding, I suppose. At the rate we're getting funding, not for a very,
very long time.
Even if we do make some amazing breakthrough, I'm sure there would be political red tape and in the end we may not even end up seeing any benefit from it at all with as mindblowingly religiously zealous as a lot of people are. Some people would probably see it as an affront against "God" and then the retards they put into office who want their votes would just cast it aside.
It is the future. But, the world may not be ready for the future yet. I dare say that it's probably not.
-
paladin wrote on 2011-07-05 18:47
Quote from TA;501067:
That depends on funding, I suppose. At the rate we're getting funding, not for a very, very long time.
Even if we do make some amazing breakthrough, I'm sure there would be political red tape and in the end we may not even end up seeing any benefit from it at all with as mindblowingly religiously zealous as a lot of people are. Some people would probably see it as an affront against "God" and then the retards they put into office who want their votes would just cast it aside.
It is the future. But, the world may not be ready for the future yet. I dare say that it's probably not.
Society is not ready for alot of sciences and this is among one of them sadly
-
Kollin wrote on 2011-07-05 18:57
Quote from TA;500824:
You people should really at least watch the video in the OP before you start talking.
He specifically debunks all your bird brained reasons for why it shouldn't be done. In fact, it's the very first thing that he does. It's the entire first 6 minutes, people!
Honestly, it gets me so angry reading these completely uninformed replies that I can hardly think. I can't even reply right now.
edit: Okay... I'll address some things asked by people too lazy to bother watching the video.
The entire idea behind RHR is to add, say, 30 years of healthy life to someone's current lifespan. That means you would age slower.
In short, keeping the fragility of old age from happening for longer. Wrinkles, gray hair, organ failure, and what have you.
It isn't eternal youth. Not at first at least. But maybe eventually. It's the idea, anyways.
So basically by doubling our lifespan instead of it taking 20 years to age from 30 to 50, it would take 40 years. Now that's not quite eternal youth, but it's considerably better.
The point though is that hopefully within those 40 years, it could be slowed down even further by new advances, maybe even some of the damage reversed. Because obviously we're not going to be able to make some amazing breakthrough fast enough that'll just cure it all together. It'll be a slow process and require a lot of work.
You can think of it like this... To reach the current fragility of age 100, it may eventually end up taking 1000 years. That means one's healthy life is increased considerably. The ages 30-50 would really be two entire centuries.
That's extending our healthy lifespan, and that's the general idea.
Of course, by the time someone reaches a 1000, then hopefully we'll have developed it far enough that age doesn't even matter anymore and we will basically be eternally youthful with the only thing really killing us being accidents, disasters, et cetera.
Realistically, it'll probably never be perfect. But, we should hopefully be able to extend our healthy lives indefinitely at some point, which is the idea.
This is all covered in the OP video, by the way.
As for the comments talking about why we shouldn't or why you wouldn't want to... Start watching the OP video at 1:15 or so. It should cover anything you could possibly come up with by 5 minutes.
In the future, I'm not going to bother explaining anything already thoroughly explained in the OP video. It's just a waste of my time. It takes me longer to explain it than it would for someone to just watch the damn video themselves.
no one really asked you to explain...so...yea. i still say nty. if it ever gets finished before i end up dieing and is optional im not taking it.
-
TA wrote on 2011-07-05 18:58
Then go ahead and die.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-07-05 19:03
That's the plan. :thumb:
-
Mama wrote on 2011-07-05 19:07
Quote from Sumpfkraut;501153:
That's the plan. :thumb:
Eat as few processed foods as possible and eat antioxidant rich foods! Keep dem free radicals out :D
and regular exercise!
My plan is to age till my grave as gracefully as possible. /salute
-
Kollin wrote on 2011-07-05 19:11
unless we research further into other sciences, i see nothing good coming from this. as i said before, population becomes an issue. there are already laws in some countries regarding child birth because they cant handle an increase in population. another problem is resources, unlike what a lot of people think, resources are NOT unlimited. if we had the ability to colonize other planets that could sustain life and had more resources, and we could continue doing this, it wouldnt be such a bad idea, population solved (inhabit new planets) and resources problem solved.
-
paladin wrote on 2011-07-05 19:14
Tldr i as far i could pick up from the 22 min video
His goal is to not stop aging first
But more make it so aging is no longer something that hampers you from living
From there is also puts it that once we make one discovery it will just go on from there
Not long till we have eternal youth once we get that one discovery
-
Mama wrote on 2011-07-05 19:14
Quote from Kollin;501170:
unless we research further into other sciences, i see nothing good coming from this. as i said before, population becomes an issue. there are already laws in some countries regarding child birth because they cant handle an increase in population. another problem is resources, unlike what a lot of people think, resources are NOT unlimited. if we had the ability to colonize other planets that could sustain life and had more resources, and we could continue doing this, it wouldnt be such a bad idea, population solved (inhabit new planets) and resources problem solved.
[Image: http://persquaremile.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-worlds-population-concentrated.png]
(it's more of an economic problem, not a scarcity one)
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-07-05 19:25
That's the current situation, but not the one 200 years ahead, particularly not the one 200 years ahead including a possible "remedy" for death.
-
Iyasenu wrote on 2011-07-05 19:31
If/When this science is completed/usable then...
We'd be one giant leap for mankind closer to resurrection...
Okay, maybe... not.
It's so hard to imagine people living for so long.
I mean wow, 150 is something, but 1000 is really something.
It's like... an Elf's lifespan or something.
I wonder how having such long lifespans would change the norm for life...
Suddenly spending years in college wouldn't seem like such a long time.
Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, speculating this and that.
This is interesting but, somehow kind of scary to think about for me.
-
Spike wrote on 2011-07-05 19:36
Eh, i don't. when my time is up, my time is up.
-
Kollin wrote on 2011-07-05 19:37
we would have to decrease birth rate in response to how many years were added on to the human lifespan, even if we could colonize other planets. we wouldnt want to overpopulate the new home too quickly.
-
TA wrote on 2011-07-05 19:47
It isn't our right to decide the fate of future generations. We're condemning millions of people to their deaths by doing that.
The people of the future will have to decide on either a low death rate or a high birth rate (subsequently rejecting these therapies). But that should be for them to decide.
The research should still be done so that future generations will have that option and can make that decision for themselves.