Some tl;dr big science debate

[kirant]

...Eh.

Would probably have cared more if he wasn't basically ignoring everything that happened around him. Or that stupid riot that occured after his firing.

Figure some American football fans might notice though.

[furball]

American handegg you mean? Who is this person. All I know is that he's like a coach or something.

[Inikalord]

Who?

[DeathByConservatism]

I can tell by this thread that he is involved in football.

[kirant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Paterno

[Supernova141]

Look at all these fucks I give:





















_

[Psycho]

Paterno was a highly respected, long time head football (American football, not soccer) coach of Penn State University. He had more career wins than any other other coach at the Division-I level (Amos Alonzo Stagg in D-III had more, but in the lower divisions its easier for a single school to go on large runs like that), among several off-field achievements. Between increasing age and health problems (Lung cancer among other things), he was expected to retire soon anyways, but then a scandal broke a few months ago.
One of Paterno's assistant coaches was sponsoring some kind of charity to help young boys from broken homes or something like that. He gained their trust and used that to molest several of them. One of the GAs caught the assistant in the PSU locker room's shower with one of his victims and told Paterno about it. He told the AD and some university official who oversaw the school's police- They basically did nothing. Years later, it all came out in the open. The AD, official, and of course the assistant coach are facing ~40 different legal charges. Paterno did the right thing by telling his superiors, and didn't face any legal charges, but most people still hold him at least partially responsible for not telling law officials himself and allowing that guy to continue to use PSU facilities long after leaving his job there. Despite huge public support from fans and students, the school did what was once unthinkable and fired Paterno mid-season.
Saturday night news broke that he was in critical condition and by Sunday morning he was gone. The big debate going something along the lines of- was Paterno at fault, or does all the blame belongs on the two guys he told, and who tried to cover it up.

[Veldin]

If you don't care, don't make this thread.

[kirant]

If you don't care, don't make this thread.

...As I stated before, I'm not sure who else exists on the forum. He is generally viewed as a major figure in the game, so some fans may have been interested by the sudden death.

[ronelm2000]

Wow, I didn't know this guy, but well, for some it can be interpreted as "What goes around comes around..." while for some, "damn..."... I'm for the: "Errrrrr...so what?"

[Evileel]

Yes, it sucks that people have to die. Scientist could come up with something, that people useful for society wouldn't age and die.

[Luis]

The world will run out of space if everyone was immortal, because people keep making babies.

[kirant]

Plus, not dying ever means you'll eventually succumb to a horrible fate, such as being crushed under tonnes of steel and concrete from an earthquake and not be able to dig yourself out.

[Evileel]

The world will run out of space if everyone was immortal

Not everyone, only "people useful for society"
Also I was having in mind "ageless", not "totally immortal".

[DeathByConservatism]

Not everyone, only "people useful for society"
Also I was having in mind "ageless", not "totally immortal".

FASCIST!

And you could always assign mandatory contraceptives to keep the population down... maybe the number of people who ignore that rule will be enough to offset the deaths caused by accidents, murders, terrorist hijackings, etc.

[Evileel]

... maybe the number of people who ignore that rule will be enough to offset the deaths caused by accidents, murders, terrorist hijackings, etc.

You, my friend, have good chances of becoming an adviser for the God of the new world.
http://images.sickpsycho13.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/SbPRkAoKCpwAAEW2Cx41/YagamiLight.jpg?et=GCgxrpRqhdG0RpwRaQKKXw&nmid=0

[furball]

lol the point of this thread was? Nobody here (at least I know of) knows or really cares about american football. And now all that happens is that it goes off topic by people talking about immortality.

[Beyond Birthday]

lol the point of this thread was? Nobody here (at least I know of) knows or really cares about american football. And now all that happens is that it goes off topic by people talking about immortality.

Isn't it more fun that way?

[Inikalord]

And that's what makes this family unique :D

[Luis]

Actually that can happen in any forum. A young body can do many things that an old person can't, making growing old an unfortunate thing, despite becoming a wise person who knows a lot. That's why this phrase exist: To be young again

[Kid Charlemagne]

Not everyone, only "people useful for society"
Also I was having in mind "ageless", not "totally immortal".

It would have to be for everyone, or else you would get The Mother Of All Revolutions. Some people get to live forever and others don't? How long do you think the majority who wouldn't receive immortality would tolerate that situation?

[ronelm2000]

It would have to be for everyone, or else you would get The Mother Of All Revolutions. Some people get to live forever and others don't? How long do you think the majority who wouldn't receive immortality would tolerate that situation?
Then again, how can the non-immortal win against the immortal? :P

[DeathByConservatism]

Then again, how can the non-immortal win against the immortal? :P

By killing them.

Remember, he meant "ageless" immortal, not "INVINCIBLE" immortal.

You just have to have a minority be the ones not agelessness'd.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Then again, how can the non-immortal win against the immortal? :P

Immortal but not indestructible, like Tolkien's Elves.

[Evileel]

Well this will happen after 30-50 years. We are not talking about some low propability sci-fi stuff, like alien invasion, A.I. rebellion or time travel.
All we need is a little bit advanced nanotechnology, computer science and medicine, and we will have a breaktrough.
How long do you think the majority who wouldn't receive immortality would tolerate that situation?

Its possible they will tolerate them just like billionaires are tolerated today in America. They buy jets, yachts, private islands and wastes Earths resources in many other ways. However the majority of Americans don't take any actions to correct this inequality. History shows that elite of society manages to prevent masses from revolting most of the times.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well this will happen after 30-50 years. We are not talking about some low propability sci-fi stuff, like alien invasion, A.I. rebellion or time travel.
All we need is a little bit advanced nanotechnology, computer science and medicine, and we will have a breaktrough.


Its possible they will tolerate them just like billionaires are tolerated today in America. They buy jets, yachts, private islands and wastes Earths resources in many other ways. However the majority of Americans don't take any actions to correct this inequality. History shows that elite of society manages to prevent masses from revolting most of the times.

Possible, but not likely. After all, this would be the ULTIMATE inequality. It's one thing to sit still for someone else, for example, owning a Mercedes when you can't afford one. It's another thing to sit still for someone else getting to live forever while you can't live forever.

The majority of Americans tolerate America's 1% because we don't want to get shot down in the streets by the 1%'s storm troopers. The 1% will let us gripe at them on the Web, but there are limits on what we can do in realspace.

As for the first part of what you said, I'll believe the existence of material immortality when it happens. After all, according to the visionaries of the past, we were supposed to have flying cars by now. And where are the pleasure droids, dammit? ^__^

[Evileel]

The majority of Americans tolerate America's 1% because we don't want to get shot down in the streets by the 1%'s storm troopers.
For the same reason folks shouldn't rebel against their elite in the future too.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg
There are other ways of controlling ignorant masses also.

And where are the pleasure droids, dammit?
Androids, giant mechas, space battleships, Moon colonies , flying cars, satellites mounted with a giant lasers, are technically possible, but unpractical. Modern science is heading towards more practical and meaningful direction that a past sci-fi writers predicted. Science, instead of wasting time on fun but unpractical toys mentioned above, is developing technologies like genome research, stem cell research, magnetic resonance imaging, laser eye surgery etc.

[Kid Charlemagne]

For the same reason folks shouldn't rebel against their elite in the future too.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg
There are other ways of controlling ignorant masses also.


Androids, giant mechas, space battleships, Moon colonies , flying cars, satellites mounted with a giant lasers, are technically possible, but unpractical. Modern science is heading towards more practical and meaningful direction that a past sci-fi writers predicted. Science, instead of wasting time on fun but unpractical toys mentioned above, is developing technologies like genome research, stem cell research, magnetic resonance imaging, laser eye surgery etc.

It's one thing to forgo rebellion when even if you win, you're going to die sooner or later. The prospect that victory could bring immortality--while if you fail and die, WTF, you were going to die sooner or later anyway--might alter many people's cost-benefit calculations.

OTOH, what Eel said about the flashy gadgets made sense--though while the gadgets he mentioned as actually existing can extend our lives, I would think that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (aka entropy) would make immortality in the material universe impossible.

Eel, you put out a rather extravagant prediction in your first lines back in post #25. Care to back it up with some evidence?

[DeathByConservatism]

Well, I assume that if you're ageless, you could still die from starvation.

So it wouldn't technically be immortality

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well, I assume that if you're ageless, you could still die from starvation.

So it wouldn't technically be immortality

Again, like Tolkien's Elves--immune to aging, but not invulnerable or indestructible.

And with that, I really need to get to work now. Sayonara.

[Evileel]

it wouldn't technically be immortality
I guess you could called it partial immortality.

Well this will happen after 30-50 years.
Care to back it up with some evidence?
No, I don't have any evidences. This technology is not invented yet.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg
But ... worlds top scientists risks their name by predicting this. Like in this scientific movie "Transcendent Man":
Nanobots and immortality? Ray Kurzweil doc hits theaters video/ (http://www.undertheradarblog.com/blog/nanobots-and-immortality-ray-kurzweil-doc-hits-theaters-video/)

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html)

Experts believe science can conquer death by 2040 (http://positivefuturist.com/archive/121.html)

Nanotech could make humans immortal by 2040, futurist says (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138726/Nanotech_could_make_humans_immortal_by_2040_futuri st_says)

[Kid Charlemagne]

I guess you could called it partial immortality.



No, I don't have any evidences. This technology is not invented yet.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg
But ... worlds top scientists risks their name by predicting this. Like in this scientific movie "Transcendent Man":
Nanobots and immortality? Ray Kurzweil doc hits theaters video/ (http://www.undertheradarblog.com/blog/nanobots-and-immortality-ray-kurzweil-doc-hits-theaters-video/)

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html)

Experts believe science can conquer death by 2040 (http://positivefuturist.com/archive/121.html)

Nanotech could make humans immortal by 2040, futurist says (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138726/Nanotech_could_make_humans_immortal_by_2040_futuri st_says)

Ah, so you're a Kurzweiler. *rolls eyes*

I'll be quite happy to be wrong if we're still inhabiting this forum in 2200 or so, but I'll believe it when it happens, and not one second earlier. :P

[Inikalord]

We would all be here and wondering why no L*S Season 45 of all things.

[kirant]

We would all be here and wondering why no L*S Season 2 of all things.

Fixed. NOHAMOTYO states it'll never happen.

[Evileel]

so you're a Kurzweiler
Still haven't heard any arguments from you why life expanding nanobots after 30-50 years are not possible.

And R. Kurzweil is an accredited scientist working for companies like Google and NASA. His short term predictions were quite accurate.

Kurzweil is no crank. He’s a recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize, which is billed as a sort of Academy Award for inventors, and he won the 1999 National Medal of Technology Award. He has written on the emergence of intelligent machines in publications ranging from Wired to Time magazine. The Christian Science Monitor has called him a “modern Edison.” He was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002. Perhaps the MIT graduate’s most famous invention is the first reading machine for the blind that could read any typeface.
___________________________
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6959575/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/inventor-sets-his-sights-immortality/#.TyLa0GGhmiA


However many other respectable researchers, not related with Kurzweil, predicts the same. here are some serious argumentative articles (not some blog entries or forum discussions)

Proponents of medical nanotechnology believe that medical nanobots capable of extending life will be available by the 2020s.In Pursuit of Immortality: The science behind life extension - Nanotechnology (http://www.familyhealthguide.co.uk/in-pursuit-of-immortality-the-science-behind-life-extension/nanotechnology.html)



In the coming 5 to 10-year progress in proteomics and genomics will definitely provide:
- Highly Specialized treatments
- Drugs treating genomes (decoding)
- Approved stem cell treatment to repair damaged tissues or cells
- Biological robots having the ability to attach bacteria within a cellNanomedicine – A Solution for a Limitless Healthy Lifespan Part 1 (http://www.immortalhumans.com/nanomedicine-%E2%80%93-a-solution-for-a-limitless-healthy-lifespan-part-1/)

This chapter describes a comprehensive solution to human morbidity and aging which will be attained when mankind has established control over all critical molecular events in the human body through the use of medical nanoroboticsUnbounding the Future: the Nanotechnology Revolution (http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/chapt_10.html)

Early cell repair machines will be highly specialized, able to recognize and correct only a single type of molecular disorder, such as an enzyme deficiency or a form of DNA damage.Engines of healing (http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Chapter_7.html)

Anyone has any more questions, doubts, etc? Or we can go back to the discussion about flatchested asian cartoon characters already?
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

[Kid Charlemagne]

Fixed. NOHAMOTYO states it'll never happen.

There's always fanfiction. ^_^

@Eel: As I said, I'll be happy if you're proven correct, but I won't believe it until it happens. The flying cars and the lunar colonies haven't shown up yet, either. Even the smartest people can make mistakes.

However, I would think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (aka entropy) would prevent literal immortality, as distinct from merely delayed old age (say a lifespan of 2-3 centuries).

[Evileel]

I won't believe it until it happens..

And according to your opinion, what is the chances that it will happen and I will be proven correct?

[Kid Charlemagne]

And according to your opinion, what is the chances that it will happen and I will be proven correct?

Holy Haruhi, you're passionate about this. Usually, you're only passionate about hentai stuff. http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w131/drkarma/smileytongueout.jpg

I haven't done any research on this to give you an educated guess--and I probably won't bother with it.

Also, it would depend on how much life extension you mean. I can believe a few decades, maybe even as much as a 2-3 century life span--but the longer the attempted extension, the more that nasty entropy will make its presence known.

Again, I've seen too many gosh-wow futuristic predictions fail to materialize. Where's the Moonbase?

[kirant]

Also, it would depend on how much life extension you mean. I can believe a few decades, maybe even as much as a 2-3 century life span--but the longer the attempted extension, the more that nasty entropy will make its presence known.

Human based entropy isn't the real limiter here...it's our DNA. Our DNA replication is an imperfect process. Every time we copy our DNA in the process of mitosis, we lose a very small piece at the edge of our DNA string. Luckily, our body prepares. It throws "junk DNA" on both ends of our strands to delay this process...but it doesn't keep it up forever. It stops adding on junk at one point. When this process starts failing to copy over the function for controlled cell growth, cancer occurs.

Telomerase treatment has to come around a long way in order for immortality to be achieved to prevent this from being a major limiter to human life.

[Evileel]

It stops adding on junk at one point.

It stops, because a cell runs out of telomerase (an enzyme which is reponsible foe adding that precious junk) in time.

Telomerase treatment has to come around a long way
Not so long. It will be peace of cake even for the roughly built 1st generation nanobots to transport extra amount of telomerase to the cells which lacks of it. A little modified viruses and bacteria could perform this task too.


you're passionate about this
I just think that discussing about such practical topics is more useful than talking about how everybody hates Bieber or about new game releases.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg


Where's the Moonbase?
Here is your Moonbase:
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/mri/images/mri-scanner.jpg
Scientists instead of wasting money, time and energy for some good looking moonbase, which does nothing, have developed something 1,000,000,000,000 times more useful.

Usually, you're only passionate about hentai stuff.
Flatchested hentai actress inspires me on my quest for knowledge. I hope the path towards development of medical nanobots will be as smooth and slick as Tsukasa's chest ^_^

[kirant]

Not so long. It will be peace of cake even for the roughly built 1st generation nanobots to transport extra amount of telomerase to the cells which lacks of it. A little modified viruses and bacteria could perform this task too.

Try finding that for virtually every cell in your body. An investigation I did on my 3rd year basically stated that the process by which we'd have to complete this is crazy. Between that and conversations with my prof on it, I think we're on the era of 2-3 centuries before working models can even be tested. You also need to find ways to track the machines, ways to deliver and create telomarase, and to have accurate control mechanisms. The killer though is getting to all key cells...your body does an excellent job hiding some important adult stem cells.

[Dally]

How the hell did this thread become so derailed? Them Debatefags...


Anyways, as a person of standard compassion, I wish Joe Parerno a standard rest in peace.

[Evileel]

This thread was derailed in the name of Science! You should show some respect to it.
And Im positive that Joe Paterno would be proud that we are covering such sophisticated intellectual topis in his thread.

Try finding that for virtually every cell in your body.
This is totally not needed for 1st generation nanobots. They will be crawling through cells randomly, just like Google is crawling though Internet pages. Nanobots will be traveling alongside blood cells and attaching to random targets. Of course small percent of cells will be left unmaintained, but such way is sufficient enough for 300-500 years life extension.
Also the most important groups of cells are densely entangled by circulatory system, so nanobots will find them easily. While passive cells, who divides very rarely, can be skipped.


ways to deliver and create telomarase
Human telomerase can be produced by genetically modified organisms. Similar enzymes are being produced in this way very successfully.
With a little bit advanced nanotechnology it should be possible to mimic the same mechanism, which stem and cancer cells are using to produce telomerase.


adult stem cells.
Lots of efforts and billions of euros are being spent in order to learn how to produce stem cells. 30 years should be more than enough to develop a reliable way of doing this. Then nanobots will be delivering stem cells to the tissues, which will need it the most.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Response to Eel at post #40.

I disagree that space colonies are useless (though MRI scanners are definitely useful).

Self-sustaining human colonies off Earth would serve the human species as insurance against the next K/T-caliber asteroid to come along. A well-developed human presence elsewhere in our solar system would also increase the possibility that the next Dino-doomer could be detected and deflected before it could hit Earth.

Also, access to moons and asteroids would open up vast new supplies of minerals--and since those little worlds are lifeless, mining companies wouldn't need to fear disrupting the ecology, since lifeless worlds have no ecology. Maybe robots could do the actual mining, instead of risking human lives in those operations.

*************************************

While Tsukasa is hardly as buxom as Miyuki, neither is Tsukasa as flat as Konata. (Danbooru links, so beware of possibly-NSFW ads)

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/129565/4girls-alternate_hairstyle-armpits-bikini-braid-hi

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/126903/bikini-blush-bust_chart-flat_chest-hiiragi_kagami-

[kirant]

This is totally not needed for 1st generation nanobots. They will be crawling through cells randomly, just like Google is crawling though Internet pages. Nanobots will be traveling alongside blood cells and attaching to random targets. Of course small percent of cells will be left unmaintained, but such way is sufficient enough for 300-500 years life extension.
Also the most important groups of cells are densely entangled by circulatory system, so nanobots will find them easily. While passive cells, who divides very rarely, can be skipped.
I'm sorry to tell you that our work with nanomachines aren't even remotely close to capably doing that effectively yet. There are about 20 things wrong (that I am aware of) with that and are fundamental flaws with it. Your suggestion still works down to Telomerase injections effectively. Unless you can find a way to degradate other less useful parts of your body into Telomerase, you have to get a "resupply" somewhere...in which case, you're running into the same issues every other gene therapy treatment runs into.

The introduction of nanomachines are also an issue. Removal of nanomachines will be required unless you want a buildup of nanos in your body (which causes other issues). Do we simply just keep producing them?

From my understanding, the concentration of nanos required to even theoretically be viable either require very slow emitting long lasting (and lots of) nanomachines, or very short lifespan and constant intake of machines...to the point where you're almost in an IV drip.

Lots of efforts and billions of euros are being spent in order to learn how to produce stem cells. 30 years should be more than enough to develop a reliable way of doing this. Then nanobots will be delivering stem cells to the tissues, which will need it the most.
Not in the least. People have been fighting cancers for decades. The complexity of that problem is minuscule compared to the idea of eternal life. They have cured mouse cancer several times over, but can't fix it on humans. You and I will never see the results...removing cryogenic freezing from the equation.

[Evileel]

MRI scanners are definitely useful
Why youve made it bold? Ive used "useful" word twice in that post, but spelled it correctly both of the times.
such practical topics is more useful
1,000,000,000,000 times more useful.
See?
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg
colonies off Earth would serve the human species as insurance
Annual NASA's cutoffs shows that science thinks differently. Looks like western countries are giving up space conquest idea and concentrate more attention on medical research.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/126903/bikini-blush-bust_chart-flat_chest-hiiragi_kagami-
Lol, it says Minami is the flattest of them all. Its not a coincidence she is in my sig XD
Unfortunately I must admit her flatness may be too much even for me.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

[Kid Charlemagne]

^I made it bold to emphasize that I agreed such medical gadgets were useful.

Of course, humanity would have plenty of money and brains available for medical research AND space colonization AND feeding and housing everyone on the planet decently AND fixing the environmental messes we make if we stupid talking apes didn't WASTE so much money and brainpower on gadgets for hurting and killing other talking apes. Homo sapiens? Homo asinus would be more accurate.

[Evileel]

our work with nanomachines aren't even remotely close to capably doing that effectively yet
It will be capable after 30 years.
Todays nanotechnology is capable of assembling such nanotubes already:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/memebox/uploads/1458/nanotube_310.jpg
On the other hand todays conventional technology is already close to making a cell size robot. The width of a red blood cell is 7 μm. While todays PC CPUs are made by using 0,032 μm technology (3 μm was used 30 years ago).
If electronics industry will continue developing at this rate, it will be able to produce this size of nanobots even without using any nanotechnology.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/09/medium_micro-syringe-350pixels_tcm18-137334.gif

...to the point where you're almost in an IV drip.
I guess having a micro implant under skin will be necessary for 1st gen nanobot tech.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg


Removal of nanomachines will be required
I don't see any problem here. A micro implant with a magnet will be attached next to a blood vessel. It will collect all the nanobots passing through that vessel.
If a nonobot is dead - implant will keep it.
If nanobot is OK, refill it with telomerase or attach a new stem cell, and inject back to the circulatory system.

Maybe some more sophisticated way of attracting nanobots will be used than magnets.

Or maybe after 30 years science will be powerful enough to make a mobile implant. It will be a "nanobot mothership" with a radius of 1mm. It will travel through major blood vessels, will have a guidance system and will be able to change its direction. Its function will be the same as micro implants (to collect dead nonobots and refill working ones, maybe clean blood from toxins too)

From my understanding, the concentration of nanos required to even theoretically be viable either require very slow emitting long lasting (and lots of) nanomachines, or very short lifespan and constant intake of machines.

Don't really see why you can't inject a syringe full of nanobots once a month.
A nonobot should be able to serve hundrends of cells per day, thousands during its lifespan. You will need 1 nanobot per 10,000 body cells or less.

The complexity of that problem is minuscule compared to the idea of eternal life.
If you could artificially extend your life by 1 year every year, you would be theoretically immortal.
In other words, wait for tech to progress -> extend your life for 50 years -> let 50 years for tech to progress -> extend life by another 50 years -> wait -> extend -> wait -> profit!

They have cured mouse cancer several times over, but can't fix it on humans.
The percent of people recovering from cancer increases every year.
If its diagnosed at early stage, todays medicine is capable of curing it quite easily (of course it cannot heal cancer effected cells, just destroy it)

People have been fighting cancers for decades.
I think its very possible that technology expanding life by 1000 years will be developed before survivability for 4th stage cancer will reach 90%.
In other words, youre playing with that transcendental phrase "cure cancer" too much, kirant.

made it bold to emphasize that I agreed such medical gadgets were useful.
Oh, and I was sure youve made it because Ive used "usefull" somewhere.

if we stupid talking apes didn't WASTE so much money and brainpower on gadgets for hurting and killing other talking apes.
Becoming smarter takes time.

[DeathByConservatism]

In a tangentially-related note, living for so long would increase the chance of getting terminal cancer, if it isn't cured before extremely-long life span extensions become available

[Evileel]

Indeed. And refilling telomerase even more increases the risk of cancer.
However nanobots should be able to prevent any cancer development.
They will randomly check cells, like in the picture below:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/09/medium_micro-syringe-350pixels_tcm18-137334.gif

If a cell looks suspicious, nanobot kills it.
It it looks healthy, nanobot refills its telomerase store and leaves.

With enough concentration of nanobots, the risk of cancer development should be close to 0%.

[kirant]

It will be capable after 30 years.
Todays nanotechnology is capable of assembling such nanotubes already:

On the other hand todays conventional technology is already close to making a cell size robot. The width of a red blood cell is 7 μm. While todays PC CPUs are made by using 0,032 μm technology (3 μm was used 30 years ago). If electronics industry will continue developing at this rate, it will be able to produce this size of nanobots even without using any nanotechnology.
Technology won't be developing that way. Linear extrapolation is a silly thing to do here...or ever in most cases.

