I think so... this video below seems to indicate it, and the human desire to stick around rather than accept death is not going anywhere so... if anyone has the will to cheat or even beat death it's humanity.
I do not think it will be as simple as taking a pill but I digress.
Animals are constrained by their intelligence and limited creativity... but we most certainly are not.
We are already like gods to them... and I suppose the longer we exist as a species the more we will act as gods by even creating them in the future.
We already do in computer virtual game worlds.
It is funny to think that the Soia may have been like a real life MMO game experiment.
Re: Are We Gods Or Will We Become Like The Soia?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:40 pm
by Mithramuse
I love the Resident Evil reference in the interview portion.
Lots of societal effects from anything like this, to be sure, none of which are touched upon. Though the restoration of function in eyes would be quite useful, for example, rather than doing surgery.
Re: Are We Gods Or Will We Become Like The Soia?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:08 pm
by G. Janssen
Everybody wants to live forever. But few will want to live for more than 500 years when "eternal life" becomes available. In fact, most won't live longer than 300 to 400 years due to sickness, accidents or crime.
I think so... this video below seems to indicate it, and the human desire to stick around rather than accept death is not going anywhere so... if anyone has the will to cheat or even beat death it's humanity.
I do not think it will be as simple as taking a pill but I digress.
Animals are constrained by their intelligence and limited creativity... but we most certainly are not.
We are already like gods to them... and I suppose the longer we exist as a species the more we will act as gods by even creating them in the future.
We already do in computer virtual game worlds.
It is funny to think that the Soia may have been like a real life MMO game experiment.
We know that Greenland sharks can get 400 years old, so obviously aging is highly 'plastic'/changeable. If we are lucky, it's just a few signal pathways. But waiting 150 years to reach puberty is a bit long
Re: Are We Gods Or Will We Become Like The Soia?
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2022 5:55 am
by Keklas Rekobah
"Researchers Say They Are Close to Reversing Aging"
"Researchers Say Fusion Reactor Is Very Likely to Work"
"Researchers Say Cancer Cure Is Just Around the Corner"
"Researchers Say Wormholes Exist"
Excuse me while I scoff at these headlines, variations of which I remember from my childhood.
"Researchers Say They Are Close to Reversing Aging"
"Researchers Say Fusion Reactor Is Very Likely to Work"
"Researchers Say Cancer Cure Is Just Around the Corner"
"Researchers Say Wormholes Exist"
Excuse me while I scoff at these headlines, variations of which I remember from my childhood.
I'm still waiting for my flying car. Several articles from the 1920s promised we'd all have one in the year 2000.
Wormholes do exist though. I used to have plenty of those in my lawn.
"Researchers Say They Are Close to Reversing Aging"
Definitely possible, but could be very simple or very difficult. I would be careful with the words "close" and "reverse". Maybe better "on a good way" and "delay" ^^
But few will want to live for more than 500 years when "eternal life" becomes available. In fact, most won't live longer than 300 to 400 years due to sickness, accidents or crime.
Let's be honest: a lot of time, change in society is only permitted by the death of those people adverse to change. This is true in all domains, for example Max Planck quipped that "science advances one funeral at a time", explaining that scientific discoveries do not get accepted when they convince everyone, but when the last of the doubter dies.
So imagine if we already lived 500 years. The Americas would still have a sizeable population of people born in the 1500s. The conquistadors who caused all the mass slaughters of the natives would still be around, possibly in power. Same for plantation owners. I doubt slavery would have been abolished, since all the slave owners who were in power in the 16th and 17th century would still be in power now.
I'm not even gonna bother talking about tolerance for LGBT people, try to get that past the guys who held the Salem witch trials.
But few will want to live for more than 500 years when "eternal life" becomes available. In fact, most won't live longer than 300 to 400 years due to sickness, accidents or crime.
Let's be honest: a lot of time, change in society is only permitted by the death of those people adverse to change. This is true in all domains, for example Max Planck quipped that "science advances one funeral at a time", explaining that scientific discoveries do not get accepted when they convince everyone, but when the last of the doubter dies.
So imagine if we already lived 500 years. The Americas would still have a sizeable population of people born in the 1500s. The conquistadors who caused all the mass slaughters of the natives would still be around, possibly in power. Same for plantation owners. I doubt slavery would have been abolished, since all the slave owners who were in power in the 16th and 17th century would still be in power now.
