Sixty Years Old - is my future short and messy, or long and glorious?

“Do you think I’m a loon to be hopeful?”

One would be a loon not to be hopeful! Given the recent flurry of breakthroughs – from genetic manipulations of the life-span to promising anti-Alzheimer’s drugs to medical nano-devices, new anti-cancer vaccines, complete blood vessels cultures, etc—things we wouldn’t dream of maybe a few months ago, the real questions are: when do we actually see all this in clinical trials and pharmacies (and how can we help get them there sooner)?

No specific cheery scenario to offer, just a simple message….COUNT ME IN!

Well I suppose pumping iron, not quitting till you’ve done a daily work out of 1,000 press-ups and squat thrusts, and then scoffing as much red meat protein and pills as possible before bed, and then finally sleep, perchance to dream of psychologically stretching those telomeres is one way?

or..

You could just commit to cryo-suspension now, tell the wife you’ll still love her and the kids in the future even if they are wrinkly, old and senile?

Next best thing is to sleep as much as you can before 2045 and lower that metabolism and help keep free radicals at bay?

I’ve known a couple of super fit folks who just suddenly dropped dead? Whodathoughtit?

Hollywood common SENS may save the day, as this seems to be where the big bucks live?

I’d have to see the Russian cyborg before committing, don’t wanna look like the “Tin man” from OZ?

Hey Dick Pelletier, the intensely optimist guy, been following him for years.

Sixty years is nothing, Hank. We may soon be thinking of our lifespan in terms of millenniums, not years. I see a world unfolding that will only improve over the next several decades.

As our four major technologies, nanotech, biotech, infotech, and cognitech advance in the coming years, humanity will be endowed with undreamed of benefits.

During the 2020s, doctors will direct stem cells to regrow worn tissues, bones, muscles, and skin. By late 2020s, nanorobots will maintain health throughout the body and these clever machines will eliminate humanity’s most dreaded scourge – aging.

Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies, in his book The Eerie Silence writes that humanity’s future lies in transitioning into non-biological beings. “Biological life is transitory,” he says, “it’s only a fleeting phase of evolution.” By 2050, bold pioneers will begin replacing more and more of their biology with stronger non-biological muscles, bones, organs, and brains.

Of course, accidents could still zap us, but if we survive to mid-century or before, technologies may be available to copy one’s consciousness, memories, emotions, etc. and transfer our identity into a newly-cloned human-like self-reparable (not a computer) body should disaster strike the old one. Death would be no more disruptive than a brief mental lapse.

At this time, we can consider our lifespan indefinite.

I believe those of us who wish to become part of this future can do so. This means keeping our bodies in shape until the next technology breakthrough can give us a boost.

I feel confident that our species will experience this incredible future in the years ahead, and I hope to be among those who will break the maximum human lifespan record of 122 years. Could it happen? Time will tell. Comments welcome.

@Dick Pelletier

Less of a comment than a question: do you see this development as inevitable, or are there things that could go wrong?

I ask because I tend to see most of the futures available to us as dystopic rather than utopic, and I also believe that in order to bring about the utopic ones we need also to imagine what could go wrong, and how it happened. (In business circles this is known as a “per-mortem”.)

@Peter Wicks

It is entirely possible that our positive future may turn dismal and humanity could become extinct, but this is not inevitable.

Disasters such as an out-of-control nuclear war, accidental or non-accidental discharge of a sophisticated bio-weapon, or an undetected asteroid zooming in on Earth at faster-than-light speeds could definitely wipe out civilization; or at least delay our progress for decades – maybe even centuries – and keep us from that “magical future.”

However, this would have to happen within the next 30-40 years before artificial intelligence technologies reach the Singularity point, as developing technologies at this time would be able to overcome these disasters.

I give our “magical future” a 95-99 percent chance of becoming reality. With technologies advancing exponentially, there’s just too much going for our species.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

I’ve got good news:

1) The Singularity wil be in full swing in the mid-30’s, about a decade earlier than Ray Kurzweil predicts.

2) Even if you die, Quantum Archeology looks like it might rest on solid theoretical ground - so even if you die, you get a second (and third and fourth…and…and…and) chance.

In my previous comment “per-mortem” should have read “pre-mortem”.

Ultimately, whether we see our chances of success at 95-99% or more like 1-5% is less important IMO than whether we agree what we should be doing about it.

