Living Forever: The Longevity Revolution

,    »  -   64 Comments

Living Forever: The Longevity RevolutionScientists from around the world are racing to answer one of humanity’s chief questions: can we turn back the human clock?

Hitch a ride on this controversial roller-coaster with charismatic gerontologist Michael Rose as he leads us to where the cutting-edge science in life extension is happening: biotechnology, genetic research, therapeutic cloning and stem-cell research – fields which have moved to the outer reaches of our wildest imagination.

In Living Forever we also meet the "believers" among us: the colorful characters who refuse to succumb to the grim reaper. And let’s not forget the specialists who predict whether their clients have what it takes to live past 100.

Watch the full documentary now

234
6.87
12345678910
Ratings: 6.87/10 from 15 users.
  • satir

    This is something useful to discuss I believe. (as opposed to dead-ends like religion and such)
    I challenge anyone to actualy think this through and then deny evolotion and the ideas in true chaos theory.

  • Jacob M

    This is a subject that interests me. Scientists say that computers will match the human brain within a few years so if what Aubrey DeGray proposes never happens, then we can just write programs to transfer our brain's energetic structure in to a computer.

  • http://www.krashbox.com HaTe_MaChInE

    @Jacob M - "Scientists say that computers will match the human brain within a few years so if what Aubrey DeGray proposes never happens, then we can just write programs to transfer our brain’s energetic structure in to a computer."

    I think by the time we figure out how to model a human brain and actually transfer it to a digital system we will be well beyond the stage of curing "aging". Im not a MD but from what im told the brain is way more complicated then any other biological system we need to survive. We will have mastered the other system before we have mastered the mind. So the question then would be do you want to be limited by your biology or just go all digital.

  • Sam

    Well Jacob, that wouldn't make us live forever. It would only be some kind of clone: Although that would be "you" in SOME sense, it wouldn't be anything like eternal life as such.

    To me, that's more comparable to the eternal life of a Pythagoras or Caesar. Those folks are not alive, but they're still around in some sense. Of course that doesn't matter to their true self anymore (assuming we don't postulate an afterlife)...

  • satir

    it is quite amazing to consider that it is very realistic that our generation may live productive lives along side our grandchildren and even great grandchildren. what a phenomenal shift in sociological and political thought would such a world mean?

  • D-K

    @Jacob/Satir/Sam

    It would mean we'd need to re-establish human laws, re-evaluate human morality and human social structures to accomodate.

    We'd have to rid ourselves of some redundant moral/social systems, obviously, but there will be conflict.

    There's several good docs on TDF that go at length on this particular subject, I refer you to "Visions of the Future" with Michio Kaku, which is a great series that touches on biotech and transhumanism well and "Technocalypse" which is a touch dramatical, but does focus in on the moral/social repercussions of the next evolutionary step in human progression. Cyborgs.

    Lastly, 1 that is also very recommendable is "Human v2.0" also with Michio Kaku and I believe Ray Kurzweil, both brilliant (if a little optimistic) minds discussing the subject at length.

    This happens to be my area of expertise as well, and I like discussion, so if any of you has any points to debate, lay 'em on me.

  • D-K

    ...to accomodate people with such radically different lifespans and anticipate on the implications.

    cut myself off mid-sentence there..

  • http://documentaryfilmsforfree.blogspot.com aditya

    well my concern is only that the availability of such technology, no matter how useful, is likely to be limited to the wealthy segments of the population... so we may have a world where rich ones can live to see their great-great grandchildren and poor ones can rarely see their grandchildren

  • D-K

    @Aditya:

    How is this cause for concern? Life has never been fair, and those with the resources OR resourcefullness, will aspire to something, those without it, are out of luck. Such is life.

    I have a feeling that life won't be any fairer down the line, I actually think cultural and biological differences will arise, and will lead to conflict. Such is apparant by the tenacity of discussion between transhumanists and fundamentalists/homo sapiens, and the arguments presented in such debates.

    No revolution is without casualty, it is simply the price of progress (with our current mentality/moral issues).

  • Collette

    I agree with Aditya, rich ones will conrole their future and those of the poor ones. End for the poor so that the rich can have some space. Because how can we otherwise imagine all this population. I mean people mostly naturally want to have their children and make families. There won't be space for foreverness if all will choose that. I don't want to live forever int hat kind of world.

  • http://documentaryfilmsforfree.blogspot.com aditya

    well, of course i have to be concerned because life is never perfectly fair, but there has to be some limits, and efforts to lessen the gap..
    in recent years there are many kinds of prohibitively expensive treatments for rare diseases, which has been made available to some poor people (albeit selectively), at least giving them some hope.
    if you are talking about things like education, the lack of resources can be complemented by one's resourcefulness (i.e. by self-studying, etc.), but in the case of health treatments, i don't see how resourcefulness could help much.

  • D-K

    @Aditya:

    What limits? Who will set these limits? Who will enforce these limits? I'm guessing you're a woman, you seem to reason emotionally.

    Come the next revolution (quantum revolution), logical reasoning will inevitably take control over emotional reasoning. The poor poor people will ceize to invoke pity and those without the means to help themselves, will fall. I'm all for this.

    Most of human kind is a dead-weight. Undeveloped nations that bog down progress for the rest, like the fat kid that has to be pushed for half the race. Sure, all the kids finish, but they could have done so far sooner if they'd have just left the fat kid.

    Everything we do, on an individual level, and on a nation-wide and even global level, is done, viewed and reviewed from an emotional frame of reference. This hampers progress and is illogical. our current morality system makes us fight against natural selection, and it is not bettering our species, it is creating more problems by pushing more fat kid across the finish line.

    We need helpful people, resourcefull or those with resources. The other lot is just a burden, and it serves no function to help them other than righteousness.

    Righteousness is irrational.

  • http://documentaryfilmsforfree.blogspot.com aditya

    @D-K
    well as with may research nowadays, government agencies does monitor them, so that at least no one is researching things like WMD to obliterate all of the undeveloped nations.
    just curious.. do u think then that research to cure rare diseases should be abandoned cos its a waste of money.. and we should pump it more into this kind of research?

    well if you're talking about the fat kid, edison was the 'fat kid' academically, and einstein didnt read until he was seven.

    of course many thing we do is influenced by emotion, even in national level. by your logic then, fastest way for a city government to minimize poverty = just bomb the slums without telling the people.. then make the area a golf course or something, only wealthier people left.
    you say about 'helpfulness'. what helpfulness?

    a guy here by the way

  • D-K

    "just curious.. do u think then that research to cure rare diseases should be abandoned cos its a waste of money.. and we should pump it more into this kind of research"

    With "this research" comes genetic manipulation, atomic manipulation and an infinitely bigger amount of knowledge concerning matter, thus anatomy. I'm saying society, as a collective, should redesign the entire social structure and with it morality, to fully realize the potential of the technology that will become available.

    A good example would be to recycle dead people and unborn fetuses, instead of burying/cremating them. Stem cell use is controversial only because of the emotional/moral/ethical aspect of it, while the benefits (logically) outweigh the consequences BY FAR. It improves the quality of life for the living, with what could and should be considered waste anyway.

    Bombing slums is an active process, I don't mean for this. I'd like to see a passive approach. To refrain from spending money on something that'll just always need money. Spend that money towards more helpful things for the collective that IS pulling his weight. Those that don't/can't/won't contribute should not be aided by the government. You either contribute to the collective or you die. If you serve no purpose, your existance has no purpose, ergo you have no purpose for existing.

    Things are now determined to be "right" or "righteous" by what is emotionally/morally/ethically justified, when it should be, what is logically justified.

    That's what I'm saying.

  • K.T

    I believe the day we will be able to be clinically immortal religions will vanish. Why would people follow Gods and the like if they don't need to pay their ticket to an afterlife anymore?
    Lets hope people will decide to be moraly correct without the fear of hell and such :p

  • K.T

    By the way D-K who will decide what is moraly correct and which people aren't "usefull"? Sounds dangerous to me since no man should be given such power.

  • D-K

    Dead people and fetuses don't tend to be very useful, except when recycled/used for stem cells.

    Who decides what is "right" now? The law coupled with societal morality. Such will be the same in the future, we'd do well to reshape morality as a species, favouring logic over irrationality. This is because I too think what you think; come quantum revolution, all religion will be obsolete. I have made and substantiated this very statement a few comments up.

  • D-K

    Note that I also expressed an hypothesis concerning conflict between fundamentalists and trans-humanists, this will be the direct result of moral conflict.

  • K.T

    Well it was actually what you said above that made me ask. I did keep in mind the "fat kid" example was perhaps just alegoric, but a fat person can be very productive to society in other ways than physical exertion.
    In my opinion how useful a human is is not a fixed matter. Humans can learn and change even in great age. Also I believe if those people that seem like dead weight had a bit more positive attention as youngsters and better education (plus all the basic needs covered) they'd rather choose becomming artists and scientists than criminals or beings that do not affect the world one way or another greatly.
    Living very long will give people even more time to become better, it should not be a prize for the few that were lucky or wise enough to be good citizens of the world.
    I do have some ideas how that could be possible without conflicts, but am afraid I'd be misunderstood if I just openly typed them out here.

  • K.T

    By the way Aditya I can't agree with the way you look at Medicine.
    I study Veterinary medicine and even thought I learn about the health of animals and not humans it gives a very good general view of how things work with health.
    Medicine in our time is backward still. To fight a disease AFTER it occured is medieval thinking. To prevent disease all in all is the future. With Gene therapy, with the correct and long analysis of the true needs of the healthy humans body, with a Universal system of antibody gathering and sharing... and many many things. But even without those you can keep yourself healthy (without doctors and insurance) the same way you can keep yourself educated.
    It is simple but not easy and like all things on earth certainly not a perfect solution, but just going to doctors whenever you are in pain is a wrong attitude towards health and longevity.

  • D-K

    Alegoric indeed, could just as well have been a skinny kid in a weelchair.

    "Humans can learn and change even in great age. Also I believe if those people that seem like dead weight had a bit more positive attention as youngsters and better education (plus all the basic needs covered) they’d rather choose becomming artists and scientists than criminals or beings that do not affect the world one way or another greatly.
    Living very long will give people even more time to become better"

    I think you mistake my intent. But I have a sneaking suspicion that typing it out might cause a s**tstorm so let's leave it at this.

  • Sam

    I don't think moral contradicts logic at all (of course, religion on the other hand does and I can't understand its existence in the "developed" world at all - but religion's very (very very) different from morality and ethics).

    The fat kid is of course a ethical/philosophical question which also includes the question: "What is human existence (as a collective) about, what do we want it to be? What's the goal, so to speak?"

    The answer is not necessarily / a priori technological progress and/or a better understanding of nature and the cosmos.

    As there seems to be no point to our existence, I personally concluded that I should devote my life to the most (or rather only) interesting thing - which is science. Living according to the "kategorischer Imperativ" (categorical imperative ??) seems most rational to me.

    So I conclude: Rational thinking should be viewed as the best way to look at and into the world and make decisions; but you shouldn't be fooled, just because you don't understand ethics does not mean there is no value to it and that it has some beneficial effects... Evolution has successfully done its thing for quite a while now, you know.

  • Sam

    These were just some random thoughts on the matter.

    And reading them again, I seem to be jumping from one thought to the next and there seems to be little to no correlation between them...

    Oops. I guess, there were just too many thoughts going through my head. =)

  • D-K

    I don't even know who you're replying to in that post, I certainly never said that morality contradicts logic.

    It's quite unclear indeed.

  • mr savage

    there are already way too many people on earth, we really don't need to be living longer.
    instead why don't we let people do what they want during their natural lives and be content with 50/60 years of living to the max?
    personaly i'd rather have experienced freedom for 30 years than an estimated 80 years of persicution and slavery.
    live fast die young!

  • satir

    what intruiges me is that as the average life-span increases, and indeed it already is; the average number of years that a person will be an active contributor to society is going to lengthen (i.e. it's not going to change the length of time it takes to educate a person to get to the point that they are a contrubution to society etc.) giving us an unprecedentedly multi generational workforce.

  • Sam

    O.k. 2nd attempt. This time not at 2 in the morning.
    @D-K
    "Those that don’t/CAN'T/won’t contribute should not be aided by the government. You either contribute to the collective or you die."

    You seem to be living in the USA, because since NAZI-Germany Europe at least has learnt some things. How can you propose eugenics? You must realize what has happened half a century ago... (Maybe you don't think that was bad?!)

