Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Oliolli]

On the note of immortality: How "well preserved" will people be then? Can a 700-year old have the physical fitness of a 30-year old? Also, there is one thing that would make the system quite a bit more complex: retirement. People these days are thinking about how old they have to be to get to retire, how about the future? Would people still retire at a relatively young age (for the time) or at around 700 years of working? People would prefer at the same time as these days, but that would mean we would quickly have an immense amount of people to take care of, not contributing to society. And I'm guessing very few would be ready to work for their entire near-eternal lives...

Personally I am alredy looking at retirement with horror, if it ever happens to me. Heck, I'm still 16, and I'm already thinking about how I could get myself killed before retirement Of course, opinions change...

[elf-fondling human]

On the note of immortality: How "well preserved" will people be then? Can a 700-year old have the physical fitness of a 30-year old? Also, there is one thing that would make the system quite a bit more complex: retirement. People these days are thinking about how old they have to be to get to retire, how about the future? Would people still retire at a relatively young age (for the time) or at around 700 years of working? People would prefer at the same time as these days, but that would mean we would quickly have an immense amount of people to take care of, not contributing to society. And I'm guessing very few would be ready to work for their entire near-eternal lives...

Personally I am alredy looking at retirement with horror, if it ever happens to me. Heck, I'm still 16, and I'm already thinking about how I could get myself killed before retirement Of course, opinions change...

Thing is, people are currently looking at retirement with the fact that they're already nearing their expiration dates, and that they don't want to be working for their last few years. They also tend to start feeling weary of work in general as they get closer to that age, and get tired easier. If people were to live longer, the entire system would grow in relation to the average Joe's lifespan. Ergo, if we live longer, we'll be willing (and able) to work longer as a direct result.

[Eddren]

Death: Indeed. You're going to die anyway, why not have it mean something?

But this is the thing that so many people fail to realize these days is that with current technology rates death is no longer a set in stone thing. With the current trends for advances in not only medical technology but across technology as a whole, the current younger generations (teens + early twenties, maybe all of the way up to the early thirties if they live right) can actually live to reach the point where technology is increasing their lifespan at a rate faster than 1 second per second. This would then result in a pseudo-immortal life, where it is impossible to die of old age. I know that it sounds crazy and many of you are going "but what about this?" But please hear me out before you judge me. Currently trends in technology ranging from computers to medicine to rockets are all showing the same thing, that not only is the level of technology increasing, but the rate that the level of technology is increasing as well. The trends are all quadratic!

Unfortunately for humans however, we have always had rather linear minds. When a person is trying to hit a target with a spear or a gun, they track a linear distance ahead of the target and fire. When a person thinks in terms of advancement this same restriction applies. We think that "we got this much done in 10 years, so hopefully we will get the same amount done in the next 10 years as well", a thought that while usually helpful, is dead wrong for the trends in current society. Instead we should be thinking like "we got this much done in 10 years, using these new advancements we should be able to get at least double this amount done in the next 10 years". And it's proven true so far. Currently knowledge (as measured in scholarly papers) is showing this doubling trend in just about every field out there right now and is expanding exponentially.

The crazy thing though? Most of these trends still continue even if you trace them as far back as the 1800's, sometimes even farther. The only reason that people thought that knowledge growth was linear then was that the increases were still so small at the time that the doubling was occurring much slower. The ideas sound crazy but if you manage to think past your linearly-programmed mind and realize the quadratic equations that apply to reality you manage to absorb so many crazy facts like that in 2045 we manage to invent a computer that is smarter then we are (give or take 10 years to account for errors, TIME magazine ran an article on this if you don't believe me). Combine that trend into the current trends in the medical fields and you get the pseudo-immoral life I was talking of earlier, where death becomes a thing that only happens with accidents or choice, and it's going to happen well within the lives of many currently alive today. (I can cite sources for most of this if you really want me to)

Anyways sorry for the big blocks of text. Pirates are cool and all that though I'm not sure how well a government of them would apply to large groups of people (Arson, pillaging, murder, and arson!).

Edit: On that last note though, I think that having a greatly increased average lifespan would also greatly increase our hatred and bias towards murderers. If you imagine the average lifespan of a human being 800 years instead of 80, that means that your average murder victim (average age for murder victims circa '98 was ~29) goes from being a younger adult into being the somewhat equivalent of a 2.9 year old. How do you think it would make you feel if every single murder was the killing of a 2-4 year old kid? I think that that should help cut down on some of the killing at least should the world dissolve into chaos.

I'm sorry, but my Linear mind states to me that Time magazine has been lying to me for the past TEN years, and PROBABLY won't stop in the NEXT ten years.

