Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could see that for big Pharm if they developed a drug that you have to pay every month for, but I don't know. Look at the dire research for antibiotics, big pharm doesn't see money in it since it's a temporary med a cure, they make their money by having people take meds for life, so it's probably not going to benefit them finding something that cures all diseases unless it's a drug you have to take forever or procedure that needs to be done every few months, etc.
Your thinking in terms of today's technology which is why we do not have them. By the 2020's we will be able to modify our genes so its not a daily pill then in the nanotech revolution we will merge with the tech and that will completely change the nature of aging as we become transhuman.
Your thinking in terms of today's technology which is why we do not have them. By the 2020's we will be able to modify our genes so its not a daily pill then in the nanotech revolution we will merge with the tech and that will completely change the nature of aging as we become transhuman.
We have that tech to a certain extent, there's a drug that deactivates a gene (oncogene) in a type of leukemia, but drug has to be taken for life or the oncogene will reactivate and the cancer will return. Now big pharm uses drugs now but if they see a future in nano tech they'll jump at the chance and certainly put out patents for whatever tech they develop. I think futurists see the future in a very optimistic way, do they not see all the problems and conflicts we have in the world today, they severely underestimate the greed of humanity.
I could see that for big Pharm if they developed a drug that you have to pay every month for, but I don't know. Look at the dire research for antibiotics, big pharm doesn't see money in it since it's a temporary med a cure, they make their money by having people take meds for life, so it's probably not going to benefit them finding something that cures all diseases unless it's a drug you have to take forever or procedure that needs to be done every few months, etc.
One example, the Extracellular aggregates problem, can be solved by taking a pill every ten, twenty or probably every fifty years.
The drug? One has already been developed (works on mice but won't work on humans as it de-tangles an extra cellular crosslink we don't have, but mice do) and it's just a dirt cheap chemical.
With all new nano tech et al. tomorrow we'll monitor our bodies and fix them up both easily, secure and cheap.
One example, the Extracellular aggregates problem, can be solved by taking a pill every ten, twenty or probably every fifty years.
The drug? One has already been developed (works on mice but won't work on humans as it de-tangles an extra cellular crosslink we don't have, but mice do) and it's just a dirt cheap chemical.
With all new nano tech et al. tomorrow we'll monitor our bodies and fix them up both easily, secure and cheap.
Well, that's what I think anyway :-)
I think everyone will have sensors in their bodies by 2035 as even the Texas Medical Center is predicting it. However, those who are not rich will be given nanobots that disintegrate after their job is done. For the rich they'll never get ill because they'll always have nanobots in their system to prevent getting ill. That's the difference I think we'll see.
I think everyone will have sensors in their bodies by 2035 as even the Texas Medical Center is predicting it. However, those who are not rich will be given nanobots that disintegrate after their job is done. For the rich they'll never get ill because they'll always have nanobots in their system to prevent getting ill. That's the difference I think we'll see.
You are thinking to much in today's way of thinking. As we get past 2020 especially past 2030 we will be in a entirely new paradigm. Why most of the Hollywood movies get it wrong.
You are thinking to much in today's way of thinking. As we get past 2020 especially past 2030 we will be in a entirely new paradigm. Why most of the Hollywood movies get it wrong.
Advancement in technology will not magically make people turn good.
Advancement in technology will not magically make people turn good.
Never said it would but it will change the economic structure and cause prices to come down. I mean look at today versus 1915 and the standard of living is much better.
Dr de Grey, the worlds most renowned biogerontologist, thinks otherwise, he projects that instead of milking a couple of billionaires for rejuvenation every ten years, more money will come from milking billions of people and that those techniques will become dirt cheap and easy for everyone to use.
Basically, every ten twenty year, you'll have an appointment with a nurse, giving you some pills and an injection.
There Are a lot of hurdles to over come, like the FDA (but that one will surely start as medical tourism) but we're going there and it will be cheap and for every one.
Also, if there would be a transition period, where the really good treatments are $1M and the "gives you 5-10 years" is for $50.000 and the el cheapo "gives you only 2-3 years" is $1.000 well then you probably should take the cheapest as prices will drop considerably.
Why would prices drop considerably?
Because about every person on the planet would like to have it.
