What development do you anticipate the most?

[More Fire for the People]

For me, it was a toss-up between fusion power and colonization of Mars but I picked the former because of it's wider implications such as providing a material foundation for many different technological projects, including the colonization of Mars.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think this poll should have been multiple-choice. Personally, I think all of them are desirable, and I would rank them thus:

1. Fusion power - If we can get past the break-even point, that would make surviving the energy crisis much easier. Things appear quite promising at the moment, as they've finally started constructing ITER and the Polywell fusion reactor has recently passed peer review (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/16/1718741.aspx). Even Inertial Confinement Fusion is getting a look-in with the construction of the National Ignition Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility). Of all the developments listed, this is the one we as a civilisation currently need the most, and hence it deserves first place.

2. Nano-engineering - At it's most basic, it will enable us to make carbon nanotubes and other nanomaterials essential to things like space elevators and new materials, and at it's most optimistic, advanced nanotechnology (along with viable fusion power) will usher in a new Industrial Revolution. Nanotechnology would most likely be instrumental in precipitating a Technological Singularity.

3. Quantum computing - This technology not only represents a quantitive leap forward in computing power, but also a qualititive sea change in the nature of modern computation. Obviously, such a revolutionary technology would have significant ripple effects in all fields of knowledge and industry involving computers in any capacity, serving to magnify and modulate the advancements made in said industries. I would say that if the Singularity were to happen, then quantum computing would certainly play a vital role.

4. Other - There are some developments not listed on the poll that I would like to see happen. This includes a working understanding of human consciousness, which I feel would be essential to advanced mind-machine interface, including mind uploading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading). AI research is another field I would like to see reach the point where it is more of an applied science rather than the more theoretical approach it is today. A functional Space Elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Elevator) would make the task of setting up spaceborne industries (and by extension, colonising the Solar System) orders of magnitude less energy intensive. In addition, there are many problems in physics which if solved would shed light on other (possibly unexpected!) areas as well as providing a better understanding of the workings of our universe.

5. Inner-system space colonization - After setting up our Space Elevator and establishing sufficient industry off the Earth's surface (there are plenty of Near Earth Objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Object) (NEOs) for the provision of raw materials), this should be our next goal as a civilisation. It will be our opportunity to get good at actually living in space, rather than just visiting it once and planting a flag somewhere.

6. Anti-aging drugs - While having these would be nice, humans can already live quite a long time with a good diet and adequate medical care, which is sadly lacking for most people in the world, even in the so-called "First World". I think that while research in this area is inevitable and I personally am far from opposed to it, I think the emphasis should be on developing technologies that improve quality of life rather than lifespan.

[More Fire for the People]

1. Fusion power - If we can get past the break-even point, that would make surviving the energy crisis much easier. Things appear quite promising at the moment, as they've finally started constructing ITER and the Polywell fusion reactor has recently passed peer review (http://www.anonym.to/?http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/16/1718741.aspx). Even Inertial Confinement Fusion is getting a look-in with the construction of the National Ignition Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility). Of all the developments listed, this is the one we as a civilisation currently need the most, and hence it deserves first place.

I've always understood that the biggest obstacle to 'commercially viable' fusion power was the lack of helium-3 on Earth. But, I've always heard there are helium-3 deposits on the moon and in the atmosphere of Jupiter. Which to me suggests that moon-mining in the short term and extraction from Jupiter in the long run are essential to fusion power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've always understood that the biggest obstacle to 'commercially viable' fusion power was the lack of helium-3 on Earth. But, I've always heard there are helium-3 deposits on the moon and in the atmosphere of Jupiter. Which to me suggests that moon-mining in the short term and extraction from Jupiter in the long run are essential to fusion power.

Helium-3 is not the only fusionable isotope. There is more than enough deuterium in seawater and tritium can be bred in deuterium-tritium (D-T) reactors, for example (it also helps that D-T reactions are the easiest to achieve in terms of temperature). This is part of the motivation for my desire to become a nuclear physicist.

As for helium-3 from gas giants, Saturn would be a better source, as its gravity well is significantly weaker.

[MarxSchmarx]

Put another way, anti-aging drugs are really a cure for death. The transformative potential of this on human existence will be astounding.

Inter-stellar space travel would be nice. Then we ensure eternal life as a species.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Put another way, anti-aging drugs are really a cure for death. The transformative potential of this on human existence will be astounding.

I'm not so sure myself. There might be a limit on how far one can extend the human lifespan through chemical means alone. I'm guessing any method that can extend the lifespan indefinately would involve nanotech capable of actively restructuring the human body on the cellular and molecular level.


Inter-stellar space travel would be nice. Then we ensure eternal life as a species.

This I can agree with, the proviso being that our extra-terrestrial colonies must be truly independant in every sense of the word.

[More Fire for the People]

While I'd love to see interstellar travel, I don't see that happening in the next 30-50 years.

[Dr Mindbender]

while i should probably be rooting for a cure for cancer, i can't wait for fusion power.

[Kukulofori]

Anti-aging, followed by a way to get meat and cheese without keeping an animal in captivity.

[piet11111]

anti-aging so that everyone is able to live long enough to see the other technology's be developed and applied.

[which doctor]

I'd say I'm looking forward most to nano-engineering and fusion power. The applications of nano-engineering are really limitless and fusion power could create a post-scarcity society in terms of energy.

I'm not a fan of anti-aging, I think they're are much better things to put our time and effort towards.

[mikelepore]

While the others are technical problems of implementation, no one even knows that quantum computing is possible even theoretically. It's just a guess that the superposition state of a wave function might be useful for something. As far as anyone knows today, as soon as someone tries to look at any superposition state, it collapses. So your computer can do the calculations only if you never output the answers. It has to be unusable in order for it to work.

[mikelepore]

I'm looking forward to the personal robot. Robot, go shovel the snow. Robot, go put the dishes into the dishwasher. Here's how I think it will happen. There will be two kinds of interfaces, the mechanical interfaces where you can snap in a snow shoveling attachment, a hole digging attachment, a fabric sewing attachment, a wood carpentry attachment, etc., and a software interface, which means loading data similar to today's computer input/output drivers. The robot can also change its mechanical attachments by itself, and load its own software. The operating system language and the mechanical and software interfaces will be standardized, so anyone can make a new kind of attachment and its driver software, as long as they follow the language specifications. While companies like Microsoft will try to monopolize the sale of modules for each application, volunteers who believe in free software will develop and give away software that's just as good. Programming improvements will be rapid because basic utilities, such as the code to recognize shapes from the video camera, control fine motor mechanism, etc., will add to the library of subroutines that any other applications can call.

[Coggeh]

1. The revolution

.....Then fusion power:thumbup1:

[Coggeh]

I'd say I'm looking forward most to nano-engineering and fusion power. The applications of nano-engineering are really limitless and fusion power could create a post-scarcity society in terms of energy.

Scarcity in itself is sometimes basically created for profit , production is slowed to create value . Once the imposing of scarcity in society it done away with our situation could be better accessed I believe to prioritize technological advancements .

[piet11111]

I'm not a fan of anti-aging, I think they're are much better things to put our time and effort towards.

why ?

what is the added value to society or to the individual of death ?

death is a massive waste of the most vital resource we have namely us !
a thing to consider is that if we hypothetically tripled our lifespan somehow what the effects could be.

first of all we would be more concerned with our own well being on the long term because we would be still here after 150 years and that is a good argument for socialism/communism as today people do not want to fight for their interests much because retirement follows after ~40 short working years instead opting to appease the boss for a smoother working career.
if that career suddenly is going to last ~200 years you would be less forgiving because a lower wage is going to accumulate in a lot of missed money over the many years.

study would probably become more important because you now learn for a life that is going to span at least 2 century's.

another is that our leading scientists would be able to work longer in their field of expertise allowing them to make far more breakthroughs and also giving them the ability to teach far more students what they have learned.

really if you cant see the benefits of anti aging technology then you must have a severe lack of imagination.

[MarxSchmarx]

^^ What piet1111 said.


I'm not so sure myself. There might be a limit on how far one can extend the human lifespan through chemical means alone. I'm guessing any method that can extend the lifespan indefinately would involve nanotech capable of actively restructuring the human body on the cellular and molecular level.
Sure. We have no idea about the medical promises of nanotech, but that would be a great step forward.

