What are the political implications of biological immortality?

So, now that Based Liz is going to make us all immortal, what are the political implications of it? Will there need to be a Great Purge of the normies to prevent overpopulation?


youtube.com/watch?v=NUp_JZCalbU

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=r286OkqU8E8
bioviva-science.com/2016/04/23/human-gene-therapy-successfully-lengthens-telomeres/
science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/273
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/?no-ist
nytimes.com/2010/03/03/books/excerpt-immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/hela-cell.htm
directorsblog.nih.gov/2013/08/07/hela-cells-a-new-chapter-in-an-enduring-story/
nature.com/news/deal-done-over-hela-cell-line-1.13511
technologyreview.com/s/542371/a-tale-of-do-it-yourself-gene-therapy/
bioviva-science.com/2015/10/07/alzheimers-cure/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If humans became immortals you would need to stop reproducing immediatly, otherwise we're all fucked in a year or two.

>What are the political implications of biological immortality?

People will succumb to disease and injury. On the other hand, we will have Congressman who live forever and never leave office. SCOTUS will have eternal justices.

Nigel Farage will live forever.

> a year or two

I don't think it would be a problem that quickly m8. I agree we would need to stop reproducing though; but why would you want to reproduce if you could live forever? What would be the point?

If somebody invented immortality, then somebody else would immediately invent a way to negate it.

> Nigel Farage will live forever

Well that's reason enough to do it!

I doubt that anyone other than the rich are going to be able to afford any speculative immortal tech in the next 100 years.

Well you wouldn't want to reproduce, but you would still want to fuck, and fucking makes children.

Well, it's not 'immortality', but 'biological immortality' or 'negligible senescence' - there would still be plenty of ways to die, you just won't get cancer or heart disease or die of old age anymore.

this will never work in a world full of niggers and kebabs, you have to have a dying population because those rats simply won't stop breeding

It doesn't have to. There are already very effective methods of contraception (and I assume even more effective methods will be developed), and abortion is legal and available in most of the world.

How would this gene therapy prevent DNA damage caused by radiation sources like the sun?

The show Torchwood had a season on it, basically comes down to reclassifying classes of people and firing up the ovens

Well, they would be dealt with somehow couldn't they?

Race-specific bioweapons, perhaps?

Vasectomy.

It's physically impossible to make humans immortal.

inb4 'muh entropy' or 'muh heat death'

You cease to evolve. The most appropriate way to achieve immortality is by abandoning your biological nature and becoming an artificial life form, so you're able to preserve your memories while also being able to upgrade/retrofit your parts, or "adapt" your body to any environment through said upgrades. We had a whole debate about that at school when I was in highschool, wrote a long essay on immortality and artificial life. I believe immortality wouldn't be a profitable choice unless you're a machine.

Forced sterilization and withholding of the technology->riots->police killings

Elites will never ever let 99% of the masses have this regardless of their ability to pay for it. Catastrophic implications for human sustainability once liberal shits start demanding niggers get it for free

> abandon your biological nature and become an artificial life form

But I have a big dick and I like it, it'll go to waste if I become a robot.

You a re wrong. Could be as soon as 2017.

No.
Aging and inevitable death are cause by Telomeres at the end of you DNA that protect the important bits from breaking down every time your cells undergo mitosis.
Telomeres are essentially "junk" at either end that act as a biological buffer zone
Every time your DNA replicates, you lose a little off the ends, but nothing important as long as you still have Telomeres left
One you start to run out of those your DNA begins to break down causing you do undergo the serious aging problems we see in the elderly
Then death.

And no. It is not possible to "create" or "add" more telomeres to your DNA to extend the process.

Another vid with Based Liz youtube.com/watch?v=r286OkqU8E8

There's nothing terribly profitable about immortality for 99.999% of the population however, because there's nothing terribly unique about YOU.

Your biological replacement can do the job just as well as you, and doesn't cost millions to keep alive.

Embrace death as a sweet release. You don't need to work anymore. You don't need to do anything anymore. Life is somebody else's burden now.

Did you even look at the video? It explicitly involved telomeres. That's the basis of their entire operation.

'it is not possible to add more telomeres to your DNA'

A few months ago: Bioviva Usa announces successful lengthening of human telomeres by hundreds of base pairs bioviva-science.com/2016/04/23/human-gene-therapy-successfully-lengthens-telomeres/

It.
Can't.
Be.
Done.

You'd have to continuously lengthen the Telomeres every single time your cells undergo replication.

>you just won't get cancer or heart disease

You would still get cancer, for one simple reason.....

One of the main engines of cancer are lengthened telomeres.....

The very thing they said will stop aging is the very thing that causes many cancers:

>science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/273

Also, listen to what else is said here that makes this whole thing a sham. They mention the need for investors, while also making appeals to authority as a means of validating their case:

>Even the prestigious Dr. So-and-So, who leads *insert organization name here* endorses us and says these great things!

Here's my point on the quick: The video is a sales pitch designed to lure people who have money into donating said money. Of course everything they say is going to paint a picture of success and optimism

The whole thing is a lie:

>The thing which causes most cancers is going to make people stop aging.

I don't buy it.

This woman needs to be locked behind Bio Level 4 Containment Lab.

She altered her genes at some shady clinic in South America.

The very skin cells she sheds every hour is potentially dangerous.

The one great equalizer among all humans with be removed. Rich and poor might live radically unequal lives, but they all know death will end them all.

Remember, this isn't going to be like a magic pill that you take once and you become immortal. It's an ongoing therapy that will be prohibitively expensive. Even now, there is a real shortage/price crunch for access to the most advanced medical procedures/drugs/transplants.

Only the very rich will be able to afford immortality at first and it may never become available to the masses. Especially if access is restricted/bought out by the elites.

Once most people realize that they will never be able to reach immortality, there will be probably be a violent reaction and breakdown of societies around the world. I'd be very surprised if the transition was peaceful once everyone realizes that it's too late for them and their children to achieve ever lasting life.

I feel like altered carbon had scientific immortality down pretty accurately

> it may never become available to the masses

God, I certainly hope it doesn't. Why would you want normies to live forever? They fuck things up enough with limited lifespans.

>It's an ongoing therapy that will be prohibitively expensive.

It is a sham propaganda piece designed to take advantage of people's fear of death with the hope of enticing investors into throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into a complete hoax.

Remember the case for cold fusion?

Insofar as genetics go, we just learned how to put a man on the moon, and yet, these folks are claiming to have constructed and impossible warp-drive system that will take us to the edges of the universe. It is bullshit.

Yes user, and the earth can't revolve around the sun, the atom can't be split and we can't go to the moon because space is just jello.

Fuck off dumbass.

>Why would you want normies to live forever?

Another fun factoid:

Even if this complete hoax were real, and it isn't, you would still be fucked. Why? Simple, because when you reach adulthood, you start losing neurons in your brain. It happens slowly, at first, and speeds up with time. Even if this fraud managed to slow down the process, you cannot replace those neurons. You would have a 20 year old body with the mind of a 100 year old person.

Fuck that.

>somewhere in the future we'll have nanomachines inside of us constantly reconstructing telomeres

>fueled by a simple epipen or something alike

>tfw probably dead by then

I am amused by the fact that you seem to think that I'm unaware of this and that nobody is working on a solution to it.

You can make non-sequiters all you want.
It doesn't change the impossibility of making this a viable solution to aging.

Then I'm the very person who will never embrace mortality like a normal individual.
Imagine becoming a supercomputer, achieving technological singularity and being able to explore the infinity of the universe, just like how the Europeans explored the world, but at an infinite scale. I wouldn't think twice before abandoning my biological existence to become an artificial life. I believe ascending into a machine is the very last stage of evolution for a species, when you finally break free from nature, to become nature. And I also believe this is deemed to happen to us at one point in the future, that of course assuming a far more advanced civilization hasn't achieved that already.

just hang on bro

how old are you?

