Just your guess. Also, overpopulation is a problem unless we completely change our species.
The optimist in me wants to say 2040 but more realistically, we're probably looking at 2060/2070 I think unless we see exponential changes in the rate at which progress is being made.
Rule of thumb: the pessimists are usually right. Transhumanism, being an inherently positive philosophy (I can cite major essays to this effect if anyone’s curious), tends to attract people who embrace technology and are excited for its forward march. However, frankly we’re still in the dark ages relative to where the technology will need to be to have immortality available. I think that none of us on this thread right now will live to see it.
I'd love to see the essays
My guess is 2100
The state where society can be made sustainably to have highly developed nations with robust welfare state infrastructures (i.e., not the US) that offer all their citizens who want to regular and safe treatments that extend biological life indefinitely, without undue undesirable side effects is a wave function depending on major decisions made in the next few years, but I'd say there's a highest of 55% the odds peak around 2042. I see a higher likelyhood peak (about 70%), somewhat earlier, that extremely rich people cut this off around the year 2035 - i.e. impede everyone else from attaining likely indefinitely life (caveat caveat).
The optimum is highly dependent on how much people on reddit forums like these stop masturbating and gaming and do significantly more to make this happen.
We can rule out every year in this century. A baby born today could realistically live another 82 years to the year 2100, without any of this "life extension" bullshit that the snake oil peddlers are selling us, along with their enablers like Ray Kurzweil.
You need to aim for a date in the 24th Century. If you could make it to a year like the easy-to-remember 2345 in good physical and cognitive shape, then you have probably solved the really hard problems in the early stages of radical life extension.
That doesn't mean you're home free, however. You'll probably develop new pathologies that the medicine of the 24th Century hasn't encountered before, and that the doctors won't know how to treat.
2200, or 2300. Every geneticist I asked about biological immortality (read:"Life extension escape velocity") told me that we are hundred of years or even millennia away from it.
I would love to be wrong, of course, but from experience the conservative scientists are usually right.
Genetics are very complex but we are moving much faster with genetics than most are aware. When i was born we didnt even have 1% of the human genome mapped. Now we have it mapped and we're modifying it with crispr. Im only 25 and at the rate we've been moving, i expect us to escape the curve by 2035. Sure, we have a lot of work ahead of us but if we can map the genome and find a way to modify it in 15 years, imagine what another 15 will give us.
Also, we still havent hit a point of diminishing returns on genetics research. We're just getting started with crispr and based on what I've seen, we will see a huge industry pop up for crispr treatments once crispr is more refined.
The biggest industry i see popping up is a cosmetic one. Want blue eyes, take this pill that will change your melanin production. Want to have straight hair, take this pill to change your hair folicles. Want to increase your bodys ability to grow muscle, take this pill. Each pill only 299.99. Most insurances accepted.
We have hundreds of thousands of boob jobs and nose jobs going on every year in the united states alone. If we could change something about ourselves like hair color, eye color, possibly even skin color, with crispr then a market will evolve to fill the demand.
With all that said, all that money flowing into genetic researchers pockets will only make immortality come faster. I plan on investing heavily into the genetic cosmetics market once it opens so i can not only live forever but be rich forever.
Genetics are very complex but we are moving much faster with genetics than most are aware.
That is the common pitch, yes. But it does not change the fact that it is 2018 and I have yet to see any consumer-grade applications that are not already provided by older means.
Im only 25 and at the rate we've been moving, i expect us to escape the curve by 2035. Sure, we have a lot of work ahead of us but if we can map the genome and find a way to modify it in 15 years, imagine what another 15 will give us.
When I was 10, I expected humanity to have a moon base by the time I was 20. Hope and wishes do not equate with proof, and, lacking training in the field myself, the best I can do is ask people who genuinely work in the field about their opinion, which is not so optimistic.
We have never hit a "diminishing return" on research. The only way for that would be to have reached a point where we almost know everything there is to know, so the more we research the less there is to know.
The problem is the exact opposite: The more we research, the less it turns out we know about a particular field, which gives ample room for future search but creates the inconvenient problem of also slowing down considerably practical uses.
But that is point: These technologies are much farther away than news articles would have you believe.
To give an example, last time I talked to a biochemist he made this example:
"CRISPR is like being able to correct a single typo on one specific word of one specific page of the entire collection of all the editions of Encyclopedia Brittanica ever published whereas before, you'd have to rip out the entire page, and you might miss the page entirely by a book or two"
It is a great advance, do not you think so? However it is still far from being able to play "LEGO Genes", which is kinda of a requirement when you want such changes. I mean, take something as "simple" as changing your eye color: There might be ways to do it through surgery, but if you want your genes to change, you have to alter the entire amount of DNA running in your body. That opens the door to massive errors, for example if you changed just your eyes your body would likely reject them as foreign objects or it might lead to cancer.