    But also not taking history into account: This position really seems ridiculous.
    First of all: How do you even define "usefulness". I doubt you have a good definition.

    "If you serve no purpose, your existance has no purpose, ergo you have no purpose for existing."

    What purpose does anyone serve? There is no a priori value to existence. So are YOU to decide who serves a purpose and who doesn't? Or who else is to decide?

    You don't seem to have thought your position through.

    A standard question: "What if you were living in misery and needed help? Would your position on the issue be the same?"

  • K.T

    In the future it will be a sin and frowned upon, I believe, NOT to check your baby's genes before it is born, Sam.
    When we will have discovered all genetic sequenses that objectively make a healthier, stronger and perhaps even smarter person it will be moraly wrong to just leave it to chance so your kid will have diseases we could have fixed with a simple visit to a doctor. Of course there should be laws to keep this in check and for the true benefit of the human kind. No room for stupid racism and odd fancies.

    Mr Savage did it occur to you that when people live longer/ forever they will simply not reproduce as much? You already see that in developed countries humans make 1-2 children generaly and not those 8-10 you see in underdeveloped countries. Childbirth was our only way for survival untill now, when it won't be such anymore humans will not have so many kids. Imagine a future human "Oh I'm just a hundred, so many things to do and see. I can have kids in a few centuries." :p

  • D-K

    @Sam: I'm from Europe, more specifically, a country next to germany. While the source of the negative connotations concerning eugenics are fresh in memory, eugenics itself has nothing to do with the nazi philosophy. That is to say, there are different variations/adaptations of the eugenics philosophy.

    Do not equate me to a nazi, or you will grossly misenterpret my vision. Usefulness can derive from the amount that a person contributes to his community/society in both material quantities as immaterial quantities. A nice little graspable example would to say that all welfare stops. A life holds no more meaning than that which it contributes to the whole, and as it contributes nothing, it has no value (to the whole).

    If one wishes not to contribute (you'd have every right) than one is to be excluded from any advantages one enjoys within a society. The current system allows it to be exploited by immoral people, that cruise through life on the backs of others.

    What purpose does anybody serve?

    A bus driver transports people to either work, or social destinations. He contributes.

    A teacher passes on knowledge to the new generation, ensuring intellectual capabilities for future issues within the generation he teaches. He contributes.

    Unemployed guy laying on the couch, living off of welfare, laughing as the new envelope with his free money arrives. He does not contribute. We'd be better off spending those resources on our educational system, that sorta thing. He is then forced to either get a job and contribute, or die.

    I'd personally rather have that person dead, opening up resources to those that are useful and those that do contribute. I never said that I am the one to decide, I've said multiple times that we should re-evaluate and re-establish morality, to better fit our progressional path. Morality is established through human culture/religion/upbringing, it is a collective concept.

    You're last question leaves too much to the imagination. What misery? Give me a scenario.

    I'm also not saying we don't help those that need it, I'm saying we should re-revaluate which need has priority to decide where we distribute our help.

  • satir

    @D-K
    the beauty is that if you're unemployed and lazy and thereby $less you're reducing your life span on your own through a variety of factors. It all circles back to natural selection.

  • satir

    also, as people live longer productive types will also have more free time to put into the social or philanthropic cause of their choice during their longer, more finacialy and health stable lives.

  • D-K

    @Satir:

    Considered that, yes. With one major exception, it is considered moral for us to aid another man in his time of need. Motivation and other crucial variables are always omitted from the equation though. Example at the bottom.

    Once you let go of your societal/moral frame of reference, and you judge objectively, our current state is full of contradictions and logical fallacies. Outdated notions of ethics and morals hamper progress and bog down research.

    The majority of rules/laws we sustain in the form of morality are based on religious persuasion and emotional reasoning. Both are clearly not in the our best interest when factoring in progress, co-existance and sustainable society. NOTHING is more than the sum of it's parts.

    Example:

    A middle-ages homeless man is drowning, you're a fit 20-something seeing it happen, among other people. A mental conflict ensues; morality and emotion v.s reason and logic

    Moral: You jump in to save the man, he is a fellow human being in need, and you'd want someone to save you if you were drowning. You jump in, save the man, and are crowned a hero. You did the "right" thing..

