Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Still alive in 3000


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

Poll: Still alive in 3000 (52 member(s) have cast votes)

Which decade born will the oldest people to live to 3000 be?

  1. Voted 1940s or before (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  2. 1950s (3 votes [5.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.77%

  3. 1960s (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  4. 1970s (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  5. 1980s (10 votes [19.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.23%

  6. 1990s (5 votes [9.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.62%

  7. 2000s (3 votes [5.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.77%

  8. 2010s (2 votes [3.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.85%

  9. 2020s or later (11 votes [21.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
GenX

GenX

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • LocationSo Cal

I don't see that technology being ready anytime soon.  I suspect that the generation that lives to be that old hasn't been born yet.  I would think that would be a hundred years away or more.  I believe right now the oldest known human lived to be 116, so if I beat that (and am relatively able to still enjoy life and don't just lie in bed all day for 30 years) I'll be thrilled.


The only thing we ever want is more


#22
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

 

 

50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Why exactly do you think that cryogenic preservation will take 1,000 years to succeed for humans? Heck, even I, as a pessimist, think that it will take perhaps 200-300 years to succeed for humans.

 

Um, where did you get that from? I never said that.

 

You said "1K years" in your post here. Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Once they are revived, the small amount of people born from the '40s-'50s will have to live around 1000 years and not die.  All sorts of things could go wrong in 1000 years.

Oh, I get what you meant now. You meant that they will need to get revived (which you think will occur) and then at least one individual among these people will also need to survive (by sufficiently avoiding accidents, et cetera) needs to survive for another several hundred years in order to reach the year 3000. Am I correct right now?



#23
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

As long as this limit is a couple of hundred years or more, I think that we should be okay, unless something extremely unexpected happens.

50 years according to this (scroll down to the sleeper ship section).


What difference does it make?


#24
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

Yeah


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#25
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

As long as this limit is a couple of hundred years or more, I think that we should be okay, unless something extremely unexpected happens.

50 years according to this (scroll down to the sleeper ship section).

Thanks; Would thawing them (or more accurately, their bodies) out every fifty years be realistic/possible/plausible?



#26
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Thanks; Would thawing them (or more accurately, their bodies) out every fifty years be realistic/possible/plausible?

Depends on when you get the ability to thaw them and bring them to life. If it's 50 years after freezing, you're out of luck.


What difference does it make?


#27
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

Thanks; Would thawing them (or more accurately, their bodies) out every fifty years be realistic/possible/plausible?

Depends on when you get the ability to thaw them and bring them to life. If it's 50 years after freezing, you're out of luck.

So un-freezing human bodies every fifty years, fixing what's necessary, and then re-freezing them is impossible?



#28
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

So un-freezing human bodies every fifty years, fixing what's necessary, and then re-freezing them is impossible?

Not that I know of. But it depends on how long after your freezing the technology to do so is developed.


What difference does it make?


#29
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

So un-freezing human bodies every fifty years, fixing what's necessary, and then re-freezing them is impossible?  

Not that I know of. But it depends on how long after your freezing the technology to do so is developed.

Thanks for this info. Anyway, I think that you just made me more willing to confront death and to take care of my current life.



#30
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

What is the point of freezing yourself to be brought back to life in 50 years if you are not here to enjoy the 50 years?

Sure you could put my in suspended animation until the end of the universe so I would live that long, but what would the point be?

 

I'd rather be alive and take risk than freeze myself to live longer.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#31
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

What is the point of freezing yourself to be brought back to life in 50 years if you are not here to enjoy the 50 years?

Sure you could put my in suspended animation until the end of the universe so I would live that long, but what would the point be?

 

I'd rather be alive and take risk than freeze myself to live longer.

I want to live as long as possible and then to get frozen immediately afterwards. Win-Win!



#32
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Thanks for this info. Anyway, I think that you just made me more willing to confront death and to take care of my current life.

Cryonics wasn't a panacea anyways. If the place your cryocasket was at was destroyed then your body would be destroyed too. I'd much rather fend off danger alive than be vulnerable to it in cryo.


What difference does it make?


#33
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

What fascinates me is how the majority of people will see me around 3.000,  sometimes I imagine that I will come a cross to a woman profile on a dating sites that  reads

" I don't care that you look like an 20 years old, if you are a creeper who was born in the 80s do not contact me as I am not into Methuselahs "

 

I am sure some others women would like the opposite however in both situation I do not know how I will react.