I'm not even gonna bother talking about tolerance for LGBT people, try to get that past the guys who held the Salem witch trials.
War would be the result... look no further than Loroi wars between each other.
As for fusion and flying cars we can already do that.
Fusion: Large body of water. Facility that dwarfs hoover dam. Crazy expensive to build. Detonate nuke under water. Water drives turbines underwater. Electricity. Done. Rinse and repeat. It actually would work... just nations rather use nukes for war and people freak out even when not using them for war.
Flying cars: One was made decades ago, folded up wings while driving. Was supposed to only land at airport, but could actually take off from the road.
Still nobody wants folks flying low blaring gangsta rap or throwing out trash or flying drunk... which is the kind of stuff you get if most get them.
But few will want to live for more than 500 years when "eternal life" becomes available. In fact, most won't live longer than 300 to 400 years due to sickness, accidents or crime.
Let's be honest: a lot of time, change in society is only permitted by the death of those people adverse to change. This is true in all domains, for example Max Planck quipped that "science advances one funeral at a time", explaining that scientific discoveries do not get accepted when they convince everyone, but when the last of the doubter dies.
So imagine if we already lived 500 years. The Americas would still have a sizeable population of people born in the 1500s. The conquistadors who caused all the mass slaughters of the natives would still be around, possibly in power. Same for plantation owners. I doubt slavery would have been abolished, since all the slave owners who were in power in the 16th and 17th century would still be in power now.
I'm not even gonna bother talking about tolerance for LGBT people, try to get that past the guys who held the Salem witch trials.
You get it. And living long, long lives won't elevate us. Let's take a chimpanzee and extend its life. Will it write sonnets after 200 years, write a book on philosophy after 500? No. All it will do for 500 years is eat bananas, scratch itself in public and fling shit, because it is a chimp and will be one as long as it lives.
Humans are no different. Sure, we can do more than chimps, but even when we live for 500 years we won't be able to do more than humans. And most of us won't even do that. We'll just waste 500 years instead of 80.
An average person already lives long enough to learn several languages, play a musical instrument and a trade, see the world, raise their children, teach that next generation everything they know (including how to be better people) and be a grandparent.
Fusion: Large body of water. Facility that dwarfs hoover dam. Crazy expensive to build. Detonate nuke under water. Water drives turbines underwater. Electricity. Done. Rinse and repeat. It actually would work... just nations rather use nukes for war and people freak out even when not using them for war.
Fusion: Large body of water. Facility that dwarfs hoover dam. Crazy expensive to build. Detonate nuke under water. Water drives turbines underwater. Electricity. Done. Rinse and repeat. It actually would work... just nations rather use nukes for war and people freak out even when not using them for war.
Flying cars: One was made decades ago, folded up wings while driving. Was supposed to only land at airport, but could actually take off from the road.
Nevermind that you'd need both a driver's license and pilot's license… also the whole “manufacturer has to get type certificate from the FAA” thing.
Atomic bombs use only fission. Nuclear bombs use fission to kickstart a nuclear process that causes fusion of atomic nuclei. That is why nukes are so much more powerful than atomic bombs.
They do not call them fusion bombs only because fission is used to kickstart the nuclear fusion reaction.
Pure fusion bombs would not require fission, but doing that has yet to be done as far as I know, and the results asofar would be a lower yield than nukes anyway based upon research that has been done.
The main benefit of pure fusion is a lot less radoioactivity due to not needing to use fission or uranium.
Atomic bombs use only fission. Nuclear bombs use fission to kickstart a nuclear process that causes fusion of atomic nuclei. That is why nukes are so much more powerful than atomic bombs.
They do not call them fusion bombs only because fission is used to kickstart the nuclear fusion reaction.
Pure fusion bombs would not require fission, but doing that has yet to be done as far as I know, and the results asofar would be a lower yield than nukes anyway based upon research that has been done.
The main benefit of pure fusion is a lot less radoioactivity due to not needing to use fission or uranium.
It's a bit different:
1. Pure fission bombs, meaning the ones using Uranium or Plutonium. Largely obsolete.
2. Boosted nukes, where a fission core ignites a small fusion charge in order to increase the fission yield. Actually, those are the most widespread ones nowadays, even if they require more maintenance efforts.
3. Fusion bombs, where a smaller fission charge triggers a much larger fusion reaction. However, such high-yield weapons are quite rare.