To their credit, stem-cells and purely chemical means like resveratrol have managed to fight and restructure the bodies of other organisms without having to resort to nanotech technologies. Nor do I think senescence is inevitable. Trees, for example, that manage to live for thousands of years. Yet at the cellular, and certainly molecular level, they share quite a bit with us - and the most obvious differences can be ameliorated without resorting to nanotechnology.


True, it hasn`t been tested in humans yet, and as of yet we haven`t gotten a mouse that doesn`t die.

Yet odds are these kind of anti-aging techniques will come before nanotech. And the need for nanotech will depend on whether these problems can be solved at the cellular level or at the atomic level. I suspect they can probably be solved at the cellular level. Moreover, I think significantly extended lifespans will come before an artificial cell indistinguishable from a real one. But a thorough understanding of death and diseases will come only through extensive nano-scale experimentations.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm not so sure myself. There might be a limit on how far one can extend the human lifespan through chemical means alone. I'm guessing any method that can extend the lifespan indefinately would involve nanotech capable of actively restructuring the human body on the cellular and molecular level.

There is a gene (or genes) which causes aging, if a way can be found to alter or modify that gene in the right manner aging can be stopped.

[More Fire for the People]

The biggest cause of aging is unavoidable exposure to oxygen free radicals and radiation, which means we have to develop a means to repair the damage.

[butterfly]

For anti-aging technology we need space colonisation, for space colonisation we need fusion power. Go fusion power!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For anti-aging technology we need space colonisation,

How so?

[butterfly]

6b people living on the one planet forever?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

6b people living on the one planet forever?

I think we'd be colonising the Solar System long before we facilitate indefinate lifespans.

[piet11111]

I think we'd be colonising the Solar System long before we facilitate indefinate lifespans.

i don't know but with life extension we can extend a life with enough time for the next breakthrough we need to add even more time.
i think kurzweil calls it accelerating returns on investment in science.

and keeping an eye out on medical science i am hopeful that i (23 years old) just might live to get a piece of that anti aging cake and because of that the end of the capitalist filth.

[MarxSchmarx]

The biggest cause of aging is unavoidable exposure to oxygen free radicals and radiation, which means we have to develop a means to repair the damage.


I'm not as up on the aging literature, but could you answer these:
(1) Why aren't trees and tortoises exposed to these same problems; (2) why do mammals differ so much in their timing of senescence if this was the case?


There is a gene (or genes) which causes aging, if a way can be found to alter or modify that gene in the right manner aging can be stopped.

This is basically correct.

The fact of the matter is, there is genetic variation in the susceptibility to whatever it is that causes aging related increases in mortality risk. This variation almost certainly is not at the nano-level, which leaves open the promise of "strictly chemical" routes to controlling the aging process.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i don't know but with life extension we can extend a life with enough time for the next breakthrough we need to add even more time.
i think kurzweil calls it accelerating returns on investment in science.

And in the meantime while we're waiting for these technologies to be invented we're not going to be twiddling our thumbs, or at least I hope we won't be.


and keeping an eye out on medical science i am hopeful that i (23 years old) just might live to get a piece of that anti aging cake and because of that the end of the capitalist filth.

It would be nice if it turns out that we're members of "The Forever Generation", but I'm not counting on it myself.

Although I do admit it is very cool to imagine oneself 100,000+ years later, telling people our age about the time when we lived on just one planet instead of the whole galaxy.


(1) Why aren't trees and tortoises exposed to these same problems; (2) why do mammals differ so much in their timing of senescence if this was the case?

I think that's due to vastly slower metabolisms. A tree doesn't move about, so it consumes nowhere near as much energy. Neither do trees have brains which consume lots of energy and eventually go senile. A tree also has a simpler structure and thus much fewer points of failure.

Tortoises also have slower metabolisms (if not as slow as that of a tree), and they're hardly noted for being the smartest animals in the world.

[piet11111]

And in the meantime while we're waiting for these technologies to be invented we're not going to be twiddling our thumbs, or at least I hope we won't be.

obviously not unless our geneticists are supposed to bring coffee to the guys working on fusion until they finish their project and then the nuclear physicists can bring coffee to the people working on anti aging :lol:
nope everyone working on the project that they are expert in just like they should.


It would be nice if it turns out that we're members of "The Forever Generation", but I'm not counting on it myself.

i am not counting on it either but seeing what amazing things are being done i am not going to rule it out either.

it seems much of our body's regenerative ability's are lost as we age as a protection system against cancer.
a link regarding neural regeneration being stopped by proteins http://www.physorg.com/news148840268.html
and since it was the brains lack of rejuvenation that was the biggest theoretical limit to anti aging the link above seems like a big discovery that will bring a massively prolonged lifespan more and more into our reach.

[TheWaffleCzar]

I can't decide. They are all great and we need them all.

[KC]

Nano-engineering. Everything else are significant developments in their own right, but nano-engineering will change the way we will do everything. Also, it is already starting to happen.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm excited about the possibilites of nano engineering, the materials that could be developed would revolutionize so much of what we use. As a cyclist I look forward to bikes that weigh a pound or less, but there will be much more important uses as well.

[Led Zeppelin]

Although I do admit it is very cool to imagine oneself 100,000+ years later, telling people our age about the time when we lived on just one planet instead of the whole galaxy.

That's interesting.

How long do you think people would remember if they would live over 100.000 years? Or is the brain capable of remembering most of the whole time-span?

Is the human brain capable of infinitely remembering?

[Pawn Power]

This is somewhat of an arbitrary selection.

Either way, anticipating future technologies always looks silly looking back at such predictions decades later.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think that's due to vastly slower metabolisms. A tree doesn't move about, so it consumes nowhere near as much energy. Neither do trees have brains which consume lots of energy and eventually go senile. A tree also has a simpler structure and thus much fewer points of failure.

Tortoises also have slower metabolisms (if not as slow as that of a tree), and they're hardly noted for being the smartest animals in the world.

A tree not moving doesn't explain why it lives for thousands of years, while my sunflowers die after a few months. Somehow, the tree has developed greater resistance to senescent properties while retaining the basic cellular structure it shares with my sunflowers.

Indeed, Eukaryotic cells, on a per-cell basis, cost about the same to maintain. Our energetic demands differ from a turtle's primarily because we are endothermic. There is variable susceptibility to senescence within cold-blooded and warm blooded organisms. None of this variation, again, appears to involve changes at the nano-level. The role of complexity to longevity is, agreed, disputed. However, a strictly monotonic relationship cannot exist. Even within the same group organisms, "conserved", less "complex" forms like sharks have longer absolute life spans than more complex "derived" forms like guppies in the absence of predation.



Is the human brain capable of infinitely remembering?

Probably. All you have to do is be able to graft the old memories onto newer cells. This is kind of like the "replace it plank by plank, board by board, do you still have the same ship you had before?" problem.

[piet11111]

That's interesting.

How long do you think people would remember if they would live over 100.000 years? Or is the brain capable of remembering most of the whole time-span?

Is the human brain capable of infinitely remembering?

unlikely seeing i cant even remember what i ate for dinner last week or how often i drank some water that day.
unimportant memory's are not going to stick in your head and i would expect that system to become more selective of what you will keep remembering as the years go by. (provided we do not find ways of boosting our memory)

i don't know about you but the part i find important about living is the things i can do today with my loved ones and not some random memory like what birthday present i got when i turned 12.
not remembering the little things i did in my life so many decades ago is an insignificant price to pay for all those additional memory's you get to make because you can live so much longer.

[Mike666]

For me it's anti ageing, perhaps from a selfish perspective but still, the amout of suffering that would be prevented would be significant.

[Led Zeppelin]

i don't know about you but the part i find important about living is the things i can do today with my loved ones and not some random memory like what birthday present i got when i turned 12.
not remembering the little things i did in my life so many decades ago is an insignificant price to pay for all those additional memory's you get to make because you can live so much longer.

I was actually referring to entire periods of life, rather than trivial matters like what present we received at birthdays.

If we were to live to become over 100.000 years old, would we still remember what life was like when we were in our 30's? Or would that entire period just be a blur?

That was my question.

And it's certainly important, because if you want to live with your loved ones you would have to be you, correct? And what are you without your memories, especially the ones that were the foundation of your life (your teens, twenties and thirties I guess)?

It's an interesting concept to think about, perhaps people will go through several complete changes of personality throughout their life solely due to age and the having of new memories while "forgetting" the older ones.

