Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

[JimBowie1958]

This will happen, and it will blow up our current entitlement system by 2050 if death rates plummet to nearly zero.

Would you want to live for an indefinite period of time?

Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

Ray Kurzweil, Google's chief futurist, laid out what he thinks the next few decades will look likein an interview with Playboy.

Kurzweil is one of the biggest believers in The Singularity, the moment when humans — with the aid of technology —will supposedly live forever.

He's chosen the year 2045 because, according to his calculations, "The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will reach a level that’s a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today."

But even before 2045, Kurzweil thinks we could begin the deathless process.

"I believe we will reach a point around 2029 when medical technologies will add one additional year every year to your life expectancy," he told Playboy. "By that I don’t mean life expectancy based on your birthdate, but rather your remaining life expectancy."

A lot will have to happen in the next 30 years to make that a reality, but Kurzweil isn't fazed: He predicts that nano machines capable of taking over for our immune system (to fix problems like cancerous cells and clogged arteries) and connecting our brains to the cloud will be available by then.

 

[Steven_R]

Why would I want to live forever? The world is nuts and it's not getting better anytime soon.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This will happen, and it will blow up our current entitlement system by 2050 if death rates plummet to nearly zero.

Would you want to live for an indefinite period of time?

Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

Ray Kurzweil, Google's chief futurist, laid out what he thinks the next few decades will look likein an interview with Playboy.

Kurzweil is one of the biggest believers in The Singularity, the moment when humans — with the aid of technology —will supposedly live forever.

He's chosen the year 2045 because, according to his calculations, "The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will reach a level that’s a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today."

But even before 2045, Kurzweil thinks we could begin the deathless process.

"I believe we will reach a point around 2029 when medical technologies will add one additional year every year to your life expectancy," he told Playboy. "By that I don’t mean life expectancy based on your birthdate, but rather your remaining life expectancy."

A lot will have to happen in the next 30 years to make that a reality, but Kurzweil isn't fazed: He predicts that nano machines capable of taking over for our immune system (to fix problems like cancerous cells and clogged arteries) and connecting our brains to the cloud will be available by then.

What a horrendous prospect this would be, of course I've voted no.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If you stay young why not. If you continue to grow old then what's the point. And with 7 billion people already taxing the Earth's resources, having people live longer will only intensify this greatly.

Science has known why we age for a long time, there are 'end cap' genes in dna that once a cell reproduces maybe 250 times it is time to die. Bacteria don't have these end caps in their dna, they just divide forever. Remove the end caps and voila. Not as easy as that but you get the point. This will certainly become an expensive option for the ultra-wealthy first which then presents a new dilemma. Will society stand for this?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I'd want to live for another 2, maybe 3 hundred years. Why not?

 

[Weatherman2020]

This will happen, and it will blow up our current entitlement system by 2050 if death rates plummet to nearly zero.

Would you want to live for an indefinite period of time?

Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

Ray Kurzweil, Google's chief futurist, laid out what he thinks the next few decades will look likein an interview with Playboy.

Kurzweil is one of the biggest believers in The Singularity, the moment when humans — with the aid of technology —will supposedly live forever.

He's chosen the year 2045 because, according to his calculations, "The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will reach a level that’s a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today."

But even before 2045, Kurzweil thinks we could begin the deathless process.

"I believe we will reach a point around 2029 when medical technologies will add one additional year every year to your life expectancy," he told Playboy. "By that I don’t mean life expectancy based on your birthdate, but rather your remaining life expectancy."

A lot will have to happen in the next 30 years to make that a reality, but Kurzweil isn't fazed: He predicts that nano machines capable of taking over for our immune system (to fix problems like cancerous cells and clogged arteries) and connecting our brains to the cloud will be available by then.

The world is imploding all around us. More like civilization will be gone by 2045.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Hell no.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you stay young why not. If you continue to grow old then what's the point. And with 7 billion people already taxing the Earth's resources, having people live longer will only intensify this greatly.

Science has known why we age for a long time, there are 'end cap' genes in dna that once a cell reproduces maybe 250 times it is time to die. Bacteria don't have these end caps in their dna, they just divide forever. Remove the end caps and voila. Not as easy as that but you get the point. This will certainly become an expensive option for the ultra-wealthy first which then presents a new dilemma. Will society stand for this?

Check this out.

Would Immortality Become An Overpopulation Nightmare?

Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."

Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely.

"In other words, a population of immortal reproducing organisms can grow indefinitely in time, but not necessarily indefinitely in size, because asymptotic growth is possible," Gavrilov said in an interview with Rejuvenation Research (Volume 12, Number 5, 2009).

"The startling conclusion is that fears of overpopulation based on lay common sense and uneducated intuition are, in fact, grossly exaggerated."

 

[Agit8r]

Sounds like Hell.

 

[my2¢]

Seems to me Kurzweil is a couple of thousand years behind the times.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I think the Muslims will shorten that concept of how long we live.

 

[Kat]

No vote from me.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It really depends. If the future holds lots of space travel, storms and is interesting too me...Well, I might choose to stick around a little longer! If not, well, no.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This will happen, and it will blow up our current entitlement system by 2050 if death rates plummet to nearly zero.

Would you want to live for an indefinite period of time?

Google's chief futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

Ray Kurzweil, Google's chief futurist, laid out what he thinks the next few decades will look likein an interview with Playboy.

Kurzweil is one of the biggest believers in The Singularity, the moment when humans — with the aid of technology —will supposedly live forever.

He's chosen the year 2045 because, according to his calculations, "The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will reach a level that’s a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today."

But even before 2045, Kurzweil thinks we could begin the deathless process.

"I believe we will reach a point around 2029 when medical technologies will add one additional year every year to your life expectancy," he told Playboy. "By that I don’t mean life expectancy based on your birthdate, but rather your remaining life expectancy."

A lot will have to happen in the next 30 years to make that a reality, but Kurzweil isn't fazed: He predicts that nano machines capable of taking over for our immune system (to fix problems like cancerous cells and clogged arteries) and connecting our brains to the cloud will be available by then.

The world is imploding all around us. More like civilization will be gone by 2045.

We vote a belief system that hates science, hates education and educations civilization...Well, you may live to see it and regret your vote!

 

[Kat]

Who hates all that? I love science!

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

As this nation begins to more and more, resemble the movie Ideocracy, We will probably not see the infinite lifespan developed, nor would we want to expand the lifespan of the dimwitted.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, you aren't going to live forever. Something in the universe will kill you. Second, an indefinite lifespan, where you lived until something killed you would be a good thing. For those of us that love to learn. At 72, I have just began to learn a lot of things, and would really like to find out if their are limits to our learning.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First, you aren't going to live forever. Something in the universe will kill you. Second, an indefinite lifespan, where you lived until something killed you would be a good thing. For those of us that love to learn. At 72, I have just began to learn a lot of things, and would really like to find out if their are limits to our learning.

Wow, you got that exactly right; who did you copy off of?