    Logical: You consider the variables; “Should I save him” “What if I drown” “What if I get sick from the cold” “What if mouth-to-mouth ends up in me catching one of his diseases” “What if someone steals my phone and wallet while I’m saving this jerk who had the nerve to skip on swimming lessons as a child”

    Basically, your instinct/logic tells you to let the idiot drown, or to let someone else be a hero, it is morality that leads to you making the illogical decision to save him. This could result in the “hero” having to live with any of the consequences he considered, let’s say that he caught herpes in this example. Horrible, horrible face AND genital herpes (oh yes, piling it on) which results in that our poor hero must face the fact that it'll be less likely for him to find a suitable mate to pass on his otherwise fine genes. This is an example out of 1000s of other (better) examples that illustrate how morality adversely effects human progression. The strong saving the weak is the actual opposite of natural selection, it is illogical, it is quite frankly, insane.

    Morality is a perpetual kick in the shins of logic, if we're to becoming increasingly logical creatures, factoring in the coming technological advancement, we should reshape morality to fit in modern day society. Religious morality has served it's purpose, it's time to let it die honorably.

  • D-K

    my comment is awaiting moderation, it's a doozy. :D

  • K.T

    Heh don't forget that people can be unemployed against their will, uneducated because they had to work like animals since they were children, Criminals because working and being honest is selfdestructing in their society.
    An example on this is my uncle, he is educated, a fairly nice person, has a family of three and he is unemployed. It is not his choice though. Nobody wants a man that is half deaf and in his mid fourties when there are young and healthy male workers waiting in the line with fresher degrees.
    On the other side there are these people everyone considers important to the society that have allowed mass murders.
    Like Ayn Rand pointed out, first the unit must be helped to grow and come to a stage where it is self sufficient and self loving and then you work on a society that cooperates.
    Working on the society by cutting away what one finds lacking is immediately opposing to the desired result of a good and cooperating society.
    Sorry if this was not very clear, though I try my best english is really just my third language.

  • Jason

    I don't know why people are so scared of death, its a natural part of life. Could you imagine Immortality, the population would only go up, its bad enough as it is now with a little over 6 billion.

  • K.T

    @ Jason
    As stated above people would just not reproduce as much anymore if they'd live longer. There would be laws against it most probably also, like the Chinese have today

  • MD

    I wish more people would think like D-K. You seem to be very intelligent and I have thoroughly enjoyed your answers and point of view. BUT back to this documentary, very, very interesting but a little boring, guess I like a little flare in the docs I watch.

  • Mike

    Living forever is always appealing to everyone. But, as the law of physics state, nothing lasts forever. Transferring our thoughts to a high-tech computer database? Eventually the materials used to build it will deteriorate.Reorganizing our DNA to be able to rebuild and modify future generations to live longer is possible.Prolonging our lives is also possible, but we do alot of things that are unnatural;meat all the time,air pollutants,etc.We would need to clone, transfer organs, and utilize biotechs (like the guy who could move a prosthetic metal arm w/ thoughts), or utilize stems cells effectively.

  • Creatio-whaa!?

    @D-K

    "The strong saving the weak is the actual opposite of natural selection, it is illogical, it is quite frankly, insane.
    Morality is a perpetual kick in the shins of logic, if we’re to becoming increasingly logical creatures, factoring in the coming technological advancement, we should reshape morality to fit in modern day society."

    Who are you, some cold, heartless version of Mr. Spock? Logic is useful and in most cases I admit that I strongly prefer it to emotional thinking. But there is a distinction between logical and emotional thinking versus selfishness and empathy. It is possible for individuals and our social structures and morality to become more rational in general while still maintaining human empathy.

    Always beware of people who claim they know what the definition of "better" and "best" is, and always beware of people who claim to offer an absolute, one-size-fits-all version of a "better tomorrow". Be especially wary when those visions coldly write off entire groups and classes of people with the wave of a hand and no second thought simply because you believe that YOUR generalization of them is absolute truth.

    Lets return to your drowning man scenario, but pretend that this time there is no gathered crowd. You are walking alone along a lake and spot a homeless man drowning. What do you do?

    If your answer is "nothing" (as your comments seem to indicate) then I have no interest in your vision of tomorrow. If your idea of a "better" humanity includes coldly turning away from that man or watching him die as you stand by, then you are, in my eyes, a monster. Should such a future become a possibility I would gladly fight to prevent it.