>In a bold and courageous move Elizabeth Parrish, CEO of Bioviva USA inc. became the first human to be treated with two gene therapies that her company has developed, one to lengthen her telomeres and one to prevent aging-related loss in muscle mass. With this move, she follows the footsteps of other courageous scientists, such as Nobel laureate Barry Marshall, who used themselves as guinea pigs to prove their discoveries.
This seems like a start of a scam.

how old is she?

i love biological immortality!

pic related, it's biological immortality

23, I'd be surprised if it happens before I bite the dust. I think we need at least a 200 years from now.

She's not.

BioViva will turn out to be another Theranos, I guarantee it.

Btw, all she claims to have done is lengthened her telomeres. This will not stop you from aging you scientifically illiterate dumbfuck.

>Imagine becoming a supercomputer, achieving technological singularity and being able to explore the infinity of the universe, just like how the Europeans explored the world, but at an infinite scale.

Maybe when you turn your brain into a supercomputer, you will finally use your logic board circuits to calculate something that other people have already figured out.

There's no purpose to doing any of that shit.

>>somewhere in the future we'll have nanomachines inside of us constantly reconstructing telomeres

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Amusement? People who like children?

>Fuck off dumbass.

Lengthening telomeres is one of the main causes of cancer.

This would kill you.

>Prove it!

Sure. Hever heard of Henrietta Lacks? Probably no, seeing as you are a complete retard.

She was a woman who got bladder cancer. Her cells had developed a way of replicating forever so that they would never die, EVEN WHEN REMOVED FROM HER BODY. These cells have telomeres that NEVER SHORTEN, EVER.

After KILLING HER by CONSUMING HER BODY, this cancer was extracted... and scientists began to experiment on these cells. After seeing how these cell, which never fucking die, can be used for medical research purposes, they started breeding them and shipping them around the country.

Her cell are still alive and being used today for medical research today....... SEVENTY-SIX YEARS AFTER SHE DIED.

LENGTHENING TELOMERES FUCKING KILLS YOU, WHICH IS WHY THE HUMAN BODY HAS A PROCESS TO SHORTEN THEM, SO NOT EVERYONE FUCKING DIES OF CANCER. DOES ANYONE NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BIOLOGY OR CELLULAR SCIENCE?!

>smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/?no-ist

>nytimes.com/2010/03/03/books/excerpt-immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

>science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/hela-cell.htm

>directorsblog.nih.gov/2013/08/07/hela-cells-a-new-chapter-in-an-enduring-story/

>nature.com/news/deal-done-over-hela-cell-line-1.13511

CITATIONS ENOUGH?!

>Not wanting to fill the world with your spawn.
Scotcuck detected.

Cancer has a higher survivability than old age.

No no no no.
There is absolutely no evidence that telomere shortening is the cause of aging. Telomere shortening is ASSOCIATED with aging but no one knows if aging causes telomere shortening or vice versa.

Doctor here we are not even close to the possibility of biological immortality, so many shit goes wrong with age,

I'm 23 too. Don't worry man, we're going to make it. We're all going to make it.

"Transferring" yourself over to a supercomputer would create a copy. "You" would still be the biological that still dies.

This is the age old philosophical question involving the "Transporter" in Star Trek: Is a new you created every time you transport.

The copy, of course, will THINK it's you. But it really isn't. It's simply a copy.

So, bottom line.... "You" still die.

>people's faces when they realize this

>guys we discovered immortality!!!

>catch bizarre incurable ass cancer

>die

>scientists realize that your ass cancer cells just keep growing no matter what

>scientists still use your immortal ass cancer cells as a standard control for science experiments nearly 70 years after your "death"

>you have achieved immortality, but you are a culture of ass cancer cells in a petri dish.

> amusement

Buy a dog. Or a robot.

> people who like children

Rolf Harris is in prison m8

>We're all going to make it.

