Neuroscience and gerontology are definitely some of the more important ones, what else is prominent? What kinds of degrees do the primary researchers of this topic hold?
Just curious, any answers are welcome
Chemistry is always a free answer to these questions. It's not called "the central science" without good cause. I can't recall a single major advance in human technology since the quantum revolution that occured without the direct input of chemists. CRISPR, GMOs, computers...you just don't get very far without someone who understands how molecules react under stimulus.
CRISPR and GMOs are more microbiology than chemistry...maybe biochemistry, kinda? Their foundations are more heavily rooted in genetics/biotechnology
Edit: OP, look into calico labs and research groups on longevity, biological immortality, and life extension
Yes, to all counts. I would agree that none of these are primarily chemical endeavors. With that said, none of them could have succeeded without significant feedback from the chemistry community. Semiconductors in computing, and dozens of biochemical assays and analyses in genetic modification. That's why I tend to think of it as a free answer.
Makes sense! Emerging tech is always interdisciplinary :-)
And I think transhumanism/immortality absolutely is, too!
Isn't all biology ultimately chemistry?
Haha. There's an xkcd about this very concept that boils everything down to applied math--yes, you could certainly make that argument.
I'd say Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science, Psychology and anything on human biology is relevant.
Neuroscience/biology in general. Essentially the only relevant fields except for AI and computer science in a support function.
Artificial Intelligence. Solve the control problem and you win.
This is an interesting thought, but my question is: which one is more likely to come first? We gain enough information on aging to figure out a way to stop/slow it considerably, or we make enough progress in the field of AI where a computer can do that for us while still being under our control. Which of those two things will come first? Personally I have no idea, what do you think? Can you make any guesses?
It doesn't matter which comes first, because the AI won't be under our control if we don't solve that problem and it's probable that everyone will die as a simple side effect of the AI carrying out its command, which it will need as many atoms as possible to do. If we humans are smart enough to get a benign AI then it will solve the problem of mortality overnight. So essentially that's the only event that matters: the Singularity. Of course, if the Singularity is going to go well, then you'll want to be alive or at least cryonically frozen for it.
Biological, Chemistry... Biochemistry. Neurology. Those are the main ones. People wanna say tech related stuff but honestly were nowhere near that type of immortality.
We have a long ways to go I think, pragmatically we still barely understand biological senescence. Check out https://www.leafscience.org/.
It depend which will come first. At the moment I see biochem as the field closer to an answer, but the ultimate answer still I think lies in computer sciences, coupled with material sciences.
I think the first steps will come from rejuvenation treatments and other longevity programs. When these take off, it'll give us enough time to crack full brain simulation and other CS portions of the equation to shift away from the biological. Having a backup is always a good step towards immortality.
Figure out a way to make a lot of money, preferably legally. Then hire some competent people to work on the life-extension problem.
Seriously, if you want people to live longer, public health is critical.
You can't live forever if you've died in a car crash, been shot by a criminal, or been poisoned by contaminated food, etc. And of the things you can do to help yourself live longer right now, like eating better and being less dependent on a car, these are also in the domain of public health, because the way your community is set up (access to good stores, walkable transit, and so on) is what determines these.
The greatest gains for the least amount of effort in increasing the expected human lifespan have been from public health interventions rather than pure technical developments.
Hm, I hadn't thought of that but I definitely agree. Random question but other than eating better and being less dependent on cars, can you think of any other ways that most people can extend their lifespan/reduce the chances that they die?
Read Ending Aging, by Aubrey de Grey if you didn't already. Introduction video here.