How to live forever

[anthropos]

perhaps we can have daily doses of resveratrol like from grapes or something so that we can prolong life bit by bit? LOL.

[jeskill]

OK. So I remember reading that one of the causes of ageing is that every time our cells replicate, the DNA gets chopped off at the end, right? So eventually you get into trouble when there's no more poly-A tail and you start chopping off genes and such.

 

What do you think about using an Agrobacterium tumefaciens to insert poly-A tails onto the ends of our DNA?

[Anjruu]

"technically this would be murder, as the new body will have developed it's own personality and therefore be its own person. "

 

Depends on if the clone was "alive" or not. If a person is "born" without any senses, would he/it be alive? If you don't let the clone become a person, i.e., give the clone a lobotomy at birth, or otherwise restrict brain growth and personality development, then would it really be a person? I would argue not. And since it was not really a person, it would not really be murder. Although I agree, if the clone was to be alive and conscious, then the act of killing him would defiantly be murder.

 

How bout this for a scheme: A lot of people have argued that replacing everything with machines except the brain would help people to live longer. Well, since the brain is a complex set of patterns, why not put a recorder of some sorts in or around the head, and record electricity flow? Keep it on for a decade, and the patterns which are "you" would be firmly set into the recorder. Transfer these patterns to a mechanical chip, and then kill the "old" you. It would be a bit like suicide, I suppose, but the chip would not know the difference between the old and new "you". While your body would die, your memories would live on, and, honestly, what is a person but accumulated patterns? Of course, this wouldn't work for those with religious leanings. Honestly, I am not sure I would take this option, but, to me, it seems like it might work someday.

[Edtharan]

How bout this for a scheme: A lot of people have argued that replacing everything with machines except the brain would help people to live longer. Well, since the brain is a complex set of patterns, why not put a recorder of some sorts in or around the head, and record electricity flow? Keep it on for a decade, and the patterns which are "you" would be firmly set into the recorder. Transfer these patterns to a mechanical chip, and then kill the "old" you. It would be a bit like suicide, I suppose, but the chip would not know the difference between the old and new "you". While your body would die, your memories would live on, and, honestly, what is a person but accumulated patterns? Of course, this wouldn't work for those with religious leanings. Honestly, I am not sure I would take this option, but, to me, it seems like it might work someday.

This is a common mistake about the brain. A lot of people think that the "You" is just your brain. Your neural system extend throughout your body, and even then many processes that go into makeing you, you are not all neuralogical.

 

For example:

Take food. You probably have a favoruite food. But if you are hungery you will enjoy food a lot more. This hunger is caused by the body needing energy and neutrients. If you could get all of these by just pluging your self into a recharger (if you were completely mechanical/electrical say), then you will never be hungry and thus never feel the extra enjoyment of eating when you are hungery (even if you retained the ability to "taste" food.

 

I think you will be able to store these "patterns" that make up the brain and transfer a personality/person into a completely mechanical body (someday), but I think there would be some "loss" in the transfer (nothing spiritual though).

 

We do experence loss like this today. People do need parts of thier body replaced with mechanical components (or even just removed) and they can experienc "Phantom limb" pains and such. Would we experence "Phantom Bodies" if we completely converted to a synthetic body?

 

Cyborgization may alow us to live forever, but it will mean that we will be changed by the process. Weather those changes are acceptable, or even change us so that you are no longer you, is something that can only be answered by time (actually doing it).

[tejaswini]

"technically this would be murder, as the new body will have developed it's own personality and therefore be its own person. "

 

Depends on if the clone was "alive" or not. If a person is "born" without any senses, would he/it be alive? If you don't let the clone become a person, i.e., give the clone a lobotomy at birth, or otherwise restrict brain growth and personality development, then would it really be a person? I would argue not. And since it was not really a person, it would not really be murder. Although I agree, if the clone was to be alive and conscious, then the act of killing him would defiantly be murder.

 

how do u think we can possibly achieve that?i mean restrict the brain growth.don't u think the development of the physique well be effected as well.

and according to you killing some one not conscious is not murder , yes may be then we can argue the same for feotus termination in cloning as well .

[Nezumi]

It is somewhat possible to obtain immortality, the questionable matter is if the research and development can be done in a time alone. Research and development takes many resources. Immortality wouldn't be so bad, I could deal with that.

 

*jumps off cliff*

*Holds sword in air to guide lightning towards it*

 

There may be a possible way to throw somatic brain cells into mitosis. Cells that relate to the brain in great rank don't multiply often-sometimes every 30 years.

 

I think throwing the mitosis switch would be easier than creating some artificial/clone replica and then implanting it.

 

Braincell mitosis

 

I don't like the idea of replacing braincells. The brain has not been fully discovered, and I like the idea of having braincells create new braincells by mitsosis than other ways.

 

Other objects such as organs could be easily replaced. The brain's parts never have a chance to be replaced often, if impossible at times. The clone would be unnecessary and the requirements for transfer IMO would be more complicated than the advancement of excelling mitosis in braincells.

[Anjruu]

"according to you killing some one not conscious is not murder , yes may be then we can argue the same for feotus termination in cloning as well"

 

Actually, I myself do not object to fetus termination in cloning, as long as everyone related to the fetus, such as the mother, father, or any grandparents, do not disagree.

 

A little punctuation goes a long way.

[Meh]

Lets say we figure everything out, and we do live forever, but unfortunately an asteroid crashes into us.

[JustStuit]

Lets say we figure everything out, and we do live forever, but unfortunately an asteroid crashes into us.

We wouldn't live forever

[Edtharan]

Depends on if the clone was "alive" or not. If a person is "born" without any senses, would he/it be alive?

Yes. A person, born without senses would be alive, and a unique individual. There are people born without senses and they are still alive and unique individuals.

 

i.e., give the clone a lobotomy at birth, or otherwise restrict brain growth and personality development, then would it really be a person?

Ok some might not see someone who never developed a brain as a person (and therefore not murder in killiing them). But what would be the moral standing on deliberatly restricting the growth of the brain so as to use this "potential" person as a new vesel for someone else?

 

If you deliberatly "mutilated" a foetus at conception (and throught out its development) so as that no brain was formed, just for the purpose of creating a new body, what would the moral stand point be?

 

Also if you tinkered with the genetics of a sperm and egg (before conception) so that if the egg was fetilised by that sperm would never produce a brain in the developing embrio, what would the moral standpoint be?

 

Of course there is no absolute answers to these and it will always be a moral grey area. It is this reason that Immortality treatment will never be developed for this technique (as there will alwase be objectors), especially if there are other potential paths for immortality treatments.

 

Vat grown organ replacements (that are not full organisms) would be a better path. If the ability to grow any organ in the body were developed without the need for a complete organism is a much less grey area for this kind of treatment (just replace the bits that get worn out as needed), but is realy just on one extreme end of the above scenario (but much more acceptable).

[anthropos]

cyrogenically freeze urself may help. I think. >_>

[pink_trike]

Here is where I would like to put any ideas on how you can live forever. ?

 

I recommend that you first determine if you actually exist.

 

Then I'd suggest you clarify your motivation. Is your motivation actually to exist forever (assuming that you can prove that you exist)?

 

Or is it to avoid dying (assuming you can prove there is something that exists that will die)?