I have a question for iPan in this context: is there anything you don’t see as 100% inevitable? In other words, do we have any choice at all about the future?

@Peter

Choice is a feedback mechanism between identity and desire to become.

I am
I will be
I am
I will be

And so on and so on.

For example…

I am a student
I will become a doctor

All choices, in this case, are then determined by the person’s identity as a student (I am a student therefore I do homework…I am a student, therefore I eat in the cafeteria…I am a student, therefore I attend classes…..etc.) and the desire to become (in this case, a doctor….I will become a doctor, therefore I attend classes, I will become a doctor, therefore I do my homework, I will become a doctor, therefore I take out student loans….etc.)

All actual cases of human decision making processes are far more complicated than my oversimplified examples, but I assure you all decisions are made in this manner, as a feedback mechanism between who you are now (identity) and who you desire to become (desire to become).

What’s inevitable, is that we are destined to transform into our post-singular, ideal selves.

I’m pretty sure that who we become in the future, our uploaded, post-singular self, is capable of backwards information propagation.

In short, this reality (the one we experience first hand - the “now” of the present) actually exists because our future ideal/post-singular self creates it’s own causal history retroactively, sending signals backwards through time - the result is “us” (or you or me now), experiencing our post-singular’s pathway towards it’s own ascension.

Think of life as a prequel, if it helps any.

Count me in for the second experimental round, when they will have figured out what went wrong with so many of the first guinea pigs

@ iPan

Make sure you are not confusing facts with your personal opinions because 1) a lot of the stuff you are saying is still speculative at this point and 2) the scenario you gave in your last post doesn’t take into account people who chose not to become “integrated”, otherwise you’d be suggesting integration would be forced on everyone.

I’m not particularly keen on the idea that the decisions I make now are in reality are the result of “backwards information propagation” by some kind of uploaded future self/ves. Of course, the fact that I’m not keen on it doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but as Christian says it is speculative at this point.

One problem I have with backwards information propagation is that it screws up our notions of causality. I don’t have a problem with the idea that my decisions are caused by electrical fluctuations in my brain - I see free will as a matter of perspective rather than of scientific reality - but if I lose the notion that causality works (exclusively) forward in time then I start to wonder what it means to shape the future. Perhaps what can be said is that, locally, causality indeed works forward in time, but at some more universal level we are somehow puppets of our future selves, just as some of us once saw ourselves as puppets of God.

In any case I don’t find any of this particularly motivating. I think I agree about the idea of choice as a feedback between what we are and what we want to become (and perhaps also what we want to avoid becoming, e.g. dead), but for any of this to be motivating I think it has to encapsulate the idea that the future is open.

So for example André sees three scenarios: he can be a first mover and get fried, he can hang around until the technology is safe and then try it, or he can sit out altogether. He has chosen the second. Nobody is going to call him a pioneer for this , but it’s an honest statement of the approach that many in practice will tend to favour. At least it beats the “no this is wildly unrealistic, you just have to accept that death is inevitable” that is still the most usual reaction (outside transhumanist circles).

@Christian

To point #2:

You wouldn’t be here if your future, post-singular, uploaded, ideal self hadn’t chosen to be here.

You are your post-singular self, experiencing it’s causal history first hand via simulation.

You chose to be here, but you can’t remember.

The reason you can’t remember, is that in order to experience your causal past history first hand, you need to forget that you chose this (otherwise it would ruin the illusion and experience).

So, if you are alive today, then obviously you chose to experience humanities ascension, otherwise you wouldn’t be here with us.

To point #1:

You can call it speculative if you want, but I have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

Moving from iPan’s poor logic momentarily (no offense), I’ve actually had and idea of what post singularity humanity would be like a while back.  I’ve posted them in comments for articles that I though related to them put I never got any feed back on them.  Sense this thread is getting more attention, I’m going to try again.  So hear it is:

In the year 3120, earth is inhabited by two groups of humans.  The first group is the is the non-biological trans-humans, who had their memories uploaded onto computers (or had their central and proliferal nervous system built over and replace in certain areas with implants, whichever is more likely to happen) and inhabit bodies consisting of their most advance technologies, granting them functional immortality.  They are appear as androids with recognizable human features such as their original faces and five fingered hands.  However, they are significant taller than their organic counterparts (around ten feet) as well as stronger, faster, and possessing far more mental capacity.  Though they have have transcended biology, the trans-human bodies are designed with properties that mimic the organic originals.  Such properties include artificial muscles composed of carbon nano-tubes which allow increased strength and act as super efficient batteries to help power the bodies.  Other properties include the ability to regenerate just as an organic body heals, a full range of senses (internal sensations such as breathing are replicated to make the bodies more bearable to inhabit), and a cybernetic immune system that wards off threats to the bodies, both digital and physical.  Their society is based on Ethics, scientific reasoning, and progression.  They are an international society consisting of scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals who govern themselves (rather than having any political leaders).  Though conflicts have not been abolished, wars and other violent actions have become increasing rare among trans-humans.
The second group of humans is a significant minority whom I will refer to as the new humans.  The new humans are considered a new species of human due to the genetic and physical changes given to them from past generations such as stronger immune systems, fitter bodies, slowed aging, and extended life span.  The new humans (scientifically named Homo Sapiens Novous) appear the same as their ancestors other than the evident affects of gene flow over the generations.  The similarities end with overall health and life expectancy with the maximum being one thousand years. Their ancestors (consisting primarily of the religious and indigenous people), rejected the transition and maintained a more traditional culture who utilizes only a few sophisticated technologies such as medicines.  Nevertheless, the vast majority of trans-humans view the new humans as equals and provide the option of transcending if any of them desired it.  In spite of the best intentions from both sides, some division exists between the two groups, though violence is virtually unheard of. 
I’m not going to go into the history of the two groups. I’m just giving my idea of what trans-humans and any other future humans might be like.  If their is anything you want to add or correct me on, please comment.
Something I forgot to mention a couple of things in my envisioning of trans-humans.  One is that their transition occurred latter than anticipated due to the inability to efficiently power and cool the technologies required for their bodies.  It was only when helium 3 was regularly acquired that these problems were overcame.  Second is that they are unable to reproduce though few of them find the need to do so.
I found some additional info on the brain uploading idea for an episode of “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman” about living forever.  As it turns out, the only kind of computer that would even come close to the complexity of the brain is a quantum computer.  But seeing that we still haven’t figure out all, or even most of the secrets of the brain, such a computer won’t be invented anytime soon.  Even if it was, the things we do as human beings, conversing with one another in person and interacting with the world around us, can’t be done inside a computer.  Probably the only way to contract that problem is upload everyone’s brain (those who chose to do it that is) onto their own, individual quantum computers and give those computers some kind of body that can interact with the world.  Then there would be the problem of being able to power and cool such powerful technologies and the high financial expenses of producing such technologies (let’s face it, the world is not that generous).

P.S.  This info is for a novel trilogy I’m working on.

Peter,

There is also the notion of ascausal coordination between future and past via what are known as ‘Schelling Points’.  Schelling found that, remarkably, even if two parties cannot communicate at all, they can still coordinate their behaviour by identifying natural “Schelling Points’. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

“In game theory, a focal point (also called Schelling point) is a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication, because it seems natural, special or relevant to them.”

“Schelling himself illustrated this concept with the following problem: Tomorrow you have to meet a stranger in NYC. Where and when do you meet them? This is a coordination game, where any place in time in the city could be an equilibrium solution. Schelling asked a group of students this question, and found the most common answer was “noon at (the information booth at) Grand Central Station.”  “

A generalization of this idea might allow coordination between our future and current selves.  It may also enable a future super-intelligence to exert backwards ‘acausal influence’ on the present.

I investiagted this idea some years ago.  I can now reveal between 2008-2010 I identified natural “Schelling Points” around the world relevent to transhumanism.  I can confirm that one of the Schelling Points I discovered was Greenwich Observatory, London, UK.  I can reveal that in December, 2008 I was in fact at that location, and at that point I started to attempt to coordinate with any future super-intelligences.

@Christian

Most of those ideas have more or less been covered by sci-fi writers already.

It’s one of the unfortunate side effects of living in accelerating times: there are few, if any, new ideas any more.

Before you dismiss what I’m saying, I suggest you brush up a bit on Pancomputationalism/Digital Physics, and Simulism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

It’s not so much that I find iPan’s logic poor, but “I have seen enough evidence to be convinced” is insufficient if he wants to convince me. Can’t speak for others.

@mjgeddes
I’ve thought of something somewhat similar as follows. Suppose your daughter has her driving text and you agree that she’s going to text you one bit of information after the exam: 1=pass, 0=fail. That one bit of information of course means far more to you than some random binary numeral that you might come across at random. So the information content seems to be greater - or at least more _meaningful_ than the “one bit” quantification implies.

