Would you want to live to 150, or even 200 years old?

[derpkitteh]

In that case why not ask people with supposedly more experience on that. Say for example people who have been dead for 150k years.

there's only skeletal remains left.

it wouldn't be the same person if you remake a brain to put in them.

no, it needs to be their body, kept in a state where the brain won't decompose. if they're resurrected and have only memories of before their death, there's no afterlife. if they behave strangely or feel any loss of a peace or anything like that, there may be one.

[Aeula]

If doing so would stave off all the old people diseases? Sure.

[Jeina]

Disease, bad eating habits and medicine of the old days, I am sure humans would look at our medicine today and think we were crazy to do things like treating cancer with radiation.

He's talking about life potential. Human cells have always had the same life potential. Environmental factors are the only thing that have changed.

[Azadina]

there's only skeletal remains left.

it wouldn't be the same person if you remake a brain to put in them.

no, it needs to be their body, kept in a state where the brain won't decompose. if they're resurrected and have only memories of before their death, there's no afterlife. if they behave strangely or feel any loss of a peace or anything like that, there may be one.

Care to elaborate on that? If indeed some afterlife exists where the dead person is now in spiritual sense fully themselves, it wouldn't make any difference whether it's their own body they'd be put back into, or artificially created empty vessel for them to inhabit for the duration of the question.

Unless of course you mean to say that the afterlife is bound to the body being able to work, in which case everyone has an extremely short afterlife, most above all those who get cremated. Poof, no body left.

[Deleted]

Living forever of course. Such a waste to only have less than a century, barely time to do anything, or rather, not enough time to be worth doing much.

[derpkitteh]

Care to elaborate on that? If indeed some afterlife exists where the dead person is now in spiritual sense fully themselves, it wouldn't make any difference whether it's their own body they'd be put back into, or artificially created empty vessel for them to inhabit for the duration of the question.

Unless of course you mean to say that the afterlife is bound to the body being able to work, in which case everyone has an extremely short afterlife, most above all those who get cremated. Poof, no body left.

like, if it's not the same body they left, why would the "soul" be called into it? unless you think i'm talking about like some magic science where we can grab things like souls.

no, it has to be someone that exists, not an artificial body made in the image of someone who existed. we can't take chances with this kind of thing, everything has to be just so.

like all the people that have put their bodies in cryo to be revived in the future. those people would be the best way to test for an afterlife. if their body is intact anyway, i doubt we're very good at it currently. in the future though, leave someone's corpse in stasis for a while and then revive it for answers.

[Azadina]

like, if it's not the same body they left, why would the "soul" be called into it? unless you think i'm talking about like some magic science where we can grab things like souls.

no, it has to be someone that exists, not an artificial body made in the image of someone who existed. we can't take chances with this kind of thing, everything has to be just so.

like all the people that have put their bodies in cryo to be revived in the future. those people would be the best way to test for an afterlife. if their body is intact anyway, i doubt we're very good at it currently. in the future though, leave someone's corpse in stasis for a while and then revive it for answers.

Why would it be called into it anyway, if it's already gone in some afterlife? We have people "alive" this very day who are in vegetable states. The bodies are alive, yes, but the person isn't quite home anymore. Where is the soul calling for these people, when the body is alive and waiting until the plug is pulled, since the souls don't seem to read email recalls?

Why would reviving a person long dead be a whole lot different, if the person is already gone. At most you might get the body to be alive in vegetable state. Or is there some ritual that can be performed, binding the soul to stick with the dead body until told otherwise? Also...wouldn't the latter somewhat negate the person getting to afterlife, if they must stick with their dead body instead of going?

It sounds to me like there's 2 possibilities:

1. There's no soul of any sort, and all person is, is what's the activity in their brain. And if that stops, the person stops being. Zero possibility of afterlife, since the person no longer exists at all.

2. There is a soul, and the body is merely a vessel for the soul to inhabit, and in this scenario, there can be an afterlife for the soul to move into, but it also means that everything the person is, has to be with the soul. It can't have some integral parts of it tied to the body (brain), or it will no longer be the same when dying, in which case the afterlife will be irrelevant for the dying person concerned, as they won't get there as themselves. Also means that since everything is with the soul, the soul doesn't need the exact same body as before to function, it doesn't matter. It would just need a new "harddrive" to download it's "software" back into.

[SirCowdog]

I would have loved to live from the beginning of the planet and see the rise and fall of everything that has ever happened. History geta me all giddy.

Well that would be the cool part about being immortal. You could just find a new, empty planet, and sit around there to see what happens.

I honestly foresee the future to be like that in Ghost in a Shell, where people become cyborgs... replacing healthy limbs in favour of superior artificial ones, and a cybernetic brain... which would effectively make you immortal.

Either that or like the book "Altered Carbon", where the personality and memories are copied onto a hard drive, and swapped between bodies, or transmitted across interstellar distances. We're not that far off, since apparently instant transmission of information over long distances is now being done. Quantum entanglement sorta stuff, really. http://www.businessinsider.com/telep...nternet-2017-7

what kind of current science would make living to 150 a possibility?