To the grave, yes.

whoops forgot my picture. true story

> henrietta lacks
'I saw a kurzegesagt video two weeks ago and now I am a genius biologist' detected

>Not refuting point, engaging in strawman argument.

You sound like a Remain voter.

If telomeres shortening is not what causes aging than what does?

Amazing

take that back u cheeky kunt

Old age is a group of things which includes cancer. You might not have noticed but dying of 'natural causes due to old age' has been transitioned out in favour of cancer, heart disease etc.

I'm in the biotech business and I can confidently tell you that the mechanisms which prolong cell life are the same mechanisms which eventually cause cancer

Which company?

It's one of the many factors.

Ok, so is there like a sweet spot in between too much telomeres which gives you cancer, and to little which causes you to age and die? Is there some middle ground where if it remains you can live forever?

>their "research" has so far not been shared with any scientific communities or verified by anyone outside of private labs
>she "has taken the cure" and "reversed 20 years of aging" but looks the exact same
>they are actively selling stock in the company despite having no verifiable results

It's a scam. Their company was founded last year, and will cease to exist a year from now after their "research" proves to be a dead end. They'll throw up their arms and say "well, looks like we were wrong about this. Sorry. Also we're bankrupt, the money you invested is gone."

The CEO will probably also develop an illness, and they'll say it's a "horrible side effect" of the treatment they produced, which is why they aren't pursuing the research anymore. Hell, she probably already knows she has cancer but hasn't told anyone.

You sound perturbed, Mr. Juncker!

It's not that simple, your DNA gets damaged over time even from all sorts of things like going outside on a sunny day.

This.
We dont fucking know

only a woman would make such a retarded hyperbolic statement

technologyreview.com/s/542371/a-tale-of-do-it-yourself-gene-therapy/
>In an interview, Williams said he was a co-owner of BioViva and had assigned rights in a patent to the company. He said the treatment had occurred in Colombia, although not at his clinic. Both he and Parrish declined to name the doctor involved; Parrish would not confirm the country where it took place.
Be honest OP are you a Bioviva shill?

>it's been done on animals, it's been done on human tissue, and now we want to do it on humans

Sign my ass up, anyone have their email?

Is it possible to fix, or rewrite your DNA to how it was before? I mean theoretically not practically right now.

Virtually impossible.

Nope day qure dat too

bioviva-science.com/2015/10/07/alzheimers-cure/

The former occupier of the Falklands is correct.

However if you go full sci-fi you could dream of a way of recording your DNA as it was in your youth and perfom gene teraphy every few years to revert any alterations.
Still very far ahead of any tech we have, expensive, time consuming and it doesnt solve all age related complications.

n-no

Then what's the point of living? Why do you exist? The very attributes that makes us human have created this purpose for us to live. Without it there's no point of existing, it's meaningless.
You can become a machine and retain your human nature, of exploring, learning, being inventive, creative. I'm nothing but an engineer, and I'm fully aware that my existence is meaningless when it comes to nature, or the universe as a whole. What makes you want to explore, learn and create is your Human nature. The reason you're in this website, the reason you're interested in politics, and perhaps science, or whatever field of study you're interested, that's your human nature fueling your engine of life, from your Human perspective, not Nature's.

Depends. Do you consider (you) to be just a sack of meat? I believe that our intellectual output and personality is that makes us us. If your loved one died and you had his/her memories transferred to a machine and he/she behaved exactly the way he/she used to, and is also fully aware that he/she is now a machine, would that still be your loved one or would that be just a copy? After all, aren't we all mere copies that come in different shapes with different atomic configurations?

Even if you clone yourself with your memories in it, at the very moment your clone recognizes its own existence, you're not the same anymore. He has his own perspective of who he is, and you have your own perspective of who you are. You're going to take different paths and live your lives according to your experiences, so the concept of "copies" doesn't really make any sense when divergence automatically makes each of us unique.

This. We need a Goldilocks zone to live forever

I imagine we loose too many cells too quickly for this to ever happen, right?

