Author Topic: Living in the future  (Read 13689 times)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Living in the future
« on: April 07, 2016, 02:57:13 PM »
It is strange that many of the milestones for 'the future' are finally coming to pass.

Self driving cars, true at home virtual reality, machine learning approaching HAL level capabilities (Watson + Deep Learning object recognition + Siri and Deep Learning speech recognition), wide spread and rapid adoption of robotics, humanoid robotics with basic capabilities, curing diseases by manipulating the individuals genetics directly, useful cyborg implants, universal communication devices.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2016, 03:16:02 PM »
To me the only strange thing about it is how few people seem excited about it.
Granted, this is FAR from true globally, and there is a lot of other *censored* going on to detract from the wonders of "living in the future".

I'm sure I'll be able to get some more family and friends hyped about future-land once my Oculus Rift ever ships.   ::)   8)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2016, 03:21:56 PM »
There's a flying passenger drone being worked on in China (I think). It's basically a flying car.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2016, 03:24:28 PM »
Do you think they'll have some sort of immortality / extreme longevity advances before we die? It's a good time to be alive with all these advances. And perhaps one of the worst times to die, right when we're on the cusp of being able to live so much longer if only we can make it a few more decades.

The advances in finding out your ancestry with DNA are also pretty fun. I got one test done with Ancestry.com and am looking forward to my results with Natgeo in about ten weeks, which will tell me how much of my DNA is Neanderthal. I think I mentioned I was part Cherokee before. Turns out that was a mistake (or a pack of lies if you prefer). My grandfather's second wife was Cherokee but I am descended from his first wife who was Irish. So much for opening up my casino. My mom has a cousin who is part Cherokee from that first wife though and she turned up on my Ancestry results as a fourth-sixth cousin because she had taken the test also and was online with her results. Some people in my family were wondering about and questioning the accuracy but I point out that it also found my closest relative who had taken the test which was my great-uncle who lives just a couple of hours away.  Also doing some ancestry tracing online I found a whole bunch of royalty who are my ancestors so now I expect to be treated with a great deal more respect around here.

Anyway I consider that another relatively recent technological advance that's exciting to play around with.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2016, 03:40:11 PM »
I really hate this question.  I ask it myself too often.  :P
First, if it was invented, I think it would be withheld or surpressed.  I think if a group of people did take advantage of it, religious extremist would stop at nothing to kill these people as an abomination. 

My mom talks about not wanting to be live if her quality of life was degraded to the point she was basicly helpless and relied on others for day to day living.  I on the other hand am all for being a head in a jar like in Futurama or just a brain like the Cogitors or Titans in the Dune prequel series.  :)

The other options of active nanites in our system like in… Umm I want to say the Lunar colonies in the Ben Bova (I think it was him?) series don’t seem outside the realm of possibilities within the next 50 years.  I liked that one as they limited this nanite life extension to the moon.  A sort of quarantine almost. 

In a lot of ways I envy my young nephew who’s only 7 now.  As scary as the world can seem at some points it’s a pretty magical time to be alive.

I was just discussing the book Ready Player One with some people and the upcoming movie adaptation.  It’s at serious risk of being made less spectacular because technology may damn near catch up with its fiction before it hits the theaters.  :)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 03:42:27 PM by D.W. »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2016, 03:42:35 PM »
Ray Kurzweill (Google futurist) predicted in 2013 that anyone born in that year would have the potential to live forever due to nanobot technology, live genetic editing and general advances in medical techniques.  Hell, I read that back when I was a kid and I was reading books written in the 19th Century.  The science fiction genre sometimes called "science fact fiction" is increasingly ever moreso.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2016, 03:47:28 PM »
Cherry, how much did that DNA analysis set you back? I'd be very interested to have that done.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2016, 04:05:01 PM »
Ancestry.com is about seventy bucks on sale which it almost always is or ninety-nine regular and Natgeo2.0 is one-fifty on sale which it seems like it almost always is too but if they aren't look around and try to find a discount code online because I've seen those too and they'll bring it down to the sale price. The Natgeo site gives some information about some of the differences which I'll sum up as Ancestry being more about finding people related to you and tracing your tree, Natgeo being about your deep ancestry and the one I'm using there pretty much traces the patrilineal descent which is good for me because I hit a dead end on my dad's side anyway, and 23andme being more about genetic predisposition to illnesses.

