How likely is it immortality exists but is withheld by world powers?

[Stormspark]

Literally 0. There is no way something like that could've been discovered and withheld. Aging is a complex process, and while there are experimental and theoretical ways to slow or reverse it, there isn't any magic pill that you could take that would do that. Could it happen someday? Yes, very possible. Has it happened in the age of the internet and instantaneous worldwide communication, and kept secret? No.

[Draco-Onis]

It's not baffling at all that it doesn't exist yet, actually, as someone who is very familiar with biotechnology. I would say there's an approximately 0% chance that something like this is being withheld by world powers.

You are most likely right but it might be possible through some very unethical genetic engineering and manipulation but even then it would take countless decades to refine it.

[Deleted]

It's pretty baffling with how technology has come along, immortality hasn't been achieved. I think immortality or eternal existence actually does exist but it's obviously withheld because it would throw the world into chaos for obvious reasons.

Not at all likely. They'd never, NEVER, be able to cover it up.

[ElDoorO]

Improbable but not impossible.

So telomere's are basically what you need here. As you age a little bit is lost. If, magically, you could make them longer or replenish them then you'd effectively have immortality, I think. Or if your cells could produce telomerase (dividing without limit at this point; think: Cancer cells) however that latter options is significantly more improbable as far as humans are concerned because that requires genetic modification whereas the latter might "simply" require adding more.

Now keep in mind this wouldn't "reverse" aging or damage. This would simply pause where it is at. If a fountain of youth that did this was found centuries ago then you might start taking this stuff in your upper 20's or lower 30's.

Now this is how I imagine it'd work.

The only other "reasonable" method would be nanobots that repair damage to DNA and RNA as time progresses but this isn't realistic as energy is required for nanobots to function and there aren't any reasonable sources of energy that small. Your body also wouldn't like processing things like that very much, I imagine.

But let's be real. The consequences for immortality for humans, as a species, would be damning. You'd have 400 year old's with 400 year old mentalities. If you think the "older" generation is a problem now -- oh boy would it be terrible in this world where there's a lot of very old people. This isn't to say it's a guarantee that a 400+ year old person would be stuck in old times. I imagine a mentally flexible person could adapt through time but the population growth would be brutal and I doubt we'd have tech to keep up with the food and water problem much less housing and transportation.

[Dudenoso]

And it should be impossible biologically.
Part of what make us human is the duality and relationship of Life and Death, one gives meaning to the other. Without one there can't be the other. And it shouldn't.
To me it's reasonable to believe that without death a person can never truly know life.

I am pretty sure I'd still value learning things and discussing stuff with people if the deadline to do it was 10^1000 years instead of the finishing values of 10^2 years.

[ElDoorO]

Not at all likely. They'd never, NEVER, be able to cover it up.

That all depends on how large "they" are. If we're talking a small few people then surely they could keep it concealed within the family. If we're talking a much larger group then I agree.

[Shadowferal]

I am pretty sure I'd still value learning things and discussing stuff with people if the deadline to do it was 10^1000 years instead of the finishing values of 10^2 years.

But you can only say that not knowing the consequences.
It's like someone saying his/her life won't change after hitting a billion dollar lottery.

[unbound]

How likely is there something amazing that is being withheld from the rest of us? Here is a great guide:

[Dudenoso]

But you can only say that not knowing the consequences.
It's like someone saying his/her life won't change after hitting a billion dollar lottery.

Agreed to the bolded part. Couldn't one say the same applied to the never truly know life without death on the original reply?

I don't think the unbolded part applies. I would say life would get better (for me) both on immortality and hitting a billion dollar lottery.

Plus, should one ever think life lost it's value... He has a lot of time to spend on changing that opinion, should one desire.

[Underverse]

You are most likely right but it might be possible through some very unethical genetic engineering and manipulation but even then it would take countless decades to refine it.

I'm not even sure what an unethical approach would look like, though. Editing human embryos? Barely unethical, if at all.

We have a long way to go before the question of lifespan can be tackled on any useful level.

- - - Updated - - -

Improbable but not impossible.

So telomere's are basically what you need here. As you age a little bit is lost. If, magically, you could make them longer or replenish them then you'd effectively have immortality, I think. Or if your cells could produce telomerase (dividing without limit at this point; think: Cancer cells) however that latter options is significantly more improbable as far as humans are concerned because that requires genetic modification whereas the latter might "simply" require adding more.

Now keep in mind this wouldn't "reverse" aging or damage. This would simply pause where it is at. If a fountain of youth that did this was found centuries ago then you might start taking this stuff in your upper 20's or lower 30's.

Now this is how I imagine it'd work.

The only other "reasonable" method would be nanobots that repair damage to DNA and RNA as time progresses but this isn't realistic as energy is required for nanobots to function and there aren't any reasonable sources of energy that small. Your body also wouldn't like processing things like that very much, I imagine.

