We'll be immortal in 20 years, says Kurzweil
I want to live forever. I want to learn how to fly. High. I feel it coming together.
And, thankfully, so does celebrated large brain and, who knows, maybe "Kids from Fame" aficionado Ray Kurzweil.
In an article reported by the Telegraph, Kurzweil says that our technological and genetic know-how is marching at such a furious pace that in 20 years' time we should be holding in our sweaty, excitable hands the nanotechnological secrets of our existence.
This charmingly optimistic view is but another string hanging from the nano-forecasting bow he's been wearing for years, along with his rather singular vision of the way men and machines will cohabit happily ever after.
Extraordinary nanotechnological secrets should allow us, according to Kurzweil, to replace our kidneys, livers, hearts and, hey, what about minds, with functioning vital organs made by human hands.
Kurzweil's contemplations, first published in The Sun, offer us these vast nuggets of hope: "I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogram our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, aging. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever."
Yes, you can be 28 again. You can drink yourself stupid and let those nano-nano folks just slip you a new liver. You can have sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and still be able to perform Whitney Houston karaoke better than Whitney herself can these days.
"If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go," said Kurzweil. "Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram-like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening."
One can only hope those hologram-like figures don't resemble the chaps from Google too closely.
And I am not entirely sure I am persuaded by the concept of virtual sex. Perhaps worse would be the concept of some Googleperson-like hologram talking one through virtual sex. And whispering to one after it.
Still, Kurzweil's passionate certainty offers us all hope for a very different future from the one we might have imagined.
I can't wait. No, really. I can't.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
It appears you want to live forever. Would you like me to help you get started?
Now what was that bit about free hookers on the internet?
Everyone else who is on public option will get the "2nd Tier" offering; Rogaine, Metamucil, a membership at the Y, and dentures.
1) step outside your home tonight, making sure your outside lights are off before you do. driveway/parking lot is a good place to stand.
2) let your eyes adjust to the darkness.
3) tilt your head back and look up.
People who live forever aren't going to give up sex, meaning it's going to get awfully crowded on Earth with very resource-hungry folks real soon - far more so than it is already.
Or we can all live on a big spaceship as depicted in the movie Wall-E.
My response: To be able to even handle the thought of living forever you have to be what you say "a little out there" and yet still have enough determination to tell the rest of the human population that it is possible. I bet that the ones who actually believe it is possible are the ones with the highest potential to outlive the ones who do not believe it. Maybe in part it has to do with our thoughts creating our destiny. Once "you" observe the fact that what you have been told is "your" truth, then you become to some degree "Un-Aware" of other possible outcomes.
So do you really want to live forever? A stranger in the world all alone? Unless you make friends with the other immortals, of course, don't get in an accident, still could die.
Seems like all history men have been trying to find a way to live forever, fountains of youth, religion (promise of eternal life) horrible things like eating an enemies heart, you name it. You can live forever in a way that's better than physically standing around for 1,000 years. Live forever through your actions. Why do we all still know of Alexander the Great, Plato, Isaac Newton, Napoleon? Because of what they did when they lived, not how long they lived.
But this guy is talking about nano technology running through the entire body.
An why I am sure they will have there limitations, I am also sure these nano bots will actually have the capabilities to heal even the worst injuries immaginable. Short of chopping someone head of, even then it may be possible to reattach it as long as it done soon enough, it could be very very hard to kill someone.
Customer: Nah, its fine. That's all I could afford for now.
Seller: Are you sure, it is only a $30 dollar upgrade? It will make your body much more lighter.
More to come...
Firstly, I'd like to remind all present that back in the 60s we were supposed to be living on the moon by now, and that in the 70s we were all promised our own personal flying cars, and robot butlers. But that as late as the 90 nobody predicted the existence of the iPhone blu-ray or the return of 3D Specs.
I'd also like to point out that the article would probably be better titled "The rich and powerful will be immortal in 20 time, while 2/3 of the world's population still fights over access to clean water and energy reserves".
If tech like that is going to exist it certainly won't be accessible to the average man on the street. It will be expensive and exclusive. People will live to 200 in Beverly Hills, but still be dying of preventable water-borne diseases at 20 in sub Saharan Africa.