If you have any siblings one good thing about these is that hopefully what applies to you will apply to them so in my case I'm getting four tests for the price of one and they are all interested when I share the results around the Thanksgiving or Christmas table.

My results were 42% Irish, 38% Western European, 9% Great Britain, and 11% trace: 3% Eastern European, 2% Scandinavian, 2% Italy/Greece, 2% Iberian Peninsula, 1% Finland/Northwest Russia, and 1% European Jewish.

My wife and I were really disappointed with her results because if someone is East Asian that's all it comes back as with no breakdown of Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Ainu/Vietnamese, etc. so that was pretty much worthless because we know she is Japanese going back at least hundreds of years but were curious if she might be part Ainu since she if from Northern Japan or if she might have traces of other ethnic groups so I would say for Asian people this test may not be worth it until they can get it more inline with the type of results you get if you are European.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 04:17:37 PM by cherrypoptart »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2016, 10:29:38 PM »
It is difficult to say when we will hit a huge increase in longevity.  We still don't understand aging to any significant extent, but that could change quickly.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2016, 11:15:42 PM »
No one mentioned that here we are, a group of strangers, who communicate rapidly from our homes (or while travelling by phone)... The future

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2016, 11:42:34 PM »
We know a lot more about aging than we used to.

I really hope we make solid advances in rejuvenation therapy. I'm pretty sure I'm going to age badly, so I'd like to avoid it as much as possible.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2016, 10:06:24 AM »
As someone who has more than a passing interest in living a VERY long time, I find that desire doesn't make me do everything I can to eat healthy and exercise fanatically in order to insure I make it to the longevity singularity if it happens to be a decent ways off yet. 

Being this irrational about what I do with what I've got while hoping for a lot more of it, makes me feel more silly than any daydreaming about future tech / medical breakthroughs.  :P

Gary238

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2016, 08:20:11 PM »
I worry that we'll figure out the fountain of youth, but that it will be prohibitively expensive for all but the very rich.

Someone was saying on another thread that we're at or near an inflection point where the world either becomes a techno-Utopia with a very high standard of living for all, or a dystopian mess with the fruits of our newfound productivity concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite class. I agree, and fear that we're trending toward the latter. If the wealthy elite don't die they'll have even more opportunity and motivation to secure more and more power and wealth. The game could very well end up rigged so that mobility out of the mortal class is essentially impossible.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2016, 08:39:09 PM »
Old 20th is a novel by Haldeman about a world post longevity cure.  Most of the novel deals with how the characters spend their time but the parts about how he envisions society transitioning to a "immortal" culture is interesting.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2016, 10:16:32 PM »
Another 'in the future' moment.  Elon Musk just landed his rocket at sea.  So add 'cheap space travel'.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2016, 07:32:13 PM »
Watch this video, the Steam/HTC Vive - mind blown...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYfNzhLXYGc&feature=youtu.be&t=50s

Oohhh also an excuse to not buy a family pet - you can play fetch and teach tricks to your virtual pet :)

Also, they should let you use your camera phone and do your own green screen to film your friends in the virtual reality.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 07:35:04 PM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2016, 08:01:26 PM »
And another item I hadn't thought about 'replicators' - 3d printers are definitely a 'in the future' item as well.
Of course there is the Star Trek communicator (cell phones) as well.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2016, 09:11:12 PM »
And Siri. And Alexa.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2016, 02:14:24 AM »
And another item I hadn't thought about 'replicators' - 3d printers are definitely a 'in the future' item as well.
Of course there is the Star Trek communicator (cell phones) as well.