[bcbm]

Presumably if we've figured out how to live to 100,000, some method of increased memory storage would be available. Not to say our brains are incapable of pretty bizarre feats now.... Kim Peek has memorized over 12,000 books, among other things.

[apathy maybe]

Transhumanism for the win.

Imagine being able to manipulate your body almost at will. Want to go swimming underwater for an hour? Bigger lungs, or gills perhaps? More fat deposits would be good too.

Don't want to have blue hair when you go to a party later tonight? Change it to green really simply.

Want to live a simple life? Photosynthesis is the answer.

Fuck being human, I want to be anything I want.

----

(Linked to this, I want to be able to upload. While I haven't read the novel Diaspora by Greg Egan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)), I did read the short story it was based on (Wang's Carpets), which is a wonderful read.)

[apathy maybe]

Actually, the possibility of free unlimited energy that is promised by fusion power is also something worth wanting. Though, it is obvious that we already have unlimited (though not free) energy there for the taking. I am of course talking about the giant fusion plant in the sky.

Other sustainable power methods such as wind, wave, thermal, etc. are also all great possibilities. But fusion does seem to offer the best way into the future of providing effectively unlimited power.

[mikelepore]

Either way, anticipating future technologies always looks silly looking back at such predictions decades later.

"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." -- Popular Mechanics magazine, March 1949

[piet11111]

"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." -- Popular Mechanics magazine, March 1949

everyone has flying cars in the year 2000 :laugh:

sure its unlikely we will predict anything accurately but its necessary to do so if we are to plan ahead and not run into any surprises.
after all if we did not try to do so who would have a pension plan ready by the age of retirement ?

[Killfacer]

Space colonisation. I would love to go to another planet it would be amazing. Plus we need to be able to fight the alien menace.

[cop an Attitude]

anti-aging because I, like most, dont want to die. But what effect would it have on the gobal population, and even if such a drug existed I doubt it would be resonably priced. Fusion and Nano after that.

[Decolonize The Left]

Fusion Power for sure - simply the building block of future technology (as far as I can imagine at least).

And for all of you that voted for Anti-Aging drugs, this is a terrible idea. Rather than trying to prolong our relatively meaningless and pointless lives, we should focus on making them vastly more meaningful. Wanting to live for hundreds more years is greedy and weak - why aren't you totally satisfied with this life? Don't answer this question - go make it happen!

Furthermore, there are countless enormous problems associated with the notion of anti-aging drugs. For one, the mental anxiety associated with a much longer lifespan would be enormous and could lead to some serious disorders.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Rather than trying to prolong our relatively meaningless and pointless lives, we should focus on making them vastly more meaningful.

My life isn't meaningless or pointless - that's just your opinion.

And a longer life can have more meaning in it than one cut short.


Wanting to live for hundreds more years is greedy and weak - why aren't you totally satisfied with this life? Don't answer this question - go make it happen!It's neither greedy nor weak to want to make the most of the opportunity of being born - after all, it only happens to each of us once.

It's hard to "make things happen" when one is dead. The longer one lives, the more time one has to "make things happen".


Furthermore, there are countless enormous problems associated with the notion of anti-aging drugs. For one, the mental anxiety associated with a much longer lifespan would be enormous and could lead to some serious disorders.Do you have any evidence for this bald assertion?

[Decolonize The Left]

My life isn't meaningless or pointless - that's just your opinion.

Given the apparent state of our social structures it is readily apparent that the vast majority of individuals lead relatively meaningless and pointless lives. It is not difficult to see: consumerism, materialism, fascism, religion, etc... are all signs of a blatant inability to create a meaningful existence for oneself.


And a longer life can have more meaning in it than one cut short.

It can, sure. But length of life has no direct relationship to meaningful existence.


It's neither greedy nor weak to want to make the most of the opportunity of being born - after all, it only happens to each of us once.

You want to make the most of the opportunity of being born? What does this have to do with length of life? If you want to do it then do so. But don't whine about more years...


It's hard to "make things happen" when one is dead. The longer one lives, the more time one has to "make things happen".

Not necessarily. It is entirely true that the possibility increases, but that was not the point of my post.


Do you have any evidence for this bald assertion?

Simple logic. If you live for 70 years then a serious injury or illness causes mental anxiety. But if you were planning/hoping to live for 200 years, then this anxiety is multiplied.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Given the apparent state of our social structures it is readily apparent that the vast majority of individuals lead relatively meaningless and pointless lives. It is not difficult to see: consumerism, materialism, fascism, religion, etc... are all signs of a blatant inability to create a meaningful existence for oneself.

No. You are projecting your opinions of those things onto other people, who may or may not see their lives as pointless and lacking meaning.

Just because you find religion, fascism, consumerism, etc don't add to your feeling of meaning in life, doesn't mean that others feel the same way. But by the same token, that doesn't mean we can't criticise such things.


It can, sure. But length of life has no direct relationship to meaningful existence.True, but a longer life can have more "meaning" in it than a shorter one.


You want to make the most of the opportunity of being born? What does this have to do with length of life? If you want to do it then do so. But don't whine about more years...Death is final. There is only so much one can do in 70-80 years, and people make mistakes, experience bad luck, and so on and so forth. A longer life will enable one to experience more, do more, give further opportunities to do things "right", etc etc.

As for "whining" that's fairly rich coming from someone who declares the lives of millions to be meaningless without ever having met them. Tell me, if life is so meaningless and pointless, why not take the alternative and hang yourself already?


Not necessarily. It is entirely true that the possibility increases, but that was not the point of my post.So what was your point? You called our lives meaningless and pointless, called those who desire longer lifespans greedy and weak, and made some stupid statement about satisfaction with "this" life - in spite of the fact that anti-aging drugs would extend the only life we ever get.


Simple logic. If you live for 70 years then a serious injury or illness causes mental anxiety. But if you were planning/hoping to live for 200 years, then this anxiety is multiplied.That's a risk I'm willing to take, thank you very much. And besides, I'd be pretty browned off if I discovered that I was going to die aged 40 rather than aged 80 - what difference would that make?

[al8]

Finding a cure or a treetment for aging would be very economical, in so many ways. Even with small advances. People could become more risk aversive and security conscious in general but that's not necessarily a bad thing. That means fewer accitents. More job safety. Better safety design of everything built, etc.

But longer lifespan, which would necessarily mean healthy lifespan (because frailty is what leads in one way or another to ultimatly fatal pathologies) which in turn would mean that less time and resources would be needed to be devoted to elderly care as well as late intensive care of the dying. And I expect as well that with fewer dying, the quality of life would rise as result same as with hitherto lifespan increase. And one would probably see less children being born as well, and thus less effort into rearing entirely new individuals with all the strain and effort that that requires. Or even that those born would get more care and attention. So the quality of child raising would potentially be better. School classes would be of healthy sizes of maybe 4-10 in stead of the dizzying amount of 30-40.

Off course it all depends. But you all see where I'm going at.

[al8]

And for all of you that voted for Anti-Aging drugs, this is a terrible idea. Rather than trying to prolong our relatively meaningless and pointless lives, we should focus on making them vastly more meaningful. Wanting to live for hundreds more years is greedy and weak - why aren't you totally satisfied with this life? Don't answer this question - go make it happen!

Mild or even radical lifespan extention would not exclude this from happening, just as increased longevety over the last century hasn't. Think of how odd it would sound to us if someone said, when life average expectency was 40 years, that living to 70 or 80 was selfish, a waste of time and procluded offorts into making life meaningful and worth living in the now. It's to be frank, a wee bit progress aversive attitude.

And a thing as well. Your imagining is off. People will not deside to themselves; "Yes, I'm going to live 100 more years." and in addition fully expect to be of the same opinion on the last day of those 100 years. No, people would take it day by day. Just as today we do.

Just think of it. Is it not legitimate to avoid unwanted death? We try to avoid deadly snake bites from killing us. We try not to be killed by a truck. Presumably because we don't want to get smashed into pulp, and we have other plans. We try to avoid death we don't want all the time. Then why not the same with aging?


Furthermore, there are countless enormous problems associated with the notion of anti-aging drugs. For one, the mental anxiety associated with a much longer lifespan would be enormous and could lead to some serious disorders.


People might become more risk aversive as I've said. But they might just as not. Teenagers do alot of risky stuff even though they have, as we can reasonably expect, their whole life ahead of them. They seem to be able to push aside any conserns about their mortality. And so do most people in general. We've already had an incrase in lifespan and it's not been a problem where people get anxiety becouse they have incrased life-span, but moreover that they have so little.