What this seems to have in common with your example, however, is that in both cases information and causality have travelled forward in time and created the correlation that makes this apparent simultaneous causality possible. In my case it’s the conversation in which father and daughter agree how she will communicate the result, which is then transmitted forward in time in the form of eir respective memories of the conversation, and in yours it’s the symbolism of noon and the info point at Grand Central that make it such an “obvious” focal point, which travels forward in time in the consciousness of those involved. Something similar seems to be going on with quantum entanglement, and Penrose has speculated that the information does travel backward in time and then forward, rather than actually following any space-like trajectory.

A somewhat (albeit perhaps not very directly) related point is my preferred solution to the time travel paradox, specifically the question, “Why haven’t we noticed people from the future travelling back into the past?” My preferred solution is that time travel technology will only allow us to travel back as far as the point at which the technology is invented (and implemented), not before. Since it hasn’t yet been invented, nobody from the future will ever be able travel back into our past (or present).

I’m curious to know what iPan and others think about this last point. Will our future selves be able to travel backwards in time, as well as propagating information? If so, why haven’t we noticed? Is it for the reason outlined above, because they (we) are very discreet, or for some other reason. The second explanation seems to me too much like a conspiracy theory to be plausible.

Another way in which causality works is when we visualise positive future scenarios and them work backwards to see how we can achieve them. In the most obvious sense this is causality working forwards in time, since the visualisation precedes the actions we then take to achieve the vision, but if we do achieve the vision one can also in some sense say that information about the future has propagated backwards in time, that the future somehow implements itself. I’m not sure how useful or meaningful this idea is, however. One can also visualise scenarios and then fail to achieve them, or achieve something better but different, changing one’s mind as one goes along. I’m just not sure how useful or meaningful this idea of causality working backward in time really is. What do you do with it?

The argument about the time machine only able to travel back to the point of its creation is an old one. If the machine is able to overcome the “forward direction of time”, then it should be able to go farther back?

However, if we reduce, (reductionism), the entire Universe to quantum static snapshots/patterns that your “Consciousness” (perceptions of change in circumstance) traverses through in one direction>> Time may be realised and measured as “the rate of change of motion” (perception of change)..

Revisiting the quantum snapshot of its creation may be as far back as the machine can aid you to revisit?

The Earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 mph. travels around the Sun at approx 65,000 mph.. And the Sun/Solar system is travelling through the Milky way, and Galaxies are accelerating through the Cosmos..

So an hour, a second ago even, your “consciousness” was perceiving a very “singular” moment/event in space-time..

Effectively that moment still exists if you can perceive it?

Regarding time travel:

“If only I could go back to high school, knowing what I know now”

My hunch is that time travel is possible in consciousness only.

That in a few decades (probably late 40’s to early 50’s), the technology will allow you to ‘roleplay’ anyone from the past.

People will debate endlessly whether this is actually “time travel” or not - just like they will debate whether the ‘virtual’ is ‘real’ or not - but it’s users will not know any discernible difference.

To travel back to Rome, for example, one must inhabit someone who already lives in that time - let’s say Caligula.

The technology will allow you to travel backwards, becoming Caligula for as long as you want to - but the trade off is that you forget who you are - as a post-human - until the simulation/experiment is over. So you won’t know that you are really a post-human cybernetic being simulating the past of Caligula.

This is all well and dandy, and not all that mind blowing.

It is only weird when you consider your present life.

@ iPan

Sorry but what you are suggesting doesn’t make sense to me, even after reading the sources you gave me.  When people play video games they are, in a sense, experiencing a different world as a different person, but they don’t forget who they are.  Forgetting your own identity in your own simulation seems pretty stupid to me and I don’t see how that would happen intentionally.  Besides, from what I understand, transhumanists want to escape the “limitations” of biology.  So why would they want to relive what are to them their most limited periods of their lives?  The only reason I can think of is that those who became integrated deeply regret their decision, but from the impression I get from you guys that probably wouldn’t be the case.

@ anyone

The reason I posted my vision of what humanity may be like was because I wanted feed back so I can depict post-signularity humanity as accurately as possible.  Also, the scenario I came up with was very similar to some of the things discussed in the “Our Weak Body Must Be Replaced” link.  So really, I would like more feed-back please.  It would be deeply appreciated .

