Will science ever discover Immortality?
Yes
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few people who seem to think that is inevitable. Kurzweil has written a lot about it. I don't think it would be as soon as some people say though. Everything I've read involves a lot of technology and I don't think we're even close, but someday, sure. The only part I don't get is the brain, you can replace everything and still be you, but if you start replacing the brain, even if it's identical, it seems it would be someone just a lot like you. Maybe if you do a piece at a time though and let it be incorporated with the rest before replacing the next piece it will seem enough like immortality. Side: yes
Well, maybe I'm an optimist, but it seems overall humanity would be better off. It seems like, if death is no longer inevitable, for most, life would be more precious. Also, no more of that heaven and hell junk or fighting about religion - at least that is what I would think. I may be over estimating people though. I think it would lead to a lot of leaps in science and technology as well, people would have basically until the sun explodes to learn and invent instead of however long we have now. The problem would be population I think. Side: yes
2
points
The role of telomerase in allowing the immortal growth of reproductive cells is established in today's science studies. Everytime a cell goes through mitosis, it loses a piece of itself. But nothing vital. Until one day it reaches its limit. The cell can no longer divide. It then dies. Telomerase allows the chromosomes to remain stable, thus allowing the cell to divide infinitely as long as it has what it needs. Although the activation of telomerase on a non-reproductive cells usually leads to cancer, scientists are trying to find a way of activating telomerase on aging cells without creating a tumor. Side: No
1
point
well interesting topic, that I put quite a bit of thought into before. one things that is pointed out that makes a very good point is immortality, would mean we would have to outlast the universe, something that if was possible we would have to be highly advanced to do, (Im talking type 3 civilization at least, which I will explain what that is later for those who don't know what im refering to) another good point is, what meaning of immortality, if you mean never aging thats a LOT more realistic (yet still need to be pretty advance for) but if you mean nothing could kill us well thats a different story and would require a VERY different biology, and in the end there would probably be a weak point somewhere and would never be truly obtainable. now we have a ranking I think is used mostly in theoretical physics for what we would expect in intelligent life out there. type 1, 2, and 3 (what each type is, you can go look them up) but they say that when a species becomes type 3 we become immortal, now I think what they actually mean is, the species itself and not the individual is practically immortal as almost nothing in the universe can kill them as they are to advance, but then again this is all based upon the idea we can only speculate on more advanced species. now the next question is, do we want immortality? the thing with immortality I'v always thought about is, how long can you live, untill you get bored with living? but then again another thing crosses my mind is if the world around you is constantly changing (like seeing every next new era in society) maybe there would never be a reason to become bored, then again eternity is a long time, and that puts into question how long will humanity live? another good point made in another argument that never really crossed my mind till now is if we ever do discover such a thing once we do a lot of corrupt people will want to get thier hands on it, and could summon itself up a storm of chaos. well maybe we all would like to live just a little bit longer at least but not necessarily for eternity, jus long enough to get bored. if only we could be trusted to not abuse it, but all it takes is one person. Side: to a degree
I believe immortality will be possible within the next two hundred years or so. The most practical way for this to happen would be to discover the technology and science necessary to farm and grow organs. People would then replace their own as needed. While this may not qualify as immortality, people certainly would live much longer. Another less practical way that might be possible after technology has really advanced would be to inject billions of nanobots into everyone's body to scan the synopses in their brains and effectivley upload everyone's consciences to a supercomputer, where we all could conceivably live forever. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
|
I suppose it depends on what standards you hold the concept of immortality to. Is immortality simply not aging? In that case, we might be able to pull that off. Figure out the telmoere problem, maybe synthesize some new enzymes that kick in after puberty, and we could well find a way to be forever young. Though we would still be subject to death, and have almost as many ways to die as we currently do. In my head, though, immortality usually means "immunity to death." And that, I see as being impossible. Death isn't really a thing, it is a state: a cessation of biological activity. The biological activity only continues along in an EXTREMELY narrow set of parameters, any significant deviation brings the whole thing crashing down. Basically, immunity to anything that could kill us would require such a significant redesign of our bodies that I suspect the very biological activities themselves would have to be eliminated. The only way to guarantee that you will never be divorced is to never be married. The only way to avoid death is to never have lived in the first place. And as 92nida pointed out, the universe will one day end anyway, so we would have to be able to survive that too. Perhaps we could envision immortality as just a continuance of your own unique experiences and thought processes. By that perspective, neuroscience might actually be able to provide a way to record all of that data. But once it was removed from the original host, the physical infrastructure would be changed, any addition to the matrix after would not necessarily be in line with what would have happened naturally. I suspect we would have to relegate that to a sort of psuedo-life, which many people would already do anyway, due to the perceived lack of soul after the transfer. So, ummm, no: I don not believe immortality is possible. And, ecologically, it is undesirable anyway. Side: No
Chances are such a thing would cause the end of the world, let's say it is only 1 country who discovers it, they'll then obviously make an immortal army and conquer the world. If they publish their findings and share them with the world, the U.N will probably ban it, and then loads of corrupt politicians abuse their power and make themselves immortal dictators. Then you got the population boomin etc. It seems logical that many science communitites have abolished research into such a field. Side: No
1
point
now I won't say that immortality is a good idea, or that its completely possible, however I do have a problem. how do you know for a fact that we can't be immortal because two supposed ancestors sinned? this is a scientific debate, I could say that the volcano god of the invisible volcano in my backyard made immortality impossible by laws of physics, or automatically granted by laws of physics. well if your going to settle an argument on unsure beliefs, well be my guest, but it holds no water. Side: yes
|
