Can Nanotech Cure Death?

[spinal_cord]

Forgot to mention. As for job shortages, as more jobs become autonomous, would be less need for people to work anyway.

And where would people get money from in an increasingly capitalist world? where people currently do not get pay raises in line with inflation and can afford less and less with each passing year. Social funding is of less and less help as it is becoming more and more expensive to run countries, less of the tax money goes back to things like state pensions and medical. So once people get too old to work, they can not rely on their current social tax system to support them.

 

[KingVamp]

And where would people get money from in an increasingly capitalist world? where people currently do not get pay raises in line with inflation and can afford less and less with each passing year. Social funding is of less and less help as it is becoming more and more expensive to run countries, less of the tax money goes back to things like state pensions and medical. So once people get too old to work, they can not rely on their current social tax system to support them.

Universal basic income is already being talked about. Probably mostly funded by the people who are benefiting the most from automation.

 

[spinal_cord]

Universal basic income is already being talked about. Probably mostly funded by the people who are benefiting the most from automation.

I really can't see big business paying people to not work out of the profits they are making by not employing those same people.
Also, if profits are going to support people who aren't working, where does the new money come into the system from?

 

[FAST6191]

"where does the new money come into the system from?"
Probably the same place it does now
Some might say other countries (remittances and service based economies use that model for their local areas) but that is a bit small scale for this.
To that end pulling things out the ground (though maybe space in the future too) and using land that was not used before (and anything that was on that land before).

No doubt it will be a shift in economics and the philosophy thereof that will make the industrial revolution look like last Tuesday on the market (which is to say nothing of great interest at all). Depending upon what goes we are already seeing the start of something like it -- many tech companies today seem to be employing proportionally few people compared to even the factories or farms of old.
"Apple/Number of employees
123,000
2017
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+total+employees&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
People also search for
Google
73,992
Amazon.com
566,000
Microsoft Corporation
124,000"

How many billions do they all control as a relative percentage of the world's net worth? Apple then have a revenue of just north of 200 billion, US GDP is only 18.6 trillion ( https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US )
A Victorian factory owner, or even Rockerfeller would have killed for that kind of efficiency

 

[KingVamp]

Amazon Go is just one example of where things are going.

I really can't see big business paying people to not work out of the profits they are making by not employing those same people.
Also, if profits are going to support people who aren't working, where does the new money come into the system from?

If they keep using humans for jobs, then they lose out on the efficiency of autonomous work other companies will be doing. If more companies are going for autonomous work, then they need away for everyone to be able to buy things.

Not all their profits will go to the UBI. Some will go to the companies and some will go to the UBI. People buying things in general, will keep the money flowing.

 

[Xzi]

I'm sure we'll find some way of keeping our DNA/cells young in the future, but I'm not sure I want to stick around for the fighting over increasingly limited resources.

 

[dAVID_]

We'll be immortal, which means that we can upload our mind and mine BitCoin without worrying about dying!

 

[Taleweaver]

I'll go with "I hope it won't happen, but I fear it might".

Let's start with the latter: I follow enough of technology to realize that the potential is certainly there. To stop aging, that is. That's a natural process, and I don't see why it can't be changed (I mean...rivers also have a natural process, but that doesn't mean we can't build dams).
"Cancer and diseases" are different, not only because there's a wide variety of them but also because they change. When antibiotics were new, it cured pretty much anything. The problem is in that "pretty much": that meant that the surviving viruses and bacteria's had a better chance of growing (and evolving in the process). My prediction is that every current disease will be curable, but that that very same process will generate more diseases in the long run. The way the pharmaceutical industry works, that certainly won't change (as long as there's no money in preventing new diseases from popping up, they won't research much in that field).
Obesity is...well...stupid. Yes, there are people who get fat by a biological error (it's "schildklier" in Dutch, but I'm not sure if the translate "thyroid gland" means the same), but the far majority is just obese because they eat the wrong stuff. Besides...it doesn't take nanobots to fix obesity: there are operations that do that already. And even that is for people who lack the discipline to look into what they're actually eating.

But let's leave all that aside and assume it delivers all that's promised. It would be an absolute nightmare. Why? Because our society isn't equal. The "we can extend life" isn't going to be a "we". It's going to be overly paid (and highly advanced) scientists that help out the ones who can afford it.
Who will be the first ones to both try and benefit from it? The 0.1% richest of richest (yes, the 1% has a lot of power, but even within that group, wealth isn't even slightly equal). We already see that group having an extended power because when they gain power, they gain it for longer than in the past because with power comes money, and with that comes the means to afford the best doctors to prolong that life and/or to look good at it (I hope nobody is stupid enough to think Trump is actually blond at his age). Infinitely prolonged life* will just increase the stranglehold that group has over the rest of the world. For starters, they'll be the ones making sure that this technology remains unaffordable to anyone, even if the ACTUAL cost to produce these things is next to nothing.

And believe it or not, it'll be even worse if it does become available for larger groups. Overpopulation is already an issue, and it'll quickly lead to critical heights if people died less often. With the richest group being able to protect themselves, this'll ultimately lead to provoked or even encouraged violence among the "poor" (meaning: everyone unable to afford nanobots).

There'll be another doom scenario on the ecological field, but the average temper shouldn't be worried about that: by the time the "immortals" have found out that they've exhausted the world of its natural resources (and they wasted these mostly to keep the others at their position), we'll all be dead.





*let's be honest: it's not eternal life if any severe injury can kill you.

 

[KingVamp]

Obesity is...well...stupid. Yes, there are people who get fat by a biological error (it's "schildklier" in Dutch, but I'm not sure if the translate "thyroid gland" means the same), but the far majority is just obese because they eat the wrong stuff. Besides...it doesn't take nanobots to fix obesity: there are operations that do that already. And even that is for people who lack the discipline to look into what they're actually eating.

Nanobots could prevent obesity in the first place. Meaning, eating the "wrong stuff" wouldn't matter. Although, food in general will probably be more healthier in the future.

But let's leave all that aside and assume it delivers all that's promised. It would be an absolute nightmare. Why? Because our society isn't equal. The "we can extend life" isn't going to be a "we". It's going to be overly paid (and highly advanced) scientists that help out the ones who can afford it.
Who will be the first ones to both try and benefit from it? The 0.1% richest of richest (yes, the 1% has a lot of power, but even within that group, wealth isn't even slightly equal). We already see that group having an extended power because when they gain power, they gain it for longer than in the past because with power comes money, and with that comes the means to afford the best doctors to prolong that life and/or to look good at it (I hope nobody is stupid enough to think Trump is actually blond at his age). Infinitely prolonged life* will just increase the stranglehold that group has over the rest of the world. For starters, they'll be the ones making sure that this technology remains unaffordable to anyone, even if the ACTUAL cost to produce these things is next to nothing.

Well, places (by places, I mean the world in general) already got systems in place, so that one person or group of people don't hold on to power "forever". Even if the systems aren't perfect. The younger generation will eventually overtake the older one, with or without these nanobots. Not ever society is built on specific people trying to screw the people under them. Also, while it would be unfortunate if it gets to that point, a item like this will probably just end up being a big target of being stolen, if kept from everyone for too long. I don't believe in the doomsday scenario of technology like this never reaching the masses.

And believe it or not, it'll be even worse if it does become available for larger groups. Overpopulation is already an issue, and it'll quickly lead to critical heights if people died less often. With the richest group being able to protect themselves, this'll ultimately lead to provoked or even encouraged violence among the "poor" (meaning: everyone unable to afford nanobots).

There'll be another doom scenario on the ecological field, but the average temper shouldn't be worried about that: by the time the "immortals" have found out that they've exhausted the world of its natural resources (and they wasted these mostly to keep the others at their position), we'll all be dead.


*let's be honest: it's not eternal life if any severe injury can kill you.

If people lived longer, people will probably reproduce less often. Besides that, then it doesn't matter either way, if they can't solve overpopulation issue. This doomsday scenario will happen one way or another. So, why not let people enjoy living longer for the finite amount of time they have? Not as if the rich people are invincible, so they will eventually run out of resources too. If every basic need was fairly met for the "poor", I doubt most people would be fighting each other over nanobots or any thing really. The frustration would be targeted at the people who are purposely holding technology back. Not everyone wants to live longer anyway. If people basic needs wasn't met, nanobots would be the last thing that the people would be worrying about.


The world is already moving towards renewable resources and clean energy. Also, space mining is already being looked into.

Anyway, this doom scenario relies on humans running out of and the poor use of resources or room for people. In that case, it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not. If they do solve those issues,well, once again it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not.

 

[EmanueleBGN]

Death cannot be cured, because it isn't a disease. We can extend our life but this isn't the purpose of our existence: we don't live to live for long but to find a meaning of our life

 

[Deleted User]

I'm sure we'll find some way of keeping our DNA/cells young in the future, but I'm not sure I want to stick around for the fighting over increasingly limited resources.

Hope we will find a way to travel dpace in a fast enough way that many colonists will be needed

 

[Naderino]

If this was metal gear, then absolutely

 

[Deleted User]

Death cannot be cured, because it isn't a disease. We can extend our life but this isn't the purpose of our existence: we don't live to live for long but to find a meaning of our life

Why, why are you telling me the purpose of my existance? I dont belive that whst you said is true. I think that longer life is good. I dont think you can just tell people the purpose of their lives...
We can all think about ''why we shouldnt do that'' but if you see that its already happening then theres no point to talk about that imo, its like talking about if we should make an AI while google and friends are making (or made) one already.

 

[Glyptofane]

Even if it were to happen, regular people will never be allowed access to it.

 

[Taleweaver]

Nanobots could prevent obesity in the first place. Meaning, eating the "wrong stuff" wouldn't matter. Although, food in general will probably be more healthier in the future.

They could, but I doubt people would do it. I don't know the English word for "maagverkleining", but it comes down to an operation that diminishes the stomach. It's already possible, so why don't we do that on our children? Answer: because we don't believe we should push these things on healthy beings in the first place. And by the time we're old enough to make these decisions ourselves, we postpone it until we're actually obese.

It's of course a matter of belief, but I think food won't be healthier in general. There's simply too much profit in selling food that makes us fat. I mean...the best things we could eat (fruit, vegetables, water) are around for millennia. Why isn't that our most common meal?

Well, places (by places, I mean the world in general) already got systems in place, so that one person or group of people don't hold on to power "forever". Even if the systems aren't perfect. The younger generation will eventually overtake the older one, with or without these nanobots. Not ever society is built on specific people trying to screw the people under them. Also, while it would be unfortunate if it gets to that point, a item like this will probably just end up being a big target of being stolen, if kept from everyone for too long. I don't believe in the doomsday scenario of technology like this never reaching the masses.

Those systems exist in politics, and even there, they're mostly symbolic. In business, the main reasons the top management swaps places is because someone gets too old (again: a factor that is about to be taken out) or the company gets involved in a scandal. The latter will still happen, but even there, they are more likely to be overtaken by a company with experienced competitors than by young ones.

If people lived longer, people will probably reproduce less often. Besides that, then it doesn't matter either way, if they can't solve overpopulation issue. This doomsday scenario will happen one way or another. So, why not let people enjoy living longer for the finite amount of time they have? Not as if the rich people are invincible, so they will eventually run out of resources too. If every basic need was fairly met for the "poor", I doubt most people would be fighting each other over nanobots or any thing really. The frustration would be targeted at the people who are purposely holding technology back. Not everyone wants to live longer anyway. If people basic needs wasn't met, nanobots would be the last thing that the people would be worrying about.

very good points. I admit I can't argue with that.

The world is already moving towards renewable resources and clean energy. Also, space mining is already being looked into.

Anyway, this doom scenario relies on humans running out of and the poor use of resources or room for people. In that case, it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not. If they do solve those issues,well, once again it doesn't matter if people are living longer or not.

This is somewhat true as well. To my idea, the push to clean and renewable isn't going fast enough, but I admit I don't know enough on the matter. Up until recently, I would've thought moving into space was a pipe dream. But just yesterday I read that Bezos (the richest guy in the world) seriously wants to push this. And...well, if someone like that goes that direction, that certainly makes a difference.

So...let's hope so.

 

[EmanueleBGN]

Why, why are you telling me the purpose of my existance? I dont belive that whst you said is true. I think that longer life is good. I dont think you can just tell people the purpose of their lives...
We can all think about ''why we shouldnt do that'' but if you see that its already happening then theres no point to talk about that imo, its like talking about if we should make an AI while google and friends are making (or made) one already.

Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
Look how many old people have the senile dementia 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.

 

[Deleted User]

Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
Look how many old people have the senile dementia 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.

K, if thats what you think...
I make things because a. I enjoy it, b. I wanna know more and c. I wanna help humankind. I dont see death in this list. It might be subconscious but I dont see how it would change anything here. You say suicide. While I dont think its the right choice, when people say that suicide will rise when bio immortality will be introduced- I could say that it is an option for people who dont want to live longer and it can somewhat help with overpopulation. Suicide isnt the no.1 reason why ppl die, cancer is. If you say we should adress suicide I say we should adress cancer (or any other biological crap) first.

Edit (pressed submit by accident)-
Nihilism is a false philosophy- whats false about it? Does it have any inherent falsehoods? You cant just say that some school of thought is ''false''- nobody believes it because they are forced to, people find some of the core ideas to be true and continue to think like that later... you dont have to think like that but like anything in philosophy there's nothing wrong with it and some find it apealing because it represents what they think about life. Sorry for drifting far away from the main subject...