[Endiqua]

Heck, I'm still 16, and I'm already thinking about how I could get myself killed before retirement Of course, opinions change...

Which is a wise thing for you to realize at your age; when I was that age, I was convinced I would think and feel the same way forever.  Opinions do change as one ages and gains experience.  The body and mind begin to let you know that, hey, you're not as young as you used to be.  "You're only as old as you feel" doesn't help much on the days you wake up and feel about 20 years older than you actually are.   

Okay, going forward, the "you" isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I don't want to bother with "one" through all this.

As i've said before, it all comes down to the people involved. If humanity never learns, then we will be destroyed. But i know people are growing tired of all the bullshit we create for ourselves, it's just a matter of choosing to act. If enough people do so, corporations and tyrants will hardly be a problem, Even the most powerful of them are nothing without people to control.

Okay, great sentiment.  But how do you create and maintain the change?  Where are the specifics for change?  Let's say the call is to stop working for the Megacorps and let's say there's someone who can give an inspiring enough speech to get people to do that.  You know what'll happen next?  The people will say "Okay, we did what you suggested.  What now, great leader?  How do we eat, clothe ourselves, survive without our paychecks?" 

If someone on the "right side" doesn't have those solutions, someone (say, from the evil corporations or tyrants), is going to say "Follow me and I will feed you!"  Lemming rush ensues.

If the suggestion is to stop supporting the Megacorps, stop buying the products they make, etc...that's just unrealistic.  Walk down the aisles of any Walmart to see the crap available - and do you know why it's available?  Because people buy it.  For all the hate about WM, they're still in business and people go there every day.  People routinely choose to go into debt on which they must pay interest to buy consumer goods - despite several people waving their arms and saying "bad idea!  Save!  Ignore the commercials!  Live within your means!"

Don't support Big Pharma?  Okay, you may have some people strong-willed enough to stop taking their medications, especially when it's not a "stop the med and you hurt like hell" situation.  However, there are a lot of people with chronic diseases, chronic pain conditions, life-threatening situations, who will choose to take their pain pills, the pills that keep their kidneys going, the medications that treat their cancer, their Parkinson's, their diabetes, etc.  I'll be the first to admit the medication commercials are insane and come on, a medication to grow eyelashes?  However, there are a LOT of people who do benefit from medications.  "Alternative" medications are becoming more popular, but there's a lot of snake oil being sold along with the stuff that actually works.  There are diseases out there that can't be dealt with by taking vitamins, herbs, minerals, etc.  An argument can be made that if a "natural" treatment can't be found, then the condition shouldn't be treated.  This is all well and good, but the thing is, the box has been opened now.  We have the medications.  We have the transplants.  We have the NICU nurseries for the preemies.  People, as a whole, are not going to make the choice to eliminate these things, and so the choice must be forced upon them, and once you force that choice...well...

The only way possible to create a system like this would be the condemnation of fools, which is, in and of itself, foolishness and hypocrisy.

Let's take it a step further.  Who decides who's smart and who's ostracized?  If you think society as a whole is going to be able to make these decisions in a fluid and natural fashion, you haven't attended enough committee meetings.  If you think a group of humans in a society can make universally good choices, then you haven't been paying attention.  Heck, just look at American politics.  Take any individual in any office, and there will be a group of fervent supporters, a group of fervent detractors, and a group of apathetics, with others at all points along the spectrum. 

There must be an entity with authority to create and enforce the stratification, and once you have that entity, there's the end of the anarchy.    Humans have widely diverse opinions and ideas; one person's "sound decision" is another person's "bad idea."  What if a segment of the "not smart" decide that *they* are the smart ones and organize a group of their fellow "outcasts?

Bottom line...it's all well and good to dream of a better world, but one must deal with the hard questions of how to deal with the actual realities in place as well as the facts about human nature and societies.  If one wants to be inspirational and truly effect change in the world, then one should have more concrete plans and solutions than just saying "it's all about choosing to act."  The entire history of the human race has been made up of humans choosing to act, and we have seen the choices that have been made over time and are being made now.  There have always, always been people saying "hey, we should all be nicer to each other." This isn't a new concept by a long stretch.

Bluntly, in my opinion, people have always, throughout history, been "tired of the bullshit."  The exact nature of the bullshit has changed over time, but I guarantee you that people on the lowest tier of the feudal system, for example, hated their system's bullshit. 