In the Star Trek universe replicators utilize transporter technology and are therefore basically magic. However as you say there are ways to construct material other than by matter/energy conversion that would function more or less as well in terms of replicating objects.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2016, 09:19:27 AM »
Watch this video, the Steam/HTC Vive - mind blown...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYfNzhLXYGc&feature=youtu.be&t=50s

Oohhh also an excuse to not buy a family pet - you can play fetch and teach tricks to your virtual pet :)

Also, they should let you use your camera phone and do your own green screen to film your friends in the virtual reality.
Just got emailed from Oculus saying my future is delayed.  :P  First 60min pre-order pushed back to end of May start of June.  :(

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2016, 12:09:57 PM »
And another item I hadn't thought about 'replicators' - 3d printers are definitely a 'in the future' item as well.
Of course there is the Star Trek communicator (cell phones) as well.

In the Star Trek universe replicators utilize transporter technology and are therefore basically magic. However as you say there are ways to construct material other than by matter/energy conversion that would function more or less as well in terms of replicating objects.

Yeah, 3-d printers are certainly up there on game changers. They're already being used to produce rocket motors for SpaceX, out of titanium no less. As their ability to use more and increasingly varied materials (at the same time) improves, it will be interesting to see how they disrupt many aspects of the manufacturing industry at the least.

Probably in another 20 years or less, it won't be uncommon for people to be packing around tablets that were produced as part of a "single run" for a 3-d printer paired with some other robotics feeding it other assorted parts at relevant times. The case will just be a solid piece of material. No disassembly possible beyond outright destruction of the device. No seams, no flanges to pull open, no screws to pull free.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2016, 12:20:11 PM »
I worry that we'll figure out the fountain of youth, but that it will be prohibitively expensive for all but the very rich.

Ah but good help is terribly hard to find, and once you find it, you may want to keep it around as long as you can. ;)

For people like Musk in particular, a clinical (near) immortality is useful in other ways. It creates a larger chance of more people being able to afford buying a ticket to go live on Mars, and a reason to do so depending on what the policies are in regards to any life-extension options that may be available.

More seriously, it does look like the fountain of youth is coming, and providing we don't don't undergo a great technological regression, I do think there are people alive today that could live through multiple centuries by making use of (bio)technology. I'm just not sure it will be available in time for people my age to take full advantage of it, never mind anybody in the 40+ crowd already. :)

Quote
Someone was saying on another thread that we're at or near an inflection point where the world either becomes a techno-Utopia with a very high standard of living for all, or a dystopian mess with the fruits of our newfound productivity concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite class. I agree, and fear that we're trending toward the latter. If the wealthy elite don't die they'll have even more opportunity and motivation to secure more and more power and wealth. The game could very well end up rigged so that mobility out of the mortal class is essentially impossible.

I wouldn't tend to disagree with that. A lot of that will depend on if we can make it through the next few decades without the economy collapsing entirely and/or any other disaster hitting that would result in much of the world regressing to a 19th century or earlier standard of living.  So guess hope we don't have a solar flare(/EMP) from hell come calling in next few decades, we're certainly not ready for it right now. Hopefully technology and society progresses to the point that when it does turn up, it's largely a non-issue as we've since moved to using methods more resistant to EMP.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 12:26:19 PM by TheDeamon »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2016, 12:35:22 PM »
The thing with selling immortality at the highest possible price is that you're restricting the market to people who are not inclined to pay the highest possible price for things. That will lead to significant resistance to any potential monopolies. Whether or not it's the most profitable course depends on if wealth inequality continues as it has been. It also depends on how cheap the process can be; i.e. what level of income is required to support the loan that pays for it.

