Rise of the DINKs (Final Civ Death Stage)

I don't think you can lump stopping/reversing ageing in with other things considered "futuristic" within science, like terraforming and brain uploading etc. The reason is that we know that ageing can be solved. There are tons of non-ageing species, like some jelly fish, Hydra vulgaris, many plants, single cell life, our own gametes (sperm/egg cells) and possibly Greenland shark etc. We also know that ageing stops in all species that have sexual reproduction, but it stops very late in life with poor odds of year by year survival from that point. Paleo diet and lifestyle might stop ageing sooner in humans, at around age 75 it's indicated, vs maybe age ~105 under modern lifestyle conditions. With the advances in what's called -omics and AI drug research combined, I feel that the next stage of actual age reversal is within reach.

The same goes for things like paralysis due to spinal cord injury and blindness etc. Again there are other species that can repair those things like the Zebrafish and the Axolotl/Mexican Salamander. We (read some) know exactly how ageing works, and we also know how the Mex. Salamander can regrow any limb you chop off. It's a significant technical challenge, but one that's doable. Especially ageing is a low-hanging fruit in terms on what's achievable. Below; removed limb regrows via cell dedifferentiation in Axolotl...(If nature can do it then it's doable)

Newt Limb Regeneration on Make a GIF
 
Last edited:
Thomas More said:
Agreed.

I would say excess population causes the problems you cite. It's not like a globe spanning city would work if not for that pesky social decay. The correlation between excess population and social decay is an iron law.


Edit: I realised you make this point in the end. Added Agreed at the top.
Click to expand...
Yes, my only point was that it's chicken and egg. It's sorta like the only wealthy society you can keep women at bay in is an islamic one, but it turns out that's also a "for now" reality. The curveball there is that the western world and modernity in general swamp them and influence them regardless, which is sort of the issue for the west and all of the other countries. There's no doubt that behavioral sink is related to population, though, so intrinsically it's hard to argue. My only gripe (just complaining, sorry God) is that with certain numbers it is clear that you can predict how the average human, or at the population level, how everyone will react. I don't have a problem with it but it does bring up questions of agency in general, just like how we question it with women (if 99% of women act in a way when any sort of temptation is around, can you say they have agency?).
 
Johnnyvee said:
The reason is that we know that ageing can be solved.
Click to expand...
You are making a catch all statement in a way that's irrelevant. The only relevant issue for us, or in this topic, are humans. That a salamander can grow a limb or a blue whale can live to 900 years is a factoid when talking about humans; essentially it's a sales point or distractor from guys like David Sinclair.
Thomas More said:
I expect the maximum lifespan will be the same as 1000 years ago, but far more people will see the upper end of that limit.
Click to expand...
Yes, at best.
 
^Humans are already living for thousands of years in parallel universes (see The Bible). In other dimensions They are already immortal. Yes, time is irrelevant, but evolution is also real. Humans in the way we know them on planet earth in 2024 will one day "evolve" into immortal beings via the art of Perfect Medicine. If you think penicillin extended life expectancy in the 20th Century, wait until you see what's coming in the 22nd Century. Like nuclear weapons, and round earth, this is non-debatable.
 
PurpleUrkel said:
^Humans are already living for thousands of years in parallel universes (see The Bible). In other dimensions They are already immortal. Yes, time is irrelevant, but evolution is also real. Humans in the way we know them on planet earth in 2024 will one day "evolve" into immortal beings via the art of Perfect Medicine. If you think penicillin extended life expectancy in the 20th Century, wait until you see what's coming in the 22nd Century. Like nuclear weapons, and round earth, this is non-debatable.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post?
 
PurpleUrkel said:
^Humans are already living for thousands of years in parallel universes (see The Bible). In other dimensions They are already immortal. Yes, time is irrelevant, but evolution is also real. Humans in the way we know them on planet earth in 2024 will one day "evolve" into immortal beings via the art of Perfect Medicine. If you think penicillin extended life expectancy in the 20th Century, wait until you see what's coming in the 22nd Century. Like nuclear weapons, and round earth, this is non-debatable.
Click to expand...
DWRAknGW4AAVjxo.jpg
 
Blade Runner said:
Is this a serious post?
Click to expand...
Very serious. I've personally seen "technology" that will erase any argument(s) anyone could ever have about the prospect of biologically Perfect Medicine. Watch the Bob Lazar/Joe Rogan podcast from several years ago. One of two things is occurring during this podcast. Either Bob is lying or he is telling The Truth (50/50). If I was a betting man (which I'm not), I'd go with the latter.
 
Blade Runner said:
Luckily, I know a lot about Bob Lazar, and it is not 50/50 that he's a liar.