I guess having a micro implant under skin will be necessary for 1st gen nanobot tech.
I don't think you grasp the idea. It's that you're then tethered to a machine all day long. The amount of fluid you get in an IV drip is high, along the lines of bags/day. You're either going to have society walking around like seniors at a live-in home, very exposed bags on your body (to which almost anything could puncture it), or be replacing said micro-implant chips on the order of hourly basis (which then states you have to REMOVE the implact somehow to refill the Telomarase for your nanomachines). It's extremely impractical no matter how you look at it. Even an investigation as to whether THAT is possible or not is on the order of a decade...and that's not even finding a way to make it work properly.

I don't see any problem here. A micro implant with a magnet will be attached next to a blood vessel. It will collect all the nanobots passing through that vessel.
If a nonobot is dead - implant will keep it.
If nanobot is OK, refill it with telomerase or attach a new stem cell, and inject back to the circulatory system.
1) Not dealing with the bold, that still suggests you have an implant chip somewhere. You need to refill the chip quite often based on the level of telomarase distributed per machine to each cell. Unless you're thinking of an exterior chip (in which case, you either need a big frackin' chip or one with a storage system of telomarase exterior of the chip...which if placed hard enough to not be punctured, will severly limit movement), the only place big enough to store it will be the abdomin. And then, refills become ungodly impractical.
2) ...And the bold doesn't even make sense. There is NO stem cell to my knowledge that floats freely in the circulatory system. Hematopoietic ones are in the bone marrow.

Don't really see why you can't inject a syringe full of nanobots once a month.
A nonobot should be able to serve hundrends of cells per day, thousands during its lifespan. You will need 1 nanobot per 10,000 body cells or less.
Because it's the raw quantity you need in your body at once. Each nanobot will be designed to distribute [x] amount of Telomarase per any given time basis. Currently the amount required to have any noticable effect on the lifespan of a cell group is extremely large (let's call it [y]). Either you're cranking up [x] to a large amount (which shortens the lifespan of the nanobot to very small) or you're putting in insane amounts of nanomachines (to make the #*[x] to equal [y]). If you're injecting yourself with then once per month, that's on more favouring the latter. It's much more than a syringe...it's basically "half your circulatory system becomes nanobots".

If you could artificially extend your life by 1 year every year, you would be theoretically immortal.
Not exactly. You have to hope that the technology develops that allows your generation to extend by one year for each year your survive...a trend that doesn't work as of yet.

In other words, wait for tech to progress -> extend your life for 50 years -> let 50 years for tech to progress -> extend life by another 50 years -> wait -> extend -> wait -> profit!
Again, it doesn't work. Excluding abberations due to war, our fastest growth rates of lifespan so far have been about .5 years/year...and some of the stuff we've developed in that time has been amazing work.

The percent of people recovering from cancer increases every year.
If its diagnosed at early stage, todays medicine is capable of curing it quite easily (of course it cannot heal cancer effected cells, just destroy it)
"Quite easily" is an extreme simplification. Our technology is still basically "kill them ALL, hope you recover". It requires an iron will or major surgery to get through.

I think its very possible that technology expanding life by 1000 years will be developed before survivability for 4th stage cancer will reach 90%.
In 1000 years, I hope they have the thing worked inside and out. It's much easier to

In other words, youre playing with that transcendental phrase "cure cancer" too much, kirant.
Preventative > Reactive. Plain and simple. If you can find the signs before anything happens, the odds of working it out are much better...basic medicine 101. Of course, reactive medicine will always be needed, but it's generally very sharp and painful...but the hope is to work out as much of that as possible.

If a cell looks suspicious, nanobot kills it.
It it looks healthy, nanobot refills its telomerase store and leaves.
...That makes even LESS sense. The key factor in determining whether or not a cell is "suspicious" will be either cell density or DNA testing. Either are pretty well impossible for a nanomachine to detect unless you're finding a way to compress entire databases AND better than modern human abilities at reading from experience into a nanoparticle.

With enough concentration of nanobots, the risk of cancer development should be close to 0%.
There is no good way to determine whether or not a cancer cell is cancerous without analysis of the local area. It's a place where human intuition is by far one of the best technologies. The rest are extremely invasive and would not be possible without remote programming and control of nanomachines...which would basically result in a high-tech version of today's biopsies.

The theory of uncontrolled growth means you'll be hoping that it doesn't listen to its Hayflick Limit or manages to kill enough important DNA to not even be sustainable...something most cancers don't see.

[Evileel]

lines of bags/day [...] very exposed bags on your body [...] a storage system of telomarase exterior of the chip...which if placed hard enough to not be punctured, will severly limit movement), the only place big enough to store it will be the abdomin. [...] Currently the amount required to have any noticable effect on the lifespan of a cell group is extremely large

I totally disagree with this.
1 g of telomerase (aka hTERT) is more than enough for entire humans body (10 billion of cells)

Chromosomes are freaking small. It obvious its needed very small amount of material to repair its tips.
It was pain in the ass to find exact numbers how much of telomerase a stem cell contains. But here it is (see B figure):
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v98/n8/fig_tab/6604328f1.html#figure-title
Here (http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v98/n8/full/6604328a.html) is the whole article.
20 ng/µl (nanograms/microlitre ) of telomerase (hTERT) is enough to turn average cells into super-telomerase cells (which easily ignores Hayflick Limit).
20 ng/µl = 1g / 50l (50l is approximate capacity of human body)
This means telomerase makes 1/50 000 part of a super-telomerase cell.
If a nonabot will carry a telomerase tank at the size of an average cell, it will be able to refill 50 000 cells)
Of course such tank is kinda large. But even with 10-50 times less capacity, a nonobot will be able to refill huge amount of cells.

...That makes even LESS sense. The key factor in determining whether or not a cell is "suspicious" will be either cell density or DNA testing..
There are big difference between a normal and a cancer cell's membranes. Otherwise chemotherapy wouldn't work at all for curing cancer.
Proteins associated with cancer cell plasma membranes are rich in known drug and antibody targets as well as other proteins known to play key roles in the abnormal signal transduction processes required for carcinogenesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12477722
Nanobot will only have to touch a cell with it's nanotube, which will react and destroy cell in the case of cancer. It will take no action in case of a normal cell. All this won't require any computing power from nanobot.
Such technologies were successfully demonstrated already:
Normand Voyer and colleagues at the University of Laval in Québec have designed a series of modified peptide nanostructures that can puncture cancer cell membranes, leading to the cells' death. [...] The engineered peptides are inactive until they reach cancer cell surfaces where they convert into an active cell membrane disruption agent.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/cb/Volume/2008/6/peptide_nanostructures.asp

And the bold doesn't even make sense.
I see a problem here, that my thoughts are scattered all over this thread. Lets glue the most important of it together, and maybe this will answer part of your questions. Feel free to ask again unanswered issues of course.
__________________________________________________ ____
...So I was saying, that im my opinion...
After 30 - 50 years such artificial life expanding technology will be developed:
1) Telomerase and stem cells will be produced in the lab.
2) Nanotechnology and electronics industry will allow to mass produce cell size (5-10 µm) nanorobots. Even todays electronics are able to make elements over 200 times smaller than a blood cell. While todays nanotechnology already has limited ways of manipulating separate molecules.
3) These nanobots will be mainly used for transportantion and won't demant very sophisticated construction or many computing power.
4) Nanobots will be randomly checking cells, refilling their telomerase stocks and filling cancer cells (These are very simple tasks. Most of technologies needed for this is already created.)
5) A single nanobot will check a cell every ~5 minutes and should have average life span of several weeks. Total mass of nanobots will make less than a 1/10 000 human mass.
6) An underskin microship will serve as mothership for nanobots. It will contain some of telomerase and stem cells supply. It will use a magnet to draw nanobots out of circulatory system. Dead nanobots will be stored, while functional ones will be refilled and injected back to the blood.
7) Some of the nanobots will be mounted with a stem cell instead of telomerase. Nanobot will deliver it to a damaged tissue and drop it there.
8) Telomerase refilling procedure alone should be able to extend humans life at least twice. Combined with transportation of stem cells to damaged tissues and elimination of early stage cancer cells, such technology should demonstrate incredible results. Even earliest versions of such nanobots systems should be able to extend humans life by 100-300 years.
9) If you would manage to expand your life by 100 years, there shouldn't be big problems expanding it by another 100 years a bit later (unless of course technological advance will halt because of Third Wold War or similar ridiculousness).
10) Even after such artificial life expanding technology will be successfully applied, there still won't be a reliable cure from 4th stage cancer.
__________________________________________________ ____
Sorry for grammar, syntax, narrative issues, missed questions, messed up clauses, etc....
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

[kirant]

3) These nanobots will be mainly used for transportantion and won't demant very sophisticated construction or many computing power.
This is where my first issue is...so far, with my work with researchers in the industry...they can't come close to that within 75 at the minimum.

4) Nanobots will be randomly checking cells, refilling their telomerase stocks and filling cancer cells (These are very simple tasks. Most of technologies needed for this is already created.)
You're assuming you can check without surface reception. Chemicals have the obvious advantages of being even more mobile than nanoparticles. Not to mention delivery or treatment is already extremely troubling...imagine having to fight that without instantly knowing what's going on. Not to mention the "what could go wrong" list is extremely long and would take easily 30 years to pass through clinical trials and ethics alone (Hell, I'm not sure ethics committees would allow this even then...they can't get cloning though that well).

6) An underskin microship will serve as mothership for nanobots. It will contain some of telomerase and stem cells supply. It will use a magnet to draw nanobots out of circulatory system. Dead nanobots will be stored, while functional ones will be refilled and injected back to the blood.
Again, you need a good system to check though. The only good vessels are the thighs, main arteries, or the 4 neck arteries. 3 of the 7 are pretty invasive procedures and the last 4 aren't great.

7) Some of the nanobots will be mounted with a stem cell instead of telomerase. Nanobot will deliver it to a damaged tissue and drop it there.
Unless you plan this to be only in intermediate, immediate steps, it's not going to work very well...most stem cells have a hard time traveling as they have been designed to survive in very stable conditions.

9) If you would manage to expand your life by 100 years, there shouldn't be big problems expanding it by another 100 years a bit later (unless of course technological advance will halt because of Third Wold War or similar ridiculousness).
Actually, World Wars have extremely increased our medical knowledge. Either way, that's a massive if. Again, our technological advancement has not allowed an increase past .5 years/year of life extension. It's not like this will be an instantaneous life gain of 100 years...but closer to a life gain of 10 years over 20...then another 20 over 30...and so on. The first attempt will inevitably be dangerous and will be riddled with plenty of flaws (ala cloning)...probably will not even grant past 10 year extensions if that. Combine that with the issues of ethics and testing and I'm almost positive you won't see immortality in this lifetime.

[Evileel]

This is where my first issue is...so far, with my work with researchers in the industry...they can't come close to that within 75 at the minimum.

Its just a simple transportation machine. The only issue is it must be similar size to human cell. Even todays industry can easily make formations over 200 times smaller than a human cell. While todays nanotechnoly is developing at lighting speed. If such development will continue, 15 years will be enough to able mass producing such micro machines for telomerase and stem cells transportation.


You're assuming you can check without surface reception. Chemicals have the obvious advantages of being even more mobile than nanoparticles. Not to mention delivery or treatment is already extremely troubling...imagine having to fight that without instantly knowing what's going on. Not to mention the "what could go wrong" list is extremely long and would take easily 30 years to pass through clinical trials and ethics alone (Hell, I'm not sure ethics committees would allow this even then...they can't get cloning though that well).

There is a considerable difference between cancer and normal cells membranes. Cancer cell electrical properties, cell to cell junctions, chemical and ionic structure. Whats why chemotherapy and radiotheraphy works against tumors. There shouldn't be a big trouble to spot these differences for a nanobot.
And life extension is not the same and cloning.



