Since yall insist on not giving a source in the description, I'll make my opinion based solely on your video.
86% is impressive... depending on the quality of his predictions. How specific were they? If they were like his predictions about being immortal, then they're not that specific. More like concepts that could be thought up by any writers.
Albeit we are getting closer and closer to curing major health problems. Last year they were able to reconnect the brain and the spinal cord with some impressive tech. This tech with the help of an external computer translated the brain signals allowing a paralyzed man (held up by a harness on a track) to move forward with his own two legs. Recently I heard of new progress with cancer research. Which is a disease that is as varied and complex as the common cold, so that it pretty big news.
tl;dr Unless he has specific implementations in mind, his predictions are nothing to gawk at. (Based on this video alone)
Edit: Apparently I'm blind to the right side of the page. My point about his prediction still stands though. Mostly because I was generic with it.
They have all of the source stuff in the link dump on the right hand side of the page
Sure, overpopulation won't even be an issue if nobody dies.... Here's the news: Death is the most natural occurrences of life. There is comfort in knowing that every single thing on earth has died for billions of years. If they could do it, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do it just fine too. No need to fear it, just make sure to enjoy your time while you are here in this state.
You don't need to have kids if you never die. Most people on the planet have kids because they are aging and need someone to take care of them. It's just a fact. There's really no reason to have kids, which is reflected in a lot of first-world countries with declining birthrates.
I haven't seen Gray since Fan Service podcast..... I miss those 3, Why does Rooster Teeth hate anime?!
I feel like taking the memories of dead people would be a serious violation of a basic right people have. Unless they say they want it in a will, don't do it.
All this would do is make it so you're bound to die a horrible death. Get hit by a car, be there when the sun goes nova, or even then, eventually your particles will drift apart into the infinity of space.
Besides, then retirement is pointless and nearly unattainable. If you plan to live forever, you have to work forever. Not to mention there will be deathmatch TV shows and life will slowly lose meaning, and Earth will become overpopulated.
But that's in a few decades once it gets cheap. For a while, only the ultra-rich will be able to afford it. Do you want billionaires and world leaders living forever while the poor continue to die? Do you want Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un to outlive you and everyone else in the world?
By all means, use nanobots to cure cancer, but I don't think the human race is ready for immortality.
Gus would have been the sexiest Frag Doll ever!! :'(
Immortality would be very interesting, but I wonder how it will conflict with the overpopulation problems. As well as how affordable and accessible it would be.
I don't think immortality necessarily means keeping people's bodies alive. Though anti-aging is interesting, I feel like it's ultimately futile since technology will continue to surpass our physical abilities until our body becomes essentially useless and cumbersome.
More likely, immortality would mean keeping your consciousness alive by uploading your brain into a computer or something. Eliminating your physical body would remove the need to eat or sleep or create waste/trash and you wouldn't even need personal land to inhabit, which would pretty much nullify any problems caused by overpopulation.
It will likely be expensive and highly regulated.
Kiraraneko pretty much described the plot of the Matrix before the pills came into play.
Can I not get Nano machines? I've seen what happens when someone gains control of them. Thank you Kojima for showing what could happen.
Personally, I don't want to be immortal. Just give me 100 years and I'll be happy.
Anyone else think of Kyle when they said nanomachines?
The problem with this and the fountain of youth articles in the dies bar is they address signs of ageing, weaker bones, gray hair ect. when the problem of dieing due to old age is more along the lines of every time your cells split your dna strands get slightly shorter. this creates a theoretical limit on how many times they can split and a maximum lifetime. while this would theroetically allow for a lifespan of several hundred years it is not immortality.
I wouldn't mind living for a few hundred years, as long as I don't end up looking like the Cryptkeeper's uglier brother by my second century.
Join the conversation! Log in to post a comment.