That some odd-ball worry-bears are worried that they'd die every moment, would become more worried if they saw a longer life expectency - meaning they'd be having to worry for a longer period - is just a non-problem. And it should't consern or hamper the rest of us.

[Decolonize The Left]

Mild or even radical lifespan extention would not exclude this from happening, just as increased longevety over the last century hasn't. Think of how odd it would sound to us if someone said, when life average expectency was 40 years, that living to 70 or 80 was selfish, a waste of time and procluded offorts into making life meaningful and worth living in the now. It's to be frank, a wee bit progress aversive attitude.

I may be, I'm just highly skeptical of such a "drug" in the first place. Furthermore, the drugs which have facilitated longer lifespans are not "anti-aging drugs," they are drugs which kill and/or prevent diseases, bacteria, conditions, etc...


And a thing as well. Your imagining is off. People will not deside to themselves; "Yes, I'm going to live 100 more years." and in addition fully expect to be of the same opinion on the last day of those 100 years. No, people would take it day by day. Just as today we do.

But we don't "just take it day by day." This is a highly naive claim to make. If you honestly think that every individual is solely concerned with the day at hand, with no thought what-so-ever to the future, you're insane. People have hopes, dreams, plans, goals, etc... all future-oriented. This is what makes the "day by day" doable...


Just think of it. Is it not legitimate to avoid unwanted death? We try to avoid deadly snake bites from killing us. We try not to be killed by a truck. Presumably because we don't want to get smashed into pulp, and we have other plans. We try to avoid death we don't want all the time. Then why not the same with aging?

Because aging isn't death.


People might become more risk aversive as I've said. But they might just as not. Teenagers do alot of risky stuff even though they have, as we can reasonably expect, their whole life ahead of them. They seem to be able to push aside any conserns about their mortality. And so do most people in general. We've already had an incrase in lifespan and it's not been a problem where people get anxiety becouse they have incrased life-span, but moreover that they have so little.

"So little" is relative and silly. Lifespans are not commodities to be hoarded and expanded as though one was increasing one's farmland.

The point is that any given individual in the industrialized world will expect to live to anywhere between 50-80 years. If this lifespan is increased through a certain drug, and individuals can expect to live between 150-200 years, we must consider the consequences on the human mind.

It is naive and foolish to simply assume that longer is better; please note that I'm not arguing that shorter is better. I'm arguing that length means nothing at all in regards to meaningful existence.

- August

[Lost In Translation]

I personally find fusion power a much more interesting event. My physics teacher rambles about it all the time. Let's just hope that the cold fusion fiasco doesn't repeat itself.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i'd go with the anti-aging drugs.because i wanna be forever young:lol:
and i thought many scientist in the world has trying to invent this anti-aging drugs, are they?

[al8]

I may be, I'm just highly skeptical of such a "drug" in the first place. Furthermore, the drugs which have facilitated longer lifespans are not "anti-aging drugs," they are drugs which kill and/or prevent diseases, bacteria, conditions, etc...

I think that is a legitimate consern. I myself think that if aging is to be combated it would most likely involve many kinds of treatments (as is suggested by the SENSE project), not just one or a set of wonderdrugs. The vote-option might have been better worded. However I suspect the it is supposed to refer these matters in general. At least I have taken it to and voted accordingly.



But we don't "just take it day by day." This is a highly naive claim to make. If you honestly think that every individual is solely concerned with the day at hand, with no thought what-so-ever to the future, you're insane. People have hopes, dreams, plans, goals, etc... all future-oriented. This is what makes the "day by day" doable...

No I do not think that. Of course people make plans all sorts of plans. But what I'm saying is that if people attain indefinate biological lifespan people aren't normally going to plan out the exact date that they are going to comit suicide a 100, 500 or a 1000 years into to the future. But consider it more near-term - when all relative factors are to bear. As in; if they are tired of life yet, have no other plans, etc.

You wrote in your previous post, the one I quoted, that it was weak and greedy to want to live a 100 extra years. But then from whom are you taking the hundred years? Not unborn children I hope? For they do not exist to take anything from. Does one man or women living and extra 100 years preclude others from doing so as well?
I think those who would first want to be a hundred years older and go through the risky early experimental treatments as guinea pigs, to be more on the generous side to to others, as well as brave to go through with it.



Because aging isn't death.

A deadly snake bite isn't death, but it's what leads to death, if nothing is done to prevent it. The same with aging, aging is a cause of death.



"So little" is relative and silly. Lifespans are not commodities to be hoarded and expanded as though one was increasing one's farmland.

They don't have to be commodities to be of value. I would want life extention treatments, if and when they come to exist, to be free to all as part of normal free universal health care.


The point is that any given individual in the industrialized world will expect to live to anywhere between 50-80 years. If this lifespan is increased through a certain drug, and individuals can expect to live between 150-200 years, we must consider the consequences on the human mind.

I have no reason to doubt that it would be considered a great lot by the scientists involved in life-extentions.


It is naive and foolish to simply assume that longer is better; please note that I'm not arguing that shorter is better. I'm arguing that length means nothing at all in regards to meaningful existence.

I think that is first and formost up to personal autonomy of each individual. When to think ones existence meaningful or adversly inconsequential and then end it if one chooses so. But I get the sense from you that you want to have peoples existence judged from the outside. But then by what standards? Yours? What standards do you use?

[Decolonize The Left]

No I do not think that. Of course people make plans all sorts of plans. But what I'm saying is that if people attain indefinate biological lifespan people aren't normally going to plan out the exact date that they are going to comit suicide a 100, 500 or a 1000 years into to the future. But consider it more near-term - when all relative factors are to bear. As in; if they are tired of life yet, have no other plans, etc.

I'm not sure if it's possible to live indefinitely, but it most certainly isn't desirable. Evolution by natural selection requires a constant source of potential mutations - reproduction. And our planet has a finite carrying capacity which means that there must be a death rate to offset the birth rate.


You wrote in your previous post, the one I quoted, that it was weak and greedy to want to live a 100 extra years. But then from whom are you taking the hundred years? Not unborn children I hope? For they do not exist to take anything from. Does one man or women living and extra 100 years preclude others from doing so as well?

No - it's greedy because life/time isn't a commodity. It has been transformed into one through capitalism.

It's weak because it demonstrates an inability to create value through one's existence regardless of time/lifespan.


A deadly snake bite isn't death, but it's what leads to death, if nothing is done to prevent it. The same with aging, aging is a cause of death.

I do not believe that aging is a cause of death. Aging is the process of growing older; your heart ceasing to function is a cause of death. The fact that this may be more likely to occur with age is noted - but clarification on the issue is necessary.


They don't have to be commodities to be of value. I would want life extention treatments, if and when they come to exist, to be free to all as part of normal free universal health care.

I understand that you would want this. Please see my above note on the commodification of time/life.


I think that is first and formost up to personal autonomy of each individual. When to think ones existence meaningful or adversly inconsequential and then end it if one chooses so. But I get the sense from you that you want to have peoples existence judged from the outside. But then by what standards? Yours? What standards do you use?

It is not the 'who is judging' that I am concerned with; I am well aware that there cannot be a 'judgment from the outside.' I am concerned with the 'how one is judging' one's own life. 'By what standards?' is precisely the question I am asking? Currently, it appears to me as though individuals tend to judge the value of their existence by consumerist/materialist/liberal value-systems. These value-systems support the commodification of individual life.

I am claiming that hoping/wanting a drug which will increase one's lifespan by a large amount is demonstrative of a failure to adequately create meaning in one's own existence. For if one was able to create this meaning one wouldn't be concerned with time at all.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not sure if it's possible to live indefinitely, but it most certainly isn't desirable. Evolution by natural selection requires a constant source of potential mutations - reproduction. And our planet has a finite carrying capacity which means that there must be a death rate to offset the birth rate.

1. Evolution via natural selection is too slow a process to produce useful mutations - human society and material conditions change too quickly. That is part of the motivation behind artificial alteration of the human genome through transhumanist techniques.

2. The carrying capacity of the Earth is limited, yes, but to all intents and purposes the carrying capacity of the Universe is infinite.

3. What makes you think there wouldn't be a death rate at all? Immortality is not the same as invulnerability - accidents and natural disasters will still occur. Further, there's nothing preventing individuals from deciding that they've had enough and dying through natural means. Concerning birth rates; if one is effectively immortal, why have children?