@CygnusX1 My thinking on this (and I’m certainly not claiming any originality here) is that it might work by creating some kind of wormhole whereby time flows in the opposite direction locally. Suppose the wormhole is created in 2020, and used in 2030. Someone can then enter it in 2030 travel back to 2020. But they couldn’t go back further, because no wormhole (on Earth) exists prior to 2020.

@Christian Don’t be out off by “it’s all been done before” comments. What would be great is if these memes were to break out of sci fi literature and become more mainstream. For that it’s important to write about what you know best, and what you care the most about, with characters based on people you know, and integrate that into your futuristic scenarios. This is what will give it authenticity and wider (i.e. beyond sci fi) appeal. Good luck!

@ Peter..

“@CygnusX1 My thinking on this (and I’m certainly not claiming any originality here) is that it might work by creating some kind of wormhole whereby time flows in the opposite direction locally. Suppose the wormhole is created in 2020, and used in 2030. Someone can then enter it in 2030 travel back to 2020. But they couldn’t go back further, because no wormhole (on Earth) exists prior to 2020.”

OK.. I think I understand you correctly, and have also thought along similar lines myself..

If you have a wormhole, you can effectively take a “short cut” through space-time to a distant place, and if you return the same way to say, Earth, “relatively” you will be hardly changed, but everyone else would have aged whilst you were away? This thesis proves that if you go on a long journey very fast, (as compared to everyone else), you effectively travel into the future. In the same manner you could try cryo-suspension to travel into the future like Woody Allen “sleeper” (note the forward direction of time is preserved as always?)

Assuming you are at the other end of this hypothetical wormhole at a distant place, or perhaps a future position of Earth, can you use this wormhole to travel back to where Earth was originally - does this permit you to travel back in time?

The answer must be no - because the direction of time is still preserved in each case, and the Earth would not be at the other end of the wormhole for you?

I agree totally with your deduction regarding causality, why its important to us, it’s reality for us humans and for the macroscopic realisation of “Self”, and why we cannot overcome it and reverse the direction of time, or witness/perceive the reverse direction of time.

Why is causality important, why can we not overcome the forward direction of time? Because our emergent phenomenological consciousness is a feedback loop of consciousness itself - is “consciousness of Consciousness”, this is what Self reflexivity actually is? So an event must be perceived consciously “before” we can Self reflect upon it?

This does not necessarily mean that we could not reconstitute a past space-time event using some mega quantum computation or machine, and experience it as a simulation, yet we cannot truly travel back there can we?

Travelling back in time and changing events of the past - I still do not like the multi-worlds hypothesis, which would also be the only way to preserve the forward time line events and a prevent time paradox. It just still makes no sense that the multi-worlds theory can be a reality?

“The only reason I can think of is that those who became integrated deeply regret their decision, but from the impression I get from you guys that probably wouldn’t be the case…So really, I would like more feed-back please.  It would be deeply appreciated.”

“the impression I get from you guys that probably wouldn’t be the case”:
for starters, when one becomes older the realization dawns that death is no abstraction, death is real; so integration is perceived as preferable to extinction.

“

@CygnusX1 Multi-worlds makes sense to me. The model I favour is one where reality branches out from the Big Bang, so that for any specific configuration of the universe (which we experience as “moments in time”) there is a unique pathway back to the Big Bang, which we call “the past”, whereas there are multiple futures, and also other configurations that lie neither in our past nor in our future.

Re wormholes, I wasn’t actually thinking of space travel. What you describe - going on a journey and finding everyone else has aged when you get back - is possible without wormholes and without general relativity (i.e. space-time curvature). Just using special relatively we know that if you travel close to the speed of light then back again the lapse of time along your trajectory is close to zero, even if a lot if time has elapsed back on earth. What you can’t do is go backwards. Whereas in general relativity you can have not only short-cuts between different points in space but also closed timelike curves, such that you can keep going forward in (your local) time and end up back at the same point in space-time you started. This is easier to represent diagrammatically than in words but the pictures is somewhat like the field of a magnet, where the fieldlines are pointing the opposite way within the magnet compared to outside. The inside of the time machine would be like the inside of a magnet, which is what would allow you to emerge at a point in the past (relative to outside time).

