The Moral Questions of Artificial Immortality (Artificial Biological Negligible Senescence)

Mi'kail Eli'yah
25 min readJul 15, 2018

This is not the A.I. most people would be talking about. Here, A.I. (Artificial Immortality) is also referred to as A.B.N.S (Artificial Biological Negligible Senescence). Immortality, here, does not cover invulnerability or indestructibility.

Aging spares no one, until someone solves that puzzle.

1. What is the purpose of living so long?

A 3 year old kid can imagine how it is like being a 10 year old, a 10 year old can visualize how it is like being a 20 year old, a 20 year old can make sense of how it is like being a 50 year, a 50 year old can plan for his retirement when he is 80 because they have living and existing examples. However, a 10 year will think the 3 year does not make sense, regarding his/ her past naiveness and tantrums. A 20 year old will think little of the 10 year old. We hear statements like “do you think I am 10 years old” or “don’t take me as a green salad teen”. A 50 year old will see the 20 year old as an immature green-horn. An 80 year old will regret his years as a 50 year old. If we die at 3, we would never know how to think like 30. Likewise, many people who have grown forward by 80 would have realized that 1/2 a century ago, they would have un-do many regrets if they knew — even by a few critical details that is un-reparable.

The human life is really too short for an average human to make sense of her / his life. It has to be extended. Longevity does not mean aging nor long or prolonged decline.

There 4 types of people who do not regret:
1. those who have not learned and realized curse of misery, and would suffer the needless same
2. those who are determined to be immortal non-progressive, foolhardy psychopaths
3. those who have poor memory
4. those who decide to wallow in delusional positivism limbo
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. — Confucius (551 BC to 479 BC)

The point is perception changes, we do not know how we will be when we are 300 years old. The question itself may even be invalidated once we live long enough to change our minds about it.

If there is a quasi-immortal watching civilization evolving over the past few thousand years, it is obvious enough that much of parochialism humans are obsessed with is senseless. The quasi-immortal is not just going to think little of the 3 year old child. To the long lived person, s/he may also wean off that foolish god complex because s/he saw the vastness of infinity. For the rest of the ‘6-day cicadas’, they will only keep repeating the cycle. That quasi immortal will have to face a eternality of “I think I know enough”. The universe will humble us, but we have to live long enough to understand it. Living longer does make a difference.

Humans have very short years. It is so short that we can hardly make much sense of our own lives. There is just so much to figure out. Any one of us can be a Newton, Tesla or Michelangelo. Scientists cannot live long enough to do further work. If Newton and Tesla were alive today … or rather we live long enough to accumulate wisdom and do such wonderful works as well.

Some people may argue that the purpose isn’t the quantify of years in our life but the quality. We seek to improve life not merely prolong it, but also to elevate the potential and possibilities of the humankind.

Another obvious under-addressed focal point of life extension is lost work. This is especially true for scientific talents. When the M17 plane went down, we lost top AIDS researchers. This not only set our medical progress on this topic easy a few decades at least backwards, but possibly staunched discoveries that can be translated to another cures or discovery progress.

How many people had went to their graves with un-finished work and secrets? Understand that a common human who is not born a child prodigy wrestles with the first 20 to 30 years of their life, trying to figure out the fundamentals, in life and in work. Scientists who are on warm momentum and the escape velocity to gain on mining the answers have to come to an abrupt end killing both the person and their work. It is not viable to say someone can continue from their work. It is clearly much better these scientists gain longevity and extended wellness to continue to bring the fire of Prometheus to mankind. Civilization will see its first dawn more readily. Do not let the lights go into despair. We need them around.

Ὁ βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς,ἡ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή,ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή. — Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460 — c. 370 BC)
Ars longa, vita brevis, occāsiō praeceps, experīmentum perīculōsum, iūdicium difficile. (Skillfulness takes time, and life is short, opportunity fleeting, experimentations perilous, and judgment difficult.)

Similar to the debate of progressing space exploration versus `Shouldn’t we `fix` Earth first’, while not considering the engineering progress and space mining that can leap frog the acceleration of civilization progress, longevity medicine can lead to `augmented cognition mining` due to long living enhanced transhumans.