Again, you need a good system to check though. The only good vessels are the thighs, main arteries, or the 4 neck arteries. 3 of the 7 are pretty invasive procedures and the last 4 aren't great.

Why only these arteries? Why some smaller blood vessels does not suit for this?


Unless you plan this to be only in intermediate, immediate steps, it's not going to work very well...most stem cells have a hard time traveling as they have been designed to survive in very stable conditions.

Scientists will come up with something. Like covering that stem cell with protective layer or some other ways.


Actually, World Wars have extremely increased our medical knowledge. Either way, that's a massive if.

I personally don't think that a global war would benefit for life extension research.

Actually, World Wars have extremely increased our medical knowledge. Either way, that's a massive if. Again, our technological advancement has not allowed an increase past .5 years/year of life extension. It's not like this will be an instantaneous life gain of 100 years...
We are getting to the point here. Once a medicine will become able to work with individual cells instead of groups of tissues, there will be a huge breakthough. The main issue of todays medicine is its imprecision. A cell size nanobots will solve this issue.


I'm almost positive you won't see immortality in this lifetime.

Im 80% positive that we will both hear about the first human to take a nanobot injection in less than 30 years.
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

[kirant]

Its just a simple transportation machine. The only issue is it must be similar size to human cell. Even todays industry can easily make formations over 200 times smaller than a human cell. While todays nanotechnoly is developing at lighting speed. If such development will continue, 15 years will be enough to able mass producing such micro machines for telomerase and stem cells transportation.
Believe what you want...I work pretty close to the industry (where even these guys admit the development is amazing), and they claim to be 75+ years out. I don't see any backing of that theory.

There is a considerable difference between cancer and normal cells membranes. Cancer cell electrical properties, cell to cell junctions, chemical and ionic structure. Whats why chemotherapy and radiotheraphy works against tumors. There shouldn't be a big trouble to spot these differences for a nanobot.
Except you still need a check of each cell from a minaturized machine. Programming of such a small device will be extremely difficult.

And I can't help but feel you vastly underestimate the abilities of human conceptualization. When we look at things, we can see patterns, shapes, and frequencies no computer will ever find. My current work is pretty much proof of that...it's taken me a couple months to teach a computer program that a human mind can see within minutes. Radiotherapy is directed specifically after tests and chemo is generally personalized to some degree...without those, you have to automate the process, which becomes much more difficult.

And life extension is not the same and cloning.
You can see the moral issues with it though. There are major social issues in both and if cloning is basically a hard to address issue, imagine the same delays with human enhancement.

Why only these arteries? Why some smaller blood vessels does not suit for this?
Not enough blood flow. Unless you're putting in dozens and dozens of sites (which would require a lot of maintenance) or an unrealistic ability to pull out nanomachines, you won't be able to pull in enough.

Scientists will come up with something. Like covering that stem cell with protective layer or some other ways.
They are, but it's EXTREMELY short term.

I personally don't think that a global war would benefit for life extension research.
No, but research on human ability and medicine take massive advancements during war as trauma can be measured in deep.

We are getting to the point here. Once a medicine will become able to work with individual cells instead of groups of tissues, there will be a huge breakthough. The main issue of todays medicine is its imprecision. A cell size nanobots will solve this issue.
Not really. Developments of some of the biggest things you can have in medicine (fairly accurate diagnosis) has been amazing in growth. The rate at which we advance our lifespan will never exceed DOUBLE that.

Im 80% positive that we will both hear about the first human to take a nanobot injection in less than 30 years.
I'm not doubting injection...I'm doubting its ability to be used as lifespan enhancement. Nice strawman there though.

[Evileel]

Still haven't heard any serious arguments against this:
Well this will happen after 30-50 years

Ive gave a bunch of reliable articles where it is said that medical nanobots will be able to make a human body ageless after few decades.
Many technologies needed for that is already developed. Ive gave links to such articles.
If medicine, nanotechnoly, electronics and computer science will continue developing as fast as it was in the last few decades, currently missing technologies for life extending nanobots will become available after 20-40 years. Also the closer the science will be to developing functional nanabots, the bigger financing and attention it will get, because immortality is a key goal for humanity - it will be the similar case like development of Nuclear weapons during WW2 or Space programs during post WW2 period.


Believe what you want...I work pretty close to the industry (where even these guys admit the development is amazing), and they claim to be 75+ years out. I don't see any backing of that theory.

Arguments please. Links please.
And why its 75 years? Not 40 or 140 for example?

Such arguments as "my friend's best friend told me" reminds of this Nichijou scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ7kfVkhpho&t=115

Except you still need a check of each cell from a miniaturized machine. Programming of such a small device will be extremely difficult.

No computation power at all will be needed for nanobot to differ normal cells from cancer ones. A nanobot will just need to touch a cell. Nano compounds will do all the rest. The funny thing is that such technology is created ALREADY and was successfully tested. And I have a link to this article few posts ago:
Normand Voyer and colleagues at the University of Laval in Québec have designed a series of modified peptide nanostructures that can puncture cancer cell membranes, leading to the cells' death. [...] The engineered peptides are inactive until they reach cancer cell surfaces where they convert into an active cell membrane disruption agent.
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/cb/Volume/2008/6/peptide_nanostructures.asp

Radiotherapy is directed specifically after tests and chemo is generally personalized to some degree...without those, you have to automate the process, which becomes much more difficult.

There is no doubt that nanobots will have to be personalized for every patient. However changing electrically programmable memory for a machine is a matter of seconds.

Not enough blood flow.
How you have calculated that?
Why some vessel with a 5 times lesser blood flow than a neck artery won't work?

Some things which have looked unrealistic ability 10-20 years ago, now looks totally casual.

They are, but it's EXTREMELY short term.
How you have calculated that its "short"?


Not really. Developments of some of the biggest things you can have in medicine (fairly accurate diagnosis) has been amazing in growth. The rate at which we advance our lifespan will never exceed DOUBLE that.

A technology allowing to work with individual cells will make a breakthrough in medicine. A nanobot transporter is a simplier way to reach that. Ability to repair individual cells will increase a lifespan dramatically.
There are plenty or articles written about this.

I'm not doubting injection...
So you agree that a nanobot injection medical testing with humans will start in less than 30 years?

I'm almost positive you won't see immortality in this lifetime.
Im 80% positive that we will both hear about the first human to take a nanobot injection in less than 30 years.I'm doubting its ability to be used as lifespan enhancement. Nice strawman there though.

No strawman was used there. Im not contradicting you. You expressed your believe that "we won't see immortality in our lifetime". Very abstract and vague line I must say. Don't really get how this "seeing immortality" thing should look like actually. But as response to this, Ive gave my own vision about this, which is much easier to imagine.

[kirant]

Ive gave a bunch of reliable articles where it is said that medical nanobots will be able to make a human body ageless after few decades.
No we haven't. Our basic string of arguments has been catching up to what I know you know. My arguments are out of logistics and expertise in the field though knowledge of researchers in the field and my own work. Your information comes second hand through research papers, while some of mine comes first hand (and some of it I WILL state as fact) and actually having worked with some of these reports.

If medicine, nanotechnoly, electronics and computer science will continue developing as fast as it was in the last few decades, currently missing technologies for life extending nanobots will become available after 20-40 years. Also the closer the science will be to developing functional nanabots, the bigger financing and attention it will get, because immortality is a key goal for humanity - it will be the similar case like development of Nuclear weapons during WW2 or Space programs during post WW2 period.
Not at all. The development of nuclear weaponry via the Manhattan project was unprecidented because of the desire to develop nuclear weaponry before the Germans (which was really not needed. The Germans really never had nuclear capability and never had the energy to fund such a program), while space flight was developed in a race against the Soviet empire to claim the moon first. These were spawned out of conflict and desire to be #1...no way this will happen unless somebody is fighting against it. These programs drew the attention of the nation for years.

Arguments please. Links please.
And why its 75 years? Not 40 or 140 for example?
Our estimations. We know what we can develop and we know what issues stand in the way. It's like asking a NASA researcher from the '60s when they'd land on the moon or a modern researcher when we'll colonize Mars.

Such arguments as "my friend's best friend told me" reminds of this Nichijou scene:
This entire argument is "he said, she said".

No computation power at all will be needed for nanobot to differ normal cells from cancer ones. A nanobot will just need to touch a cell.
Ugh...again, as a biologist and as a chemical engineer, this just hurts to read. There are about a dozen things wrong with the statement, the least of which being the fluidity required to touch each cell in your body period. Testing every required cell would basically turn it into something more fluid than gas.

There is no doubt that nanobots will have to be personalized for every patient. However changing electrically programmable memory for a machine is a matter of seconds.
This is where obvious differences in research and knowledge of the field come into play. I have discussed with many people (including work leaders in the field who are developing these things you're reading reports on) about these micromachines. This "matter of seconds" is highly customized machines and almost require development all the way to the factory to make. It's more than the degree of customized drugs. The product you suggest is hideously expensive and requires much more than "seconds" to customize. A few of them have suggested that they won't be capable of that work for easily 50 years of near world research.

How you have calculated that?
Why some vessel with a 5 times lesser blood flow than a neck artery won't work?
You can do extremely simple mathematical extrapolation. Take x number of cells evenly distributed amongst your blood as an approximation for your # of required nanomachines (x nanoparticles/litre), determine a fairly reasonable grabbing rate, use Poiseuille's Law to determine blood flow, and use simple analysis. Small particles generate a small attractive field, so it becomes worse for random analysis. In a simple analysis, the rate at which random analysis works better is much, much, faster in larger arteries (and barely even then, it's sustainable in large arteries) because blood flow sucks in small vessels (r^4).

Some things which have looked unrealistic ability 10-20 years ago, now looks totally casual.
Some things that looked unrealistic 20 years ago still look unrealistic. This really doesn't favour either side.

How you have calculated that its "short"?
Worked with them. I know the ins and outs of these little toys and they don't make (much) sense the way you're using them. It's feesible though and something that I could see people developing inside of 10-20 years.

A technology allowing to work with individual cells will make a breakthrough in medicine. A nanobot transporter is a simplier way to reach that. Ability to repair individual cells will increase a lifespan dramatically.
There are plenty or articles written about this.
Armies of articles were written as soon as cool imaging toys came out. The ability to properly diagnose illness and damage is just as big as the development of working with individual cells. As a man who lives and breathes medicine, I know this for a fact. You're severely downplaying the abilities of preventative medicine and the impact it played if you think the research into nanobot technology will increase lifespans faster than 0.5 years/year.

So you agree that a nanobot injection medical testing with humans will start in less than 30 years?
I think minimal private trials will easily begin within 30 years. Something simple such as "bump into and randomly identify sickle cells and kill them so we can insert our own regular hemoglobin", then collect them. It'll basically be an IV drip inserting and disposing of collected less useful cells.

No strawman was used there. Im not contradicting you. You expressed your believe that "we won't see immortality in our lifetime". Very abstract and vague line I must say. Don't really get how this "seeing immortality" thing should look like actually. But as response to this, Ive gave my own vision about this, which is much easier to imagine.
Your argument simply doesn't address mine. Instead it constructs the closely related "strawman" of nanomachine injection, one simpler to attack, and attacks it. That is the basis of strawmen arguments. Intended or not, you almost create a juxtaposition of the two points which sound like an attempted counter to my statement.

[Kid Charlemagne]

The future:

Good news: Immortality is developed.

Bad news: The authorities decide society does not need immortal lolicons. No nanobots for Eel! http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w131/drkarma/smileytongueout.jpg

[kirant]

The future:

Good news: Immortality is theoretically possible

Bad news: The ethics committee decide it's not ethical experimentation, so it purely remains theory. No nanobots for Eel! http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w131/drkarma/smileytongueout.jpg

FYP. It's quite likely that ethics will play a massive role in the development itme, especially the question of "do we deserve to live forever"?

I could very easily see 10 years stuck in limbo for that alone.

[Evileel]

The authorities decide society does not need immortal lolicons.
A revolt will start in such case and a flatness will triumph again. Lolicons will be declared as the most useful group of society and will have prime access to nanobot injections.
If talking a little bit more serious, those injections will cost hundreds of thousands euros every month, so only the richest assholes with good connections will be able to utilize life extending technology when it will be developed anyways.