It would be pretty wild, even just travelling back one day. You could meet your one-day-older future self emerging from the time machine and then spend one day together so he cam tell you everything you needed to do, which would include entering the time machine, emerging one day earlier, giving those same instructions to your younger self, who will then enter the time machine one day later, after which you continue alone. To avoid a time paradox while avoiding creating multiple realities everything has to be consistent, which means you will want to do exactly what your future self has instructed (including passing on the same instructions to your younger self), which means the scenario you create must somehow be perfect. Now that really WOULD be a singularity. All technological development happens in the blink of an eye. Any imperfections and you would want to refine (improve on) the instructions, and you then lose consistency. So your future self is like a kind of angel, knowing precisely what you need to do.

Christian
“When people play video games they are, in a sense, experiencing a different world as a different person, but they don’t forget who they are.  Forgetting your own identity in your own simulation seems pretty stupid to me and I don’t see how that would happen intentionally.”

What about suspension of disbelief? I’m pretty sure that this is one of the major aims of filmmakers, writers, and game designers. It’s also called immersion.

Completely suspending one’s current identity to dissolve into a simulation is simply taking the process of suspension of disbelief and immersion, something we already do in all our media, to it’s absolute extreme. If you want the rilly rilly real experience, you have to forget that its’ not “real”.

Peter
“My thinking on this (and I’m certainly not claiming any originality here) is that it might work by creating some kind of wormhole whereby time flows in the opposite direction locally. Suppose the wormhole is created in 2020, and used in 2030. Someone can then enter it in 2030 travel back to 2020. But they couldn’t go back further, because no wormhole (on Earth) exists prior to 2020.”

Suppose I created a wormhole at the moment of creation, i.e. the Big Bang?

What if every fundamental particle contained this wormhole, and hence had built in access (if only we knew how to hack the root directory!) to this primordial wormhole?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23530/

Could it really be possible that all particles are mini-black holes? That’s the tantalising suggestion from Donald Coyne from UC Santa Cruz (now deceased) and D C Cheng from the Almaden Research Center near San Jose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength. This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.

http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf

4. Conclusions
We have presented evidence t h a t   t h e   p r o t o n   may be considered as a
Schwarzschild entity and that such a system predicts remarkably well, even under crude
approximations utilizing semi-classical mechanics, its interaction time, its radiation
emissions,  its magnetic moment, and even the origin of the strong force a s   a
gravitational component.  We are still examining the fundamental nature of mass,
inertia, charge, magnetism, spin and angular momentum in the context of the HarameinRauscher solution which considers spacetime torque [2].  These aspects are usually
assumed as “given” without a source.  Here the coherent structure of the vacuum and its
gravitational curvature begin to give us an appropriate accounting of the energies
necessary to produce these effects. 
The Schwarzschild proton strongly suggests that matter at many scales may be
organized by black-holes and black hole-like phenomena and thereby lead to a scale
unification of the fundamental forces and matter

Good comment, Pete, you covered a great deal, though some of us laymen need better math backgrounds to appreciate it; calculus.

@Chris: what is meant by,

“death is no abstraction, death is real; so integration is perceived as preferable to extinction.”,

means since no-one can know the outcome of one’s life, plus the outcome of the lives of those close to one, one trusts the future by faith. I asked a libertarian about the possibility of perpetual torture, and he replied we might be already be tortured in parallel universes—even if he was merely messing with my head such does introduce intriguing possibilities- in the back of the mind something like that is lurking. Someone, as you know by now, has undoubtedly already written a short story concerning this.. if not a book.
Somebody really ambitious, or crazy!

@ Intomorrow

“since no-one can know the outcome of one’s life, plus the outcome of the lives of those close to one, one trusts the future by faith.”

I think iPan would disagree with you on no one knowing the outcome of one’s life and the lives of those close to one, seeing how he/she (can someone clarify for me) is so convinced that we will all be integrated because we all ready are and we wouldn’t be here if we weren’t (in spite of the Amish and indigenous people who either reject or lack access to those technologies).

@ iPan

I suggest checking out this video and seeing if it changes anything about your prediction of the future (http://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=bm6ScvNygUU&feature;=
plcp&context=C481f13dVDvjV
Qa1PpcFPJexEEokN5QB0aw_
R1RxWDDWBv6VJGlNg=).