Again in my opinion, the choices being made aren't going to change much; some people will be "good," some people will be "bad," and most people will simply try and live their lives in the best way they can figure out and hope for the best.  If someone tries to force or coax me into following some Utopian vision of theirs, then I'm going to be suspicious, skeptical, and resistant - not because I'm not an "intellectual" but because I'm old enough, experienced enough, and smart enough to know the problems involved.

[elf-fondling human]

The sad truth is that there are people who will refuse to change, no matter what. The reality is that perhaps segregation isn't a bad idea after all, just not in the way that has been associated with the term. People tend to gravitate toward like-minded comrades, so what, as a whole, we took it a step further? Create an ultimatum, where people are to live in regions among their "own kind", in which they may do as they please. This is really the tribalism concept touched upon earlier, but make it so that they are physically unable to attack other groups, instead of giving them reasons not to. They can still have contact, of course, but violence should become absolutely improbable.

[Necro910]

-snip-

Well written, good job.

We're going to have nanites at some point, which could be used to replenish vital nutrients and cells. Hell, tell the damn things to eat cancer! Take note, this is still a long time away.

Or we could just all be brains in jars with prosthetic bodies 

Don't support Big Pharma?  Okay, you may have some people strong-willed enough to stop taking their medications, especially when it's not a "stop the med and you hurt like hell" situation.  However, there are a lot of people with chronic diseases, chronic pain conditions, life-threatening situations, who will choose to take their pain pills, the pills that keep their kidneys going, the medications that treat their cancer, their Parkinson's, their diabetes, etc.  I'll be the first to admit the medication commercials are insane and come on, a medication to grow eyelashes?  However, there are a LOT of people who do benefit from medications.

WOO! NO MORE SCHIZO MEDS!

This'll be fun 

[Endiqua]

The sad truth is that there are people who will refuse to change, no matter what.

Rather, say that there will be people who do not agree with another group's vision of what is "right" or "good" and will not accept it for themselves.  I do not agree that this is a bad thing in and of itself; look at the civil rights movement, for example. 

Create an ultimatum, where people are to live in regions among their "own kind", in which they may do as they please. This is really the tribalism concept touched upon earlier, but make it so that they are physically unable to attack other groups, instead of giving them reasons not to. They can still have contact, of course, but violence should become absolutely improbable.

Hardly a new idea.  Check out the Wikipedia entry on "ghetto" for a start, particularly the section on Jewish ghettos.  There is no way I'm going to accept that this kind of forced segregation by some authoritarian entity is going to lead to a "better" society.

Then there's the fact that humans have lived in groups of their "own kind" where they weren't able to attack "other" groups due to lack of transportation.  You know what happens then?  Violence develops within factions of the group.  Let's take England just as a "for instance."  Feudal lords gather up their serfs and go attack their neighbor.  A priest (or group of priests) decide anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and must be punished. 

How do you make it "physically impossible" for one group to attack another?  The history of warfare is filled with examples of people, individuals or groups, trying to make attacks impossible.  Castles weren't built because they looked cool.  Cities weren't planned for aesthetics, but rather for defense.  Weapons are improvised, styles of weaponless combat are developed, walls are breached...you name it.

[Necro910]

How do you make it "physically impossible" for one group to attack another?  The history of warfare is filled with examples of people, individuals or groups, trying to make attacks impossible.  Castles weren't built because they looked cool.  Cities weren't planned for aesthetics, but rather for defense.  Weapons are improvised, styles of weaponless combat are developed, walls are breached...you name it.

If we do something like the segregation thing, they'll find a way.

Shit, there's some people that can make basic airplanes out of car parts 

[elf-fondling human]

The sad truth is that there are people who will refuse to change, no matter what.

Rather, say that there will be people who do not agree with another group's vision of what is "right" or "good" and will not accept it for themselves.  I do not agree that this is a bad thing in and of itself; look at the civil rights movement, for example.

It's more like there are people who tend to be obnoxiously contrary, even when others are working for the "benefit" (up to interpretation) of mankind.

Create an ultimatum, where people are to live in regions among their "own kind", in which they may do as they please. This is really the tribalism concept touched upon earlier, but make it so that they are physically unable to attack other groups, instead of giving them reasons not to. They can still have contact, of course, but violence should become absolutely improbable.

Hardly a new idea.  Check out the Wikipedia entry on "ghetto" for a start, particularly the section on Jewish ghettos.  There is no way I'm going to accept that this kind of forced segregation by some authoritarian entity is going to lead to a "better" society.

Oh no no no no, that's exactly the kind of segregation I didn't mean. I'm talking Communists over here, anarchists there, etcetera. It's more a segregation by states of mind than of body.

