In 40 years...

**Squall** · 12-18-2011, 04:53 PM

We will all be Terminators.

Well, at least according to this article - Nanotech Could Make Humans Immortal By 2040, Futurist Says ... - StumbleUpon

tl;dr

In about forty years, advances in nanotechnology will mean that we could have machines inside our body, in the bloodstream, able to almost instantly heal any injury. Think Claire Bennet from Heroes.

I have to say, I do quite like how this line is phrased:

Quote:

The quickening advance of nanotechnology means that the human condition will shift into more of a collaboration of man and machine , as nanobots flow through human blood streams and eventually even replace biological blood, he added.

So, what do you guys think of this? Will we be almost immortal in 40 years? Will it take longer? Is it just a fantasy, never to be fulfilled?

**warghoul** · 12-18-2011, 04:59 PM

I think the guy got a little ahead of himself claiming immortality in 40 years is a little bold.
Only one way to find out though.

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 06:18 PM

1. Sell nanobots to countries in need of armies at a discount.
2. Hire assassins to eliminate diplomatic leaders while disguised as a military unit from a rivaling power.
3. Repeat for rivaling power after assassination.
4. Wait for powers to invest into military technology.
5.

6. THE SYSTEM IS MINE!

**sabby** · 12-18-2011, 06:43 PM

No thank you. I do not want to be "immortal" on this earth at 78 years old.

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabby

No thank you. I do not want to be "immortal" on this earth at 78 years old.

I don't really know if they could keep your brain from aging, but I believe that the only difference is that with the nanobots you could be a fit and lively 78 year old.

**Dudebro** · 12-18-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Backed up memories and personalities could be accessed after a head trauma.

I doubt this one is close on the horizon, if it's possible at all. Memories I could believe but it seems like a stretch to say you could basically restart a persons entire being after a head trauma that would otherwise leave them ruined. If that kind of thing was possible it would also kinda kill the whole human soul thing.

Other than that sign me up. I see this as being an inevitable technology so they might as well test it on me. If they wanna freeze lock people to start a colony on another planet I'm down for that too.

**ZedIsDead** · 12-18-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudebro

If that kind of thing was possible it would also kinda kill the whole human soul thing.

It's not like souls exist anyway.

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjatiamat

It's not like souls exist anyway.

The soul is a metaphor for human security through individuality.

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclechicken

Then they could milk our blood until we died, then move on to the next host, animal, or even mineral deposits.

They could wipe out all life that needs blood to survive within years, even months.

What's the difference between that and any other form of life?

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclechicken

The main difference would be that we created the nanobots, and they weren't a naturally occuring virus / bacteria.

We would have brought it upon ourselves if that happened, just to gain a few more (possibly hundreds) years of life. Seems very selfish to me. Humans should die naturally, not inventing nanobots to go on forever, there is an order to the universe, and if we upset it, the universe will react and create a balance.

If the nanobots are self aware, they can probably learn and adapt, and if they Darwanize over us, who is complaining? Even in that terrible of a situation, the nanobot goes on and even they will Darwanize over each other over the next million years.

**joz** · 12-18-2011, 10:55 PM

The more relevant reasons are 3, 2 and 1, but they are all worth the read. NSFW due to language

5 Reasons Immortality Would be Worse than Death | Cracked.com

**DrunkN** · 12-18-2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jozman3000

The more relevant reasons are 3, 2 and 1, but they are all worth the read. NSFW due to language

I think that many can agree that immortality would ironically only be good in the short run, but I think that with the nanobots, you could probably find a way to completely eradicate yourself.

**warghoul** · 12-19-2011, 12:09 AM

I wouldn't want to live more than the average life span or less but it would be awesome to be incredibly healthy and in good condition for that hole time.

**joz** · 12-19-2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warghoul

I wouldn't want to live more than the average life span or less but it would be awesome to be incredibly healthy and in good condition for that hole time.