No we haven't. Our basic string of arguments has been catching up to what I know you know. My arguments are out of logistics and expertise in the field though knowledge of researchers in the field and my own work. Your information comes second hand through research papers, while some of mine comes first hand (and some of it I WILL state as fact) and actually having worked with some of these reports.
My second hand sources gives good reasons why development of life extending technology is very likely in the near future. haven't heard any reasonable counter-arguments from your sources.


This entire argument is "he said, she said".
Indeed, this is your main type of arguments in this thread.


Our estimations. We know what we can develop and we know what issues stand in the way.

If you know it, prove it by giving some arguments. Such your current position "I know, but I won't tell you" sounds kinda childish for me.


Ugh...again, as a biologist and as a chemical engineer
So you claim to be an expert in this current topic of life extending technologies? As engineer and scientist you must know lots of reasonable arguments to prove your opinion. So where are them?


There are about a dozen things wrong with the statement

So name it all. We'll see how reasonable those arguments are.


the fluidity required to touch each cell in your body period. Testing every required cell would basically turn it into something more fluid than gas.
This argument barely makes any sense.
White blood cells are touching practically every human body's cell. They touch it, check if its not some malignant bacillus, and goes to another cell. And its not needed for a while cell to be "more fluid than gas"
Manobot will work is the same manner. Of course as machine it will work much more efficiently.


I have discussed with many people (including work leaders in the field who are developing these things you're reading reports on) about these micromachines.

Well OK, if they are such Top Pros in this filed, they must have gave some reasonable arguments to base your opinion. So where are it?
Maybe these scientists you know have wrote any articles related to this current? It would be a pleasure to read it.


highly customized machines and almost require development all the way to the factory to make. It's more than the degree of customized drugs. The product you suggest is hideously expensive and requires much more than "seconds" to customize.
Nanobots will have an electrically programmable memory. It will take few seconds to reprogram a billion of nanobots.


A few of them have suggested that they won't be capable of that work for easily 50 years of near world research.

How this calculation was made? Why its 50 years, not 150 for example?



You can do extremely simple mathematical extrapolation. Take x number of cells evenly distributed amongst your blood as an approximation for your # of required nanomachines (x nanoparticles/litre), determine a fairly reasonable grabbing rate, use Poiseuille's Law to determine blood flow, and use simple analysis. Small particles generate a small attractive field, so it becomes worse for random analysis. In a simple analysis, the rate at which random analysis works better is much, much, faster in larger arteries (and barely even then, it's sustainable in large arteries) because blood flow sucks in small vessels (r^4).

So what minimal diameter for a blood vessel you get according this your formula?


Not at all. The development of nuclear weaponry via the Manhattan project was unprecidented because of the desire to develop nuclear weaponry before the Germans (which was really not needed. The Germans really never had nuclear capability and never had the energy to fund such a program), while space flight was developed in a race against the Soviet empire to claim the moon first. These were spawned out of conflict and desire to be #1...no way this will happen unless somebody is fighting against it.

Yes, competition is a powerful force. But the fear of death is even more stronger stimulus.

These programs drew the attention of the nation for years.
Humans we seeking immotartality for centuries.


Some things that looked unrealistic 20 years ago still look unrealistic. This really doesn't favour either side.

Indeed, it doesnt. Future forecasts based on hopes and expectations have appeared to be really misleading.


Scientists will come up with something. Like covering that stem cell with protective layer or some other ways. They are, but it's EXTREMELY short term.How you have calculated that its "short"?Worked with them. I know the ins and outs of these little toys and they don't make (much) sense the way you're using them. It's feesible though and something that I could see people developing inside of 10-20 years.

What do you mean by saying "they don't make sense the way I'm using them"?
Ive gave kinda simplified model, but stem cells actually works in this way.


Armies of articles were written as soon as cool imaging toys came out. The ability to properly diagnose illness and damage is just as big as the development of working with individual cells. As a man who lives and breathes medicine, I know this for a fact. You're severely downplaying the abilities of preventative medicine and the impact it played if you think the research into nanobot technology will increase lifespans faster than 0.5 years/year.

Diagnostics and anti aging technologies are kinda different fields of medicine. I don't think its proper to say that "ability to properly diagnose illness and damage is just as big as the development of working with individual cells"


you think the research into nanobot technology will increase lifespans faster than 0.5 years/year.

Yes, I think it will. Many top futurologists thinks the same.


I think minimal private trials will easily begin within 30 years. Something simple such as "bump into and randomly identify sickle cells and kill them so we can insert our own regular hemoglobin", then collect them. It'll basically be an IV drip inserting and disposing of collected less useful cells.

Maybe. Maybe. Such private trials are possible too.


Your argument simply doesn't address mine. Instead it constructs the closely related "strawman" of nanomachine injection, one simpler to attack, and attacks it. That is the basis of strawmen arguments. Intended or not, you almost create a juxtaposition of the two points which sound like an attempted counter to my statement.

But Ive said already:
Im not contradicting you.
I wasn't arguing with that your statement. We were just sharing our hopes and believes. I can ensure you this wasn't a strawman argument, because it wasn't an argument at all.
Youve just said you don't believe that a humankind will develop efficient ways of extending life span in the near future:
I'm almost positive you won't see immortality in this lifetime.

Instead of arguing with that, Ive shared mine believe that a humankind will do its best to develop efficient ways of extending life span in the near future:
Im 80% positive that we will both hear about the first human to take a nanobot injection in less than 30 years.

It appeared strange for you that Im not directly arguing your with that your statement. And if you notice something strange, it must be a lupus strawman argument, right?
http://arch.413chan.net/1300947351243s.jpg

[kirant]

My second hand sources gives good reasons why development of life extending technology is very likely in the near future. haven't heard any reasonable counter-arguments from your sources.
You keep circling around the possibility of it. I'm telling you from the logistics through the medical practice and the research methodology that we can't reasonably do it very soon.

The sources you provide basically state the pieces are coming together...we have the basic pieces for many things. Putting them together takes time and is something that seems to be lost on most people. For example, we've had the technology to remove most cancers for a while...the actual removal of them, while getting better, isn't done yet...and remember, we started our campaign against it in the '70s...

Indeed, this is your main type of arguments in this thread.
This is the entire argument from both sides. Unless you have a crystal ball, we can't say what the future has waiting for us. All we can say is that so and so has this and so and so thinks this is an issue. This is why projection is so hard...as someone who looks at things in possible and lost potential, it's almost impossible to accurately predict the future.

If you know it, prove it by giving some arguments. Such your current position "I know, but I won't tell you" sounds kinda childish for me.
I do provide reasons. I stick with logistics as they're useful and simple for descriptions.

I've given you some logistics issues already and you don't really answer them. The ethics committee would mull over whether or not it's ethical to give research into infinite life expansion on humans for years. They would audit every step, every experiment, and make everything a red tape mess. I have reservations as to whether or not they'd ever allow indefinite life extending research.

So name it all. We'll see how reasonable those arguments are.
This argument barely makes any sense.
White blood cells are touching practically every human body's cell. They touch it, check if its not some malignant bacillus, and goes to another cell. And its not needed for a while cell to be "more fluid than gas"
Manobot will work is the same manner. Of course as machine it will work much more efficiently
Let's go with the one you didn't accurately respond to: The fluidity of a cell alone. To investgate every important cell in your body, the particle must come within receptor range, correct? A WBC doesn't touch every cell in your body. They can't even leave your circulatory or lymphatic system unless you've torn your vessel (such as when cancer hits 4th stage). They can't interact with cells outside the blood vessel walls.

Well OK, if they are such Top Pros in this filed, they must have gave some reasonable arguments to base your opinion. So where are it?
The one I discussed it with recently dismissed the concept of "in our lifetime" as impossible. Inquiry (if memory serves) was that it was ultimately the time it would take to develop all the tools to conform with medical safety practice: You need to show it's safe, prove it's safe, and have contingiencies to ensure you can keep the patient safe and healthy. I can contact others, but I'm not sure they'd respond by e-mail.

Maybe these scientists you know have wrote any articles related to this current? It would be a pleasure to read it.
I'll search for them...many of them release documents in subscription journals (which I may not have access to).

Nanobots will have an electrically programmable memory. It will take few seconds to reprogram a billion of nanobots.
That would be an extremely expensive process to develop a nanobot capable of work in each human being. Suggestion of that would mean it would initiallly be a private good. When they develop, I'll take a look at them. However, most nanomachines at the moment are simple constructs...shapes that exploit certain sizes...so we don't get much chance to play with bots.

Miniaturization of bots will be tough though as they, even with all the world's best gizmos, have a hard time with magnetics at small end sizes.

How this calculation was made? Why its 50 years, not 150 for example?
If you asked a NASA scientest when they'd land humans on Mars and he answered "Um...75 years"...what do you think he'd say if you asked him why that many? They're simple head projections. I asked a few guys what they thought was a reasonable time and his answer was a range of 50-100.

So what minimal diameter for a blood vessel you get according this your formula?
Don't have an answer for you. Did the calculations in Excel and closed it before fiddling around with the numbers (as for why I didn't bother saving...why would I? It's a simple thought experiment). I do know though that if the neck arteries are required, then it pretty much limits it to the primary arteries that lead to the extremities and the aorta.

Yes, competition is a powerful force. But the fear of death is even more stronger stimulus.
From what? We're predesigned by nature to fight wars in gangs, to struggle for territory. We have a built in instinct to fight back and to be better than the other. We have no such instinct of death...we avoid it, but we don't actively have an instinct to fight death.

From the field of medicine, we developed our best technologies when we need them. From war, we learned about trauma from damages to the human body. From long standing fights, we learned how to rehabilitate. We learned it to get ahead of our enemy. Unless we see entire concept of death as a longstanding enemy instead of bits and pieces (such as cancer, trauma, or specific illness), we won't look for a way to "beat it".

What do you mean by saying "they don't make sense the way I'm using them"?
I admit, I misread your point. You speak hypothetically...one to which current technology doesn't exist and not great focus is being put into. As much as I'd love to share your enthusiasm, I think you're imagining a world which won't exist for a while. Stem cell transportation, from my knowledge, isn't a heavily researched field. The scope is currently on how to better use stem cells first.

Yes, I think it will. Many top futurologists thinks the same.
You go ahead and think that then...as with Kid Charlemagne, I'll believe this unprededented spike happening when I see it happening.

I wasn't arguing with that your statement. We were just sharing our hopes and believes. I can ensure you this wasn't a strawman argument, because it wasn't an argument at all
Again, I stated "Intended or not". It came off as a strawman statement (intentionally or unintentionally), and that's how it was interpreted.

I would also ask you refrain from posting any more pony pictures. As a mature human being, I assume you have the understanding to know that it can be irritating after reading long posts and, if you're interested in the subject, that we'd be better off with it out than in if it irritates the second party.

[sheepgoesmeep]

as well as the medical aid it could provide, could nanobots theoretically produce similar effects to absorbing massive amounts of gamma radiation?
http://i.imgur.com/st9qQ.jpg

[Evileel]

So we were discussion about a revolutionary medical technology, which will appear after 30-50 years, here. A medical nanobots will be rejuvenating the cells of a human body. Even rough and simple 1st generation nanobots will be able to double or triple human life span.
As Ive already proved in the later posts, most of the technologies needed for this is either already developed or at the reach of hand.

could nanobots theoretically produce similar effects to absorbing massive amounts of gamma radiation?


Theoretically yes. Very advanced versions of nanobots should be able to replace molecules inside cell's DNA.
But its obvious that 1st gen nanobots, which will appear after 30 years, will be far from capable of doing this.


I do provide reasons. I stick with logistics as they're useful and simple for descriptions.

Mainly you provide your personal opinion and abstract reasoning.


The ethics committee would mull over whether or not it's ethical to give research into infinite life expansion on humans for years. They would audit every step, every experiment, and make everything a red tape mess. I have reservations as to whether or not they'd ever allow indefinite life extending research.