Like Afrospinach said: Stem cell research, cloning of organs, and even cybernetics are starting to reach a level of practical use. There was that research done on rats that made them live 3 times longer than their normal lifespan too(I couldn't find the original article to link). There's also some stuff about storing data on DNA which could be relevant. Genetic modification and such, too.

Current technology isn't even close to increasing maximum life span by over 25 years.

Sci-fi fantasy. The kids of today will not reach 150 years.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/...arch-mortality

the most optimistic interpretation seems to be

I think those articles might be BADLY underestimating the rate at which technology and science are advancing. The article you linked seems to be an argument about statistics and how the original study was conducted poorly. It had very little to do with advances in medical science or technology.

Science can't really prove something to not exist, when it doesn't exist in the first place. There's nothing to work on.

This is a little off-topic, but considering that science is now seriously postulating the existence of other dimensions, it's not really COMPLETELY out of the question that they might discover some kind of afterlife(even though it's pretty damn remote, I'll grant).

[derpkitteh]

Why would it be called into it anyway, if it's already gone in some afterlife? We have people "alive" this very day who are in vegetable states. The bodies are alive, yes, but the person isn't quite home anymore. Where is the soul calling for these people, when the body is alive and waiting until the plug is pulled, since the souls don't seem to read email recalls?

Why would reviving a person long dead be a whole lot different, if the person is already gone. At most you might get the body to be alive in vegetable state. Or is there some ritual that can be performed, binding the soul to stick with the dead body until told otherwise? Also...wouldn't the latter somewhat negate the person getting to afterlife, if they must stick with their dead body instead of going?

that's part of the test. if the body is reanimated and it's stuck in a vegetative state and we cannot ever get the reanimation to do more than that, that's more evidence pointing towards an afterlife.

i feel that if there's a soul, it wasn't accounted for that some day we would get technology bring the dead back to life. so either the soul and body are intrinsically connected in a way that if the body is alive, the soul must return to it, or once the soul is separate from the body through the afterlife process, the body can no longer function.

that is why the brain would need to be kept perfectly intact in this process. so we could know for certain if the body isn't working for some other reason than brain damage, so their memories could be intact.

the testing for afterlife memories would need to be thorough, not just images, but feelings and sensations or a lack of them.

[Ifeanychukwu]

I'd rather have my consciousness transferred into a synthetic body and live indefinitely so I could travel the galaxy/universe and see other planets etc.

[SirCowdog]

if they're resurrected and have only memories of before their death, there's no afterlife. if they behave strangely or feel any loss of a peace or anything like that, there maybe one.

I don't know that this would be a good measure. I've woken up from dreams so real that it left me disturbed and with a vague sense of disorientation for days afterwords. Who's to say that people being "resurrected" with science would be any different? It could just be an after effect of the process used to bring them back. There's too much of the brain and the subconscious that we still don't fully understand(although science could progress to a point where we could rule this out, I suppose).

[Lotus Victoria]

I want to be immortal with a kill switch

Laputan Machine.


+100 points to you if you understand what I meant.

[SirCowdog]

I want to be immortal with a kill switch

Hmm...it wouldn't be THAT hard. Throw yourself into a volcano, or failing that, the heart of a star. Or if that wasn't enough, a black hole which has an event horizon strong enough that time would effectively stop for you.

Instead of a kill switch, maybe just going into a super-deep sleep where hundreds if not thousands of years pass? Effectively resetting everything you know? Or a memory wipe?

Laputan Machine.

+1 just for Asura. XD

[Ghostpanther]

I would not want to see my kids and wife die. So no. 85 - 95 is a good range to die during. My wife and I both being 95 and dying in our sleep at the same time would be perfect.

[Logwyn]

128648 years would be great!

[leorana]

https://www.amazon.com/Woolly-Revive...eywords=woolly

I was listening to the guy who wrote this book, which is mostly about this group that is trying to recreate Woolly Mammoths ( mixed with Asian elephants ). Anyway, while researching his book, he heard from several people that the kids of today will start living to 150 years old due to science.

Ethical concerns aside, HELL NO.... no way I want to live that long. But maybe that is because I live with a lot of pain.

Would you want to live to 150? He says that it might only take another generation before people being born can live to 200.

Once, I would say no. But now? I want to live as long as I could so I can be a part of my daughter's life and be there for her and her future kids.

[Draco-Onis]

He's talking about life potential. Human cells have always had the same life potential. Environmental factors are the only thing that have changed.

That's why I mentioned gene editing once you can edit DNA who knows how many changes we can make.

[Deleted]

If I stayed in my 30s or 40s for the most of that time, of course. Why would someone who exists not want to exist, if their existence is bearable? It makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing else than this. Nothing comes "after". So yeah, of course I'd want to have the option to live 150, 200, 2000, 20000, 5 million years. Duh.

[Kellhound]

So long as my mind was still sharp and my body even passingly functional, yes.

[ImEveryCliche]

Assuming the medical advances kept my body in reasonable shape then I wouldn't mind being able to live a bit longer