But let's be real. The consequences for immortality for humans, as a species, would be damning. You'd have 400 year old's with 400 year old mentalities. If you think the "older" generation is a problem now -- oh boy would it be terrible in this world where there's a lot of very old people. This isn't to say it's a guarantee that a 400+ year old person would be stuck in old times. I imagine a mentally flexible person could adapt through time but the population growth would be brutal and I doubt we'd have tech to keep up with the food and water problem much less housing and transportation.

There's a lot more biology than just telomeres behind aging. Mitochondrial dysfunction, DNA damage, epigenetic changes, accumulation of protein aggregates. The list goes on. Adding some telomerase won't give us immortality. It might give us cancer, though, as you say - telomerase is frequently upregulated in, for example, hepatocellular carcinomas.

The best bet as things stand is cell-based therapies. Stem cells that can displace/replace your own damaged cells, eventually regenerating a completely new body. That will be our best bet, and that's a long way off. But, biologically possible, maybe.

[SirCowdog]

Stating evidence exists isn't the same as demonstrating it.

I have plenty of evidence here in a stack on my desk that says the moon is made of swiss cheese, with a provolone core. Very well vetted. Trust me on this.

Pretty sure the Keanu quote was being sarcastic.

[Shadowferal]

Pretty sure the Keanu quote was being sarcastic.

Not sure..."Bill & Ted: Face the Music" is in preproduction...

[therealstegblob]

No, you can't prove humans can be immortal. Sorry.

Except yes, it's theoretically very possible. Is it 100% confirmed? I guess not, but you're making an incredibly weak argument right now. There's all sorts of evidence that strongly suggest immortality for humans is not just possible, but not even that difficult to obtain.

You've already revealed that you can't prove humans can live forever.
Sorry, but you need to stop the wishful thinking and move on.

Sorry, edgelord, but it's not "wishful thinking". Immortality is coming. If it gets here within our lifetimes, I'm sure you'll hold to your guns and opt not to get eternal biological life. Wouldn't want to look like one of those "weaklings" who are "afraid of the great oblivion" or whatever dumb shit you post online.

[Perryn]

It's pretty baffling with how technology has come along, immortality hasn't been achieved.

It's baffling? That immortality - not dying - ever....... - has not been achieved? Really?

Okay then...moving on.

[Shadowferal]

Except yes, it's theoretically very possible. Is it 100% confirmed? I guess not, but you're making an incredibly weak argument right now. There's all sorts of evidence that strongly suggest immortality for humans is not just possible, but not even that difficult to obtain.

And you still haven't proven anything...sweet jeebus...
You are the perfect example as to the reason why science has become so damnably disappointing.

At least a Christian can say "Jesus Christ" and I wouldn't bat an eyelash.
You claim "science" then refer back to wishful thinking and belief and demand that it be called "proof."
Sorry...your opinion isn't science. At all.

[Kokolums]

I can't think of any time in history that world powers have ever held back technology unless it was a technology strictly designed for military purposes. They shrouded the Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter in secrecy but those were war machines. A new medicine or treatment has never been hidden from the public.

[sarahtasher]

First, asking about the consequences of immortality is not silly : it was and it still is a key philosophical concept. (I don't recall if it was actually in the Illiad but for instance Achilles was given the choice between living forever or dying gloriously. Guess what he picked ?)

Second, asking if immortality is actually possible is, well….

[therealstegblob]

And you still haven't proven anything...sweet jeebus...
You are the perfect example as to the reason why science has become so damnably disappointing.

At least a Christian can say "Jesus Christ" and I wouldn't bat an eyelash.
You claim "science" then refer back to wishful thinking and belief and demand that it be called "proof."
Sorry...your opinion isn't science. At all.

It's not my opinion, kiddo. It's the opinion of actual scientists and researchers, of which you merely slandered and called "fringe science", with no evidence to back that wild claim up? For all this ridiculous fucking shit you talk about "facts", you seem to have absolutely none of your own?

I think you've earned a place on my ignore list. It must be weird, being ignored by like 90% of the forum, lol.

[Shadowferal]

It's not my opinion, kiddo.

Until you give me proof that humans can be immortal, that's all you have is "opinion."
Here...I'll make it easier for you...give me proof that someone lived for a 1,000 years.
Too much?
Fine.
How about proof that someone lived for 6 centuries...4 centuries?
Any proof? Nothing? Yeah...that's all you have. I'd even take "evidence" that a human lived for a few centuries, but you can't even give me that much I'm not going to get anything from you but bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you've earned a place on my ignore list. It must be weird, being ignored by like 90% of the forum, lol.

I'm sure ignoring me is a lot easier than providing anything remotely resembling something that actually backs your empty assertions.

[the game]

I see conspiracy threads are being allowed now.