If I can open a medical university of my own, I will placed at the gates of the school:
"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. - Matthew 11:5"
- 2014-05.24
Medicine should not merely be the treatment of disease, including aging, but also the prevention of it. Reduce, not just repair. - 2014-05.25

Aging is not just a personal biological disease, it is a global social pathogen that holds back civilization progress.

The perspective of a human within a mortal lifespan is very limited. Something is clearly not correct and missing with the way humans live. Humans are like cicadas who hardly understand anything. They live so short that they never seen a “week”, not to say what is a “season” within the age of the Observable Universe we are living in. There are more stars than sand on earth, and we hardly know 4% of what we observed - and that is not the understanding of one person, but collective knowledge, of which most people do not passionately pursue. Humans sleep 1/3 of their lives away, and they waste other hours on defecating, eating, and worst of all, squandering further of their paltry longevity on mindless foolishness such as rapping and other fake-feel-good pursuits. Some even do one-finger typing on the phone to squeeze their unwarranted beliefs as 'twitting thesis' in small comment fields.Don’t the average human realize that the average fool is just with the wisdom of worm at most in their limited lifespan? And instead of those self-consoling to deceive themselves of their poetic existence of delusional sufficiency, that they lived long enough. The reality is that we are hardly even a colony of microbes in the stomach of a plankton in adrift in the ocean of the universe. - Re: The hard perspective"""
A: Why live so long?
Me: Why live in the first place? If you can answer this question, it will answer all. - 2010
If you are an immortal, and remain an immortal fool, then you wasted immortality. - Ursa

Scientifically, moral justification is the entelechic seed, root and shoots of all motives, motivations and instincts. The human will lack the will to live on or fight on to live on if the basis is manufactured or constructed weakly. If one wants to give up, s/he should not request the rest to join them in the mass graves. We must have that moral courage to live on to inherit.

I see many people wanting to give up their lives easily. The courage to die should not be because of the lack of courage to live, and the other way round as well. - 2016-04.01

2. Without death, people will take life for granted.

This refers to the question on purpose of living so long. Clearly, we are referring to very primitive thinking, and thinking that does not understand the value of life itself. Of course, we need time to figure that out. No one knows anything for sure. It is also rather silly to assume that we need pain to learn. If pain is equivalent to wisdom, why don’t we see more smarter people?

Mondays, Fridays, good days, bad days, they are your limited days. Cherish them. — Ursa to students complaining about life, 2010

3. What is the point of living old and sick?

Again, we are using the same view of what we observe. However, science can redefine longevity with quality of life. It does not have to come with deterioration. In fact, with long lives, we have more chance to continue our work to find the answers. Abrupt death means that the work may come to a standstill until someone figures how to pick it up from there if not that certain aspects may be lost altogether.

Cracking diseases universally will eventually lead to A.B.N.S (Artificial Biological Negligible Senescence).

The nurses of today are the same as the doctors 100 years ago. Imagine being treated by doctors 300 years ago with saw and chisel with anesthesia lacking. Now think 3000 years forward and being treated by doctors today. The mechanical means of sewing and cutting will be equally disturbing. — Re: The price of complacency, 2013People think of a desiccated, feeble, dysfunctional or non-functional nonagenarian or superannuated when I speak of a 1000 year old being, but the picture in my head is a Greek god, a timeless super being. - Re: Different symbols, context and image, 2014-05.26

4. Human will be overpopulated, we may run out of resources.

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, it is in its 1/2 life. 5 billion years from now, it may be consumed by the sun. The sun will also eventually die off 1 day. In either sense, we have to get off the rock.

An advanced civilization doesn’t just regulate the quantity of the population, it harmonizes the quality to ensure that the civilization is optimized rigorously to weather conditions. Breaking the Type 0 stagnancy is the key to breaking the curse of the fate of the Mouse Utopia.