I can't imagine the political pressure for this to be distributed to the whole population (in Europe anyway) for free...
For the time frame, of course nobody knows for sure but there are already several completely different paths towards it (so if one slogs down, another will probably make it), I know about the SENS approach, Nanobots, Googles Calico, IBM:s big-data and I'm sure there are others.
Also, don't forget we only need to rejuvenate a bit to get to the next new treatment that'll take us to the next and so on (Longevity Escape Velocity).
So I'm kind of confident, well, I try to live my life anyhow he he and we'll see how it pans out!
You *really* think 'everyone on earth' will want to live really really long lives? You think people would actually want nanobots shot inside them to fix them, then what else do they do? You actually think that the majority of people are completely accepting of putting these foreign materials in their bodies?
When you have 'people' who are half gizmos walking around who've lived 150 years you think they'll be viewed with the same standard as real human beings and not be viewed as suspect?
And if you are one of these robobot people, don't you think they'd start thinking of themselves as just a bit better or more wise or privilidged than the organics out there? And if they can have relationships with people who'll possibly be around their life for a long long time, why would they want to deal with the humans who die so early?
The scenerio proposed with all these bits of technology is the creation of another species....
You *really* think 'everyone on earth' will want to live really really long lives? You think people would actually want nanobots shot inside them to fix them, then what else do they do? You actually think that the majority of people are completely accepting of putting these foreign materials in their bodies?
I would say most people will and for those who choose not too I would argue that is their right. However when you think about it most people will answer no when asked if they want to live forever but when it becomes real world they do all they can to stay alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47
When you have 'people' who are half gizmos walking around who've lived 150 years you think they'll be viewed with the same standard as real human beings and not be viewed as suspect?
And if you are one of these robobot people, don't you think they'd start thinking of themselves as just a bit better or more wise or privilidged than the organics out there? And if they can have relationships with people who'll possibly be around their life for a long long time, why would they want to deal with the humans who die so early?
The term is transhuman and I suspect there will be a huge gulf between people who are transhuman, artificial intelligence with people who have not merged with the tech. The best example I can think of is the Amish versus the United States society today. What do I have in common with the Amish and why would I want to go there besides a look at history? I think the gulf between me and them will be nothing compared to what the gulf will be between Transhumans, artificial intelligence and humans in the next 15-30 years. Think about it this way. When I can download the entire knowledge of the human race in a few minutes what will I have in common with someone who takes years to learn just one degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47
The scenerio proposed with all these bits of technology is the creation of another species....
I would say most people will and for those who choose not too I would argue that is their right. However when you think about it most people will answer no when asked if they want to live forever but when it becomes real world they do all they can to stay alive.
The term is transhuman and I suspect there will be a huge gulf between people who are transhuman, artificial intelligence with people who have not merged with the tech. The best example I can think of is the Amish versus the United States society today. What do I have in common with the Amish and why would I want to go there besides a look at history? I think the gulf between me and them will be nothing compared to what the gulf will be between Transhumans, artificial intelligence and humans in the next 15-30 years. Think about it this way. When I can download the entire knowledge of the human race in a few minutes what will I have in common with someone who takes years to learn just one degree.
Let me post this video:
Or you could call them Cylons. The base concept of the Galactica civilization was the battle between human and manufactured beings. What happens is what would happen in real life. The 'merged' people would see little use for the unmerged. So what do they do with them? Wall them into their own spaces? Use them as slaves? Just kill them off?
Just adding techno stuff to a human doesn't change its nature, just how much they can do to stay on top. And using the Amish is not accurate. They culturally choose to live in their own society. They and you share the same human potential and choose to use it differently. They and you can relate if you choose to try.
Your super humans aren't like that. We don't have a good record of outcomes when people who think they are superior to other humans clash over rules, culture, norms and laws. (and all else) In the end the less advanced the technology the more chance of ending up dead, locked in some 'special' area, or used for 'simple' tasks and marginalized as faulty. And the techno enhansed people STILL have that same basic brain at the core which drives the 'superior' to marginalize all which isn't them.
We as humans have a rather dismal trackrecord with that. Why play around and see just how dismal it can be? Why is it always assumed that making people 'better' with tech is a good thing? Why don't the ethical and social considerations count equally or more than the wow? You take those away and they aren't human anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