4. Pure fusion bombs are currently sci-fi, since there's no way to trigger the fusion reaction with anything except for a fission charge.
Atomic bombs use only fission. Nuclear bombs use fission to kickstart a nuclear process that causes fusion of atomic nuclei. That is why nukes are so much more powerful than atomic bombs.
They do not call them fusion bombs only because fission is used to kickstart the nuclear fusion reaction.
Pure fusion bombs would not require fission, but doing that has yet to be done as far as I know, and the results asofar would be a lower yield than nukes anyway based upon research that has been done.
The main benefit of pure fusion is a lot less radoioactivity due to not needing to use fission or uranium.
It's a bit different:
1. Pure fission bombs, meaning the ones using Uranium or Plutonium. Largely obsolete.
2. Boosted nukes, where a fission core ignites a small fusion charge in order to increase the fission yield. Actually, those are the most widespread ones nowadays, even if they require more maintenance efforts.
3. Fusion bombs, where a smaller fission charge triggers a much larger fusion reaction. However, such high-yield weapons are quite rare.
4. Pure fusion bombs are currently sci-fi, since there's no way to trigger the fusion reaction with anything except for a fission charge.
Where there is a will there is always a way.
Lower yield than a nuke though but possible in theory and not mere fantasy or fiction.
The stuff you can do with HE (high yield) explosives and magnetic fields is... believe it or not, enough to trigger a fusion reaction.
The HE bombs explode and trigger an uber magnetic field (hundred or more tesla strength) which compresses the bomb fuel... now plasma, into a fusion reaction.
Matterbeam is all about turning scifi into reality if at all possible.
Lower yield than a nuke though but possible in theory and not mere fantasy or fiction.
The stuff you can do with HE (high yield) explosives and magnetic fields is... believe it or not, enough to trigger a fusion reaction.
The HE bombs explode and trigger an uber magnetic field (hundred or more tesla strength) which compresses the bomb fuel... now plasma, into a fusion reaction.
Matterbeam is all about turning scifi into reality if at all possible.
I know of those attempts to trigger fusion with magnetized lens implosion. However, there are major problems with this technology:
1. It's still experimental.
2. Whether it can be miniaturized to a level comparable to conventional nukes remains to be seen.
3. Actually implementing this will trigger a major leap in the arms race. That's certainly nothing we need right now.
Then, the whole concept of pulse-based energy generation is somewhat problematic. Aside from laser-driven fusion experiments, which are mainly a way to circumvent the nuclear weapon test bans, they have one major issue. Continuity. In order to supply the power grid, you need a stable output level. Which means that such "piston" fusion reactors or even tokamaks would need to be built in great numbers to take over when the other one needs to be refueled. On the other hand, stellarator-type fusion chambers can run for a long time.
Space propulsion is a slightly different issue. An Orion ship is probably the most barbaric way of acceleration. It is an admission of being unable to construct a far more efficient fusion generator, and couple it with a normal engine. Instead, you'd simply detonate the fuel, which is certainly better than chemical rockets, but still far too wasteful compared to a proper reactor. Additionally, such a ship would also be a gigantic WMD platform in space. We as a species are not yet mature enough to use this solely for propulsion, so building it is out of the question. Even in sci-fi, it is either used by a unified Humanity, or as a last-ditch effort to escape from a doomed Earth.
P.S. If you really want Orions, how about making them out of ice or pykrete, in, let's say, a gas giant's orbit?
An average person already lives long enough to learn several languages, play a musical instrument and a trade, see the world, raise their children, teach that next generation everything they know (including how to be better people) and be a grandparent.
If said average person was luck to born in a good country. Otherwise it would be survive, survive and survive.
An average person already lives long enough to learn several languages, play a musical instrument and a trade, see the world, raise their children, teach that next generation everything they know (including how to be better people) and be a grandparent.
If said average person was luck to born in a good country. Otherwise it would be survive, survive and survive.
You missed one more... be born in a family/culture/religion that is neither abusive or forbids you from doing all of that to the exclusion of only for the culture/religion.
An average person already lives long enough to learn several languages, play a musical instrument and a trade, see the world, raise their children, teach that next generation everything they know (including how to be better people) and be a grandparent.
If said average person was luck to born in a good country. Otherwise it would be survive, survive and survive.
You missed one more... be born in a family/culture/religion that is neither abusive or forbids you from doing all of that to the exclusion of only for the culture/religion.