I haven't heard about any worldwide ethics committee.
Also the sole purpose of life extending research is to save people from dying by finding a cure from this deadly disease known a Aging. It will not be creating mutants and abominations like cloning and gene modification is doing now. Also nanobots will be much better controlled than todays conventional drugs, thus it will have much less side effects. Moreover, authorities will be motivated personally in development of life extension technology - as Ive already said "immortality is a key goal for humanity". So life extension research should face minimal resistance and will get wide financial and political support.


Let's go with the one you didn't accurately respond to: The fluidity of a cell alone. To investgate every important cell in your body, the particle must come within receptor range, correct? A WBC doesn't touch every cell in your body. They can't even leave your circulatory or lymphatic system unless you've torn your vessel (such as when cancer hits 4th stage). They can't interact with cells outside the blood vessel walls.


I didn't respond it, because it makes no sense. Youre just doing your abstract reasoning here again while trying to pretend being an expert in medicine. However its obvious that your knowledge is very superficial.

Leukocytes can easily pass through capillary walls and reach far away cells. This is so called "leukocyte extravasation" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukocyte_extravasation
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/NeutrophilerAktion.png/200px-NeutrophilerAktion.png


The one I discussed it with recently dismissed the concept of "in our lifetime" as impossible. Inquiry (if memory serves) was that it was ultimately the time it would take to develop all the tools to conform with medical safety practice: You need to show it's safe, prove it's safe, and have contingiencies to ensure you can keep the patient safe and healthy. I can contact others, but I'm not sure they'd respond by e-mail.

So you have discussed something with a another smart person. What reliable arguments he have stated to base his opinion?


That would be an extremely expensive process to develop a nanobot capable of work in each human being. Suggestion of that would mean it would initiallly be a private good. When they develop, I'll take a look at them. However, most nanomachines at the moment are simple constructs...shapes that exploit certain sizes...so we don't get much chance to play with bots.

This branch is developing very rapidly at the moment. It get increasing financing and attracts more and more scientists every year.
Also the construction of nanobot transporter, which would resognise a cell and drop its cargo, doesnt need very complex structure.


If you asked a NASA scientest when they'd land humans on Mars and he answered "Um...75 years"...what do you think he'd say if you asked him why that many? They're simple head projections. I asked a few guys what they thought was a reasonable time and his answer was a range of 50-100.

Yes, listening to such "head projections" is a total waste of time.


Don't have an answer for you. Did the calculations in Excel and closed it before fiddling around with the numbers (as for why I didn't bother saving...why would I? It's a simple thought experiment). I do know though that if the neck arteries are required, then it pretty much limits it to the primary arteries that lead to the extremities and the aorta.

How you have managed to do any of such calculations, without knowing the amount of nanobots in a body and their life span? I imagine any calculations would be totally void without these numbers.


From what? We're predesigned by nature to fight wars in gangs, to struggle for territory. We have a built in instinct to fight back and to be better than the other. We have no such instinct of death...we avoid it, but we don't actively have an instinct to fight death.

Again, abstract unargumented reasoning.
Human beings have a very strong fear of death instinct. The urge to survive is above any other instincts, like competition and reproduction. The wars are fought primary because of the need to survive. Competition is just a secondary objective. The rush for creating nuclear weapons was partially driven for the fear of death too.


From the field of medicine, we developed our best technologies when we need them. From war, we learned about trauma from damages to the human body. From long standing fights, we learned how to rehabilitate. We learned it to get ahead of our enemy. Unless we see entire concept of death as a longstanding enemy instead of bits and pieces (such as cancer, trauma, or specific illness), we won't look for a way to "beat it".

Still I don't think that a global war would benefit an anti-aging research. Its kinda unessential branch during war time.

I admit, I misread your point. You speak hypothetically...one to which current technology doesn't exist and not great focus is being put into. As much as I'd love to share your enthusiasm, I think you're imagining a world which won't exist for a while. Stem cell transportation, from my knowledge, isn't a heavily researched field. The scope is currently on how to better use stem cells first.

It will be researched much more after 30 years.


Again, I stated "Intended or not". It came off as a strawman statement (intentionally or unintentionally), and that's how it was interpreted.
It didn't met strawman's description at all.
I haven't made an altered version of your argument there. Just made an expression of own expectations. Also I haven't attacked your argument. All mine actions were totally constructive.
So I assume we had a "wishful thinking" instead of a "strawman" here. You were expecting an attack on your arguments/ideas there, thus noticed a strawman. Although actually there were no signs of attacks from mine side.

I would also ask you refrain from posting any more pony pictures. As a mature human being, I assume you have the understanding to know that it can be irritating after reading long posts and, if you're interested in the subject, that we'd be better off with it out than in if it irritates the second party.
You hate ponies? Im positive I haven't noticed you haven't mentioning this before. I though my pony themed illustrations would make this discussion more creative and less strained. Can I post a pics of Light Yagami instead?

[kirant]

As Ive already proved in the later posts, most of the technologies needed for this is either already developed or at the reach of hand.
And, as I've said, we've had the tools to develop complete cancer cures for a long time. We just can't put the tools together properly.

Mainly you provide your personal opinion and abstract reasoning.
Your argument too is personal reasoning of the "Well, we have all the tools. Surely it can't be THAT hard to get it to work" kind. What you have proven is that some of the technology is lying around. The point of contention is how possible it would be to put it together into working form.

I haven't heard about any worldwide ethics committee.
There are no worldwide ones...however, most countries do have one that is used as part of the medical device registration. This also comes into play if you are looking for funding, but less so because you can apply for private funding, while you can't avoid having to apply as a medical device. With a technology that could theoretically extend human lifetimes to indefinite, it's an extremely tough sell.

So life extension research should face minimal resistance and will get wide financial and political support.
...Then where is it? If would be such a popular goal, why isn't there more money sent to it? Wouldn't we have many people all over the globe pledging money to it? Why haven't politicians begun using it as witty ways to appeal for votes? They've tried everything else...heck, Barack Obama basically gets away with "I'm a black politician! Vote for me!"

Leukocytes can easily pass through capillary walls and reach far away cells. This is so called "leukocyte extravasation"
Fair enough. I'm not entirely aware of this infection response.

So you have discussed something with a another smart person. What reliable arguments he have stated to base his opinion?
As I just stated: The device application process. It's a b---- to apply REGULAR devices for any animal testing, let alone human testing. He continually works with animal testing (fish, rats) with nanoparticle injections and gets rejected quite often for fear of "animal safety".

This branch is developing very rapidly at the moment. It get increasing financing and attracts more and more scientists every year.
Curious on this...source? We can't really go by paper release #s, since they only show activity. Some branches have had papers being released for years (idiopathic scoliosis and some sources of the, pardon my "Buffy-ism", idiopathy) with very little progress.

Either way, that isn't what I'm stating. The costs to construct and usage would still be astronomical to start. The continual creation and injection would be a heavy cost requirement for anybody to take in. Unless it's extremely heavily subsidized (whether or not it could be would require the source for the above to be accurate and depend on its strength...and then whether or not taxpayers would foot the bill for "bums to live in the streets forever"), the market for this would be for the rich. This is also considered when applying for medical device application...one which could be summarized as "Well, should we give the rich a way to live on forever?".

Yes, listening to such "head projections" is a total waste of time.
However, we do have to realize it's a better projection than you or I can provide. They have better understanding of the interior works. Again, going back to the NASA example, it's better to listen to the scientist than to listen to you or me as to when we'd land on Mars. We don't have a proper way to gauge the future...basically everything becomes who's got the most level head.

How you have managed to do any of such calculations, without knowing the amount of nanobots in a body and their life span? I imagine any calculations would be totally void without these numbers.
I made an EXTREMELY liberal assumption (1 injection every 3 years). I can bypass the # guess by working on a % collected/pass, and ending when I get 100% collected. I even took the fun (and unrealistic, in favour of injections) assumption that you could simply add the values together (where in reality you'd have to go with a [collected]% out of the [remaining]% instead of a [collected]% out of 100%, which I used)

Again, abstract unargumented reasoning.
With both sides being abstract projections into time estimates, it's hard to see why it wouldn't be.

The urge to survive is above any other instincts, like competition and reproduction.
That's the urge to avoid death, not the urge to defeat it. Again, it comes into play when we're facing it down, not when it's not a major threat.

The instinct to defeat death has generally been a pursuit of a select few. The major medical focus has almost exclusively been on the "here and now"...the "illness of the day", if you so take it. HIV/AIDS and Cancer are excellent examples of that.

The wars are fought primary because of the need to survive. Competition is just a secondary objective. The rush for creating nuclear weapons was partially driven for the fear of death too.
Complete and utter BS. If you recall, the development of the Manhattan Project was to defeat the Germans. They feared the Soviets or the Germans would develop it first and force them into a surrender by waving it around. Death was not considered as primary.

The nuclear arms race that developed during and into the Cold War wasn't fear of death. It was caused by competition and the possibility they could get pushed around if they didn't have a nuclear arms pile. The reason they didn't FIRE was because of fear of death via retaliation.

Still I don't think that a global war would benefit an anti-aging research. Its kinda unessential branch during war time.
No, but you're missing the point there. It's that the biggest research gains and increases in lifespan/year have come from war and the ability to investigate every detail without having to pass through legal red tape...we got to see things we never saw before.

It will be researched much more after 30 years.
EVERYTHING, if you go by the non-inflation adjusted values, will get more funding after 30 years. Honestly, this part does come off as a very similar projection that my friend made that you scrutinized based on source.

I haven't made an altered version of your argument there. Just made an expression of own expectations. Also I haven't attacked your argument. All mine actions were totally constructive.
So I assume we had a "wishful thinking" instead of a "strawman" here. You were expecting an attack on your arguments/ideas there, thus noticed a strawman. Although actually there were no signs of attacks from mine side.
...Uh...that's what I just said...just in more words. I'm not sure you noticed, but that was an apology. O_o

You hate ponies? Im positive I haven't noticed you haven't mentioning this before.
No, but aimless images at the bottom of a post become a bit grating to read after a series of formulated opinions.

Can I post a pics of Light Yagami instead?
above, images becomes a bit silly. While I don't think there's a sliding scale of "Cartoon images/seriousness", it's easier to read posts without arbitrary images.

[Kid Charlemagne]

above, images becomes a bit silly.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w131/drkarma/Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

RIGHT, STOP THAT AT ONCE! IT'S SILLY!

BTW, I wonder if nanobots could be used to revive ex-parrots? ^_^

[Evileel]

http://i41.tinypic.com/9icnbq.png

BTW, I wonder if nanobots could be used to revive ex-parrots? ^_^
If you have used a proper cryogenic freezing technology, and parrot's brain wasn't dead yet before freezing, some late nanobot technology may be able to eliminate parrots affliction and bring it back to life. But of course this would be totally impossible for the 1st generation transporter type nanobots which will appear after 30-50 years. Much more advanced tech is needed for such revival.

And, as I've said, we've had the tools to develop complete cancer cures for a long time. We just can't put the tools together properly.
Care to name at least some of these tools. It would be good to know what exactly youre talking about.
We need some really precise ways to work with individual cells in order to efficiently heal late stage cancer. Our current anti-cancer tools are radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Both of them is totally unable to work with individual cells, effects both - cancer and normal cell, thus does a lot of collateral damage to patient's body.
A nanobot technology could offer such precise cancer cells killing way without any collateral damage. Unfortunately we don't have developed enough nanotechnology and miniaturization at the moment.

Your argument too is personal reasoning of the "Well, we have all the tools. Surely it can't be THAT hard to get it to work" kind. What you have proven is that some of the technology is lying around. The point of contention is how possible it would be to put it together into working form.
Well everything is up to our scientists to develop missing technologies and put everything together. There are tools, there is theoretical knowledge, there is financing, there is time, there is motivation for that. Scientists have good chance of solving this puzzle in 30-50 years.