I think there'll be substantial support for making it widely avaiable. Traditionally, selling to the rich makes a small fortune; selling to everybody makes a huge fortune.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2016, 12:42:43 PM »
The thing with selling immortality at the highest possible price is that you're restricting the market to people who are not inclined to pay the highest possible price for things. That will lead to significant resistance to any potential monopolies. Whether or not it's the most profitable course depends on if wealth inequality continues as it has been. It also depends on how cheap the process can be; i.e. what level of income is required to support the loan that pays for it.

I think there'll be substantial support for making it widely avaiable. Traditionally, selling to the rich makes a small fortune; selling to everybody makes a huge fortune.

It will be priced specifically so that most people not in abject poverty could afford it, but would have to go into long-term debt slavery to get it. Maybe $200,000-$300,000; something in that price range. This is the price they would set because they know for certain people would pay any amount they could possibly pay back to get it. Highly inelastic demand on this one. People would certainly buy this at the expense of a house or condo, which consequently would almost certainly lead the housing market into a tailspin. Then again since the allure would be to live to 200+ years, the argument could be made that a 20-30 year mortgage, which previously set the norm for housing costs, might become a 50-100 year immortality mortgage, in which case they might even be able to charge $500,000 to a million for it and still get everyone except the poor to sign on for 100 years of debt slavery. In fact, that type of long-term slavery might be the most important social change to come from such technology other than the effects of living that long in the first place. Then again I don't fancy a 250 year retirement age :(

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2016, 12:58:31 PM »
The thing with selling immortality at the highest possible price is that you're restricting the market to people who are not inclined to pay the highest possible price for things. That will lead to significant resistance to any potential monopolies. Whether or not it's the most profitable course depends on if wealth inequality continues as it has been. It also depends on how cheap the process can be; i.e. what level of income is required to support the loan that pays for it.

I think there'll be substantial support for making it widely avaiable. Traditionally, selling to the rich makes a small fortune; selling to everybody makes a huge fortune.

It also ignores the generic drug market and medical patent life-spans. It might be something only for the wealthy to start with, but unless they manage to change medical patent laws(and good luck at that should such a drug/treatment be known to exist), it will still become available to the generics 15 years later when the patent lapses. So worst case is the first generation where only the wealthiest get a chance at it, but after that the price of getting the treatment starts to drop steadily after that.

The "other side" is that a longer lived wealthy class needs a large lower-class population base to support it, peak population as it is happens to be forecast for the middle of this century(or course, longer, indeterminate, life expectancies would change that) and a long lived upper class means a growing upper class(unless they stop having children). Which means they will need the lower classes to grow in order to support their needs, and if they're not popping out more of them like they used to, that means they'll have to make the ones they have live and work longer.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2016, 01:18:55 PM »
It will be priced specifically so that most people not in abject poverty could afford it, but would have to go into long-term debt slavery to get it. Maybe $200,000-$300,000; something in that price range. This is the price they would set because they know for certain people would pay any amount they could possibly pay back to get it. Highly inelastic demand on this one. People would certainly buy this at the expense of a house or condo, which consequently would almost certainly lead the housing market into a tailspin. Then again since the allure would be to live to 200+ years, the argument could be made that a 20-30 year mortgage, which previously set the norm for housing costs, might become a 50-100 year immortality mortgage, in which case they might even be able to charge $500,000 to a million for it and still get everyone except the poor to sign on for 100 years of debt slavery. In fact, that type of long-term slavery might be the most important social change to come from such technology other than the effects of living that long in the first place. Then again I don't fancy a 250 year retirement age :(

The 30 year mortgage exists because they tend to view that as the near maximal "productive life" of the typical person. A person getting a 30 year mortgage in their early 30's will be almost ready to retire by the time they pay it off 30 years later as they'll be into their 60's by then. So if medical tech comes up with a means to extend the productive life of a person by another 20, 30, 40, 60 years and the actuaries are believers in that being viable, then finance options for those kinds of time frames will become increasingly available. I also doubt that any of the earliest available stuff is going to be a once and done type thing, particularly for those already alive, as such a change is likely to involve a not insignificant rewrite of DNA, something most people will stay clear of.

