A "cure" for aging... (moral, virtual, evolution, creation)

s2a · #1 10-10-2007, 01:23 AM

Humans procreate, producing progeny that replicates our individually paired ontogeny (ie, we make inexact copies of ourselves). We do so in the full knowledge that human life spans are extremely limited in the measure of years. Even the most stout and healthy examples of our species rarely live beyond 110-120 years of age.

What if that were to change...dramatically?

What if medical science were to stumble upon a "cure" for cellular degradation, or aging? What if anyone (once born) could live on without aging further...without experiencing genetic disease. mutation, or physical degradation?

What if...you could be (physically) 18 years old for hundreds, if not thousands of years? What if...anyone could be?

Let's then suppose that this "remedy" was imminently available, but prohibitively expensive (say, $100,000,000 in cost) to all but the wealthiest people on the planet. Should such a "cure" be available to only the wealthy, that can afford the expense? What say you?

Now, let's suppose that this "remedy" was indeed available to virtually anyone that wished to live a very long time in perpetual youth and vitality. Perhaps a "treatment" or "cure" as accessible (both financially and ubiquitously available) as...aspirin. A "pill a day keeps the mortuary away"? Then what? Does your religious/philosophical understanding either define or limit the potential boundaries of human longevity?

Let's suppose further that you alone possess the knowledge of this "cure" for aging...

...would it be moral/ethical to then share this knowledge with humanity, or not?

If medical science is devoted to a concept of extending natural life as long as possible...then is there anything wrong with extending that natural life indefinitely?

What about replacement robotics, or stem-cell growth replacement? Are these alternatives "natural", or "unnatural" manifestations of medical science and technological advances?

Is it less, or more, "ethical/moral" to sustain any person that has suffered a loss of limb or sense (like eyesight or hearing) if medical science can provide a complete healing/replacement/cure for the afflicted?

If Terry Schaivo's brain could've been medically restored, would it not be the ethical/moral thing to do..no matter the available methods or means?

But then again...where does man impinge upon the domain/plan of a "god"?

Is mankind's prospective measure of mortal longevity an imposed constraint of a particular deity's wish/plan...or is it not? If so, what limit's of human longevity are mandated or proscribed by said deity? If ALL life is considered both precious and sacred, then what are the outlined boundaries of care and cure for humankind's inevitable occurrences of illness and death? When is "saving" a life considered to be an unnatural extension of life?

Is there any valuable wisdom derived from a aged perspective steeped in full realization of limited years? Does a realization of personal mortality temper an individual's estimations of tolerance, justice, compassion, or rationalism? Does a physical vulnerability foster insight and wisdom more than youthful confidence or ambition might provide?

Do you believe that it would be more ethical/moral to share a "cure" for human aging with the world, or would it be better to withhold that information?

Please feel free to engage your expository skills in answer...

s2a · #2 10-12-2007, 01:01 AM

*sigh*

Another one bites the dust...

Oh well.

Nick Soapdish · #3 10-12-2007, 01:08 AM

Interesting question. I believe it would be ethical to reveal such a "cure", as long as using it did not require the sacrifice of another human life. I have my personal doubts that such a cure could be found, but I believe if it were found, that our bodies would still degenerate to some degree and that technology could not indefinitely sustain us.

Scarlett Wampus · #4 10-12-2007, 01:30 AM

Not being able to tell what the impact would be of immortality I would have a hard time with the responsibility of having some way to prevent death from aging. Preventing the loss of knowledge and wisdom gained over a lifetime would be my main reason for wanting to reveal such a thing, but would it actually improve people's lives and their effect on the world? I really don't know.

mingmty · #5 10-12-2007, 01:45 AM

I think man wants to live longer, forever if possible; it has nothing to do with God or theology, and is not unnatural, whatever the means, we are coded to struggle for survival.

Imagine if we discover the workings of the brain and consciouses, imagine we discover a way to put our thoughts inside a machine; I don't know you but I would copy my mind hoping that this ghost of myself is going to preserve and learn more, its ideas, my ideas, would evolve forever and become wiser every age.