...Then where is it? If would be such a popular goal, why isn't there more money sent to it? Wouldn't we have many people all over the globe pledging money to it? Why haven't politicians begun using it as witty ways to appeal for votes? They've tried everything else...heck, Barack Obama basically gets away with "I'm a black politician! Vote for me!"
Yes, the short sight and narrow mind of general population is a serious issue. And politics are not really interested in such long term goals, because they are being elected for 4-6 years.
But of course not everything is so black and white. Nanotechnology research is funded quite well and funding increases every year exponnetially:
In the last 11 years, governments around the world have invested more than US$67.5 billion in nanotechnology funding. When corporate research and various other forms of private funding are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars will have been invested in nanotechnology by 2015.
Source: http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/indepth/46555When the production of functional medical nanobots will be at the reach of hand, politicians start mentioning this in their campaigns for sure.


Fair enough. I'm not entirely aware of this infection response.
Fair enough? You mean you admit that youre not some über genius mad scientist with unlimited knowledge in imunobiology?
But this is blasphemy! People who argue on the Internet never admit that they are not the smartest on the Earth.


As I just stated: The device application process. It's a b---- to apply REGULAR devices for any animal testing, let alone human testing. He continually works with animal testing (fish, rats) with nanoparticle injections and gets rejected quite often for fear of "animal safety".

Nanoparticle injections and nanobot injections are two completely different things. Nanoparticle injections, just like a common chemotherapy, gives lots of side effects to patients body. Meanwhile nanobots works with individual cells instead of changing chemical composition of entire body. Its much easier to control nanobots activity and they make much less collateral damage to a human/animal body.
Of course animal testing will be especial part for medical nanobot development too. Lots of them will be needed to be sacrificed in the name of science. But lets hope when this stage of medical nanobot development will come, people will realize how immensely important are such experiments, and animal rights activists will be efficiently silenced.

the market for this would be for the rich. This is also considered when applying for medical device application...one which could be summarized as "Well, should we give the rich a way to live on forever?".
Of course this tech will be for the rich. As Ive said in one of the first posts here, it will be for "people who are useful for society". Not for some alcoholic bums of course.
However this tech will become cheaper every year. At first only few billionaires will be able to utilize this tech. But later in time it will become available for the most of multimillionaires.

However, we do have to realize it's a better projection than you or I can provide. They have better understanding of the interior works. Again, going back to the NASA example, it's better to listen to the scientist than to listen to you or me as to when we'd land on Mars. We don't have a proper way to gauge the future...basically everything becomes who's got the most level head.
Totally agree wth that. Thats why a constantly link to various articles in this thread. I would like to see you doing the same, instead of just stating yours personal opinion alone.


I made an EXTREMELY liberal assumption (1 injection every 3 years). I can bypass the # guess by working on a % collected/pass, and ending when I get 100% collected. I even took the fun (and unrealistic, in favor of injections) assumption that you could simply add the values together (where in reality you'd have to go with a [collected]% out of the [remaining]% instead of a [collected]% out of 100%, which I used)
So in other words you were just blind guessing.



That's the urge to avoid death, not the urge to defeat it. Again, it comes into play when we're facing it down, not when it's not a major threat.
The instinct to defeat death has generally been a pursuit of a select few. The major medical focus has almost exclusively been on the "here and now"...the "illness of the day", if you so take it. HIV/AIDS and Cancer are excellent examples of that.[/
But purpose of life extension tech is to push aside death as long as possible, not to defeat it (I actually dont even imagine how it is possible to defeat it). And it is currently the major thread for humankind. For ages the main cause of death were wars, starvation and epidemic outbreaks (aka four horsemen of Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence, Death). But eventually humankind learned how to control all of these threats. Currently body deterioration is the main cause of death, at least in the 1st World countries. It is currently the major threat for humankind and it will be eliminated sooner or later.


Complete and utter BS. If you recall, the development of the Manhattan Project was to defeat the Germans. They feared the Soviets or the Germans would develop it first and force them into a surrender by waving it around. Death was not considered as primary.
And why USA needed to defeat Germans so badly? Just for the sake of record in history books? Or to not be slaughtered like Russians in 1941? Which goal was more important then?
Also why USA feared that Germans or Soviets will start producing nuclear weapons before them? Again, just for the record in a history book? Or to not fall under the same fate like Germany in 1945?


No, but you're missing the point there. It's that the biggest research gains and increases in lifespan/year have come from war and the ability to investigate every detail without having to pass through legal red tape...we got to see things we never saw before.
Care to give any actual examples when a long term life extending techs were developed during wartime?
But of course I agree that the decrease of bureaucracy stimulates science progress.


...Uh...that's what I just said...just in more words. I'm not sure you noticed, but that was an apology. O_o
But this is blasthemy again! Internet people never apologises about anything under no circumstances.
But if talking more seriuosly, this is I who should apologise you, if it have looked that I was mocking at your statement. Although I had no such intension.


No, but aimless images at the bottom of a post become a bit grating to read after a series of formulated opinions.
above, images becomes a bit silly. While I don't think there's a sliding scale of "Cartoon images/seriousness", it's easier to read posts without arbitrary images.
I see the main problem here I almost never get any feedback about mine "pic unrelated" stuff.
Of course if you think its not a good idea to post them in this particular thread, then I'll leave this dirty job for Charlemagne and Sheep.

[kirant]

[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/9icnbq.png[/---]
I can't tell...is that a screenshot of an earlier post of yours...or what?

Care to name at least some of these tools. It would be good to know what exactly youre talking about.
In a broad view, we can see that we have the technology to cure mouse cancer several fold. It's obvious the cure is pretty low tech and that the technology level is already surpassed it.

One famous case was U of A's Evangelos Michelakis, who claims to have identified a way to regress cancer development with little harm to the surrounding area. Unfortunately, his research seems to have very little ability to progress as funding for a non-patentable product has been low. He finally got a patent on the theory though, so hopefully things will progress...I'd be curious if his solution actually works...the single clincal study shows promise (80% of a small sample group of extremely aggressive cancers had shown signs of life extension beyond normal, while 20% died during testing).

Well everything is up to our scientists to develop missing technologies and put everything together. There are tools, there is theoretical knowledge, there is financing, there is time, there is motivation for that. Scientists have good chance of solving this puzzle in 30-50 years.
I'll leave this point be...it basically comes down to:
- You: We can get this in 30-50 years
- Me: I don't think those tools will be put together that quickly, if ever

And politics are not really interested in such long term goals, because they are being elected for 4-6 years.
Except Obama (cure cancer "in our time"), Kennedy (Man on the moon within the decade), Nixon (cure cancer as if it was an act of war...I'm pretty sure 40 years is too long a war!), and the entire city of Calgary (end most, if not all, homeless by 2018), off the top of my head.

When the production of functional medical nanobots will be at the reach of hand, politicians start mentioning this in their campaigns for sure.
Actually, the annual graph looks linear to me. The "totals " graph looks exponential, but that's expected.

Fair enough? You mean you admit that youre not some über genius mad scientist with unlimited knowledge in imunobiology?
Does ANYONE try to put themselves off as that?

But this is blasphemy! People who argue on the Internet never admit that they are not the smartest on the Earth.
Oh, Cracked, how I love how you have an article for almost everything...
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

Apply to everyone.


Nanoparticle injections and nanobot injections are two completely different things. Nanoparticle injections, just like a common chemotherapy, gives lots of side effects to patients body. Meanwhile nanobots works with individual cells instead of changing chemical composition of entire body. Its much easier to control nanobots activity and they make much less collateral damage to a human/animal body.
We also have to consider familiarity with the subject matter though. One of my professors, as part of a Biomed introduction, handed us a copy of the forms used when medical devices are screened in Canada. One of the biggest issues is the "what will happen if it goes wrong?" concern. Patient and subject safety often take front and centre stage. Chemical injections are pretty easy to show off in that regard. Nanobots, being a fairly new field with its own concerns, will probably take a while to get off the ground.

Of course animal testing will be especial part for medical nanobot development too. Lots of them will be needed to be sacrificed in the name of science. But lets hope when this stage of medical nanobot development will come, people will realize how immensely important are such experiments, and animal rights activists will be efficiently silenced.
Animal rights has nothing to do with it. It's the medical device screening council. The safety of the animal is taken into consideration and the number of auxillery plans required if something goes wrong will be a key factor...much more so than outside councils.

Of course this tech will be for the rich. As Ive said in one of the first posts here, it will be for "people who are useful for society". Not for some alcoholic bums of course.
However this tech will become cheaper every year. At first only few billionaires will be able to utilize this tech. But later in time it will become available for the most of multimillionaires.


So in other words you were just blind guessing.
Blind guessing on what is pretty liberal and supportative assumptions. I'd be putting my money on a 99.9% confidence that replacement rates would be more frequent than I putting down. It'd be analogous to asking "What's our chance of making the playoff this year?" "Well...if we win 95% of our games...still bad.".

But purpose of life extension tech is to push aside death as long as possible, not to defeat it (I actually dont even imagine how it is possible to defeat it). And it is currently the major thread for humankind. For ages the main cause of death were wars, starvation and epidemic outbreaks (aka four horsemen of Apocalypse - War, Famine, Pestilence, Death). But eventually humankind learned how to control all of these threats. Currently body deterioration is the main cause of death, at least in the 1st World countries. It is currently the major threat for humankind and it will be eliminated sooner or later.
We've never really done much more than provide satisfactory solutions for any of those other ones either. If we did, the UN would be WAY more effective at its job and we wouldn't have complete gong shows like SARS. Avoidance is much more instinctual (if you like and don't mind running off of outdated theories, I'd suggest that Freud's concept of eros is what applies to this, not any higher form of thinking).

And why USA needed to defeat Germans so badly? Just for the sake of record in history books? Or to not be slaughtered like Russians in 1941? Which goal was more important then?

Also why USA feared that Germans or Soviets will start producing nuclear weapons before them? Again, just for the record in a history book? Or to not fall under the same fate like Germany in 1945?
The answer to both is: The fear of loss of power. The US is a heavily independant state and hates taking orders from anyone or anything. It's why they fought for independance and has been ingrained in their minds since creation.

Defeating Germany quickly and developing nuclear weaponry is heavily relient on this thought. They were terrified of the theory that they could be forced INTO a surrender by scaring them with a nuclear warhead. Then, they'd have to sign a heavily German-favouring peace contract (we all know that complete ownership of the US by Germany would be impossible). This fear started the Manhattan project.

Then "red scare" got to them. Communism was absolutely feared at the time and the concept of being pushed around by a bully red nation was terrifying. The Soviets didn't want to shoot as much as the US didn't want to...M.A.D. is a very strong concern in your mind...but neither wanted to back down either for if they did, the other might push their military might on the them...coming to a front in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Defeating Germany and gaining as much land as possible was also part of this. The Western Allies and the Soviets were very much allied by common desire than theological alliegience...by the end, it was obvious they hated each other and wanted to keep as much of Europe under their rule by the end of the war. Stalin was insane and never held his word that the Soviet conquered nations, after rebuilding, would get a democratic rule...the allies knew this. They wanted to keep as much under a democratic styled rule.

Care to give any actual examples when a long term life extending techs were developed during wartime?
Massive surgical innovations such as facial reconstruction are extremely obvious. Blood tranfusion (to perfection from the basis of before), improvements in ultrasound (by use of naval vessels, then shrinking), and mobalization of machines (such as x-ray or heart lung machines) were also devloped.

If you want to go more modern and abstract, the development of handling of PTSD has been way better because they can study its effects from war veterans.

Additionally, a whole wealth of understanding diseases arose. You have excellent understanding of disease spread and growth and learn to better treat it later from these logs. The Japanese went out of their way to attempt some of these by means of Unit 731...and were so successful that the US granted these war criminals peace if they got their data.

[Evileel]

I can't tell...is that a screenshot of an earlier post of yours...or what?
Im trying to concentrate all the info and ideas said before in this thread.
However Ive used out my 10 000 words (its max word count per post in this forum board), so I was forced to improvise.


In a broad view[QUOTE]
I was asking about examples of specific tools. Not some broad, vague, obscure view.


[QUOTE=kirant;161702]we can see that we have the technology to cure mouse cancer several fold. It's obvious the cure is pretty low tech and that the technology level is already surpassed it.[QUOTE]

What you have in mind, when saying this broad, vague, obscure, cliché phrase "cure cancer"? There is a huge difference if its 1st stage carcinoma or 4th stage T-cell prolymphocytic Leukemia. We had ways to eliminate the first one type of cancer for long ago. Meanwhile don't have any efficient ways of fighting with the latter one.