No - it's greedy because life/time isn't a commodity. It has been transformed into one through capitalism.If people want more of something, including life, why shouldn't they have it? Is it greedy of me to want water when I am thirsty, even though that has been turned into a commodity? The desire to hold onto the one life we get is just as strong, if not stronger than the desire for water.


It's weak because it demonstrates an inability to create value through one's existence regardless of time/lifespan.No it doesn't. It demonstrates a desire to not die. Why should peoples' desires be constrained by the tyranny of biology?


I do not believe that aging is a cause of death. Aging is the process of growing older; your heart ceasing to function is a cause of death. The fact that this may be more likely to occur with age is noted - but clarification on the issue is necessary.Aging weakens the body and makes one more vulnerable to stress and disease - the older (more senescent) one gets, the greater the vulnerability. Yeah, if you're lucky and manage to avoid the nastier diseases and undue stress one can live for a relatively long time, but A) not everyone is that lucky and B) senescence will advance to a point where even common illnesses and everyday stress can be deadly. The actual point at which this occurs varies according to each individual, but it undeniably happens.


It is not the 'who is judging' that I am concerned with; I am well aware that there cannot be a 'judgment from the outside.' I am concerned with the 'how one is judging' one's own life. 'By what standards?' is precisely the question I am asking? Currently, it appears to me as though individuals tend to judge the value of their existence by consumerist/materialist/liberal value-systems. These value-systems support the commodification of individual life.So what? Just because something is commodified doesn't necessarily make it wrong to have more of it. Life extension should be available to all who want it.


I am claiming that hoping/wanting a drug which will increase one's lifespan by a large amount is demonstrative of a failure to adequately create meaning in one's own existence. For if one was able to create this meaning one wouldn't be concerned with time at all.First, let's hear from you a definition of "meaning" in one's existance.

[Vanguard1917]

Increased life expectancy is one of the colossal consequences of human progress. The 20th century saw global life expectancy more than double, from around 30 in 1900, to more than 60 in the year 2000.

With greater developments in science, and indeed with better and wider access to the science which we already have, which can only come about through social change, we'll no doubt make even greater strides in providing long and healthy lives for all.

'AugustWest', btw, doesn't, as usual, know what he's talking about. There is nothing 'greedy' about wanting to live a longer life. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to bring our destinities under our own, human control, rather than allowing them to be dictated by the caprices of nature.

[redSHARP]

all the other stuff is useful and pratical, but i would like to see space colonies. i read to much sci-fi and watched gundam way to much not to love the idea.

[ev]

Gentlemen, on the note of this whole lifespan-extension discussion i believe that upon socioeconomic change from capitalism, people would not feel a desire for it as they would be able to live a more complete life and utilize the most of their human potential.

As for what I am looking forward to, I am looking forward to socioeconomic change the most. What is the point in all this technology if it will only benefit a small rich minority rather than the whole working class. So on that note, I am looking forward to a more fulfilled life, to which my contributions to society will benefit the entire working class and not capitalist exploiters.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Gentlemen, on the note of this whole lifespan-extension discussion i believe that upon socioeconomic change from capitalism, people would not feel a desire for it as they would be able to live a more complete life and utilize the most of their human potential.

I disagree. Even if I was living in a post-scarcity communist society, I would want to live for as long as I desired.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

And for all of you that voted for Anti-Aging drugs, this is a terrible idea. Rather than trying to prolong our relatively meaningless and pointless lives, we should focus on making them vastly more meaningful. Wanting to live for hundreds more years is greedy and weak - why aren't you totally satisfied with this life? Don't answer this question - go make it happen!

It is because i love living that i don't want to die. Life is wonderful, it's great, why would i want this to end?
Why would you want your life to end? More importantly why are you willing to let others die(killing them.) by not supporting a technique that can save there lives? All forms of life saving are by definition -life extension-.


Furthermore, there are countless enormous problems associated with the notion of anti-aging drugs. For one, the mental anxiety associated with a much longer lifespan would be enormous and could lead to some serious disorders.

Actually, there is good evidence right now that our brain can sort this shit out on it's own. 80 years is pretty well outside normal design specifications as is, and the 80 years start filing trauma differently than when we are younger.


I'm not sure if it's possible to live indefinitely, but it most certainly isn't desirable. Evolution by natural selection requires a constant source of potential mutations - reproduction. And our planet has a finite carrying capacity which means that there must be a death rate to offset the birth rate.

Technological and cultural evolution are far more important to human development than random mutation. If we need biological progress we can genetically engineer our own inheritors instead of waiting millions of years.

Oh and yeah, i'm looking forward to living forever. After that i'm looking forward to humanity passing the torch.

[ev]

I disagree. Even if I was living in a post-scarcity communist society, I would want to live for as long as I desired.

Interesting... I'll meditate upon this ;)

[butterfly]

I am claiming that hoping/wanting a drug which will increase one's lifespan by a large amount is demonstrative of a failure to adequately create meaning in one's own existence. For if one was able to create this meaning one wouldn't be concerned with time at all.
This is a concept i've heard before and partially understand however I don't see how any atheist, when faced with the actual prospect of death would choose not to postpone it.
Why would one make the consciouss decision to go from a life of meaning to utter nothingness, assuming the technology was available?

[piet11111]

This is a concept i've heard before and partially understand however I don't see how any atheist, when faced with the actual prospect of death would choose not to postpone it.
Why would one make the consciouss decision to go from a life of meaning to utter nothingness, assuming the technology was available?

either its because of being religious or simply being suicidal.

i consider my live being very meaningful especially to the people that i am living with and if i where to live so much longer then i would be able to make a positive difference in the lives of even more people.
that alone is more then enough reason to want life extension for me.

[Yazman]

I don't get this concept of life having a "meaning" or innate "meaningfulness."

It seems like a pseudo-religious and/or spiritual argument that belongs more in the Religion forum than it does in the science and technology forum. I have no real concern for "meaningfulness" and at the end of the day whether I enjoy my life or not has no bearing on the fact that it would be entirely illogical for me, when faced with a choice, to choose the permanent destruction of everything that I am over continuing to live.

I do not care for death nor do I worship it. There is already somewhat of a "death cult" in society today that seems to be partially due to the cultural impact of capitalist society and partially due to the remnants of religious elevation of death to a "holy" level (essentially boiling down to "live well, die well, enjoy heaven/enlightenment/better "next life").

Unless you are religious or "into" some sort of spirituality that involves the concept of an afterlife I do not see why you would be opposed to extending lifespans if such technology was available. Furthermore the "meaningfulness" argument you keep bringing forward really seems to be a purely philosophical one anchored in a pseudo-religious or spiritual framework.

[last_angry_man]

solar power being fully implemented. while it will drive the anti-greens nuts, the fact is that more energy than mankind could ever dream of using hits the surface of the earth every minute. It is free for the taking, will outlast man's time on earth and can be turned into electricity without trashing the environment or using up precious water or food resources. The only issue preventing rapid acceptance is the short term situation where fossil fuels are still plentiful enough and easily accessible so as to be less expensive than solar. But when that situation changes, and it will, soon; we can either be ready with a smart grid and solar installations, or we can go through hell on earth trying to catch up.

And the absurd response "but the sun don't shine at night" only indicates that someone hasn't studied the situation. Economically viable means of storing power on a massive scale are all ready and waiting for roll-out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

solar power being fully implemented. while it will drive the anti-greens nuts, the fact is that more energy than mankind could ever dream of using hits the surface of the earth every minute.

And what about the fact that there is no way we can harness all of this energy in the forseeable future?


It is free for the taking, will outlast man's time on earth and can be turned into electricity without trashing the environment or using up precious water or food resources.And what about all the materials and energy required to build thousands and thousands of square kilometres of solar panels/mirrors?


The only issue preventing rapid acceptance is the short term situation where fossil fuels are still plentiful enough and easily accessible so as to be less expensive than solar. But when that situation changes, and it will, soon; we can either be ready with a smart grid and solar installations, or we can go through hell on earth trying to catch up.Or we could be sensible and diversify our power sources, including using nuclear fission along with fuel breeding and reprocessing.


And the absurd response "but the sun don't shine at night" only indicates that someone hasn't studied the situation. Economically viable means of storing power on a massive scale are all ready and waiting for roll-out.Power storage techniques are not limited to working only with solar.