I have a saying about that: "That is what Brezhnev did with agriculture. It did not pay off."
is it possible to get finite life extention to last that long?
Technically this is almost game of probability. What are the odds you make it to the age in which this technology is available? If that number is greater than 100 years, think about medical advancements that will be made. Okay now you've made it to 130 years old and we have the technology. What are the odds that this will be available to you? Can you afford it? If there are restrictions what would they be? This is a game where you need to be conservative about risk, and realistic about the problems you'll face. Run the numbers.
It will depend heavily on the advances in recent years. I am not holding my breath, though, as you essentially asking to win the "longevity lottery" - get treatments that just so happen to keep you alive until we have enough biological mastery as to keep you alive indefinitely (barring external circumstances like car crashes).
Ok. I’ll find them later but they’re in the first few essays of the book The Transhumanist Manifesto.
Whenever we get Artificial General Intelligence(sometime in the 2020s).
It'll solve it for us.
That's even more optimistic than Kurzweil. My estimate for when we get AGI is a lot further than you think, I would say in the 2090-2125 range.
Prior to 2025.
What is your basis for this prediction? Other than Kurzweil, who has grossly underestimated the complexity of biology and the human brain.
Exponential increase in Neural Networks, Brain Computer Interfaces, quantum tunneling scope scanning of any mammalian brain(we’re doing mice now as of this week), and Exescale computing, all of which either exist now or going big time in the next 2-3 years. Several years ago we basically had nothing. Now Neural Networks can play Sonic the Hedgehog, Quake III, Unreal Tournament or DOTA2 after a few hours of play, and beat human players.
Exponentials are difficult for people to grasp, I get it. Many people called out OpenAI last week about excluding Roshan and Warding from OpenAIFive, only took half a week to include those things when everyone was telling them it’d be over another year before the Neural Networks could handle Roshan or Wards. Perhaps even 2 years because nobody thought a team of Neural Networks could figure out how to use wards. Not to mention in conjunction with one another and with fog.
No different than AlphaGo really, remember a time when experts thought that an algorithm that could beat a human professional was over >10 years away or in the late 2020s? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Pretty much all of those advances relied on the continuation of Moore's Law, which is coming to an end due to physical limitations. Once that happens (and very soon), the speed of innovation that we took for granted in the past few decades will slow to a crawl, and will eventually stop. The trouble is that there seems to be no successor to integrated circuits in sight.
Plus, the messy and chaotic real world does not resemble a game. Solving Go is a trivial problem in comparison to say, trying to understanding biology.
I wouldn't call the theoretical limit of 3nm "The End of Moore's Law", right now we're at 10-16nm(yes, I know 7nm is in current production at TSMC). 3nm is a 3x-5x shrinkage down from where we are now, that's like a 50nm chip compared to a 300nm chip. I do agree with you silicon is coming to it's end, we agree there, but it's not croaked just yet, it has a few more releases left in it. TBH I doubt we'll even bother going to 1-3nm.
We have a ton of working successors to Moore's Law. That's just not outright true dude. The main issue is manufacturing a ton of chips on those new substrates so the masses can use them on a larger scale, which right now, is the current problem(I should mention though, that we can partially mass produce graphene right now, we just have to streamline the filming process, mass producing graphene itself is already doable as of last December). Google, Baidu, IBM and OpenAI have billions to blow on optical or graphene chips(IBM has already made them too btw). Look at Tenserflow CPUs, Google had no problem spending millions on it to accelerate their AI's capabilities. We only need to get one AGI up and running, once it's in the feedback loop, it can start solving problems.
We don't have to understand Biology in order to make a General Learning NN, although I do think BCIs could provide us AGI by copying the human brain and/or upgrading or expanding it's capabilities over to NNs(Or we become the AGI via symbiosis). I think that scenario is also possible. But Musk's version looks like it will take longer than the OpenAI/Deepmind approach, they're making a lot more progress.
Based on SFT Network consensus and the primitive state of biotechnology for the foreseeable future, I would say around 2100-2150 for somewhat effective rejuvenation therapies to be developed. And that's IF climate change doesn't significantly affect our planet.
2035 is my guess based on crispr tech advancements and refinements. As for overpopulation, i think sterilization when becoming immortal will help as well as funding nasa for extraplanetary cities.