[QUOTE=kirant;161702]One famous case was U of A's Evangelos Michelakis, who claims to have identified a way to regress cancer development with little harm to the surrounding area. Unfortunately, his research seems to have very little ability to progress as funding for a non-patentable product has been low. He finally got a patent on the theory though, so hopefully things will progress...I'd be curious if his solution actually works...the single clincal study shows promise (80% of a small sample group of extremely aggressive cancers had shown signs of life extension beyond normal, while 20% died during testing).

Cancer research gets huge financing every year. But it goes to more to more reliable guys than yours mentioned above.
If he can't prove his claims and do the paper work, its a problem with his disorganization, not with financing.



I'll leave this point be...it basically comes down to:
- You: We can get this in 30-50 years
- Me: I don't think those tools will be put together that quickly, if ever

Indeed, this is exactly how our discussion goes. I say that if a science will continue progressing at the same speed and towards the same direction, we will have the first functional life extending nanobots after 30-50 years. You say that its not possible, because your friend said so.


Except Obama (cure cancer "in our time"), Kennedy (Man on the moon within the decade), Nixon (cure cancer as if it was an act of war...I'm pretty sure 40 years is too long a war!), and the entire city of Calgary (end most, if not all, homeless by 2018), off the top of my head.

I was talking about today's politicians.
And they pay some attention to talks about advancement of nanotechnology, medicine and science in general. When scientists will be close to producing the first nanobot prototypes, politicians will start emphasizing it in their campaigns for sure.


Actually, the annual graph looks linear to me. The "totals" graph looks exponential, but that's expected.
Can you define more clearly what graph youre talking about?


Does ANYONE try to put themselves off as that?
As not native English speaker, I don't get such expression at all. What does in general "put yourself off" means?


Oh, Cracked, how I love how you have an article for almost everything...
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

Apply to everyone.

Yes, have spent hours of hours reading stuff in that site too. regret nothing XD


One of my professors
Again, some of your friend's, which I have never seen, opinions. We are talking about tendensies, not personal viepoint of someone.


One of the biggest issues is the "what will happen if it goes wrong?" concern. Patient and subject safety often take front and center stage. Chemical injections are pretty easy to show off in that regard. Nanobots, being a fairly new field with its own concerns, will probably take a while to get off the ground.
One of the major advantages of medical nanobots, are their precision. They will be much easier controlled and will cause much less side effects than chemical medicine we are using now.
Of course medical testing will take some time. But with enough financing and motivation everything should go smoothly.


Animal rights has nothing to do with it. It's the medical device screening council. The safety of the animal is taken into consideration and the number of auxillery plans required if something goes wrong will be a key factor...much more so than outside councils.
Numerous of various medicine pass this animal testing stage every year. As Ive said with good financing, motivation and enough of staff, nanobot injections should pass this stage quickly too.


Blind guessing on what is pretty liberal and supportative assumptions. I'd be putting my money on a 99.9% confidence that replacement rates would be more frequent than I putting down. It'd be analogous to asking "What's our chance of making the playoff this year?" "Well...if we win 95% of our games...still bad.".
So in other words, your assumption that only neck arteries will be suitable for nanobot depot, was just a pure guess.


We've never really done much more than provide satisfactory solutions for any of those other ones either. If we did, the UN would be WAY more effective at its job and we wouldn't have complete gong shows like SARS. Avoidance is much more instinctual (if you like and don't mind running off of outdated theories, I'd suggest that Freud's concept of eros is what applies to this, not any higher form of thinking).
UN is currently chained by bureaucracy. A giant with wooden legs. Its a public secret that this organization is currently working totally unefficiently.
And it doesnt matter how you will call it, "fear of death" or "avoidance of death" - it will eventually lead humankind to creating a life extending tech, most likely based on nanobot technology.

The answer to both is: The fear of loss of power. The US is a heavily independant state and hates taking orders from anyone or anything. It's why they fought for independance and has been ingrained in their minds since creation.

Defeating Germany quickly and developing nuclear weaponry is heavily relient on this thought. They were terrified of the theory that they could be forced INTO a surrender by scaring them with a nuclear warhead. Then, they'd have to sign a heavily German-favouring peace contract (we all know that complete ownership of the US by Germany would be impossible). This fear started the Manhattan project.

Then "red scare" got to them. Communism was absolutely feared at the time and the concept of being pushed around by a bully red nation was terrifying. The Soviets didn't want to shoot as much as the US didn't want to...M.A.D. is a very strong concern in your mind...but neither wanted to back down either for if they did, the other might push their military might on the them...coming to a front in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Defeating Germany and gaining as much land as possible was also part of this. The Western Allies and the Soviets were very much allied by common desire than theological alliegience...by the end, it was obvious they hated each other and wanted to keep as much of Europe under their rule by the end of the war. Stalin was insane and never held his word that the Soviet conquered nations, after rebuilding, would get a democratic rule...the allies knew this. They wanted to keep as much under a democratic styled rule.

Every human has an overwhelming instinct to survival. The "fear of loss of power" or urge for independence are just different forms of it.
Because of this instinct humankind have managed to cure cholera, diphtheria, plague, rabies, etc. This instinct is causing humans to invest vast amount of finances and energy into cancer, HIV, hepatitis, etc. treatment research. In will force to develop anti aging technologies eventually too.


Massive surgical innovations such as facial reconstruction are extremely obvious. Blood tranfusion (to perfection from the basis of before), improvements in ultrasound (by use of naval vessels, then shrinking), and mobalization of machines (such as x-ray or heart lung machines) were also devloped.

If you want to go more modern and abstract, the development of handling of PTSD has been way better because they can study its effects from war veterans.

Additionally, a whole wealth of understanding diseases arose. You have excellent understanding of disease spread and growth and learn to better treat it later from these logs. The Japanese went out of their way to attempt some of these by means of Unit 731...and were so successful that the US granted these war criminals peace if they got their data.

But most of these medical advancement were used to threat traumas, not to fight aging or cure viral diseases. Development of technologies not useful in the battlefield gets considerably slacked up during war and post-war time.

[kirant]

What you have in mind, when saying this broad, vague, obscure, cliché phrase "cure cancer"? There is a huge difference if its 1st stage carcinoma or 4th stage T-cell prolymphocytic Leukemia. We had ways to eliminate the first one type of cancer for long ago. Meanwhile don't have any efficient ways of fighting with the latter one.
The literal ability to prevent the cause of, and treat most stages of, cancer.

Cancer research gets huge financing every year. But it goes to more to more reliable guys than yours mentioned above.
If he can't prove his claims and do the paper work, its a problem with his disorganization, not with financing.
Though that wasn't the point. It was that it does exist that the methods has been described as an effective tool and that the current level of technology is strong enough to have cures creatable for cancer, that we've been up and down the same "war" for 40 years and still don't have it resolved.

I was talking about today's politicians.
No you were not. You stated "politics" in the reference frame of "And politics are not really interested in such long term goals, because they are being elected for 4-6 years", which is definitive of all politics as of the major science contributors as of the last century at least.

Additionally, half of those examples (Calgary, Obama) are recent (2008 and later) claims.

And they pay some attention to talks about advancement of nanotechnology, medicine and science in general. When scientists will be close to producing the first nanobot prototypes, politicians will start emphasizing it in their campaigns for sure.
The way I see it, politicians focus on what "the people" want they to focus on. A common theory in politics is to appeal to the "centre", the majority of the populace. It's why the US has conservative politicians, the EU highly liberal...it's what the people want to hear.

Can you define more clearly what graph youre talking about?
The link used to have a link to a cientifica article (which now it can't seem to link to). In it were two graphs: total funding by year and annual funding by year. The total funding was exponential while the annual funding was linear. The article seems to have been pulled though.

As not native English speaker, I don't get such expression at all. What does in general "put yourself off" means?
To give the air of or to express one as.

Again, some of your friend's, which I have never seen, opinions. We are talking about tendensies, not personal viepoint of someone.
You find an article on the details of applying for a medical device in Canada then and what is inside it then. If you have more reasonably founded information, sure. But the best source of information we have is that. It's not like the professor plays a major part in it either though, just the broker of information.

One of the major advantages of medical nanobots, are their precision. They will be much easier controlled and will cause much less side effects than chemical medicine we are using now.
But the proof is in the results. Consider what CAN go wrong with nanobots. For each of these that risk damage to the populace, a reliable counter measure must be enacted to an extremely reasonable degree. That is where nanobots will struggle. Getting people to accept these new countermeasures is part of the struggle. Since everything is new, everything has to be tested. Does the countermeasure reliably shut down the machine? Does this have any side effects on the human? Does it have any side effects if a dead machine gets stuck in the human? Each of these have to be proven before use whereas many drugs have been fast tracked with fairly cut-and-paste knowledge of contingency.

Of course medical testing will take some time. But with enough financing and motivation everything should go smoothly.
The more were make claims, the more I notice the "should"s piling up.

So in other words, your assumption that only neck arteries will be suitable for nanobot depot, was just a pure guess.
I took a question as to whether it would be possible to do what you said you could do for removal. That is where the snag was hit. Smaller arteries do simply not get enough blood flow and larger arteries, while maybe possible (I never calculated) are very invasive for procedure (close to open-heart level). I gave it almost every possible chance at success and it still struggled with getting a reasonable possibility.

And it doesnt matter how you will call it, "fear of death" or "avoidance of death" - it will eventually lead humankind to creating a life extending tech, most likely based on nanobot technology.
Fear and avoidance are two different matters. Fear is the abject unpleasant emotion and the active dodging of. It, in this case, involves conscience. Avoidance is a split reaction, something much more ingrained in the emotion and less likely to crop up in the sub-conscience.

Every human has an overwhelming instinct to survival. The "fear of loss of power" or urge for independence are just different forms of it.
Not really. Individual human survival instinct does not play a great deal on the political level. Here, politicians look at what's best for their country (in this case, their livelihood and standard of life, not the raw life itself, unless regarding the theory of MAD).

But most of these medical advancement were used to threat traumas, not to fight aging or cure viral diseases. Development of technologies not useful in the battlefield gets considerably slacked up during war and post-war time.
Curing viral diseases is counter productive to your argument. Infection wounds of all types were one of the leading causes of death in early 1800 wars. These were drastically reduced and had massive application to standard life, including life extension by preventing death from such diseases (which would be quite possible if you injured yourself in manual labour).

I'm starting to see this topic is getting a bit cyclical. If you don't mind, I think it's worth closing up discussion at this point.

[Evileel]

Its cyclical and dried out, because you never link to any external sources. Only give yours opinions and vague reasoning (although thats partially true about mine last posts too).
And its of course a good idea to end this discussion as it is.
However after 7 pages of debates, Im still pretty sure about this:
I say that if science will continue progressing at the same speed and towards the same direction, we will have the first functional life extending nanobots after 30-50 years.

[kirant]

Only give yours opinions and vague reasoning (although thats partially true about mine last posts too).
At the same time, the area of debate here is one where we have limited research and support into. While you do show that some pieces are there, we haven't found much evidence either diraction that states that it would be solvable within the timespan you suggest. Inevitably, we'll both end up grasping at straws here and this area of debate will purely end up vague and purely forecasting. This is when the theoretical meets the practical. Experience from the field is the point I draw upon and one that works outside the theoretical realm. As I'm sure anybody of scientific background knows, the conversion of theory to reality, even if something is possible, is difficult because of the "can go wrongs" and the red tape. Without scientific papers specifically focused on it, it'd be tough to judge the likely length of such a project and leaves us both thinking about "would we be able to crack it with our abilities?", which comes down to a matter of interpretation of the current field.

However after 7 pages of debates, Im still pretty sure about this:
And if I were a betting man, I'd be happy to put down money against that.

[Evileel]

"would we be able to crack it with our abilities?"

I think its obvious that its just a matter of time.
Nanotechnology, microbiology, microelectronics and computer science are currently progressing at really fast pace. If this development won't stop, according to world's top futurologists, we'll have nanobots within few decades.