[last_angry_man]

And what about the fact that there is no way we can harness all of this energy in the forseeable future?

we can easily harness it all today, the only issue is that fossil fuels are currently cheaper, (for the short term and only if you ignore long term impacts)


And what about all the materials and energy required to build thousands and thousands of square kilometres of solar panels/mirrors?

even gold plated mirrors ringed with diamonds would be cheaper than new nuke plants.


Or we could be sensible and diversify our power sources, including using nuclear fission along with fuel breeding and reprocessing.

what time can the first nuclear waste trucks arrive at your house to dump their loads?


Power storage techniques are not limited to working only with solar.

of course not; my point was that the "sun don't shine at night" argument was meaningless.

[More Fire for the People]

I have my doubts about solar power because (a) existing technologies require the use of rare materials and (b) existing technologies are inefficient. I'm more excited (in the short term) about wind power and tidal power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

we can easily harness it all today, the only issue is that fossil fuels are currently cheaper, (for the short term and only if you ignore long term impacts)

No, we can't harness it all. Try covering the entire Earth's surface in solar collectors and see when you run out of money or building materials.


even gold plated mirrors ringed with diamonds would be cheaper than new nuke plants.

Substantiate this bullshit.


what time can the first nuclear waste trucks arrive at your house to dump their loads?

That's not how nuclear waste disposal works. Clearly you know nothing about nuclear power.


of course not; my point was that the "sun don't shine at night" argument was meaningless.

But it also means any arguments about the alleged "inflexibility" of nuclear power are also moot.

[black magick hustla]

nuclear energy is the cleanest alternative we have yet. people who talk about solar panels and wind turbines are people who do not have an engineering and/or physics background. unless we get a more efficient way of converting solar heat into useful work, the whole argument is just silly green wanking. i generally distance myself from this arguments because i find them irrelevant to communist politics, but i do know that in a future post-revolutionary society i will try to push forward nuclear energy. because i feel proud of the scientific background of marxism.

[last_angry_man]

Clearly you know nothing about nuclear power

wanna bet? BSCE ('81) and 27 years experience as an engineer; currently with (major city to remain unnamed) Dept of Water and Power

still want to spew nonsense?

[Jazzratt]

Clearly you know nothing about nuclear power

wanna bet? BSCE ('81) and 27 years experience as an engineer; currently with (major city to remain unnamed) Dept of Water and Power

still want to spew nonsense?


It doesn't matter what experience you claim to have. So far everything you have said on the matter has displayed complete ignorance of nuclear power and how it works ("what time can the first nuclear waste trucks arrive at your house to dump their loads?" - good grief). So if you do have the knowledge and experience you claim to have then please, by all means, display evidence of it.



even gold plated mirrors ringed with diamonds would be cheaper than new nuke plants.

Please show your working.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Clearly you know nothing about nuclear power

wanna bet? BSCE ('81) and 27 years experience as an engineer; currently with (major city to remain unnamed) Dept of Water and Power

still want to spew nonsense?

Why don't you prove it and address my points instead of patting yourself on the back? An engineer with relevant experience ought to utterly destroy a guy like me who didn't finish secondary school (high school to you Yanks).

[last_angry_man]

("what time can the first nuclear waste trucks arrive at your house to dump their loads?" - good grief)

perfectly valid question - but I can re-word it if you insist....

can the cooling water be dumped into your pool?
can the spent fuel (rods, pellets, whatever) be reprocessed in your neighborhood?
can the misc waste (and there is an almost limitless list of items, from decomissioned robotics, to safety gear to packaging materials) be placed in your garbage can?

every 'solution' put forth by advocates depends on everything going smoothly and zero failures. that level of performance does not exist, not in our military's experience with nukes, nor in the commercial power industry. plants have to be located somewhere, the waste has to be trucked somewhere, the spent fuel needs to be sent somewhere (whether for processing or long term storage), the water needs to be discharged, the misc trash needs to be hauled away. and unless all of this can occur in some closed loop without risking the general population, you will never find a suitable location where the neighbors won't object, or the transport routes in and out won't cause other people to object. Or any of a hundred other issues won't cause the project to be stalled indefinitely. GE and other companies are just drooling at the idea of a new nuke industry; but no one is stepping up to provide financing (even before recent events) because the numbers just don't make sense. If you disagree, please point to the dozens of new plants springing up? It is not my opinion that is preventing their deployment, it is the harsh realities that advocates are blind to.

[black magick hustla]

i already have unwanted "energy waste" in my backyard. or rather in my lungs. its called fossil fuel.:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

("what time can the first nuclear waste trucks arrive at your house to dump their loads?" - good grief)

perfectly valid question - but I can re-word it if you insist....

can the cooling water be dumped into your pool?
can the spent fuel (rods, pellets, whatever) be reprocessed in your neighborhood?
can the misc waste (and there is an almost limitless list of items, from decomissioned robotics, to safety gear to packaging materials) be placed in your garbage can?

That's all utterly irrelevant fear-mongering on your part. I don't get fly-ash from the local incinerator dumped in my home, so what the fuck makes you think a nuclear power plant would be any different?

The problem of nuclear waste is far from unsolvable. Vitrification can render even the worst nuclear waste stable for millions of years, and is being used actively by the US, Russia and Finland to name a few. This technology has been around for a good 30 years now.


every 'solution' put forth by advocates depends on everything going smoothly and zero failures.No, that is an assumption on your part. According to those who like to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about nuclear technologies, anything other than a zero failure rate is an unacceptable risk to the public. But it's absolutely ludicrous and hypocritical to single out the nuclear industry for that level of expectation, especially considering the failure rate of other industries.


that level of performance does not exist, not in our military's experience with nukes, nor in the commercial power industry.Nuclear power plants are not like bombs about to go off, despite what certain Hollywood movies would have you believe.


plants have to be located somewhere, the waste has to be trucked somewhere, the spent fuel needs to be sent somewhere (whether for processing or long term storage), the water needs to be discharged, the misc trash needs to be hauled away. and unless all of this can occur in some closed loop without risking the general population, you will never find a suitable location where the neighbors won't object, or the transport routes in and out won't cause other people to object."Never"? And may I remind you that your argument in this instance has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with people buying into the nuclear reactors = radiation = DEATH bullshit that eco-fundies like to spread around.

Considering the amount of people fossil fuels and other methods of generating energy have killed and are still killing to this very day, your concern over a small increase in radiation is unwarranted.


Or any of a hundred other issues won't cause the project to be stalled indefinitely.Renewable systems aren't immune to the slings and arrows of state and corporate bureaucracy, so why are you mentioning this?


GE and other companies are just drooling at the idea of a new nuke industry; but no one is stepping up to provide financing (even before recent events) because the numbers just don't make sense. If you disagree, please point to the dozens of new plants springing up? It is not my opinion that is preventing their deployment, it is the harsh realities that advocates are blind to.The UK government has basically given the go-ahead for the nuclear industry to supply "unlimited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3149243.ece)" electricity to the National Grid.

Areva, a French utilities company, indicated that it was interested in building six nuclear power plants in Britain capable of generating 15 per cent of the UK's electricity, at a cost of £13.4 billion after the UK government expressed hopes that the first new nuclear power plant "Will be completed before 2020" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3164191.ece)

Ban against building new Swedish nuclear power plants "to be scrapped" (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4006833,00.html).

Wylfa site nominated for new nuclear power plant (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/01/23/wylfa-site-nominated-for-new-nuclear-power-plant-91466-22763852/). By the way, I used to live near the old Wylfa nuclear power station, and strangely enough I have not grown another head or come over all cancerous.

Brown backs plans for new Sellafield nuclear power station (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/23/sellafield-nuclear-gordon-brown).

Eight new nuclear power stations planned for England (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3347075/Eight-new-nuclear-power-stations-planned-for-England.html).

And finally, from the World Nuclear Association: Plans for New Reactors Worldwide (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html)

[Yazman]

Fusion power obviously.. the superabundance of power would enable us to achieve things that are currently not feasible. It could also allow a greater degree of sovereignty for every human in its ability to generate.

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, I've got two things with different priorities and neither is on there.
I get most excited about the possibilities that having an operational space lift would open up.
I think we most direly need a way to replace oil with something renewable, before all our farms and transport networks go to hell.