Uh? I don't think that's really relevant, gene theraphy is a thing, not at the scale needed for this to work but it is a posibility.You can modify the genes of all your cells with man made viruses.
The rate we lose and replace cells differs from cell to cell, some cells don't reproduce at all and are supposed to last your life time like cardiocytes, another problem with biological immortality, old people acummulate micro infarctions and thus lower their heart function over time.

I'm not saying its LITERALLY impossible though, its like Michelangelo, he knew airships were possible but the technology for them to work was far away.

You can't do that to your DNA, otherwise you go back to the problem I previously mentioned: you cease to evolve. That's perfectly fine when you're not considering evolution, but when it comes to adaptation, this is what happens:

Your DNA is constantly microevolving and sending this information to your gametes, so your offspring will be JUST as genetically adapted as you were at the moment your offspring was conceived, and over the generations it leads to macroevolutive traits.

No biological life form lives forever, so nature gave us these rules: as you grow older your DNA becomes more and more fragile, therefore increasing your chances of developing malfunctioning cells, which leads to cancer, and eventually you will die because your body cannot sustain all the critical damage, leading to a cascading failure, and so you die.

"But why can't we just keep reproducing our cells with new ones while still preserving that data? Just like reproduction, but something that's happening inside of us." - because nature considers scarcity and population as survival factors. We can't live forever due to a limitation imposed by resource scarcity, then we fall into the r-selected / K-selected theory.

Now, imagine if you rejuvenated all your cells, what would happen? You would wipe all that microevolutive data gathered by your DNA. How can you evolve and adapt to the environment like that? You can't. So your offspring are LITERALLY a continuation of your genetic evolution. You live your life, earn experiences, gather adaptive data, transfer that data to your gametes, to later transfer that data to your offspring. Then you die, allowing your offspring to have full access to those resources you previously had access to, therefore proceeding to gather more data, reproduce, and repeat the cycle.

What the fuck is wrong with your reasoning ? that naturist argument and the belief that mutations are not random is horribly missguided, we can evolve at our own terms and that will be exponentially more effective than leaving mutations and whatever they are beneficial or not to mere chance.

Mutations are not random, they occur according to your environment. Why do you think we breathe air, are able to translate sound waves into perceived noise, electromagnetic radiation as different colors according to its wavelength, and so on? Is that random or did we actually adapt our DNA to this environment we're living in in order to increase our survivability? Most of our genetic mutations were implemented with a purpose, with very few accidents.

And like I said, you can't evolve if you're immortal, you're unable to transfer your adaptive data to your DNA, cause as you said, you'd have to constantly 'rejuvenate' your cells and therefore wipe all adaptive data you gathered throughout your life.

The better option I mentioned would be to simply eliminate natural limitations: instead of reproducing to maintain genetic adaptation you just "force" that into your own body, as if you're "conceiving yourself inside you over and over" so you don't need children to transfer that genetic data to, cause you'd be doing that inside you already. Real-time evolution, nonstop.

Nature didn't allow that for obvious reasons: no reproduction = population halt. And once you're dead, all that genetic adaptation would be gone forever.

>Mutations are not random, they occur according to your environment
>>/x/

...

I assume you're religious and don't believe animals evolve according the the environment their exposed to? That it's all completely """random""" and that there's a fairy in the sky playing dice? lol

>"I assume you're religious"
>Spouting some pseudoscientific spiritual nonsense about nature being an entity and evolution working like in fucking pokemon
Nigger how about you read a BASIC biology book before trying to argue against a professional.

>doesn't know that DNA can actually repair itself

You can't claim to be white and not know this.

biological immortality.

why spend so much effort into being something so limited?

post human machine immortality is where it is at.

We can get to that after we get the former, step by step mate if we can live forever there is no rush

I'm atheist, friend. What's spiritual about what I said? And isn't that obvious that I used the term NATURE referring to environmental pressure or do I have to add notes to everything that was written in order for your slow processing to catch up?

only the human soul is immortal

Just in time for Trump to become God-Emperor