5. It is unnatural.

Epidural and aspirin are unnatural. Cancer treatment are unnatural but everyone is taking the course. Arsenic is natural, but that does not make it desirable. Why do we ever think that being natural is good or wholly beneficial to human to almost a divine and infallible status? In the first sense, nature is quite adverse to human, many things in nature are killing us. Our survival outside Earth’s ecological system is very low, not to consider Earth’s own innate adversities it has for us. Therefore, this is basically more of the fear of the unknown rather than proving it to be unreasonable or infeasible.

It has become a common fallacy that anything ‘natural’ is beneficial to human, and ‘chemicals’ are harmful. This is also due to the whimsical treatment of definitions. ‘Chemicals’ are any substance that have been processed, esp. artificially, but may be of natural means, such as when we say what is the chemical components of a particular human hormone molecule. As human still do not understand the ways to mitigate the side effects of their man-made chemicals, they have been ‘undiligently’ overgeneralized as undesirable. However, many poisons are also of natural origins, but human has learnt and are still learning to extract mostly the beneficial. This myth can form a dangerous superstition if it discourages man from perfecting his scientific arts to supersede nature, especially where nature is harmful and requires to be addressed to enhance human means. In the ‘strawman’ of ‘witch-calling’ the unnatural chemicals as harmful, perhaps we reconsider that it is also a factor of human longevity and well-being today.

Another version to `It is unnatural` is `Let nature takes it’s course`, `Don’t play God` or `Do not tamper with nature`. Then given the means, will we avert the strike in the next natural disaster? Seek medical or technological intervention to prevent or cure cancer? Natural disasters are also natural. Cancer is natural, many would argued that it isn’t, and that it is due to industrial pollution, but cancer had been found on dinosaur bones and several other prehistoric species. There will come to a point of time where what we can grow as we age is only cancer cells even if we solved for longevity in plain years — that is natural biology.

If we become blinded by the beauty of nature, we may fail to see its cruelty and violence. - Jeff Glaser, "The X-Files" Detour, 1997Let nature take its course? Tell it to a cancer patient or any dying man. You make a bad doctor. - 2016-11.01Not everything natural is good, arsenic is found naturally in soil, and it goes into our crops - naturally. I am not being cynical, but if stupidity can also be natural too, we should really do something about it. - 2012-10.14I do not have enough substantial evidence to support the faith that nature is divine. - 2013-02.16Many humans have been too inclined to accept the course of nature, many a times - too religiously. - Re; Death and the hostile universe versus Cancer is part of nature too, 2015-03.29"Naturalistic fallacy" is sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is". Example: The belief that human mortality is natural and ought to be obeyed as 'natural law'. - 2018-07.05If 'natural' connotes desirability, does it justify or appeal to the discrimination based on the genetic configuration that we cannot control, and conferring the benefits based on social preferences? - 2013-06.13Strange if we think about it, that it becomes delusionally religious that people are accepting death. - 2015-02.23

When people use the word “natural” or “nature”, they really try to define how their understanding of reality should be mandated to be widely accepted to be like.

As scientists, we have great difficulties fathoming nature, not to say to define it. Define “natural”. Sociologically, many things among us are conditional, conditioned, and collectively institutionalized.

They say ‘I believe in nature. Nature is harmonious’. Every big fish is eating every smaller fish. Every organ is fighting constantly invading bacteria. Is that what you mean by harmony? There are planets that are exploding out there. Meteorites that hit another and blow up. What’s the purpose of that? What’s the purpose of floods? To drown people? In other words, if you start looking for purpose, you gotta look all over, take in the whole picture. So, man projects his own values into nature. — Jacque Fresco (March 13, 1916 — May 18, 2017)

If everything natural is so good, why aren’t natural disasters welcomed? — 2016–10.08

When most of us use the word `nature`, we really don’t know much about it in reality. — Ursa

What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning. - Werner Karl Heisenberg (5 December 1901 – 1 February 1976)

If the technology succeeded, sufferings can be mitigated. We can use gene therapy to help the poor, rather than the expensive drugs today only the affluent can afford. Millions die in Africa every single day.