That would be awesome Warghoul. But I wouldn't do something like that for the population unless we could control ourselves from reproducing. We're already over populated even with all those sickly people dying every day. Image if all the old people past 70 are in tip top shape, running around healthy as a stag and making more babys. No bueno.

Also, if we had some sort of nanite or any other super health maintainer in our body, we would no longer be able to get drunk. Our super boosted liver would clean out the poison before we could even start feeling a buzz.

**Tails** · 12-19-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jozman3000

That would be awesome Warghoul. But I wouldn't do something like that for the population unless we could control ourselves from reproducing. We're already over populated even with all those sickly people dying every day. Image if all the old people past 70 are in tip top shape, running around healthy as a stag and making more babys. No bueno.

Also, if we had some sort of nanite or any other super health maintainer in our body, we would no longer be able to get drunk. Our super boosted liver would clean out the poison before we could even start feeling a buzz.

Get the humans fixed at age 50.

**warghoul** · 12-19-2011, 07:21 AM

Yep you just changed my mind real quick with that.

**DrunkN** · 12-19-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jozman3000

Also, if we had some sort of nanite or any other super health maintainer in our body, we would no longer be able to get drunk. Our super boosted liver would clean out the poison before we could even start feeling a buzz.

Captain America?

**joz** · 12-19-2011, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drunkninja

Captain America?

Yeah, except instead of going off and kicking some nazi scum, you're still stuck in your regular crappy job and you can't wind down on the weekend with a few beers or any other recreational substance.

**Kong** · 12-19-2011, 01:52 PM

Nanobots becoming self aware would be less likely than a virus becoming self aware.

I think no natural deaths would create a weird risk phobia.

If you could live forever as long as you never had an accident then every thing that increases your chance of death would suddenly feel much terrifying.

Example, at current rates, if the only cause of death was car accidents then the average American would have a life expectancy of about 123 years. But if you completely avoided cars then your life expectancy would be infinity.

If your life expectancy is already 80 then cars don't seem very scary. But if your life expectancy can be infinite then anything that pulls you down to a measly 123 years is going to cause you to piss your pants.

While I was looking up the stats I noticed that in developing countries HIV is the number one cause of death in developing countries.

If life expactancy world wide just doubles then China style state run birth control becomes mandatory.

**Demon-Mask** · 12-19-2011, 02:14 PM

I'd be fifty-eight years old forever. I don't know how great that would be.
My big problem with immortality is that everyone else would die. All of your family and friends, they'd all die.

**warghoul** · 12-19-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon-Mask

I'd be fifty-eight years old forever. I don't know how great that would be.
My big problem with immortality is that everyone else would die. All of your family and friends, they'd all die.

I don't think it would be like being 58 forever cause aging is ware on your body and than nanobots would repair that I think you would feel a lot younger and probably loose some of the visible signs of aging like wrinkles and hair loss.
The thing I'd hate most though is I'd just get bored the fun part of life is knowing I'm going to die soon so I have to have a good time all the time and experience everything I can as soon as possible or it might never happen, but not everyone subscribes to the live fast die young school of thought that I cherish so. So i guess I can see where they would relish the idea of living indefinitely.

also your friends and family would also have the choice for immortality so they wouldn't necessarily have to die.

**Dudebro** · 12-19-2011, 04:43 PM

I'd still do it, nanobot sentient war for dominance be damned. The real solution to our overcrowding and expanded life expectancy is living on other planets. If we never accomplish that feat then extending our lives would just quicken our destruction of earth until no one even wanted to be immortal anymore.

**Demon-Mask** · 12-19-2011, 11:41 PM

If my friends and family could be immortal too, than it may be nice. I'd take it. I'd probably take it if it was just me anyway. Eternal life and eternal youth are too much for me to turn down.

**Kong** · 12-20-2011, 10:54 AM

Very few people would really choose to die just because their friends and family died.

**Demon-Mask** · 12-21-2011, 12:19 AM

I honestly wouldn't chose death just because others died. You can always make new friends.