 

One woman could make me feel obsolete, maybe guilty to have lived so long but at the end of the day I wouldn't give a dam about her

 

the other woman would make me feel appreciated but still I think there would be a huge cultural gap that could make our relationship nearly hard.

 

I am just predicting scenarios...I don't know how the reality will be like around year 3.000 but I am curious to know if the very new generation is willing to date us "the ancient generation". it would be interesting to know how many relationships will develop among these two categories. " Them born in 3000- and us born in the late 20th century".



#34
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

Thanks for this info. Anyway, I think that you just made me more willing to confront death and to take care of my current life.

1. Cryonics wasn't a panacea anyways.

 

2. If the place your cryocasket was at was destroyed then your body would be destroyed too.

 

3. I'd much rather fend off danger alive than be vulnerable to it in cryo.

 

1. Sure, though if it works, then it is still much better than the alternative.

 

2. Yes; Obviously.

 

3. Can't one try doing both of these things, though?



#35
Smeargle

Smeargle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts
  • LocationLuckiest city in the UK

2800 is ridiculous... I'm pretty sure we'll have achieved immortality long before then.

And without doubt there would be laws against it. We can't have and don't want countless people endlessly overpopulating this and any other potentially inhabited planets.

 

Besides, I don't quite understand why you all think immortality will exist by then. Because the graph said so? Graphs can say many things. Just because a curved line manages to perfectly sit on top a load of other lines, doesn't mean it will forever. Technology can't and won't advance at a continuously quickening pace. I'm sorry about that and I know how much you wish for these things to be possible in your lifetime, but they just aren't.


ARADIA: i think i mostly want to see what happens when this whole place breaks apart


#36
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

 

2800 is ridiculous... I'm pretty sure we'll have achieved immortality long before then.

And without doubt there would be laws against it. We can't have and don't want countless people endlessly overpopulating this and any other potentially inhabited planets.

 

Besides, I don't quite understand why you all think immortality will exist by then. Because the graph said so? Graphs can say many things. Just because a curved line manages to perfectly sit on top a load of other lines, doesn't mean it will forever. Technology can't and won't advance at a continuously quickening pace. I'm sorry about that and I know how much you wish for these things to be possible in your lifetime, but they just aren't.

 

 

This is not an actual argument, at all. It's just a string of unsubstantiated statements. 

 

Honestly, I'm thinking of just sticking to lurking the "In the News" threads and otherwise foregoing the FutureTimeline forums. Too many people here that get on my nerves.



#37
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

2800 is ridiculous... I'm pretty sure we'll have achieved immortality long before then.

And without doubt there would be laws against it. We can't have and don't want countless people endlessly overpopulating this and any other potentially inhabited planets.

 

Besides, I don't quite understand why you all think immortality will exist by then. Because the graph said so? Graphs can say many things. Just because a curved line manages to perfectly sit on top a load of other lines, doesn't mean it will forever. Technology can't and won't advance at a continuously quickening pace. I'm sorry about that and I know how much you wish for these things to be possible in your lifetime, but they just aren't.

 

 

This is not an actual argument, at all. It's a collection of random and utterly unsubstantiated statements. 

 

Honestly, I'm thinking of just sticking to lurking the "In the News" threads and otherwise foregoing the FutureTimeline forums. Too many people here that get on my nerves.

Please don't do this. Here's a good piece of advice for you:

 

It's the Internet. There are many idiots on the Internet (probably not here, but elsewhere on the Internet). Thus, don't worry too much and don't get too angered by what someone else says on the Internet. Simply get a delciious snack, relax, and then get back to business. :) :D :) :D :) :D :)



#38
Smeargle

Smeargle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts
  • LocationLuckiest city in the UK

This is not an actual argument, at all. It's just a string of unsubstantiated statements. 

 

Honestly, I'm thinking of just sticking to lurking the "In the News" threads and otherwise foregoing the FutureTimeline forums. Too many people here that get on my nerves.

 

It's not an argument, it's a statement of facts.


ARADIA: i think i mostly want to see what happens when this whole place breaks apart


#39
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

I see.



#40
RDP

RDP

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Location' DROP TABLE users --

1940? 1950? I'll go so far as to say that anytime in the 20th century is just hopeless optimism. There's a difference between wanting to live in the year 3000 and using logic.


Find me on Steam (mainly DotA 2)

"The idea of Romans creating a religion to counter act the Jewish religion and then persecute the religion they created is absurd enough to have its own episode on Ancient Aliens."

-tw88





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users