[Yazman]

Scaeme, I feel that the abundance of energy provided by fusion power would pave the way for/be a great stepping stone towards almost all the other choices in the poll (except for anti-aging drugs).

[mykittyhasaboner]

I can't really choose between anti-aging drugs, or inter-system space colonization.

[piet11111]

I can't really choose between anti-aging drugs, or inter-system space colonization.

easy with anti-aging drugs you will be guaranteed to live long enough to see inter stellar space colonization.

besides if our scientists are not going to die of old age then its far more likely that they will be able to make the necessary breakthroughs to make everything else happen.
plus decades of study suddenly are a very slim investment when you will be able to live forever provided no accidents happen or you choose to die so in the end we will have much more scientists available.

[mykittyhasaboner]

easy with anti-aging drugs you will be guaranteed to live long enough to see inter stellar space colonization.

besides if our scientists are not going to die of old age then its far more likely that they will be able to make the necessary breakthroughs to make everything else happen.
plus decades of study suddenly are a very slim investment when you will be able to live forever provided no accidents happen or you choose to die so in the end we will have much more scientists available.
Hmm, good point. Anti-aging drugs it is!!!

[Josef Balin]

Not to be condescending, but I don't think any of you really understand what the Singularity would imply.

Kurzweil is the author of the Law of Accelerating Returns. In it, he states (with legitimate backup) that all information technology increases at an exponential pace, and that exponential pace is itself increasing exponentially. If we can live forever, it will be because we've mastered nanotechnology (which will also mean we've mastered intelligent AI); we'd be able to e-mail things like houses and corn, and get infinite energy from the sun. A side effect of the nanotechnology would be brain implants injected via the bloodstream that wouldn't trigger the body's immune system (the problem with current tests in that field) that would increase memory, sight, sound, etc. And that's just by the early to mid 2030's, by 2200 we'll have converted the entire Earth in to a computer and be on our way to doing that to the Universe (assuming you think we'll live forever).

None of this is nearly as ridiculous as it sounds.

[bcbm]

None of this is nearly as ridiculous as it sounds.

horrifying is a better word.

[black magick hustla]

spaceships

a rip in spacetime

[Invincible Summer]

I would say "The Singularity," but it sort of encompasses all of these things.

I chose nano-technology, but now I'm thinking I should've chosen "Other" to make my vote the Singularity and all the technological benefits it would include

[Revy]

Two technologies I see becoming huge in this decade and the next are robotics and virtual reality (as well as holograms and augmented reality stuff).

I also think that there has to be a focus of promoting and innovating renewable and sustainable alternative forms of energy to replace oil, coal, and nuclear fission.

[Jazzratt]

horrifying is a better word.

I'm completely unable to see the horror, please elaborate.

[piet11111]

I'm completely unable to see the horror, please elaborate.

its in his user title

[bcbm]

I'm completely unable to see the horror, please elaborate.

technology doesn't exist outside of social systems. i don't see much promise for reaching a communist society by 2030 and given the power for control and abuse things like the internet and cctv have given the ruling class, i can't imagine something like nanotechnology won't be used to further their ends. beyond that, i'm not sure why turning the earth into a computer would be a very good thing but i'm rather fond of things like trees.

[Dimentio]

The internet, more than anything else, allows for access to alternative voices.

[Meridian]

What I anticipate the most is the advent of virtual reality.

I think the books Otherland got my eyes up for the possibilities of this technology (but with possibilities comes, of course, dangers). Since reading those books I have tried to keep up to date on MMO advancements, etc. as these can be seen as a precursor to actual reality emulation in my opinion.

[eyedrop]

Von Neumann machines could be interesting.

[The Ben G]

I put Anti Aging drugs. That mess would be ill! Yeah, im never gonna say that again...

[OldMoney]

Really, anti-aging drugs? With exponetial population increases, and global warming it wont be long now before we cant feed the people we have. Look at the food stuffs that the majority of people eat. Hot pockets, really, thats not food. Eating organic is the way to go, but the logisitics of feeding the population on organic foods is imposible as right now. Extending the lifespan of humans is only going to increase that problem. Population control is more important than anti-aging drugs.

I voted for nanotech

[Revy]

Really, anti-aging drugs? With exponetial population increases, and global warming it wont be long now before we cant feed the people we have. Look at the food stuffs that the majority of people eat. Hot pockets, really, thats not food. Eating organic is the way to go, but the logisitics of feeding the population on organic foods is imposible as right now. Extending the lifespan of humans is only going to increase that problem. Population control is more important than anti-aging drugs.

I voted for nanotech

If that's true why isn't exponential population growth a problem in Japan, the country with the longest lifespan? There are obviously other causes, and I don't think a longer lifespan will result in overcrowding. The population would stabilize to a sustainable growth rate on its own if there were an equitable standard of living globally, which contributes to a lack of sex education and knowledge about contraception. There's also the fact that in some areas, it is beneficial for poor people to have more kids because they have extra people to support them once they get older, or extra farmhands (if they're peasants).

[Dermezel]

Robotics.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

technology doesn't exist outside of social systems.

And societies are not unchanged by the introduction of technology. Do you seriously think that things would remain the same if people could, say, make a large proportion of manufactured goods at home?


i don't see much promise for reaching a communist society by 2030

Who says the Singularity, or any of the technologies associated with it, will be perfected by that point?


and given the power for control and abuse things like the internet and cctv have given the ruling class,

The internet is an incredibly "leaky" place (they can't even keep things like child pornography off it, even though there's precious few who'd object to it being removed), and the threat from CCTV is overblown.


i can't imagine something like nanotechnology won't be used to further their ends.

No doubt. But revolutionaries will use the technology too, just as they and their sympathisers have used the internet and AK-47s.


beyond that, i'm not sure why turning the earth into a computer would be a very good thing but i'm rather fond of things like trees.

Why are the two things necessarily mutually exclusive? I'm not just talking about simulations of trees or terraforming Mars and planting trees there or adapting them to live in space or whatever - Trees (and their associated biospheres) take up a tiny part of the Earth's total volume. One could turn every part of the Earth below the crust into a computer and you'd hardly notice the difference.

[bcbm]

And societies are not unchanged by the introduction of technology. Do you seriously think that things would remain the same if people could, say, make a large proportion of manufactured goods at home?

i only suggest that "things would remain the same" in the sense that this sort of technology opens up almost unimaginable possibilities for abuse by the ruling class, as have similar developments historically. this isn't even touching on the myriad other problems that could arise from nanotechnology.


Who says the Singularity, or any of the technologies associated with it, will be perfected by that point?

the post i was responded too speculated on the possibility of widespread nanotechnology by 2030.


The internet is an incredibly "leaky" place (they can't even keep things like child pornography off it, even though there's precious few who'd object to it being removed), and the threat from CCTV is overblown.

i think you missed the point. the internet has opened up our society to an unprecedented level of social control and manipulation. our social tastes, private and public interactions, likenesses, etc are all laid bare for the benefit of our enemies, whether the enemies who want to sell us products or the enemies who want to put us in jail. and how is cctv overblown? i think the prospect of being under some form of surveillance practically every second of the day is disturbingly real.


No doubt. But revolutionaries will use the technology too, just as they and their sympathisers have used the internet and AK-47s.

sure, we use the means available to us because they are all we've known and play increasingly central roles in society. that doesn't mean that the initial development and even continued use of certain technologies isn't to the benefit of the repressive apparatus. we should certainly remain skeptical and even hostile to further developments as they occur within capital, because they can and will be used against us, every time.


Why are the two things necessarily mutually exclusive? I'm not just talking about simulations of trees or terraforming Mars and planting trees there or adapting them to live in space or whatever - Trees (and their associated biospheres) take up a tiny part of the Earth's total volume. One could turn every part of the Earth below the crust into a computer and you'd hardly notice the difference.

what goes on beneath the crust is vital to what happens in it and we would probably notice the difference though i'm not even sure why such a project is worth pursuing.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I voted for inner-system space colonization. The expansion of Life to other planets is the single most important thing that Homo sapiens can do. Everything else - yes, even communism - pales in comparison. Think of it from the perspective of an alien species: Humanity's form of social organization would matter far less than the number of planets we live on.

However, I don't think serious expansion into space is possible without communism.


This I can agree with, the proviso being that our extra-terrestrial colonies must be truly independant in every sense of the word.
If we are talking about colonies in other star systems, then their independence is pretty much unavoidable. You can't maintain control over a place so far away that it takes decades or centuries just to get the latest news from there.