It's likely going to be regime of pills to slow aging processes down(and maybe reverse some), ultimately paired with some other medical tech to periodically reverse many of the other effects of the aging process. Where it will likely then progress further away from the pills to periodic "repair/reversal sessions" every decade or more for most people. Wealthier people may get it done more often, and progress to obtaining earlier access to other options(such as an ongoing nano-tech option) that eventually replaces everything else. But it will likely be a progression.

As much as many in the medical field may sneer at Dr. Aubrey deGrey, he probably has the most coherent picture of what is likely to play out so long as no major disruptions occur to halt scientific progress. He might be a bit on the overly optimistic side with his predictions, but the overall approach he's talked about, if not the specifics therein, is likely to be the path that happens. But then, he's approaching it like an engineer as that is his background, while most of the medical field is looking at it like, well, doctors.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2016, 01:24:19 PM »
I'm also skeptical that the current economic model is a good way to predict how a high-science procedure like immortality is distributed. The way we distribute resources now is a product of specific circumstances. The technology implied by immortality treatments may very well invalidate those circumstances. Immortality itself will break them soon enough.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2016, 03:33:58 PM »
I'm also skeptical that the current economic model is a good way to predict how a high-science procedure like immortality is distributed. The way we distribute resources now is a product of specific circumstances. The technology implied by immortality treatments may very well invalidate those circumstances. Immortality itself will break them soon enough.

The "other thing" that happens with (near) immortality is that it shifts the planing horizon's that many people and organizations will be using. For someone who only has 30 to 40 years or less in which to invest/plan for retirement, a 5 year ROI is something that is reasonable to expect. For someone who is looking at having 200+ years in which to build up their assets on the other hand... Suddenly building that facility that costs 10% more upfront, but will cost 5% less per year to operate over a 50+ year lifespan starts to look like a great idea instead of taking the cheaper building and letting somebody else deal with that inefficient building 30 to 40 years later when they expected to be long gone and that decision to be irrelevant to them personally.

Taking short term profits at the expense of long term gains suddenly starts to matter more for major decision makers, as they'll possibly be around to experience some of the consequences of those choices. Even if it is only indirectly by the time that the piper comes calling.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 03:37:12 PM by TheDeamon »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2016, 03:55:49 PM »
I expect most people will still consider future them to be a suffficiently different person that they will imagine the consequences of their actions will remain someone else's problem.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2016, 10:30:39 AM »
Hard to project how humans would respond to another significant extension of live spans. I was discussing with my wife the other day (married almost 32 years) that there probably have only been two previous generations in human history where people could expect to have marriages last 30-50 years.  We are still adapting

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2016, 10:56:34 AM »
I'm a lot more concerned with how we react to resource distribution if people say double their lifespans or beyond.  Being alive to see potentially 6-9 generations of your decedents changes things a lot.  Even if we went to a one-child policy the population grows at a decent clip.

If life extension was implemented rationally (which it almost is certain not to be :) )  We should require sterilization at the same time.  Possibly reversible in the event you get a permit to have a child or some such.

If we hit upon actual immortality of some form without also achieving the ability to push out to other stars, I think we'd "self correct" to a much smaller population in short order.  We hardly share the resources of the world now.  Would we share life extension fairly?  If we did, the quickness with which strong countries decide to secure the resources that will be needed, by crushing those who can't protect themselves would be staggering. 

Being able to ignore the rest of the world as long as they stay on their part of the world is one thing.  Being faced with a rapidly increasing population with limited resources would be very messy.   Not that we don't already face this, but a 2x or higher life expectancy almost overnight would force it to the spotlight and force hasty decisions based upon that attention.