  • D-K

    @creatiowhaa:

    I do not claim that empathy should be done away with entirely, it should be employed more appropriately. It is illogical for me to save a man who might possibly be dying already, while all the variables (tip of the iceberg in example) affect me negatively.

    A drowning child I'll save, for instance. I understand my view kicks the shins of your empathic socialist party but I do not expect the entirety (or even the majority) of society to understand my view on a fundamental level. That little comment I just typed out highlights a simple scenario, which is just that.. a tiny little scenario to illustrate logic over emotion.

    Just because what you were taught makes you feel righteous when imagining what you'd do, does not make me a monster for feeling differently.

  • mike4ty4

    @Mike: Yep. Nothing lasts forever. Not in this universe, anyways. That entropy's a bitch, ain't it? Entropy. The computer doesn't even need to just deterioriate, a cosmic ray blast, e/m storm, or even just a good old fashioned hurricane or other Earthbound disaster could blow it away.

    @Jason: I'm not so much afraid of death, as of debilitating disease. Also, more lifetime could be used to do more positive things as well. There's only so much possible in a life of the length we have now.

    @D-K: And you can't know that said unemployed person was unemployed just because they're lazy. I know how WRONG such a judgment would be to make from experience with my own family. Your view is sickening and I hope it (not you!) dies. Unless you have a method by which to read in detail the exact intentions, issues, etc. that have led to someone being unemployed, your system is just wrong.

    And as for the guy getting diseases, etc. in a lot of cases that doesn't happen, and if it does, so what? That's altruism for 'ya. Other before self.

    Natural selection is only about whatever maximizes survival and most importantly reproduction. If being a lazy bum or a wimp somehow maximized reproduction, natural selection would let it happen. Indeed, at least in one sense, natural selection *did* select for "wimps" at least at some point during our evolution since we're wimpier than our primate ancestors (chimps, though a relative and not an ancestor, are like 2x or more stronger pound-for-pound in terms of muscle power than us, and our distant ancestors were likely similarly capable.). Not sure exactly why, but it happened (I think it had something to do with exchanging brawn for brains, with the loss of muscle opening up brain gain, and brain apparently trumped brawn in the evolutionary game.). Whatever the reason, it must have had a reproductive advantage. In your case about rescuing, the contraction of disease doesn't happen often or severely enough to push it out of the gene pool.

  • D-K

    @mike4ty4:

    I'm going to assume you meant "homeless" when you said "unemployed". I felt the adjective would make it feasible to assume such a person has a hightened risk of contracting various deseases, as his situation would have him residing in unsanitary conditions.

    Someone's reasons/intentions for being homeless are completely irrelevant, I don't know why you bring it up.

    Altruism is illogical, and extremely, EXTREMELY rare. True altruism, to be truly selfless, is to be irrational. Irrationality and everyday life are a dangerous mix.

    "Natural selection is only about whatever maximizes survival" Indeed. In which scenario do I have a better chance of surviving? diving in water, potentially injuring myself, possible contracting one or various diseases from some homeless man, or just not risking bodily harm?

    "Other before self" is about as counter-productive as it gets and it's the biggest contra to "whatever maximizes survival"

    I don't see what your last paragraph refers too and I dismiss it as irrelevant and nonsensical.

    I'm sorry, but your arguments are flawed at best.

  • Creatio-whaa!?

    @D-K

    First of all, I am most absolutely NOT a socialist, nor am I a "liberal" or "progressive" or whatever else you might try to label me. Your mischaracterization is so far from the truth as to be humorous.

    Secondly:

    "Just because what you were taught makes you feel righteous when imagining what you’d do, does not make me a monster for feeling differently."

    So, your opinions are the sole product of careful logic, reason, and dispassionate analysis, but I'm simply parroting what I've been trained to believe? Hmm. And you don't get a warm glow of self-righteousness posting YOUR comprehensive "truth" for humanity over and over on an obscure comment board? Of course not, your internal need to share your "truth" with the world is only "logical".

    Thirdly:

    I will reiterate what I stated previously, that I am a huge proponent of skepticism, empiricism, logic, reason, and clear thinking in general. However, even I recognize that logic is not an infallible master. Logic is simply a methodical, causal mode of thinking. Logic is always based upon presuppositions that cannot themselves be reduced further through logic. This is particularly important when attempting to apply logic to human affairs.

