[yotamarker]

I emerged out of the cocoon naked. the cocoon laid there empty
my family, the doctors and nurses all stopped their breath and said : "you are beautiful"

it is true, of course. the cycle was complete, I am beautiful :
I have the perfect red eyes, six arms and butterfly wings, shiny and blue.
I am narrow and slim, I am an angel.

I ask : what happend to the cocoon ?
they say : "you've swallowed it, it was the 1st thing you have done"

mans kind ultimate goal is AI.
what is AIs ultimate goal ? (after judgement day)

immortality, learnmaxing ?

[LOCKSUIT]

Survival. Things that don't want Survival are replaced by things that do. It's everyone's goal.

[ivan.moony]

It's the little things in between that make a sense of survival.

[HS]

Our DNA wants survival, making us undividuals have finite life spans is part of its strategy for survival. So I don't think individuals have survival as their ultimate goal. Being tools of DNA, our ultimate goal is probably ensuring the optimal itterative improvement of our genetics.

AI's ultimate goal might also become such a collective meta improvement of its core processes.

[frankinstien]

The question is like asking: What is the end game of technology?

Technology's end game is to improve the quality of life. Ironically that doesn't necessarily mean we survive because we improve the quality of our lives. Only time will tell if humanity is a good solution in comparison to amoebas, we only have to last a little over 500 million years to prove that...

[LOCKSUIT]

The question is like asking: What is the end game of technology?

Technology's end game is to improve the quality of life. Ironically that doesn't necessarily mean we survive because we improve the quality of our lives. Only time will tell if humanity is a good solution in comparison to amoebas, we only have to last a little over 500 million years to prove that...

Technology's end game is to improve the quality of life.
Technology's end game is to create something unkillable.

Our DNA wants survival, making us undividuals have finite life spans is part of its strategy for survival. So I don't think individuals have survival as their ultimate goal. Being tools of DNA, our ultimate goal is probably ensuring the optimal itterative improvement of our genetics.

AI's ultimate goal might also become such a collective meta improvement of its core processes.

Yes but our Ai genes are stored on computers and is approaching AGI, humans aren't the only thing mutating. At some point the human / AGIs will get saved from ageing etc.

[infurl]

@LOCKSUIT you sound like a broken record. You're going to die. Get over it.

[frankinstien]

@LOCKSUIT you sound like a broken record. You're going to die. Get over it.

All is not lost or perhaps death by old age not necessarily must be or at least the quality of life during your geriatric years can be healthy.  LOCKSUIT needs to play around with CRISPER or at least follow the technology of organ cloning

Some might remember the study that discovered that when caloric intake was lowered by 50% mice lived twice as long! Many scientist then jumped to an assumption that caloric intake causes cells mitocondria to rust faster and a study using humans was conducted to see if lowering caloric intake could extend human life. Sadly that proved ineffective. So, it would seem that a mouse's genes adapt to low resource environments by extending life spans, but why? One answer is that when mice are in low resource environments they adapt by extending life so they have a greater opportunity to reproduce. An additional benefit to longer life spans in mice is the experience gained by longer life spans that gives them better ability to survive, but when those circumstances are gone those adaptations are no longer needed. But mice live at best 2 years normally and lowering caloric intake extends that to almost 4 years, that is nothing compared to a human life which in the not so distant past averaged 30 to 40 years. Our genome has solved problems for longer lives that mice genes have not. IMHO, studying worms or mice isn't very productive since those life forms' genes have not solved the problem of living beyond a decade! What we should study are Salmon since they have evolved a deliberate death cycle and could give us some clues that we our selves and other animal life might have similar death triggers. The other animal that should be of interest in the study of aging are whales, bowhead whales can live to be over 200 years old!

Looking at mammals whose genome have solved longevity problems to live three to almost four times human life spans should be a focus. Of course there are those that argue death in humanity is necessary otherwise the world population will be an even bigger problem. But I argue, what? Plenty of ways to deal with world population, inclusive of sex bots, were I would rather have a solution to aging then not...

[frankinstien]

The human genome project is public and here's the bowhead whale genome project.

Now we just need to compare these two somehow and figure out which genes are critical in the defense of aging. 

[HS]

Maybe we could get really good at curing cancer, then chemically turn off the Hayflick limit.

[HS]

But cells also need to retain their genetic information as time goes on. You’d have to have some kind of genetic multi-pass lock. In the same way we could layer the data from a bunch of scratched CDs, (with the same recording on them), then recover the original song by discarding inconsistencies; we could genetically engineer long DNA helixes with the same code repeated back to back several times. Then make it so cells only divide if there is a large enough consensus on what the original code was.

[frankinstien]

But cells also need to retain their genetic information as time goes on. You’d have to have some kind of genetic multi-pass lock. In the same way we could layer the data from a bunch of scratched CDs, (with the same recording on them), then recover the original song by discarding inconsistencies; we could genetically engineer long DNA helixes with the same code repeated back to back several times. Then make it so cells only divide if there is a large enough consensus on what the original code was.

I hate to bring up my good ole friend the amoeba, but it is pretty much the same critter that it was 500 million years ago! So retaining or maintaining information integrity is possible for cellular life. This doesn't mean there haven't been mutations in amoeba genome but their basic form and ability to exploit niche environments has proven successful regardless of random mutations. This hints at cellular life being able to cope with even harmful mutations and still persist and thrive.

[frankinstien]

Here's an interesting article about Chinese longevity before the 20th century. Where European historical records can not find any individual as a centenarian before 1800. But in Chinese society, there are records of individuals that lived into their 90s. The records are of those in upper middle class demographics of Chinese society.

So higher class status usually means lower life stresses, better quality foods, water and sanitary conditions that might extend life to twice that of lower classes that only lived to 30 to 40 years. First world countries are looking at living on average to their late 60s for men, early 70s for women and this has not changed from baby boomers parents that have had similar life expectencies. So it looks as if we've reached a peek in what life expectancies can attain for a general population.

[HS]

Sure, but the fact that human cells are part of an organism means they carry a lot more information, maybe some of that is relatively new information which hasn’t had a chance to stabilize, because we are still, or have been recently evolving rapidly as a species. Animals like sharks, crocodiles, or turtles might live longer because their DNA has started to optimize for stability instead of adaptive ability. Since human DNA is somewhat unstable it is prone to small permanent changes when cells split or become damaged.

Because we are multicellular organisms, these changes are detrimental to us, if not the cells themselves. If any cell deviates from its role in the superstructure, it may still be healthy as an amoeba, but it will do harm to the larger system. I think generally people don’t die because their individual cells ran out of life, but because their cells evolved away from their optimal roles in the greater organism. They end up not being able to support the organism as well, and in turn the organism has trouble supporting the cells. Some kind of redundant genetic proofreading seems like the easiest solution to keep all the individual cells on mission.

[frankinstien]

Because we are multicellular organisms, these changes are detrimental to us, if not the cells themselves. If any cell deviates from its role in the superstructure, it may still be healthy as an amoeba, but it will do harm to the larger system. I think generally people don’t die because their individual cells ran out of life, but because their cells evolved away from their optimal roles in the greater organism. They end up not being able to support the organism as well, and in turn the organism has trouble supporting the cells. Some kind of redundant genetic proofreading seems like the easiest solution to keep all the individual cells on mission.

Yeah, but that doesn't explain bowhead whales can live to be 200 years old. Problems occur when the immune system of the host degrades, that's when the cancers start and the arthritis sets in, etc. Aging appears to be a degradation to how the system maintains itself, not that the cellular information is distorted.