I don't think it would be unnatural, everything is natural, we are natural and our creations are the creations of nature for we were created by nature and never will be free from it, whoever think we create "unnatural" things is sub-estimating millions of years of evolution without us, from suns to living consciouses beings, the last step is the highest kind of consciouses, the super human.

I don't think it would be unethical to "artificially" make ourselves evolve, I think it should be our goal; to explore space, and to evolve knowledge and perceptions to the unknown. Maybe humanity is destinated to become the "God" it has been searching for.

But I just came from a party and maybe had too many beers, so I may be talking nonsense. :P

Nick Soapdish · #6 10-12-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mingmty

Imagine if we discover the workings of the brain and consciouses, imagine we discover a way to put our thoughts inside a machine; I don't know you but I would copy my mind hoping that this ghost of myself is going to preserve and learn more, its ideas, my ideas, would evolve forever and become wiser every age.

The problem is a computer is discrete, and any "brain" running in a computer would just be a simulation. It would still be running on discrete clock cycles (state A -> state B -> state C) and would not be part of the substrate of space and time. Just like a space shuttle simulation on your computer does not take place in real space or time. I can't imagine that something can be "conscious" without being in real time.

mingmty · #7 10-12-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

The problem is a computer is discrete, and any "brain" running in a computer would just be a simulation. It would still be running on discrete clock cycles (state A -> state B -> state C) and would not be part of the substrate of space and time. Just like a space shuttle simulation on your computer does not take place in real space or time. I can't imagine that something can be "conscious" without being in real time.

Yup, you are talking about current technology, the state machine, I know about it since I live from designing it, but since we don't really know from where does our conscious arise is an error to say that it can't be replicated, we are already researching advanced AI alghoritms like neural networks that work well to create intelligent instruments that can learn.

One of my hobbies is to study neurology (I know I could have been an neurobiologist instead of an electronic engineer, is so interesting) and there are many theories and experimentation going on about this. One thing that I can tell you is that the brain doesn't process information in real time, and in fact some tasks take longer than others, there is a specialized part of our brain that fix the delays to make us feel like if everything is occurring in real-time and at the same time. In fact, we have a inner clock in the brain, whatever happens between one "tick" and another is experienced as happening at the same time, some drugs accelerate this clock making the person feel more lucid, or as if everything was going in slow motion, and as an interesting side-note this mechanism isn't working in a just born baby in his first week of life, so he can't feel time flowing, or understand the perceptions he is getting from the environment coherently.

If you ask me I would say it's possible to create a consciouses artifact, your example about the computer simulated rocket is flawed, because what is making it not to work as in the real world is the noise and that the mathematical models used by the simulator aren't precise enough, but developing AI look much more like to develop a fuzzy control system, not a modern system that tries to model all forces mathematically, so noise and errors in the model aren't really a problem in the long run, that curiously is very close that how it has been discovered that the brain works. For example when you see a moving object the brain gets the information from the eyes and before "elevating" it to the conscious it tries to predict where object will be a fraction of second after the captured image and this is what you actually see: the prediction, this prediction is necessary to account for the time that the brain takes since the image is captured by the eyes to the time it gets processed and launched to the consciouses, so you can act according to where the object is when you consciously get the image, but it has been discovered that this prediction is often wrong but not wrong enough so it can be corrected in the next "cycle" when the brain discovers the error after a new image arrive: The more it predicts the better the prediction and since this happens very fast we don't even notice. Again this works pretty much like a fuzzy control system.

Ori · #8 10-12-2007, 05:49 AM

I'm all for finding ways to cure genetic defects and such, but death is natural part of life, in my opinion.

Terrywoodenpic · #9 10-12-2007, 08:43 AM

There is a possibility that such a thing could be found.

As we are now, our cells have a maximum number of times they can reproduce themselves.
This is not true of all cells e.g. cancer cells.
Because of this simple fact we are constantly running out of cells capable of replacing them selves.
This is ageing...
some cells have an extreme ability to repair organs, e.g. the liver. Given time most livers can repair them selves, however serious disease and self damage can prevent this.
Some animals can replace entire limbs, some replace teeth continuously as they wear out.
Genetic research will eventually find ways to to modify our cells to to have unlimited exact reproduction.
that will result in greatly extended useful life spans.