People say ‘don’t play God’, but are they also referring not ‘playing nature’? The first proposition suggests that we should not arrogate the role of what or s/he who is infallible, but what if the designs are truly imperfect or even faulty, and if we were to attribute such works to its architect, can we suggest the possible fallibility or perhaps the invitation as co-creators to complete the works? Or is it in our mortal weakness of uncontainable fear to take that helm and persistent delusive hope that it is not unmanned in this ocean of random chance and cruel uncertainties while the fate of humanity is left drifted?

Why do we ever think that being natural is good or wholly beneficial to human to almost a divine and infallible status? In the first sense, nature is quite adverse to human, many things in nature are killing us, including the oxidation of cells as we breath, the arsenic draw naturally and organically by many crops that we eat. Natural disasters are also natural. Cancer is natural, many would argued that it isn’t, and that it is due to industrial pollution, but cancer had been found on dinosaur bones and several other prehistoric species. There will come to a point of time where what we can grow as we age is only cancer cells even if we solved for longevity in plain years — that is natural biology.

People parrot to each other thoughtlessly that we should not ‘tamper with nature’, and we should not play ‘God’ with very faint understanding. We can’t really blame them, it is basic social institutionalization and cultural conditioning in the most indoctrinated sense. The very problem is that we have been shown the accidents without considering that those attempts are not well-developed — yet. An example would be if someone were to build the first cars or planes, in which most likely, we will witness all sorts of horrific tragedies under technical faults and human error, however, does that mean we do not develop the technology further? The key clear picture of things is that getting the right answers is never easy, and dismissing the wrong answers under patent disasters is effortless. The real work takes pains and years, and sometimes testing the unknown can be extremely dangerous. We must understand that stem cell research was put off for decades, and people who could had been saved to experience longer quality lives had been robbed of this chance just because of such poetic and yet poorly-thought-of dismissal. Considering the sufferings mitigated and the lives saved today from the progress medicine has sadly crawled here to this day, would Curie ever regret her fatal end?

The greater conundrum is that while we conclude on the desirability and goodness of nature, even the most diligent scientists are struggling to understand nature. We hear many times that “nature is weird”. We hardly fathom nature itself. So how could anyone truly make general statements that nature is fully desirable or we should follow natural means? The sadder part is even when such discourse is made, a temporal rumination may take place, but the old habitual and cherished notion would once again return with amnesia to embrace that convenient dogma ad populum that we better stay with nature.

The invariability in trusting nature’s design could be as superstitious to regard it as infallible, divine and venerable as it could become a religious dogma unchecked and unquestioned.

What is so divine about nature that human have to think that it is infallible and worth venerating when truly science is seeing it’s faulty works and is unfolding the code of its mechanisms?

Perhaps, the current signs of technological breakthrough and leads to such possibility is a godsend.

Bacteriophage: 10³¹ types. Bacteria: 10³⁰ types. Number of stars in our observable universe: 10²⁸

6. Do not tamper with nature.

The thing against unnatural things somehow does not dismiss nor include certain artificial (a.k.a. unnatural) means — such as a medical intervention. So there is a selective sense of exclusion of ‘unnatural things’. However, such preferences is not fully examined nor expounded in good clarity. The technology we are using in our daily lives aren’t much natural too, but many seem to curse it as a necessary evil, and yet are despair to part with them. The closest logical escape is to ascribed it as an unnatural takeover. Hence, is there a will to cast it or is it merely an ambivalent submission to “eat in the east, and live in the west”?

东食西宿 ("Eat in the east, and live in the west"): the primary agenda to suit whatever is pleasing to one’s own desires using what ever convenient selective means to justify oneself.

The greater conundrum is that while we conclude on the desirability and goodness of nature, even the most diligent scientists are struggling to understand nature. We hear many times that “nature is weird”. We hardly fathom nature itself. So how could anyone truly make general statements that nature is fully desirable or we should follow natural means? The sadder part is even when such discourse is made, a temporal rumination may take place, but the old habitual and cherished notion would once again return with amnesia to embrace that convenient dogma ad populum that we better stay with nature.

Nature is not divine, its mistakes have been downplay to justify the divinity.

Evolution is not a complete design. Nature makes mistakes. Nature is not divine. - 2013-01.09Evolution is Natur experimenting and re-inventing itself. - 2013-10.29We have the illusion that evolution is perfect for the fact that we do not see the failed examples patently. Those failed designs of nature may not be obvious because they are removed subtlety by extinction. - 2010-04.12

While the rest of the mistakes have been corrected or avoided as we move along, yet these works have been re-ascribed to nature by categorizing ourselves as part of it, and if that is so, why can’t we correct nature by that step under nature’s call of the desire to live longer?

We have adjusted nature time to time. Many argue that we create problems, but in many ways, we have created benefits and solutions that far outweighs the ills.

As an old way of saying — if you cannot change the situation, change yourself. Thank God, transhumanism is approaching. — Ursa

Many people, who aren’t even qualifiable contemporary philosophers, use the premise of having ‘natural laws’ as the basis for morals is unwarranted behind a cosmetic of poetic romance; largely for 2 reasons:

1. Nature is hard to define, and it is hard to fathom. Even the most astute scientists struggle to come to terms of delineating it.

2. Nature may not benefit us in the way that it does not provide us certain necessary and sufficient conditions. Though I do not contend that human are learning and getting inspirations from the works of nature, it is by no means, complete or infallible. Inferentially, nature is not divine. Upon deeper understanding of how certain dysfunctional or malfunctional scenarios may occur to our body or how it deprive us of survivability, we can see better designs compared to what nature can offer. Many parts of our body is badly designed. Our preferences, feelings and perceptions hint to abysmal forms of natural faulty designs.

We need to sincerely understand what is nature, instead of pretending that we already know, and the more assiduous we do, the closer we will fathom the mechanisms it is awaiting to disclose to us, and the more ready we will be to be engaged as part of the process of evolution.

7. Do not play God/ it is immoral.

If God wants to stop us, He would, but for the reason why he even allow us to think about it, we may think perhaps, it is God’s work. Morality and God cannot be proven, it would be an endless and circular contention.

8. There will be other problems.

What if we get bored? What if our human limits curse our immortality? We cannot possibly recall our immortal lives.

A subset of this would be — what if “evil” doesn’t die? But don’t stop on that 1-way track question. Ask another one. Why would creatures remain Type 0 stagnancy — the `immortal idiot assumption`? If we keep thinking or ask 1-way track questions, we will be cursed with Type 0 stagnancy and never fulfill the Omega Point on the Kardashev scale. Immortals must scale invulnerability, invincibility and omnipotence as they head towards Omega Point.

Given the longevity, it would be pathetic that humans remain their limited form. They have to be upgraded, enhanced and elevated to a more advanced version. As the time is gifted and given, the milestone has to be set for the next scales of civilization.

Let us be clear once at for all — If you are an immortal, and remain an immortal fool, then you wasted immortality.

There will be always other problems, but the current problems will definitely persist to haunt us if we do not solve them.

9. Who are you testing it on. We need to see proof.

We need neutrality check and audit, and precisely because of this, we need this to be non-exclusive. Instead of remonstrating as lay people, get involved and be diligently educated to be able to proactively address and contribute to this progress constructively. It is ok, not to know the answers. Scientists don’t have all the answers, this is the reason why they work on it. Hence, let’s not retroactively and regressively get in the way of the progress, but just heaping questions. You found the question — good ! Now, work on it. What we need is inclusive participation. The research must be transparent and everyone must be adequately be provided for to be part of the scientific and moral progress.

10. This may fall into wrong hands.

Some people are already doing it. It will happen anyway. It is better to fall into our hands, and ensure that we are the ‘right’ hands, rather than on the wrong hands which will likely be in the intent and disposition of the elitists who will exploit the others in the most animalistic ways if they could use this technology to deify themselves.

We are already letting people be deprived and die of the lack of healthcare, do you think they will let people have longevity healthcare? Not if but when longevity healthcare becomes a commodity, there will not just be a great divide between men and mice, but the newly appointed gods and the wretched.

Longevity healthcare is likely to happen as civilization progresses, and it is naïve to think that such power will not arrogated exclusively and monopolized as a weapon by the rich and powerful to control the lesser. It’s why we should make it non-exclusive and ensure universal justice from the start. By us not working out the answer, does not stop the selfish from doing so. If they get there first, it’s over. We will not be in their club. They have excluded us from the game from the start.

There are 2 forms of anti-aging medicine intervention — one to slow down, the other to reverse. Likely, they will release the first and hold back the second exclusively. While the first is used for high cost profits, the second is kept as a weapon.

We may end up like another dystopia depicted and warned in the movie, `Elysium`, where it is not merely the wide gap in unjust distribution of resources, but the dangerous wide gap in lifespan monopoly and tyranny over human rights.

The only real obstacle to bio-immortality IS the wealthy. As long as the upper class exists, government will be it's shadow, and the planet will spiral towards biosphere collapse. - Rich Lennon, 2013-09.22Gene therapy does good for mankind. You mean the 'mankind' who has at least a 7 digit salary yearly, and the 1st digit is >= 2? - to a fellow scientist, 2013-10.29"""
The human quality problem which Ms Maria is avoiding to address is a key issue and root of future escalated abuses. Even longevity can be further abused and commoditized. If she works in the starving parts of the world, where children die on an hourly basis, and sees the selfish hedonism and apathy of the rich, she may re-think. She has to see for herself. She has to to those places, instead of letting it remain surreal and conveniently remote to her. She will understand, she has to work on a few things in 1 go. One cannot do without the other.
We met patients who fear life more than death because their living has been made hell. It worries me if Maria does not have the fundamental empathy to understand this. We are against death, but we do not tolerate a living hell either. They have to be solved. Maria is trying to solve 1 without thinking well for the other. The result would be an empty, immortalized hell, and for high probability monopolized by a few and terrorizing the others. Imagine a 3 million creature living among us today, arrogating all the rights and resources, making the human society no less than a human farm. We may end up in a world like the one in the parable of `Elysium`, where it is not be merely the wide gap in unjust distribution of resources, but the dangerous wide gap in lifespan monopoly and tyranny over human rights.Human has been exploiting for meat, sex, and vanity. Maria says the human quality is ready, something is very wrong. Look at how human are preying on other creatures and upon themselves. If longevity healthcare becomes a reality, Elysium will be built - and you will be outside the gates of the rich, selfish and mighty, because no one cares to build compassion. No one sees it because everyone only sees themselves. This is why we are merely building an immortalized hell if we do not fathom the dimensions of the problem.Selfish and greed people cannot see how parting with their wealth and putting in for the common good to synergize a compounded effect. It is almost a handicap. They only empathized to the paranoiac hoarding of the rich, because they share the same minds. It is a handicap, a form of color blindness. They can only think and see themselves.The parable of `Elysium` is almost a certainty if we do not improve the quality of humankind. We will end up working in the factory to feed Elysium, the island of bio-immortality, while most parts of the world continues with 2 dollars a day, some parts having 50 million children staved to death a year (UN current numbers), while most of us cannot even afford healthcare, and we think we will get a taste of life-extension health care? We will only be working in the industries supporting the abundance of the affluence.We are sure it will be abused in the hands of a few. Where immortality corrupts, it corrupts demonically. we do not want a world of `gods and mice`. — 2013–09.20
1 thing I am afraid of, and I cannot answer, if science falls into the wrong hands in the dawn of us crossing over to the Age of Singularity ... and if ... who and how ... and will it be that immortality is to be commercialized? — 2012–06.17If neo-capitalism is corrupted without the sense of humanity, 'Elysium' may be constructed, where longevity healthcare is a commodity exclusive to immortalize the rich and selfish. - 2014-01.07

11. It is not possible. Why bother?

People seems to rest with the premise “we can never know everything” or “it is not possible”. Now, how do they confirm those premises? Did they use some mathematical derivation to Q.E.D. it or construct even an experimental Turing machine to attest its plausibility? If it is based on historical observation, how would it be `never`, as in `never never` or `never ever` or just `ever since never`? Would they be able to read the future and say `never`? Would it be `never` be possible that human can graft further layers beyond the 3-layer brain, or expand our cognitive abilities by extending cerebral modules, to have `never` attained enough to know complete or approaching `everything` within the observable universe? Or is their `everything` a parameter of quantity approaching infinity, and we have to be exhaustively chasing eternity?

We may fall into paralysis by over-analysis, and nothing will ever take place. Many things have already been seen possible. Such as the 3 laws of Clarke, we know that many things that were seemingly impossible is possible.

We should have no qualms thinking further or beyond, but if the premise put forward is merely a bad mentality; and we should fear that this mentality has assert an obituary for a possibility.

A: You can seek a 2nd (medical) opinion.
Me: When they all read the same textbook?
- 2010
A: Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
Me: There are countries that have no taxes, aside if you move to the wilderness. There are creatures that have biological negligible senescence. - 2010
Medicine should change their paradigms from passive chemicals to proactive genetically modified microorganisms that can produce time-based and event-based payloads for targeting diseases and customizing regeneration for longevity medicine and medicine in general. - Re: Closing thoughts before leaving postgrad, 2010If we can genetically modify a virus or other forms of microorganisms, and program it to deliver an ‘edit’ to our genes in ‘mass cell infection’, we may have an unbounded possibility at hand, such as immortality. — 2013–08.16

The richest kings cannot cross a 100 years. — Ursa

The problem is — you think you have time. — Anonymous

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Clarke’s 3 laws

Death comes to every man — who waits for it. Waiting can be a defeatist form of passive death seeking. What if one man decides to change the outcome? — 2017-01.02

If age is just a number to you, it’s time you take biology classes. — Ursa
There are many things I can't even relate to most people. As a start: How do I communicate with people that medicine is ready to let us live around 300 years of age? Population regulation is possible, and it can be reasonable. Energy and resource distribution requires to use scientific methods that is existing, but people do not want to use it because the religious and cultural belief is more important. How about the paradigm of a borderless civilization, and the concept of a united race? This list goes on, but my focus is different from the common interests of the public which remains in the faith of the existing model. The Wright brothers were never successful rich people, they remain poor after flying the 1st place. 20 years they were ridiculed, and when they made their 1st fight, the world took another 20 years for the 1st commercial flight. I am not sure if people understand what I am trying to get - most don't. We are living on top of a rich soil, no one is interested to fallow the ground, and even a few of us did, the furthest we could see within our mortal lives is that people are casting the seeds ... we will never taste the fruits. It could have been a reality, but people dismissed us as being out of touch of reality. It could have have been real if we make it. Perhaps, I am detached from the reality of the mass, but I am not distracted nor delusional from the real that is to come and that is possible to be engineered with our very own hands - perhaps it has to crawl in this rate for the next 2000 years. - 2013-01.05There are 2 types of immortals: immortals that does not age, and immortals that are indestructible, they do not age and die of disease, injury, and deprivation of basic essentials that support life. There are people who are looking for type 1 immortals. Type 0 immortals, if we attained it, are likely merely resistant to aging. - 2013-09.21Immortality does not mean immunity. Only when immortals are invulnerable to all toxins, diseases, predators, and means to injuries, can we secure the immunity to death. - Re: Invincibility, 2013-10.12
If I am part of nature, and I shape nature, would it still be considered natural? - Re: Assisted Evolution, 2016-03.12We are nature - evolving nature. We are part of nature doing perhaps what it wants - to change itself. Nature re-adapting for an upgrade. - 2016-11.04"""
First, it's medication, then it gets dependent on them.
Next, it's assisting devices like reading glasses and walking canes.
Then, prosthetics, and possible replacements and implants.
When you see the wheel chair, you won't be too far from the sound of the life support system and the death bed. Or ... you can change the story ... focus on biomedical research and progress.
- 2020-08.21
Mortals, it is very fast and very soon that it will be too late.
- 2018-10.08