    Depending on the personal foundation one builds their logical thinking upon, the resulting views of the world can be radically different from person to person. There are an infinite number of equally valid "logical" views of the world. Logic does not inherently have anything to do with truth or correctness, simply with the valid cause-effect mode of organizing thoughts and observations. In the terminology of strictly logical analysis, arguments are never considered "true" or "false" they are either "valid" or "invalid." That is, the cause-effect chain of reasoning is unbroken. "True" and "valid" are NOT synonymous. One is an evaluation of the reflection of an external truth, the other is the evaluation of the internal consistency of an abstraction.

    It is also very easy to abuse logic, because it absolves you of personal responsibility for your beliefs and actions ("I have no choice... this is the only logical thing for me to do..."). Furthermore, using logic as the sole guide to morality always leads to absurd conclusions. For Hitler, the arrival at the decision for genocide was perfectly logical in his own mind. For Nixon, his misuse of presidential power. To Marx, the ubiquity of class conflict was logical, and for Rousseau the primacy of individual liberty. All of these men thought logically, but their conclusions and view of the world were light-years apart from one another.

    We can even see how illogical and irrational your example of "logical" morality is, once we shift the moral presuppositions a bit:

    "It is illogical for me to save a man who might possibly be dying already, while all the variables (tip of the iceberg in example) affect me negatively... A drowning child I’ll save, for instance."

    What is the difference between the old and young person in your mind? Logically, the child will eventually grow just as old and feeble as the man in the lake, and eventually both will die anyways. Why bother to save either one? In fact, if motivated solely by logical self-interest, it would be only logical to wait for the man to drown, then haul his body to shore so you can go through his wallet.

    "Just because what you were taught makes you feel righteous when imagining what you’d do, does not make me a monster for feeling differently."

    If you would honestly stand by and watch a man drown without moving to help him, and without feeling any pity or emotion whatsoever, and you hold this total absence of feeling as a moral virtue, then you are indeed a monster in my view.

    Logic is merely a tool, a means to an end. It is not the end in itself.

  • Olu

    If we live for 250+years, how do we ration the world resources to sustain the population explosion that will be a direct result? The critical mass of this planet, I believe is said to have been reached a long time ago. I can see wars, genocides on the horizon at a scale never before seen, just for thinning the population. What that is telling me is that the rich will exploit the poor to ensure their own longevity into infinitum.
    If anyone has a better understanding of the political, environmental, economic and social ramifications of living into the 100s, please tell me.

  • Scorpyan

    It does not really seem like a logical choice for a human to not save a fellow man. Void any emotional decision making, let me explain. Humans have survived as a species by their ability to learn, and to work together in groups. In a primitive society, the man drowning could be one of the hunters for the tribe, if he dies, means less food to eat. In our society today, it could be Charles Babbage, or Louis Pasteu in the lake drowning. Logic says, "I don't know who is in that lake, but they might be detrimental to my survival." Making the decision to save someone on a emotional level, would involve more on the level of, "I hate to see that person in fear or suffer, I must save them." The problem with logic, is you can really spin it the outcome either way to fit your agenda.

    Human survival is dependent on others of our species working together, therefore it is logical to save someone. If we had let many brilliant minds in history drown in a lake, that surely would have halted progression and technology. Human collectives are all around us, and just because someone does not wish to contribute to it as a whole, does not mean they will die, or become useless. They just might not agree with the collective, as you see this much in the world today; many of these people go on to thrive, many of them form their own collective groups and survive just fine outside mainstream society.

    On a lighter note, after reading the give to the collective or die scenario, it reminded me of, "we the Borg...". I really can't get that out of my head now...

  • http://weebtutorials.com/ John

    interesting stuff. cheers.

  • DeathSSghosT

    well i think that if your under 30, you will see this tech pan out and will be able to live 5 or 600. all you gotta do is stay alive. i wonder what would happen with governments and society. if we have nano-tech for our health, then you have machines that run off quantum computers, that means the nano bot can mess around with atoms. and if you can do that then there would be no need to work to produce anything or have wars over resources.

    every person on the planet will have everything they could ever need from nano-tech. some way up on the boards was worried that only the super rich would have access to the technology, technology always gets cheaper with age.

    i like hearing about wher technology is because i seem to always have near death experiences like crashing bikes without a helmet or shooting up too much drugs, ODing and getting brought back or i just got luck and i did.0001 less than my body could take. so yeah, i should be dead. so i think unless some freak accident kills me, ill be around.