Then there's the fact that humans have lived in groups of their "own kind" where they weren't able to attack "other" groups due to lack of transportation.  You know what happens then?  Violence develops within factions of the group.  Let's take England just as a "for instance."  Feudal lords gather up their serfs and go attack their neighbor.  A priest (or group of priests) decide anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and must be punished.

Once again, the people who are together are those who legitimately like each other, or at least share a common goal/method of thinking. Therefore, no one will wantto use violence within a group because it will get them nowhere.

How do you make it "physically impossible" for one group to attack another?  The history of warfare is filled with examples of people, individuals or groups, trying to make attacks impossible.  Castles weren't built because they looked cool.  Cities weren't planned for aesthetics, but rather for defense.  Weapons are improvised, styles of weaponless combat are developed, walls are breached...you name it.

And here, I'd just like to say...not totally positive. We could go space stations, I suppose, or have everyone live underground in communities reminiscent of Gurren Lagann, or something. I suppose this part could use work.

[Kofthefens]

Who decides who's smart and who's ostracized?

Computers, maybe? If there's that high a technology level in the future, then we might be able to create a program without bias

[Endiqua]

It's more like there are people who tend to be obnoxiously contrary, even when others are working for the "benefit" (up to interpretation) of mankind.

Up to interpretation is right.  The KKK believed they were working for the benefit of mankind or at least their particular society and there were some "obnoxiously contrary" folks that didn't quite agree with that viewpoint.  And, oh, let's not forget Hitler and his ideas about how to "benefit" mankind.  (I know, I know, Godwin's law and all that, but geez, talk about a discussion where the mention is valid.)

Oh no no no no, that's exactly the kind of segregation I didn't mean. I'm talking Communists over here, anarchists there, etcetera. It's more a segregation by states of mind than of body.

Humans aren't that simple or so easily classified.  I mean, even within the "state of mind" of being a Christian, let's say, there are endless variations and levels of fanaticism. 

Once again, the people who are together are those who legitimately like each other, or at least share a common goal/method of thinking. Therefore, no one will wantto use violence within a group because it will get them nowhere.

Again, history shows this to be unrealistic.  First off, you're talking about forced segregation, not a voluntary one.  There is no way to forcibly create a homogenous group of people based on a (perceived) set of common ideals.  If someone takes a dislike to a particular individual or sect within that group for whatever reason and violence ensues, then they by definition have gotten somewhere towards their personal goal of punishing what they don't like.  Let's just take the example of the West Nickel Mines shooting within the Amish community.  One can say that the gunman got "nowhere," to be sure, as he wound up dead himself, but that certainly didn't stop him from committing the violent acts.

And here, I'd just like to say...not totally positive. We could go space stations, I suppose, or have everyone live underground in communities reminiscent of Gurren Lagann, or something. I suppose this part could use work.

Well, no, I suppose it's not positive...but I gave examples drawn from history...i.e., reality. 

[i2amroy]

I'm sorry, but my Linear mind states to me that Time magazine has been lying to me for the past TEN years, and PROBABLY won't stop in the NEXT ten years.

Time magazine just happened to be the most well known source that I had that ran a whole article on the whole trend idea instead of just invoking parts to support whatever particular aspect of the trend the were talking about. As I said before I do have other sources that I can pull up if you really want me to.

On the note of immortality: How "well preserved" will people be then? Can a 700-year old have the physical fitness of a 30-year old? Also, there is one thing that would make the system quite a bit more complex: retirement. People these days are thinking about how old they have to be to get to retire, how about the future? Would people still retire at a relatively young age (for the time) or at around 700 years of working? People would prefer at the same time as these days, but that would mean we would quickly have an immense amount of people to take care of, not contributing to society. And I'm guessing very few would be ready to work for their entire near-eternal lives...

How well people are preserved depends on the technology level. At first we'll probably only be able to stop your aging, not necessarily reverse it, but later on we should be able to take you all of the way back to your "prime" when you were at your physical peak, whether through replacing body parts with grown ones that match your current ones save damage, or just by triggering your healing mechanisms in your body to "heal" the damage caused through accumulation of age.

Thing is, people are currently looking at retirement with the fact that they're already nearing their expiration dates, and that they don't want to be working for their last few years. They also tend to start feeling weary of work in general as they get closer to that age, and get tired easier. If people were to live longer, the entire system would grow in relation to the average Joe's lifespan. Ergo, if we live longer, we'll be willing (and able) to work longer as a direct result.

