• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

We may not die

R

ryan

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
4,668
Location
In a McDonalds in the q space
Basic Beliefs
a little of everything
I think it is very much possible that we could be near the day where the change in life expectancy at any healthy age will move faster than time.

The graph at the top of this website clearly shows advancements in fighting cancer accelerating with respect to time.

However, that is only for cancer. We need other diseases like Alzheimer's to look like this. I believe the first ever FDA approved Alzheimer's drug was approved last year. It only slows down the disease by 30%, but it's a start. Naturally, the more we look into something the more we know about it and the more ways we can combat it.

So we need to boost money spent on health research - a lot - if we are going to see this day where (delta life expectancy)/(delta time) > 1.

What you can do is look at the budgets, province/state or country, spending the least on health research and compare it to the ones spending more. There should be a huge public push for those states/provinces that spend less to increase their spending. Talk to your friends and family about this. Do whatever you can so that your government hears you.

This is not just for the peoples' sake, but it's also very economically beneficial. Over the years I have found an inexhaustible amount of economic studies showing the positive effects of spending government money on health research. The only problem that I have found is that health research does not have very much of a multiplier effect for more work. But the money that comes in from medical advancements can be used for more health research infrastructure and related construction so that many more people can be employed while increasing necessities for health research.

Health research is the ultimate answer: health, economy, morale, happiness, etc.

I am working on this, and I hope others will too. We may not die, but you have to intervene by promoting this change.


http://www.unitedformedicalresearch...IH-Role-in-the-Economy-FY15-FINAL-5.23.16.pdf is a report on the economic benefits of health research. The rundown is here, http://rallyformedicalresearch.org/Pages/EconomicImpact.aspx .
 
ryan said:
I think it is very much possible that we could be near the day where the change in life expectancy at any healthy age will move faster than time.

...


So we need to boost money spent on health research - a lot - if we are going to see this day where (delta life expectancy)/(delta time) > 1.
Click to expand...

What does it mean for something to move "faster than time"? What is "delta time"? 1 second per second?
 
PyramidHead said:
ryan said:
I think it is very much possible that we could be near the day where the change in life expectancy at any healthy age will move faster than time.

...


So we need to boost money spent on health research - a lot - if we are going to see this day where (delta life expectancy)/(delta time) > 1.
Click to expand...

What does it mean for something to move "faster than time"? What is "delta time"? 1 second per second?
Click to expand...

That's right. 1 second of additional life expectancy over 1 second; Einstein would allow this.

Delta time is just a change in time. Say you are 60 years old. Right now your life expectancy would be, if I remember correctly, 86 (at least in Canada). Maybe a 60 year old person 20 years ago had a life expectancy of 83. That means that in 20 years the life expectancy changed by 3 years, but it took 20 years for that to happen. That ratio is clearly less than 1. If we can get it greater than 1, we will at least have a chance to make it another 600 years; that's when we will have the computational power equivalent to the universe, assuming Moore's law holds.
 
What about the mind? Can it be preserved?
 
ryan said:
I think it is very much possible that we could be near the day where the change in life expectancy at any healthy age will move faster than time.

The graph at the top of this website clearly shows advancements in fighting cancer accelerating with respect to time.

However, that is only for cancer. We need other diseases like Alzheimer's to look like this. I believe the first ever FDA approved Alzheimer's drug was approved last year. It only slows down the disease by 30%, but it's a start. Naturally, the more we look into something the more we know about it and the more ways we can combat it.

So we need to boost money spent on health research - a lot - if we are going to see this day where (delta life expectancy)/(delta time) > 1.

What you can do is look at the budgets, province/state or country, spending the least on health research and compare it to the ones spending more. There should be a huge public push for those states/provinces that spend less to increase their spending. Talk to your friends and family about this. Do whatever you can so that your government hears you.

This is not just for the peoples' sake, but it's also very economically beneficial. Over the years I have found an inexhaustible amount of economic studies showing the positive effects of spending government money on health research. The only problem that I have found is that health research does not have very much of a multiplier effect for more work. But the money that comes in from medical advancements can be used for more health research infrastructure and related construction so that many more people can be employed while increasing necessities for health research.

Health research is the ultimate answer: health, economy, morale, happiness, etc.

I am working on this, and I hope others will too. We may not die, but you have to intervene by promoting this change.


http://www.unitedformedicalresearch...IH-Role-in-the-Economy-FY15-FINAL-5.23.16.pdf is a report on the economic benefits of health research. The rundown is here, http://rallyformedicalresearch.org/Pages/EconomicImpact.aspx .
Click to expand...

A couple of notes:
  1. An increase in life expectancy without an increase in quality of life might be a bad thing.
  2. Death can still occur even if life expectancy increases faster than time. In fact, death can still be a certainty.
 
beero1000 said:
A couple of notes:
  1. An increase in life expectancy without an increase in quality of life might be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

  1. I think if the vast majority wants to keep living no matter what their condition is, whether or not it is "good" is pretty much answered.

    [*]Death can still occur even if life expectancy increases faster than time. In fact, death can still be a certainty.
    Click to expand...

I know, but maybe in 100 years we will figure out solutions that we can't even currently conceive.
 
Horatio Parker said:
ryan said:
Yeah, why cling to life; it's only everything that matters.
Click to expand...

To whom? You are not the universe.
Click to expand...

If there are no beings for things to matter to, then all that matters is gone.

So, you are going to have a tough time convincing me that something we know about matters more than life.
 
beero1000 said:
A couple of notes:
  1. An increase in life expectancy without an increase in quality of life might be a bad thing.
  2. Death can still occur even if life expectancy increases faster than time. In fact, death can still be a certainty.
Click to expand...

Look at Kurzweil's work--he's predicting uploading the mind at 2040. While I think he's being overly optimistic on some of the technology he's also aiming too low--he's looking at uploading to desktop computers but we don't need to limit it thus. We can use far beefier computers, if Moore's law holds we will have them in the early 30s. (And note that the very nature of the mind is highly parallel. Massive processor arrays are a viable answer, we don't need blazing speed in a single processor.) (Note that he's looking at simulation which doesn't require understanding. If we can extract the information we can do it.)

If the quality of life is bad, upload when it becomes an option. Also, upload makes it much less likely you'll die and it makes it much easier to back up your mind in case you do.
 
ryan said:
Horatio Parker said:
To whom? You are not the universe.
Click to expand...

If there are no beings for things to matter to, then all that matters is gone.

So, you are going to have a tough time convincing me that something we know about matters more than life.
Click to expand...

But there are many other beings besides you and I. It will continue without us is all.

Without life, we have no idea of anything that matters.
 
Horatio Parker said:
ryan said:
If there are no beings for things to matter to, then all that matters is gone.

So, you are going to have a tough time convincing me that something we know about matters more than life.
Click to expand...

But there are many other beings besides you and I. It will continue without us is all.

Without life, we have no idea of anything that matters.
Click to expand...

Right, we don't know. All we can do is make the best choices with the best information we have.
 
I can't believe this thread is being debated this way.

I will simplify then quantify it. The only known medium for good is life; therefor, it is potentially good to live. It is not good to be dead. And since more people are not suicidal most of the time, I think it's safe to assume that the good in life outweighs the bad. There is net good so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom