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

#41
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
I'm born in the millennial century so I have nothin to worry about ;D. But I think prolonging life is possible in a couple of decades and my parents being around 40 should be in time for immortality. When scientists figure out a way to regenerate the telomere it is all done for me. Prolonging my life is my life goal and when I live past 1000 I can die with a smile knowing I have accomplished something great in my life and that is living a long meaningful life. But truly transhumanism is the way to go when talking immortality.

#42
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

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

I wouldn't say you have nothing to worry about, young padawan. 

I was born back in the olden days in 1995.  I still have doubts of anti-aging coming in my life time.  I believe it is possible, but I do not think it is guaranteed.

 

Hopefully, all my weight training, running and dieting won't be for nothing, and I don't die young in a horrible car wreck or get brutally murdered.  Let's say I live to be 85.  That's 2080.  I hope by then there is a decent suspended animation program.  I think cryopreservation or some other form of suspended animation would be more plausible than anti-aging within the lifetime of a newborn today; even that is not guaranteed because you can never know what obstacles will come in the way of a new technology.  We may find things to be super complicated and not as easy as we think it is.

 

Which is the case for medicine 99% of the time.  You think something great will happen, only to find there is that one thing in the way and it won't happen.  The body is so frail the sooner we can transcend biology completely the better.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#43
KomissarBojantchev

KomissarBojantchev

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

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.

Because you aren't accepted in todays society, have an incurable desease, or lack the skills to make a living?

 

Cryogenic freezing would be a life saver(literally) for people wanting to commit suicide.



#44
Leptictidium

Leptictidium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

I was born back in the olden days in 1995.

Damn, I'm ancient history! (1987)



#45
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

I'm born in the millennial century so I have nothin to worry about ;D. But I think prolonging life is possible in a couple of decades and my parents being around 40 should be in time for immortality. When scientists figure out a way to regenerate the telomere it is all done for me. Prolonging my life is my life goal and when I live past 1000 I can die with a smile knowing I have accomplished something great in my life and that is living a long meaningful life. But truly transhumanism is the way to go when talking immortality.

 

if you just sit and don't do any actions t extend life span, you will have to worry like the rest of us. Extending life-span depends on what the public do.



#46
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts

I'm born in the millennial century so I have nothin to worry about ;D. But I think prolonging life is possible in a couple of decades and my parents being around 40 should be in time for immortality. When scientists figure out a way to regenerate the telomere it is all done for me. Prolonging my life is my life goal and when I live past 1000 I can die with a smile knowing I have accomplished something great in my life and that is living a long meaningful life. But truly transhumanism is the way to go when talking immortality.

The "millennial century"? Your profile says you were born in 1999...

#47
WithoutCoincidence

WithoutCoincidence

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • LocationSomewhere above Zero Latitude.

Don't know, hmm.


The universe has gone from unimaginable, featureless heat to complexity and it will return in time to unimaginable, featureless cold.

-Chris Impey, How It Ends


#48
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
...

#49
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

Didn't even voted. Seems I'm in the vast minority, but technology of immortality (i mean natural immortality, without using tricks like freezing or relativity paradoxes) is still far, far away from us and... well, i think oldest people to live in 3000 CE should be born somewhere in 2800-2850.



#50
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

Didn't even voted. Seems I'm in the vast minority, but technology of immortality (i mean natural immortality, without using tricks like freezing or relativity paradoxes) is still far, far away from us and... well, i think oldest people to live in 3000 CE should be born somewhere in 2800-2850.

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.



#51
RDP

RDP

    Member

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

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

 

Careful with that! We don't actually know all of what causes aging. Biology is an extremely complex science, and we can barely understand even the simplest of systems, let alone how to keep an entire organism from aging. I suggest you look into "Systems Biology" and "Bioinformatics" (primarily the former) if you're interested in just how the tiniest systems in biology can be so mysterious and complex.


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


#52
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

 

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

 

Careful with that! We don't actually know all of what causes aging. Biology is an extremely complex science, and we can barely understand even the simplest of systems, let alone how to keep an entire organism from aging. I suggest you look into "Systems Biology" and "Bioinformatics" (primarily the former) if you're interested in just how the tiniest systems in biology can be so mysterious and complex.

 

 

Of course there is still much to be known and every year we discover something new about aging process. However, I am pretty confident that the main causes have been detected. if we would be able to revert some of these causes then we would be some big steps forward.



#53
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

Matter of decades? I highly doubt. My point (i already wrote it somewhere): yes, we live longer than our ancestors due to fact that medicine is successfully fighting diseases... we come closer and closer to our "natural", genetically hardcoded lifespan, but each next step on this road will be shorter and more difficult. It was relatively easy to increace average lifespan from 45 to 75, but will be much harder to increace it from 75 to 105, and even much harder - from 105 to 135. Aging is not disease and to "cure" it, we'll have to change something (and we don't even know what exactly) in our genome. Such things are still far beyond our modern possibilities.



#54
RDP

RDP

    Member

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

 

 

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

 

Careful with that! We don't actually know all of what causes aging. Biology is an extremely complex science, and we can barely understand even the simplest of systems, let alone how to keep an entire organism from aging. I suggest you look into "Systems Biology" and "Bioinformatics" (primarily the former) if you're interested in just how the tiniest systems in biology can be so mysterious and complex.