  • pablo

    @ aditya

    I think what you said is correct but to a certain degree. People with wealth and financial means will benefit from this technology FIRST. Eventually prices will go down specially if there is competition among companies. In the past only wealthy people could afford cars, computers, phones, etc. Now you can buy a phone for 10 dollars that was worth hundreds a few years ago. Technology and advances will keep getting cheaper and cheaper, eventually everyone will have access to technologies like this, unless of course the government decides to take control of it.

  • alex

    we r all going to die so face it. death is here forever. is a fact of life and is necessary process for life. what more can you do if you live to 200 or whatever? and so what if you will?
    its pathetic. only rich people want to live forever. keep their damn money forever. but thats not real wealth. they all tend to think that they can controll life, nature.
    wormgods.
    splash squeek and gone
    bye

    death is the beginning of all philosophical thinking and art.

  • Cyberbard

    Eternal life is a terrible idea in every sense of the word. Over-population is choking the planet as it is, and these guys want us to live even longer? When does it end?

    I could only see one good thing with eternal life and that would be if there were a select few geniuses that were kept alive forever, to preserve witnesses of the different centuries we go through and the cultures that will slowly degenerate.

  • wpsmithjr

    This is all fine and dandy if your a member of the Builderbergs and the New World Order. The elites will live forever, and us serfs will die off early...or maybe they'll just let us live longer...it might be more efficient to have us as their slave for a longer period of time.

    Either way, the population would be out of control if people lived to be 200. So who's going to determine who lives and who dies? Not the poor people, I assure you.

  • wpsmithjr

    And as far as the whole government welfare issue goes... welfare creates more poverty, it does not eliminate it. It gets people dependent on the system and robs the productive person. This results in a lower standard of living as a whole. (Especially if you have a corrupt gov administering the system.)

  • wpsmithjr

    As for the saving your fellow man if they are drowning... that comes from EMPATHY. You would not want to drown yourself, so you try and save them. At least that's what most of us would do if in that position.

  • nobullshitplz

    f****** right on man it feels good to hear something else than the politically correct socialism diahrea i hear all the time. Check out William Cooper if youre american and want to save your country. Good day and God bless you.

  • nobullshitplz

    One more attempt of these luciferians who believe the promise of satan that men can become Gods. Pure BS. Man will never live forever and the research is futile.

  • Kronag

    no mate, your blind faith is even more ludacris than the points put across in this!

  • Robert159

    if we are made in gods image , well then we are gods in the making?

  • nobullshitplz

    Let me know when man creates a universe... are you serious ????
    One part can never equal the whole, just common sense. Use your grey matter and you will come to these simple conclusions, man will never be God.

  • Placeboaddict

    Religious people are like stubborn children, in denial regarding the hard truth about Santa.

    Take the red pill.

  • devlinwaugh

    SUPERNAN!!! bless her,107 how fantastic for her family nevermind the incredible genetics they inherited.

  • fender24

    Death is just a new beginning. I'ts not that bad i think :D. even if we could live forever our universe won't, so what is the purpose in the end?

  • laurens schout

    These people who are so vigorously searching for a longer and healthier life, don't seem to realize that stress plays a major role in aging.

  • tostrivetoseek

    Were the clips of him paddleboarding on the water supposed to evoke Charon on the river Styx? Because that's what I got out of it. And I for one would love to live for hundreds, thousands of years. I would travel to every inch of the globe, read and learn everything I could, and have as many experiences as possible. I think this is feasible if we also re-orchestrate our current societal framework to live in a sustainable ecoconscious way. And yes all the means and technology are there to do that. The powers that be are just intent on keeping the status quo and the dollars flowing.

  • Tony Louderbough

    Our food supply is too depleted and environment is too toxic our bodies don't cope well with it. When we use technology responsibly, and for the good of all, we can begin the many thousands of years journey to healing the earth and living in harmony with it. Then we can live healthy enough to last a thousand years.