Future of nanotechnology, immortality

[[BTF]adam]

Source: http://forums.ownagepranks.com/t9065/ (no idea about original)

Nanotech Could Make Humans Immortal by 2040, Futurist Says
Futurist Ray Kruzweil predicts that advances in nanotechology could start making humans immortal by the mid-2000s by instantly repairing damaged cells and...

Sharon Gaudin, Computerworld
Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:48:00 -0700

In 30 or 40 years, we'll have microscopic machines traveling through our bodies, repairing damaged cells and organs, effectively wiping out diseases. The nanotechnology will also be used to back up our memories and personalities.

In an interview with Computerworld , author and futurist Ray Kurzweil said that anyone alive come 2040 or 2050 could be close to immortal. The quickening advance of nanotechnology means that the human condition will shift into more of a collaboration of man and machine , as nanobots flow through human blood streams and eventually even replace biological blood, he added.

That may sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, but Kurzweil, a member of the Inventor's Hall of Fame and a recipient of the National Medal of Technology, says that research well underway today is leading to a time when a combination of nanotechnology and biotechnology will wipe out cancer, Alzheimer's disease , obesity and diabetes .

It'll also be a time when humans will augment their natural cognitive powers and add years to their lives, Kurzweil said.

"It's radical life extension," Kurzweil said . "The full realization of nanobots will basically eliminate biological disease and aging. I think we'll see widespread use in 20 years of [nanotech] devices that perform certain functions for us. In 30 or 40 years, we will overcome disease and aging. The nanobots will scout out organs and cells that need repairs and simply fix them. It will lead to profound extensions of our health and longevity."

Of course, people will still be struck by lightning or hit by a bus, but much more trauma will be repairable. If nanobots swim in, or even replace, biological blood, then wounds could be healed almost instantly. Limbs could be regrown. Backed up memories and personalities could be accessed after a head trauma.

Today, researchers at MIT already are using nanoparticles to deliver killer genes that battle late-stage cancer. The university reported just last month the nano-based treatment killed ovarian cancer, which is considered to be one of the most deadly cancers, in mice.

And earlier this year, scientists at the University of London reported using nanotechnology to blast cancer cells in mice with "tumor busting" genes, giving new hope to patients with inoperable tumors. So far, tests have shown that the new technique leaves healthy cells undamaged.

With this kind of work going on now, Kurzweil says that by 2024 we'll be adding a year to our life expectancy with every year that passes. "The sense of time will be running in and not running out," he added. "Within 15 years, we will reverse this loss of remaining life expectancy. We will be adding more time than is going by."

And in 35 to 40 years, we basically will be immortal, according to the man who wrote The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology .

Kurzweil also maintains that adding microscopic machines to our bodies won't make us any less human than we are today or were 500 years ago.

"The definition of human is that we are the species that goes beyond our limitations and changes who we are," he said. "If that wasn't the case, you and I wouldn't be around because at one point life expectancy was 23. We've extended ourselves in many ways. This is an extension of who we are. Ever since we picked up a stick to reach a higher branch, we've extended who we are through tools. It's the nature of human beings to change who we are."

But that doesn't mean there aren't parts of this future that don't worry him. With nanotechnology so advanced that it can travel through our bodies and affect great change on them, come dangers as well as benefits.

The nanobots, he explained, will be self-replicating and engineers will have to harness and contain that replication.

"You could have some self-replicating nanobot that could create copies of itself... and ultimately, within 90 replications, it could devour the body it's in or all humans if it becomes a non-biological plague," said Kurzweil. "Technology is not a utopia. It's a double-edged sword and always has been since we first had fire."

[[BTF]adam]

If this is real, even in 100 years, 150 whatever like the guy said on the other forum, the implications of this are insane! if we reproduced while extending life that long the planets resources would be raped so quickly, then you have to factor in stuff like morality in terms of fucking with the natural life and death process, if people are living to say 150+ what sort of affect is that going to have on society? what about issues like seriously skilled (albeit sick fuck) serial killers that are already nigh impossible to catch, now you'd get near-immortal serial killers? near immortality in sports meaning the boundries can be pushed further and to more ridiculous levels. no diseases and drastically reduced number of hospital/doctor appointments will dent the economies and industries hard, man it would suck to be prime minister/president or whatever having to think about all this stuff every bloody day

[peewee_RotA]

I've read popular science articles that have claimed we would have light speed traveling space ships by 2015. Most of those futurist predictions are as credible as the early 20th century claims that we would have hover crafts by now. It's based on the observation of progress towards a specific goal. So if we have a technology like speech recognition. If in 1996 it is 60% accurate, and in 2001 it is 80% accurate then popular science magazine will write an article about it being 100% accurate in 2006. So in 2011 will it be 120% accurate?

It's not an entirely false notion to speculate on the future based on progress of the past. Our computers have doubled in speed, capacity and performance pretty regularly, but who would have ever predicted the iPhone? So is it accurate to say that in 2020 we will all have super computers as our desktops? Or is it more likely that the mobile technologies will be improved and the concept of a desktop computer will become antiquated? In this case instead of technology getting faster, it got smaller which is an advancement that outweigh's the performance of desktops. Another trend breaker is the use of game consoles that are now the platform of choice for FPS. And the re-emergence of 2d games being sold. Like Bejeweled delux and Peggle.

Yes we theoretically could have super computers, but what people do with technology almost always differs from what is predicted. Also the point at which that technology becomes applicable in daily life usually differs from what is predicted. Instead of in 2040 having super nano-bots, the technology might be applied in clothing in 2031 and completely switches paths. On top of that, technology is not specifically limited by man hours. It's usually limited by technological hurdles. Jet packs are possible, but both safety and a portable power source are the hurdles that make them not feasible. So what if we can make nano bots, but there is no such thing as a nano battery? So one technology relies on another that may not exist until 2090.

The point is that these projections tend to be wildly inaccurate because they either quantify a qualitative issue or they focus on specific trends while ignoring common variables that affect other trends in similar situations. I'm always weary when I hear about science that is modeled after science fiction, and not after it's own underlying technology.

[[BTF]adam]

You pack some fair points, which I can't really counter because you're right but all I can say is what I posted after I posted the excerpt - *when* or *if* it happens be it 50, 100 or 150 years time. While it does not primarily affect us in 150 years, it WILL affect our families and whatnot so these are still considerations that all have to be thought about and concluded with solutions appropriately. it's a hefty burden on whoever has to do so imo.

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Recommend read/listening to Ray Kurzweil directly such as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zo82W7aPI

[quadz]

Recommend read/listening to Ray Kurzweil directly such as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zo82W7aPI

Very cool, thanks.

I read Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines about 10 years ago.

I think it's pretty clear--since we have the human brain as an existence proof of an intelligent machine constructed from digital instructions (DNA)--that as long as we don't annhiliate ourselves first, we will definitely construct systems that are a lot smarter than ourselves eventually.

  *  *  *

Hmm, just dusted off The Age of Spiritual Machines (published in 1999.)  Kurzweil had several pages of predictions for 2009.  Interesting to re-read.....

He got a number of things pretty close, over-estimated some other things (predominance of speech-controlled computer interfaces, number of wearable computers reaching hundreds, etc.)

  *  *  *

I'm kind of an optimist/pessimist... I think it's clear that physics allows for much more capable and efficient intelligent computing structures than our biological brains...... but on the other hand I am skeptical the consumer-level realizations of these things will occur quite as rapidly as Kurzweil predicts...

Nonetheless, I think Kurzweil is indeed not making outlandish predictions.  I'm starting to think, if he's wrong, it might be by a decade but probably not by a century...




Regards,