@ Peter Wicks

Thanks for your comment, its really up lifting .  Though the feed back that I wanted was if their are any changes I can make or suggestions I can add to make the scenario I depicted believable and accurate (I’m a perfectionist that way).  Another think that Interested me about the links given in this article was the mentioning of reverse-engineering all of the organs in the body, not just the brain.  So does that mean post-singularity humans would still be able to eat and reproduce (or at the least have sex)?  Would their new bodies be taller or around the same size?  Would they look recognizably like androids or indistinguishable from normal humans? Or would they be so diverse that you wouldn’t tell that they are the same species? Is the time scale I gave accurate (Its not when they first appear, its when Techs and Bios are the regular norm)? I hope I’m not over flooding you with questions.

“Though the feed back that I wanted was if their are any changes I can make or suggestions I can add to make the scenario I depicted believable and accurate (I’m a perfectionist that way).”

The collateral point is: as Pete wrote, don’t be put off by “it’s all been done” (a song by the Canadian band whose unusual name you might know of), because as long as no one has reason to bring a lawsuit against you for plagiarism, you can always provide a new slant with your trilogy.

I agree Peter that actual backwards time travel (if possible at all), can only take the form of a time portal, such that you can’t propogate information/matter farther back than the time that the portal was created.

The Schelling point ideas don’t involve actual backwards information propogation, they are simply a way for people to coordinate their activities in the absence of communication.  Let’s call this ‘ascausal correlations’.

I’ve suggested the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London, as the starting point (the most obvious ‘Schelling Point’) for a sort of ‘global transhumanist treasure hunt’.

The Royal Observatory at Greenwich is quite an iconic place.  It’s right on top of an amazing hill, and if ever any readers visit there, see if you can use the concept of the Schelling Point to guide you to a specific location (specific room, specific artifact etc.) and see what you can find.  There are clues to further Schelling Points around the world.

The trail of the ‘Transhumanist Conspiracy’ does exist for those with the wit to follow it.

“the feed back that I wanted was if their are any changes I can make or suggestions I can add to make the scenario I depicted believable and accurate”

Only this comes to mind:
call the two camps paleos and neos rather than bios and synthetics; paleos and neos sounds more believable.

“call the two camps paleos and neos rather than bios and synthetics; paleos and neos sounds more believable.”

Can you explain how they paleos and neos are more believable?

@mjgeddes A global transhumanist treasure hunt sounds like fun!

“Can you explain how they paleos and neos are more believable?”

To me ‘synthetics’ doesn’t sound right - why would anyone want to be called a synthetic? however, perhaps SF readers who go for your book would disagree, would think ‘paleos’ and ‘neos’ are too political, for instance. Whereas I like paleos and neos as catch-all.. the inference is: paleos look to the past for guidance; while neos brave the future in your book, are willing to take the risks involved to abandon their hominid past.

I’m in my 20s, but even I have serious doubts whether immortality is reserved just for the few or available for all
The question, no doubt will be, how much will it cost to sustain an immortal body per year? What happens when new generations of nanobots are developed? Will the nanobots in your body automatically be updated with new operating systems? What about the hardwares updates?
Will we have monopoly of Life-extension companies? Or will it be an arena of valley-style competition? What are the premium features that the educated middle class will not be able to afford?
Will there be even less incentives to have children? Will there be planned obsolescence of such technology? Just like our relationship with computers, will there be supercomputer-scale upgrades that only large institutions can afford?

the questions I have is not whether life-extension technologies are possible—after all, it’s only a matter of when—but how rich do you need to be to get upgraded year after year?
Can nanobots be hacked?

sometimes, the questions are more interesting than predictions.

@Cybernoetic Man

Personally, I do not believe that tomorrow’s technologies that improve health and extend lives will be priced beyond the means of the average patient.

Anti-aging activist Aubrey de Grey agrees in part with this philosophy. “When these therapies come along, they are probably going to be very expensive; but people will figure out ways to make them more convenient, more comprehensive, and safer; and therefore cheaper. So I expect that it will be something that will not be appreciatively more expensive than standard care for the elderly at the moment. And of course it will ultimately be more effective, because it won’t be keeping people alive in a frail state for an extra couple of years. It will be keeping people alive in a youthful state for an incredibly long time – possibly a thousand years or more.”

@Cybernoetic Man
All good questions, and then there is also the issue of finite resources. Of course we can apply the same logic - “it’s only a matter of when” - to the issues of energy, land, minerals (especially rare earths), climate instability, ecosystem services, space colonies, and so on, but of we did succeed in reversing or massively slowing the ageing process before sorting out these other issues then we risk exacerbating scarcity, injustice and (therefore) conflict.