As for this my (personal) opinion is that we should move more towards a self-funded retirement and away from a "work for x number of years and get a pension for the rest of your life" model. After all if a person is able to (physically) work until they die due to some accident, coming out of retirement wouldn't be near as much of a problem as it is now. After all a person who was aged 600 years would be physically nigh identical to a person who was only 30ish, so I don't see any problems with them rejoining the workforce as a construction worker or whatever they want to be. As a result I think that the "normal" way of doing things would be to work until you feel you are ready to retire, and then when you start running low on money again simply rejoin the workforce. Of course there would be exceptions such as people who decide to work until retirement and then keep working part time to support their retirement or people who manage to do well enough and then continue to invest that they don't need to go back to work.

As for the idea of segregation for peace, I think that our best bet would be to work on expanding our space programs. I think that right now the majority of our conflicts come from one of two things, either people are fighting over resources, or people are fighting for ideas. In the case of resources, this problem is nearly solved with the advent of efficient space travel. After all, there are a nigh infinite number of planets and asteroids out there, if you need more resources then simply go find some uncolonized one and mine them. Not exactly that big of a deal at the moment. As for the idea conflicts, I think that just simply the immense distance between planets will greatly cut down on that type of warfare. After all, we think that traveling around the planet to go to war is a very long distance, imagine the same idea if you had to travel years between planets to go wage war. Combined with the immortality push against killing and I think it might help to cut down on war significantly. Also the whole idea of MAD comes into play preventing full scale war between groups as well, as any simple spaceship engine becomes a weapon capable of wiping out entire planets if used correctly.

Don't agree with that last statement? Well consider this. Take a spaceship engine and attach it to a large asteroid and then point it at a planet that you wish to wipe out. By the time the asteroid reaches the planet it will probably be traveling a significant percentage of c (speed of light). Now for a large asteroid to cause mass extinction you only really need to be traveling at a few tens of kilometers per second depending on the size. The asteroid impact we would be seeing would have several thousand times the impact speed and force. We are talking about something that not only wipes the planet surface clean, but could literally crack the planet into pieces depending on its size. And if you try to pull the science fiction idea of blowing up the asteroid before it hits you? You actually increase the destruction. Sure the asteroid won't crack your planet apart now, but instead you have a million tiny asteroids striking all over the entire side of the planet instead of at a single point. The result increases the destruction to the surface levels by an immense magnitude (in fact if you really want to make the most of your meteorite you would detonate it shortly before it hits). Ergo any spaceship engine becomes a weapon of untold destruction if used right, meaning any scale of planetary warfare reduced to fighting on the surface and never going full out as literally everyone would die.

On a side note this thread has come a long way from the original discussion of dropping military dwarves to get competent (if severely injured) commanders.

[Necro910]

-scifi snip-

Take note that in medieval and before, it would take years to get to the enemy. And there would be no such thing as MAD, because groups would inhabit different planets. It'd be closer to civilian casualties than MAD.

Also, MAD plan only works if none of the people are psychos, or are otherwise not afraid to sacrifice lives.

Let me rephrase this whole sci fi conversation: Olith McFanatic/Terrorist/Schizo is going to destroy all of mankind with a spaceship. Which will be possible. Hell, we can do this shit now 

[Eddren]

I'm sorry, but my Linear mind states to me that Time magazine has been lying to me for the past TEN years, and PROBABLY won't stop in the NEXT ten years.

Time magazine just happened to be the most well known source that I had that ran a whole article on the whole trend idea instead of just invoking parts to support whatever particular aspect of the trend the were talking about. As I said before I do have other sources that I can pull up if you really want me to.

I'd be happy to have those sources. Just not those bastards. They're like worshiped Nobles; we SHOULD be dousing them in Magma, but it would cause a tantrum spiral.

[i2amroy]

I'm sorry, but my Linear mind states to me that Time magazine has been lying to me for the past TEN years, and PROBABLY won't stop in the NEXT ten years.

Time magazine just happened to be the most well known source that I had that ran a whole article on the whole trend idea instead of just invoking parts to support whatever particular aspect of the trend the were talking about. As I said before I do have other sources that I can pull up if you really want me to.

I'd be happy to have those sources. Just not those bastards. They're like worshiped Nobles; we SHOULD be dousing them in Magma, but it would cause a tantrum spiral.

Here are a handful of them. Note that several don't necessarily speak of the trend directly, but just draw upon certain aspects of it.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#External_links
http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/07/26/hear-that-its-the-singularity-coming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil?currentPage=all

You can also find tons more articles on the process on both the hplusmagazine website and the ieee website, as well as just going to google and typing in any combination of the words "singularity", "immortality", "accelerating returns", or "information doubling".