He is a liar. Period.
Click to expand...
Okay, I can't disagree with that. But I'm not a liar. Do you want to address what I've seen or continue to assume that you know for sure that nothing exists outside of your purview? You say Lazar is 100% a liar, I say he might be telling the truth. We're still at 50/50. So again, you're analysis is off by a demarcation of 100%.
 
Last edited:
Blade Runner said:
You are making a catch all statement in a way that's irrelevant. The only relevant issue for us, or in this topic, are humans. That a salamander can grow a limb or a blue whale can live to 900 years is a factoid when talking about humans; essentially it's a sales point or distractor from guys like David Sinclair.

Yes, at best.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with David Sinclair in terms of the ageing part. I don't see why it's irrelevant at all; since it's a clear example of something being doable, and it's also proven how ageing works, which is not the Sinclair hypothesis again. It's somewhat like seeing birds fly and realizing that humans can also do it.

Humans are already biologically immortal really, like all life must be, it's only that the immortality is maintained in the undifferentiated egg/sperm cells, and not the soma. Had it not been that way then children would be born the same age as the parents, (not the same size mind you) and the species would go extinct in 1-2 generations.
 
PurpleUrkel said:
Do you want to address what I've seen or continue to assume that you know for sure that nothing exists outside of your purview?
Click to expand...
You mentioned what you've seen and then brought up that fraud known as Bob Lazar, suggesting somehow it mattered what that guy said (which didn't make sense). What do you claim to have seen to make you believe X? I don't even know what you are claiming, since you haven't said.
Johnnyvee said:
It's somewhat like seeing birds fly and realizing that humans can also do it.
Click to expand...
But we can't, as we didn't evolved that way. You're proving my point. That birds can fly means that it's physically possible in some capacity to fly, but flying in airplanes is a modification of other things, not humans, thus again proving the point.
 
Blade Runner said:
You mentioned what you've seen and then brought up that fraud known as Bob Lazar, suggesting somehow it mattered what that guy said (which didn't make sense). What do you claim to have seen to make you believe X? I don't even know what you are claiming, since you haven't said.

But we can't, as we didn't evolved that way. You're proving my point. That birds can fly means that it's physically possible in some capacity to fly, but flying in airplanes is a modification of other things, not humans, thus again proving the point.
Click to expand...

Humans might solve ageing via our technology, just like flight. (I saw that point coming, but I disagree) Also, hanggliding is sort of making a man into a bird.
 
Johnnyvee said:
Humans might solve ageing via our technology, just like flight. (I saw that point coming, but I disagree) Also, hanggliding is sort of making a man into a bird.
Click to expand...

Well if it's like we solved fight you could argue we've already solved aging.

"We" don't actually fly, we sit in our constructions that do.

"We" don't actually live without aging, but with these machines that represent our likeness (and increasingly so) we do live without aging.

I like these discussions as I think the question of technology is intimately tied to the garden, genesis, the fall, and the apocalypse. It's going to get pretty real soon and decisions will have to be made.
 
PurpleUrkel said:
That's a complete derail at this juncture in the thread. Besides, you already know everything so what's the point?
Click to expand...
You said you saw something and asked if I wanted to hear, so I said yes. I guess you don't have anything really to claim. The oddest part of it was how you linked the idea of what you saw and Bob Lazar, as if that made any sense.

There are reasons why I make claims around here, and they aren't guesses, they are substantiated by investigation, research, science, and a background in medicine. While a lot of people can discern things in the modern day due to common sense, I'm just telling you I'm not guessing.
 
Blade Runner said:
You said you saw something and asked if I wanted to hear, so I said yes. I guess you don't have anything really to claim.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is not what I said. What I said was this:
PurpleUrkel said:
Do you want to address what I've seen or continue to assume that you know for sure that nothing exists outside of your purview?
Click to expand...
I asked if you wanted to "address" it, not hear the sensitive and extraordinary details in public. This was sarcasm, because as you've further demonstrated, then, and now, you have no real interest in hearing anything about technology and "things" that you couldn't possibly understand with your limited know-it-all human brain.
Blade Runner said:
There are reasons why I make claims around here, and they aren't guesses, they are substantiated by investigation, research, science, and a background in medicine.
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about "smug"? Like I said, you already know everything and nothing lies outside of your purview, so why would I try to explain something to someone who already knows that what I'm about to say is either delusional or an outright lie?
Blade Runner said:
While a lot of people can discern things in the modern day due to common sense, I'm just telling you I'm not guessing.
Click to expand...
Whatever, I'm not going to play "gotcha" with you. I told you that technology exists that would put your "science" and "research" and "investigations" into the realm of the stone age. You don't believe this. In essence, you believe me to be a liar, and fortunately this is something I can live with.

But enough with the derail, I'm out of this "conversation."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top