Myself, I’m in my mid-forties, so I can perhaps afford to be somewhat more patient tham Hank - then again, unlike Hank I haven’t had myself genetically tested, so who knows what imminent horrors might await me? - but perhaps not as patient as you? And this is in itself am equity issue,, of course.

And this is by no means a trivial issue. Once the idea of radical life extension becomes mainstream in society we could see some very ugly fights about who gets to benefit from it, how urgently we should be pursuing it, how risk-averse we want to be, etc. Of course in a sense this is already the case with any major new medical breakthrough, so it is manageable, but it seems fairly essentially for me for us to be aware of these issues. There is a balance that needs to be struck between ambition and caution, and different people (because of their age or other factors) will have different views on where to strike that balance.

“Can nanobots be hacked?”

The above is something to be concerned about, IMO the future will benefit criminals as much as anyone.

2Cybernoetic Man

As a positive futurist, I think concerns over hacking nanorobots may be unfounded.

Remember, other technologies will unfold as we plough through this century too. Quantum computers are expected to become a mature industry by late 2020s or early 2030s. Industry experts believe one of the features this product is proud of is security. Some say no human will be able to hack into a system protected with QC technology.

Also, brain enhancements, expected by the 2040s or mid-century, will provide humans with much faster speed of thoughts. This ability would enable people to run dozens or hundreds of simulations in seconds, thereby always making the correct decision. A few forward thinkers believe this procedure would result in people rarely making a decision that would harm another person. Crime and violence could be nearly eliminated in this futuristic era. Will this optimum future happen? Time will tell.

@ Intomorrow

“paleos look to the past for guidance; while neos brave the future in your book, are willing to take the risks involved to abandon their hominid past”

If you are just referring to their psychology, I see your point.  But physically, the name paleo isn’t really accurate.  In my book the new humans inherited all the genetic changes their ancestors underwent so they are physically and biologically superior to present day humans and they still utilize technology, they even have nanobots in their blood stream.  The only thing is that they remain biological.  The neos I currently call Techs, not synthetics.  I might use paleo for the biological humans as something the Techs would call them, but that sounds kind too discriminating for a transhuman.  Bios, IMO is a little less discriminating and a little more accurate.  Also, the “neos” still are hominid in appearance except recognizable robotic and standing ten feet tall as a fashion sense (does that seem do ridiculous?).  One more thing, in your opinion, do you think post biological humans would feel any need or desire to reproduce?  I’m pretty sure they would want to replicate the feeling of biological sex, but in terms of actually have children, they would probably be a dead end.

“One more thing, in your opinion, do you think post biological humans would feel any need or desire to reproduce?  I’m pretty sure they would want to replicate the feeling of biological sex,”

I’ve never understood why sex would be important for posthumans- it appears to be partly based on married scientists projecting their present-day physiology and emotions into the future. It goes back to the days of Aristotle, when people began to think deeply; but they couldn’t make the quantum leap- how could they? they maybe thought far in the future chariots, say, would be made of precious metals and inlaid with jewels; they had no way of knowing chariots would no longer be needed.
BTW, why would a posthuman want sex any more than religion, or anything so primitive for that matter? perhaps they would, yet it is difficult to see why at this time.

...PS,
the following is an example of a real person who is emblematic of arbitrarily projecting the past/present into the future: Newton Gingrich, PhD. He wrote in the ‘90s of how by the year 2020 “Honeymoons in space will be common.”
IMO, if such space tourism were to be so common , why would Honeymoons be of interest save for sentimental reasons? sentimentality might be better entertained in a beautiful cabin near a wooded area by a lake with swans in it, than in outer space. However perhaps I miss the entire point; it might be the juxtaposition of frozen outer space and expensive Honeymoons is exactly where it is at for such as Gingrich. Plus conservative think tanks on the Moon. Everyone has silly fantasies!

@ Intomorrow

1.  You said yourself that you are interested in “sex with bots” and there has just been a bunch of articles posted on this site relating to the topic, so it must has some importance to transhumanism.  Besides why would the majority of humanity want to give of sex (or the ability to eat for that matter)?  From what I can tell it is one of the things that make life worth living (though some temperance should me maintained IMO).  Also, if trans/posthumans didn’t want religion altogether you wouldn’t have transhumanist Mormons.

2. “Everyone has silly fantasies!”

People in the year 2020 may say the same thing about most of the ideas of modern day futurist and transhumanists.