The truth is that every real mutation studied has no positive effect, and trying to create mutations to bring about immortality will simply bring death more swiftly. Our genetic structure is deteriorating and cannot be improved upon without injection of a perfect specimen that is impervious to death.
Receive what has been given and strive no more for what you cannot accomplish.
Perhaps you ought to evaluate your own rudeness in being so intolerant. One of the big downsides of this nanotechnology is that he anti-religious bigots will continue be here too.
harpazoD obviously expressed a belief that you don't share, but he or she did so in a way that was not confrontational, insulting, or vulgar. Your post, on the other hand, was ALL of these things.
Also, you speak of "enlightened humans," so tell me: how "enlightened" is someone who mocks and derides another's belief structure with no solid proof to the contrary? (Put differently, when did religious intolerance become a badge of an enlightenment?)
Cut off the top paragraph and you almost fix the post.
You can judge how badly a post was written by the number of off-topic replies it creates.
Since many world religions address the topic of immortality and its nature, why should his or her expression of one faith's tenets be considered irrelevant? What's more, his/her statement of religious faith wasn't nearly as obnoxious as the rabidly anti-religious who pour their hateful bile into conversations like this.
Web culture's double standard ? religious speech ("stupid, worthy of any insult") vs. atheist dogma ("thoughtful, rational, intelligent") ? is immature at best, and dangerous if carried into the real world.
Please note that I hold the same opinion of nasty, angry, intolerant religious zealots as well. However, despite fashionable prejudice, the vast majority of religious people do not match that description.
Seriously though, this is not going to happen.
Tuck Everlasting. Read this book before you drink from that spring.
As far as the asserted ecological disaster of generally available human immortality, I'd like to remind everyone that humans aren't just units of consumption, destruction, and elimination. Humans also bring creativity, talent, and a capacity for work to the table. If we have more people who live longer and remain vigorous their entire lives, we will find ways of providing for them all, so long as we don't get preoccupied with war and bloodsports as surrogates for war. As hinted by others above, increased crowding on Earth (and, contrary to what living in crowded cities might lead you to believe, we have a long way to go before we occupy all of the vast remaining open space on this planet) could also be the motivation for our true, sustained expansion into the universe, whether to obtain new resources or establish human colonies elsewhere.
"Our knowledge appears to be increasing exponentially today, but will even that rate of change, if sustainable, be sufficient to lead to the breakthroughs necessary for effective immortality within two decades? I'd like to think "yes," but practical experience argues otherwise. Something is very likely to come along to slow the pace, send us in a different direction, or otherwise render the goal unattainable (at least, in the short term) or even irrelevant."
I'll go with the 'irrelevant' option because it doesn't need 'rendering unattainable' as it is a category error. Even if the technology existed, the goal (of Kurzweil and others) is not possible. He is resting on a purely materialistic presupposition, and relying on an analogy of a computer a bit too closely to a human. He needs to take a look at the progress (or lack of) in the AI field some day.... or maybe study a bit more philosophy. The human isn't that simple. If we were that simple, then we're not really having a conversation here in this forum. Our thoughts aren't real, and we're simply chemical interactions which happened to result in some black and white pixels assuming some rather oddly organized patterns.
I've seen your opinions expressed elsewhere. In fact, it's quite fashionable to be a doomsayer these days. It makes one appear so hip and enlightened to bemoan the stupidity and short-sightedness of the rest of humanity, reserving, I suppose, all wisdom for yourself and your like-thinking inner circle.
Happily, time is likely to render "ecocalypse chic" ridiculous in hindsight ? as it does to most fashionable things.
Humans are capable of violence and irresponsibility, certainly, but we are also capable of great leaps of innovation and adaptability ? not to mention great kindness. When we exercise our drive to create actual solutions (rather than rely on our governments or the U.N. to mandate nebulous, untenable "mandates" and "protocols"), we progress rather than stagnate.
We're quite capable of saving ourselves ... we just won't be saved by those who believe we're already doomed.
- by molgor September 23, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
- As a society, we're too young and too stupid to live forever...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (84 Comments)