Best case scenario:
We can extend your life 100 years enabling you to reach X planet/moon.  Who's game?  Leave those who want to stay here unmodified.  Incentivize the bold.  Homesteading act but offering decades instead of property?  Granted, this requires a lot more space exploration advancements as well.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 10:59:22 AM by D.W. »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2016, 11:17:35 AM »
I'm much more optimistic about the ability of our resources to support a much higher population especially if we are experiencing it because of a longer life expectancy. When you really boil it down people don't require all that much in the way of resources to survive but we just won't be able to enjoy the wastefulness we do now. I'm also making an assumption about the longer life expectancies translating into great advances in technology which will allow us to live on less in the way of resources while still enjoying a great standard of living. For instance, I'm picturing building-cities that have just about everything you need all in one great skyscraper including your job, much of your food grown on the building itself, solar, wind, and water generated electricity built into the building, and so on. And as I mentioned before, colonization of the oceans and mining of the ocean floors for resources while cultivating the oceans sustainably for food will easily allow us to double our population. It's difficult to even imagine the contributions people of genius level intelligence will be able to make when they are living for one hundred and fifty or more years. Also, I'm all for cloning and manipulating humanity to produce smarter and "better" people. Evolution might do it eventually, but then again it might not if we keep seeing the smartest among us choosing to not have children because the world is already so overpopulated. Yes, it gets into dangerous territory and raises all kinds of ethical concerns but no more so than population controls.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2016, 11:26:49 AM »
Sign me up for the arcology living!  I already think that I over purchased on the size of my home and would welcome the ability to ditch the car, and the commute that came with it, if that was feasible.  :)  Then again, I'm single and get zero pleasure from mowing my lawn or raking leaves in the relative peacefulness of my subdivision when compared to "city living".

You know, as long as the communal algae tanks or fish farms or what have you don't smell bad.  ;)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2016, 12:22:05 PM »
If the immortality method is patented, then there is a 17-20 year monopoly.  So unless they have the political weight to get patents extended the way copyright has been, then the price will rapidly plummet after that 20 year period.  Also plenty of people will probably be willing to do patent violations or go to countries that refuse to enforce them.  So there will be cheap knock off treatments in China/India.

So really it will have to be trade secrets if it is going to be 'high prices forever'.  Possible, but it seems likely that most of the advancements and research will happen in universities and with other sources of public funding, so seems implausible.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2016, 12:30:12 PM »
If the immortality method is patented, then there is a 17-20 year monopoly.  So unless they have the political weight to get patents extended the way copyright has been, then the price will rapidly plummet after that 20 year period.  Also plenty of people will probably be willing to do patent violations or go to countries that refuse to enforce them.  So there will be cheap knock off treatments in China/India.

So really it will have to be trade secrets if it is going to be 'high prices forever'.  Possible, but it seems likely that most of the advancements and research will happen in universities and with other sources of public funding, so seems implausible.

I'm not at all certain a finding of this magnitude could remain in private hands. Now that I think about it if it did and the company who owned it held out for a high price they would face a different kind of protest than sometimes happens in the face of very expensive medical procedures, or even like the recent backlash against Shkreli. In those cases the people upset tend to be those who actually need the service, which tends to be a vast minority. In the case of an immortality drug if for any reason it existed and was withheld from most people I have no doubt that people would be willing to employ massive violence to get at it. I even think the government might have to nationalize it just to make sure it's distributed fairly and at a price that doesn't make the populace irate. Anyone running for office would just have to say "immortality for all" and be immediately elected with no questions asked and no other issues having any weight. You'd probably be looking at a 99.5% majority unless the competition promised the same thing. Dissenters would likely be people who object to immortality on moral principle.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2016, 12:33:53 PM »
Ya,  we aren't talking protests if this treatment was guarded,  we're talking open war / revolt.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2016, 12:37:39 PM »
I think it'd get stolen before it got to war or other messiness. Any magic bullet treatment would be too valuable and no security is perfect.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2016, 12:41:28 PM »
I think it'd get stolen before it got to war or other messiness. Any magic bullet treatment would be too valuable and no security is perfect.