What you say sounds very religious to me. I myself am not religious because to me, a religion is just a bunch of people with some holy texts who try to give others a meaning for life, based on what they think to be true. Thats cool and all but even tho religious people might be happier (I think I read a study somewhere), not everybody who knows this fact is religious because for some living by the ideals that they dont agree with is worse then sadness. In other words, giving a false meaning to life (false here means something you dont agree with) is wrong, and wont help anybody.

About high quality etc- yes , money and power etc doesnt necessarily mean happiness, and while thats true, I think living in a non-poor society, where food isnt a problem, is better then the opposite.

About ''senile elders live longer then they should''- who said how long you should live? If its nature then you should die at an age below 50. Its the nature that gave people dementia. Nature makes some of us short- sighted, deaf etc. We can, and sometimes we do, fix those mistakes. We understand that tho nature gave this to us- we should not accept it as a present but fix it as a problem. We should fix dementia as it is a problem, not an indicator about how long we should or shouldnt live. Who cares about how long you ''should'' live. We should be the masters, nature done some great stuff but we shouldnt accept it's limitations.

The fact you live longer doesnt have to change your behaviour. You can live like a normal person until you're 40, 50 or 70 (as you wish, a good life, exactly like now) and when you ''become bio immortal'' then who cares what changes, everything from now on is just a bonus. If this sci fi future is so close, we *are* living a normal life rn, without knowing if we'll become immortals or not...

Then again, if you find this life to be too long or living too long to be wrong, you can always suicide after a certain age. Nothing will stop you from dying if.you really wish that. If there will be a pill you drink to become immortal and you dont take it when you are about to die then how different that is from committing a suicide after you take the pill?

Not gonna stop anybody from not tsking the pill- after all, when it will be avaliable, resources wont be so abundant...

 

[KingVamp]

They could, but I doubt people would do it. I don't know the English word for "maagverkleining", but it comes down to an operation that diminishes the stomach. It's already possible, so why don't we do that on our children? Answer: because we don't believe we should push these things on healthy beings in the first place. And by the time we're old enough to make these decisions ourselves, we postpone it until we're actually obese.

I believe that's bariatric surgery, which is used when stopping obesity is already too late. Apparently, bariatric surgeries are used on child. That said, I'm sure there will be people that wouldn't take nanobots, just like how everyone isn't taking vaccines. Doesn't mean no one will.

It's of course a matter of belief, but I think food won't be healthier in general. There's simply too much profit in selling food that makes us fat. I mean...the best things we could eat (fruit, vegetables, water) are around for millennia. Why isn't that our most common meal?

Companies also make money off making people healthy too. That's why we have stuff like lab meat. If lab meat can taste as good, yet be healthier than regularly meat. People will eventually move to it.

In business, the main reasons the top management swaps places is because someone gets too old (again: a factor that is about to be taken out) or the company gets involved in a scandal. The latter will still happen, but even there, they are more likely to be overtaken by a company with experienced competitors than by young ones.

Not everyone wants to work at the same company or position, well, "forever". Not to mention, companies like to have "new blood" in the system for different ideas and POVs, not simply because other people are getting too old. I mean, this is true even now, yet young companies can still make it big and maybe even beat out some older companies. Kind of reminds me of how Netflix beat out BlockBuster.

Quantity is not quality. Nihilism is a false philosphy. So many people nowadays suicides even if they have a lot of things and a "high-quality way-of-life", but they feel empty because they cannot find a purpose, a meaning, for their lifes.
I haven't say "we shouldn't make our lifes longer", we can make it longer but giving meaning to it: to not living just for living - we aren't animals nor plants - but to have a purpose. One can die young but happy, another can die old but unhappy. It's the death that give a limit to our, that make us say: "I have to live, I have to do the thing I want, to love the people I want to love, because after that day I'll can no more".
Look how many old people have the senile dementia 'cause they live more than they have should; medicine should heal this diseases first, I think; the death isn't a pity.

Living for the sake of living, could very well be their purpose and people can find a purpose without the threat of death. People can also have a long life and be happy. Not dying and happiness is simply not mutually exclusive.

Senile dementia is the problem, not simply because they live too long. What's stopping people from both trying to cure diseases and stop aging?

 

[arra]

There was obviously lot of buzz about that mice longevity experiment when they gave them fullerene (deleted stuff) and they lived twice as long. I believe that you can build in nanomaterials in your body that are going to renew your cels and help you prolong your life. Only problem would be that to reach immortality you would probably have to wipe up your brain every now and then.

 

[dAVID_]

There was obviously lot of buzz about that mice longevity experiment when they gave them fullerene (deleted stuff) and they lived twice as long. I believe that you can build in nanomaterials in your body that are going to renew your cels and help you prolong your life. Only problem would be that to reach immortality you would probably have to wipe up your brain every now and then.

bump