Von Neumann machines could be interesting.
We are Von Neumann machines. ;)

[bcbm]

The expansion of Life to other planets is the single most important thing that Homo sapiens can do. Everything else - yes, even communism - pales in comparison.

i think your priorities are extremely warped.


Think of it from the perspective of an alien species

why? i prefer to think of it from the perspective of the average human being, who is probably more concerned with their quality of life infinitely more than whether or not someone lives on the moon. certainly space travel and colonization could be one potential project in a commmunist society, but i think the opening up of that possibility and so many others is a much greater accomplishment than any of the projects on their own.

[Revy]

If we are talking about colonies in other star systems, then their independence is pretty much unavoidable. You can't maintain control over a place so far away that it takes decades or centuries just to get the latest news from there.


Well I support a federation of the solar system, I wouldn't see the point of an independent Moon or Mars.

Also, if we can get there fast, then the extra-solar colonies can still be part of the human federation...if there's no way to get around the speed of light, then I see the logic in your argument, if there was a habitable planet in Alpha Centauri with no sapient life (colonizing planets with alien cultures would be quite unethical no matter how primitive they are) that would still take 4 years to get there going at the speed of light, and I doubt we would be able to go at the speed of light for a long time. but if you can create a wormhole and fold space on itself you could get to any place way faster by just going through that hole but I don't even know if that's possible.

[Meridian]

but if you can create a wormhole and fold space on itself you could get to any place way faster by just going through that hole but I don't even know if that's possible.
I wouldn't bet on it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i only suggest that "things would remain the same" in the sense that this sort of technology opens up almost unimaginable possibilities for abuse by the ruling class, as have similar developments historically. this isn't even touching on the myriad other problems that could arise from nanotechnology.

The rate of technological change means the ruling class has a good chance of becoming irrelevant, given time. Technology doesn't just result in changes of magnitude, but quality as well.


the post i was responded too speculated on the possibility of widespread nanotechnology by 2030.

OK, let's assume it will happen. But what other changes will occur?


i think you missed the point. the internet has opened up our society to an unprecedented level of social control and manipulation. our social tastes, private and public interactions, likenesses, etc are all laid bare for the benefit of our enemies,

Only what we choose to put there.


whether the enemies who want to sell us products or the enemies who want to put us in jail.

Advertisements are annoying, yes, but I think that downside is outweighed by the benefits accrued. I wouldn't be aware of even half the things I know of if it were not for the internet. I'm not the only one.

And the feds don't need to know that you like Southern Comfort or Death metal if they want to lock you up, with or without just cause.


and how is cctv overblown? i think the prospect of being under some form of surveillance practically every second of the day is disturbingly real.

Most CCTV footage goes unmonitored, as far as I'm aware. They root around the archives if they're suspicious or want to dig some dirt on you, and if you're committing illegal activities in a public place without a hood and/or mask then you're an idiot. Even yobs know this.


sure, we use the means available to us because they are all we've known and play increasingly central roles in society. that doesn't mean that the initial development and even continued use of certain technologies isn't to the benefit of the repressive apparatus. we should certainly remain skeptical and even hostile to further developments as they occur within capital, because they can and will be used against us, every time.

You're conflating technology and the use to which it is put. We are against oppression not because they use guns (among other things) to do it, but because we don't like oppression.


what goes on beneath the crust is vital to what happens in it and we would probably notice the difference though i'm not even sure why such a project is worth pursuing.

Would you really? Geological processes would certainly be affected, but they tend to happen really slowly (plate tectonics) or really suddenly and usually devastatingly (volcanoes, earthquakes). Volcanoes have a role in enriching the soil, but if you can convert planetary masses into computers, then artificial volcanoes are a doddle, even if perhaps that's not the optimum way of re-enriching the soil.

As to worth, computers are flexible. Combine that flexibility with the sheer power of a over a sextillion tons of central processing unit. We would be able to achieve literally unimaginable things.


I voted for inner-system space colonization. The expansion of Life to other planets is the single most important thing that Homo sapiens can do. Everything else - yes, even communism - pales in comparison. Think of it from the perspective of an alien species: Humanity's form of social organization would matter far less than the number of planets we live on.

I think we should be incredibly wary of putting ourselves in the shoes of non-human intelligences, in fact I think we shouldn't be doing it altogether as it is perniciously misleading. This goes for aliens and AIs.


However, I don't think serious expansion into space is possible without communism.

I certainly think that the current sociopolitical order isn't up to the task, but I think the solution lies not in particular ideologies such as communism (even though it's a worthwhile option), but with striving towards goals such as comfortable lifestyles for all and the survival, enrichment and diversification of the human species in the most effective manner.


Well I support a federation of the solar system, I wouldn't see the point of an independent Moon or Mars.

What's the point of a federation?

[bcbm]

The rate of technological change means the ruling class has a good chance of becoming irrelevant, given time. Technology doesn't just result in changes of magnitude, but quality as well.

people have been proposing utopias where some combination of technological advances destroys war, poverty, class, etc for centuries, so i hope you can forgive me for not holding my breath. i'd like to address the world as it currently exists, using what historical examples there are to work with and so i think i will remain skeptical. the ruling class hasn't surrendered power in the face of massive human upheaval; i doubt they will surrender their position because of some technological advances. i think it is more likely they will do what rulers have always done and find new ways to maintain and enhance their power.


OK, let's assume it will happen. But what other changes will occur?i can't say for sure, another reason to remain skeptical and keep on eye on these developments.


Only what we choose to put there.i doubt most people give it a second thought before they type something into google, but that data is stored forever and used in as many ways as possible to create a "profile" for them.


Advertisements are annoying, yes, but I think that downside is outweighed by the benefits accrued. I wouldn't be aware of even half the things I know of if it were not for the internet. I'm not the only one.

And the feds don't need to know that you like Southern Comfort or Death metal if they want to lock you up, with or without just cause.i'm not suggesting the internet is an inherently bad thing. i am suggesting that new technologies are often used to their fullest potential by our enemies, in ways we can barely imagine. any police agency can create a profile from your online data as well and they aren't interested in only locking people up, but gathering as much information as possible.


Most CCTV footage goes unmonitored, as far as I'm aware. They root around the archives if they're suspicious or want to dig some dirt on you, and if you're committing illegal activities in a public place without a hood and/or mask then you're an idiot. Even yobs know this.it goes unmonitored for now* but the point is that the data exists. the issue isn't whether or not you're doing anything illegal, but that the possibility for complete monitoring or total control of movement exists in some places. i find that pretty troubling.


You're conflating technology and the use to which it is put. We are against oppression not because they use guns (among other things) to do it, but because we don't like oppression.i'm not conflating anything. i'm not against technology, i am against how technology is developed and used under our specific social arrangement. new technology is typically developed because of some function it can provide to the ruling class, not for the benefit of humanity.


*speaking of new technologies, the development of programs to monitor all of those cctv's and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior, people who look like wanted felons, etc is exciting.

[mikelepore]

i doubt most people give it a second thought before they type something into google, but that data is stored forever and used in as many ways as possible to create a "profile" for them.

To prevent any site from tracking you, all you have to do is turn off cookies.

[Dean]

You're conflating technology and the use to which it is put. We are against oppression not because they use guns (among other things) to do it, but because we don't like oppression.

This isn't entirely accurate. People oppose the development of nuclear weapons technology, and that has very specific political connotations which clearly indicate that, as communists, we too should be opposing such development in this epoch.

However, that is not to say that nuclear weapons technology cannot advance science in valuable ways, and it seems quite possible that future space colonization (for example), if it ever becomes viable, would almost certainly benefit from such advances.

But, the advancement of that technology in the context of belligerent and unstable state and corporate structures, in addition to our very tragic past experiences with nuclear arms, makes it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons tech should be rejected at every turn until we turn to stable, classless society.

The same is true for other forms of technology, particularly surveillance, media and military tech. We should be eager to use these technologies in the furtherance of the human race as a whole, but always wary of potential abuses, and in terms of some technologies, staunchly opposed if we think that such abuses are unavoidable and have dire consequences if the tech is achieved.

Human knowledge is always a basically valuable asset. But in the context of a class society, human knowledge has specific economic characteristics which must be understood to provide a reasonable position for revolutionary leftists. That is, that valuable asset could (and in the context of a class society, almost always will be) primarily an asset of the ruling class.