For any B5 fans here, I share Kosh's concern about "You are not ready for immortality." The source of long life would stand a very good chance of initiating a struggle resulting in a massive amount of death. I don't particularly have faith in man's good natured reason to solve things amicably.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2016, 12:54:36 PM »
You have to deal not only with those who want it and are denied, but those who believe none should have it. 

Making it for "those people" on the bottom of the ocean, the moon, mars or what have you could moderate the turmoil. 

Also the thumbs up on Fenring's post should be interpreted as "D.W. agrees, not likes."  :P

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2016, 12:55:23 PM »
For any B5 fans here, I share Kosh's concern about "You are not ready for immortality." The source of long life would stand a very good chance of initiating a struggle resulting in a massive amount of death. I don't particularly have faith in man's good natured reason to solve things amicably.
[cross-thread pollination] Optimist, sure.  ;D

Though I agree functional immortality would probably lead to ugliness whether it was widely distributed or not. The population spike alone would wreak havoc.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2016, 01:00:01 PM »
[cross-thread pollination] Optimist, sure.  ;D

 :-X

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2016, 09:24:07 PM »
Though I agree functional immortality would probably lead to ugliness whether it was widely distributed or not. The population spike alone would wreak havoc.

Depends on a number of factors. Now if it was wave a magic wand and everyone instantly becomes immortal and the elderly become physically young enough to become physically active and productive members of society who are also able to have children once more virtually overnight. Then yes, we'd have problems.

The most likely progression is we're going to initially find ways to extend life expectancies by up __% with the longer term of the exposure, the greater the life extension. Metformin, a drug often used for type 2 diabetes since the 1950's in some countries, has shown traits not much unlike that in lab studies with mice, where mice treated with it from birth enjoy 150% of the life expectancy of the control group. (Diabetics on it haven't seen anything that extreme, but it is now getting a study done on it, specifically for longevity impacts because of related earlier findings. The diabetics on metformin instead were simply living slightly longer than their (healthier) peers were, even though they often were suffering from a wide array of other health ailments that should have caused them to die earlier, not later)

So if lab studies carried over to humans, it is possible if someone started dosing their toddler with Metformin, and that child continued taking it throughout their life, they could live to see their 140's assuming they don't pick up any other bad health habits or problems along the way. But giving it to someone who is 50 years old on the other hand, he's probably not going to see a very significant improvement, maybe a couple years, possibly even an extra decade depending on numerous factors, but then again maybe not.

However, that does play back into some of the people out there saying the first 1,000 year old human (in non-biblical record keeping) may very well be alive today, it just a question of if they were born this year, 5 years ago, or if they're possibly even older. Because we've only just now begun to seriously acknowledge it is possible to do it. But if current drugs being researched give humans the theoretical ability to live to 130, what are we going to have in another 20 years?  40 years? Or in the case of that theoretical 1 year old put on metformin, what medical tech for longevity/quality of life would be around by the time he turns 100? 125? Even assuming that what they find only works to maximum effect if you start on it while young, it isn't impossible(probable is another matter), that by the time he hit 100, they know enough to keep him kicking until he's 200(and possibly keep his grandchildren around until they're 400), which gives them another 100 years to extend his life even further.

In the meantime everyone else that came before him still dies, they'll just die off at a less significant rate, as the "elixir of long life" simply came along a little too late for them to gain the full benefit. Or even, going by deGray, assuming they can pull the engineer approach and "intervene" in the aging process, and potentially reverse many aspects of it, it will likely be that those treatments come along too late for many or even most people to benefit, as the process itself may potentially kill them due to health issues or advanced age(the irony).