 

 

Of course there is still much to be known and every year we discover something new about aging process. However, I am pretty confident that the main causes have been detected. if we would be able to revert some of these causes then we would be some big steps forward.

 

 

Yet, the funny part about biological systems is just how connected they are. By stopping one part of the aging process, we could be activating another and even accelerate our deaths. Sure, animal testing helps, but we'll never really be able to experimentally confirm that we've stopped the aging process until at least a hundred years after the first test is conducted (obviously, you can't say you've stopped the aging process after just a decade or two of immortality).

Which brings up another interesting thought: if those of us born in the 20th century wish to live to 3000, we're essentially going to be the alpha testers of drugs and cryonics. We're taking a large gamble for the rest of humanity, and some of us will probably die because of rogue tests and techniques.


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


#55
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

edit: never mind, nothing to see here.



#56
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,051 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

 

Matter of decades? I highly doubt. My point (i already wrote it somewhere): yes, we live longer than our ancestors due to fact that medicine is successfully fighting diseases... we come closer and closer to our "natural", genetically hardcoded lifespan, but each next step on this road will be shorter and more difficult. It was relatively easy to increace average lifespan from 45 to 75, but will be much harder to increace it from 75 to 105, and even much harder - from 105 to 135. Aging is not disease and to "cure" it, we'll have to change something (and we don't even know what exactly) in our genome. Such things are still far beyond our modern possibilities.

 

 

I completely disagree with you on that one. Aging is indeed a disease if you really take a closer look to the various processes that make us age. Just because we've always aged since the beginning of biology doesn't mean we have to change our genome or something fundamental about our bodies to arrest the aging process.

 

I suggest you read "Ending Aging" by Aubrey de Grey. He take an engineering approach to "fix" the damage caused by the aging process rather than trying to fundamentally change the underlying processes that cause the symptoms we associate with aging.

 

It is very reasonable to retain your youth with periodic rejuvenation therapies that "cleanse" the damage buildup so you're set for another 10 years of staying young. When you start to age a bit again, you can always go back to the clinic and have that "cleaned up" a little.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#57
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Which brings up another interesting thought: if those of us born in the 20th century wish to live to 3000, we're essentially going to be the alpha testers of drugs and cryonics. We're taking a large gamble for the rest of humanity, and some of us will probably die because of rogue tests and techniques.

Cool! I'll get an adrenaline rush every time I get an anti-aging treatment!


What difference does it make?


#58
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

 

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

Matter of decades? I highly doubt. My point (i already wrote it somewhere): yes, we live longer than our ancestors due to fact that medicine is successfully fighting diseases... we come closer and closer to our "natural", genetically hardcoded lifespan, but each next step on this road will be shorter and more difficult. It was relatively easy to increace average lifespan from 45 to 75, but will be much harder to increace it from 75 to 105, and even much harder - from 105 to 135. Aging is not disease and to "cure" it, we'll have to change something (and we don't even know what exactly) in our genome. Such things are still far beyond our modern possibilities.

 

 

Aging is the worst of the diseases. that's the new perspective we have to insert in our modern society. Aging is not just about wrinkles, aging is pain, sufferance, loss of functionality. We "longevists" aim first to eliminate sufferance caused by the aging process, extending life is instead the side effect of it. Trust me, and I know something about it, there is nothing worst than to be on pain 24/7.



#59
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

 

 

 

 

This seems a bit pessimistic to me and trust me I am far from being optimistic when it comes to human health. We already unveiled  the causes of aging, I think that is matter of decades before we can extend life span indefinitely.

 

 

Careful with that! We don't actually know all of what causes aging. Biology is an extremely complex science, and we can barely understand even the simplest of systems, let alone how to keep an entire organism from aging. I suggest you look into "Systems Biology" and "Bioinformatics" (primarily the former) if you're interested in just how the tiniest systems in biology can be so mysterious and complex.

 

 

Of course there is still much to be known and every year we discover something new about aging process. However, I am pretty confident that the main causes have been detected. if we would be able to revert some of these causes then we would be some big steps forward.

 

 

Yet, the funny part about biological systems is just how connected they are. By stopping one part of the aging process, we could be activating another and even accelerate our deaths. Sure, animal testing helps, but we'll never really be able to experimentally confirm that we've stopped the aging process until at least a hundred years after the first test is conducted (obviously, you can't say you've stopped the aging process after just a decade or two of immortality).

Which brings up another interesting thought: if those of us born in the 20th century wish to live to 3000, we're essentially going to be the alpha testers of drugs and cryonics. We're taking a large gamble for the rest of humanity, and some of us will probably die because of rogue tests and techniques.

 

 

Possibly but I would offer my body to science and progress. Given the current status of medical science, I can manage to live until 80-90 if I am lucky enough. Therefore I would pass out anyway. Science will just offer me one opportunity to live longer. Yes it is a gamble but is worth risking it if they also provide me a way out in case things go wrong. However, please read the book of Aubrey De Grey if you have the chance.



#60
lechwall

lechwall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationSunny England

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".

 

Kind of tangential to this i wonder if there'd come a point in the future when people would decide you'd lived long enough on earth and you'd end up banished or worse.


"The future will be better tomorrow.  If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure.   For NASA, space is still a high priority. The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history. Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child. We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."  Dan Quayle

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users