Even then, the 1 year old today is in a much better position than even a High School Student is today on that front. No process is going to be perfect, and the first people pass any given age marker are probably going to end discovering new issues that will in turn need to be addressed(What kind of health issues would a 300 year old human be likely to be concerned about, are there any new ones to be had, or are they same ones a 70 year old often sees today?), and each new issue they hit as things progress is likely to become increasingly more complicated. Even if technical skill, and technical abilities to diagnose and asses the issue continue to increase considerably(aided by long lived researchers), those problems will take time to resolve, which means there will likely be "aging plateaus" along the way.

So yeah, basically, I don't expect death from age-related issues is something that will become an unfamiliar concept to people we deal with in our daily lives anytime within the (potentially greatly extended) lifetime of anyone viewing this forum. Even if someone in here eventually does join the 1,000 year old club.

As to where that population goes, I tend to think Space is very much a significant portion of that answer, and literally puts an entirely different spin on Generation Ships, I think. As you suddenly have crews that could potentially live long enough to reach the destination without getting anywhere close to the speed of light and significant time dilation.

Other economic impacts not considered: Education becomes a more "interesting" thing, as it will then experience something of a paradox, it will slowly become less significant in terms of how much of the economy is engaged in it, as the % of youngsters running around compared to the number of adults that are around shifts considerably towards the adult side. (Although "reproductive longevity" in particular where it concerns women, becomes interesting, I think) While at the same time, education presumably becomes more important in order to function within an increasingly technical society.

Of course, extreme human longevity may have other kinds of fallout for education in general, both good and bad, because it removes a lot of the urgency factors on a number of fields. Hiring to achieve "replacement level" for industries and companies where people work long enough to retire starts to see their bar drop, as fewer people NEED to retire. Training practices and other related things then have a basis for being revisited. Having Grandparents, Great-Grandparents, and Great-*-grandparents around to help raise children, rather than needing help themselves, changes dynamics a bit as well, and can hit education from behind as the *grandparents may be more than happy to help directly assist in the education of their descendants. And people thought homeschooling was getting out of hand already....

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2016, 09:39:50 AM »
We already have people taking on second careers.  At least those fortunate enough to stick on one career path long enough to see demand for it decline and still be willing and able to learn a new trade.

If we started living, say twice as long, then continuing education becomes the typical experience.  With the rate of technological change, in theory, being exponentially faster, education of some form may be a near constant part of life.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Living in the future
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2016, 10:02:19 AM »
We already have people taking on second careers.  At least those fortunate enough to stick on one career path long enough to see demand for it decline and still be willing and able to learn a new trade.

If we started living, say twice as long, then continuing education becomes the typical experience.  With the rate of technological change, in theory, being exponentially faster, education of some form may be a near constant part of life.

But that still forces a change in how education happens regardless of increased longevity or not. The longevity side of it simply changes where the primary focus of education lies. Right now the largest share of education is K-12 or relevant national equivalent, with School Districts/private schools tasked with that as their mission typically being one the largest employers/industries(if not the biggest) in all but the smallest of communities(that aren't demographically skewed to specific demographics that don't involve children).

Just by doubling life expectancy, the demographics are going to shift around as median age starts moving into the 60's for most communities rather than their 30's. It may not(and probably will not) reduce class sizes significantly, but unless human(more specifically: female) fertility likewise was expanded, class sizes wouldn't be expanding much either(and that's presuming population controls don't become a factor in such a scenario). Giving a larger population base available to support a mostly static population subset(k-12 students), the individual tax burden for supporting those students should drop as there are more people to spread the cost across.

But you now have "continuing education" as an increasingly relevant item for the adults in town, so many of those education facilities may no longer be just for the children anymore. Which raises questions as to the roles of local "Traditional" schools, and how they relate to colleges and universities as well. Of course, the collegiate/University education model is under a lot of stress in a number of different ways right now as it is being used in ways it was never intended to be used, so just the prospect of living to see where things go on that front could be interesting in its own right.