DNA has a half life of 521 years. Even if a human could be maintained at a biological age of ~30 indefinitely, would the natural decay of his DNA not kill him in the long term?
[0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-body-replace-itself-s...
However if some bases in the DNA molecule get chemically degraded then error correction mechanisms should kick in and (mostly) correct them.
The oldest wooden houses are only one thousand years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkjub%C3%B8argar%C3%B0ur The human body is way more delicate and less likely to survive.
Even with extreme motivation, no human will see the death of our Sun, let alone the heat death of the universe.
Unless you mean that a copy of your brain would not longer be 'you'. In that case I just disagree. We don't know the level of fidelity required, but it seems extremely likely to me that if my brain were copied to a sufficient level of precision, whatever that level might be, the copy would continue my subjective experience.
it may, but it wouldn't be "you". "You"'d experience death, and something else will exist independent of "you", but with most of the same features and memories.
I also think that copying your conscious state from one body to another creates a new person in any case. Everybody except you (including the copy) may consider the new person to be exactly the same as you, but you will now be dead.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, but the point remains. What leads you to believe this? As another reply touches on, there's a straightforward way to verify whether that is the case (for oneself, and not an external observer): Given a perfect clone, uploaded copy, etc, are you as aware of the clone's experience as you are of your own?
If the answer is no, why would that change if the original ceases to exist?
If the answer is yes, the first thing I'd want to know is _how_ exactly the information (of awareness) is possibly synchronized between hosts (presumably in realtime, at that!).
Same with kids - they are basically our clones with genes mixed from both parents. They go on their own path and experiences. Although it it supremely rewarding to see them succeed in life, they are not "me", they are "they".
My clones living forever ain't any more rewarding/fulfilling than seeing my kids spread my genes and... live "forever". And we already have that.
Absolutely. I think this is a presupposition of the entire scenario.
Practically speaking, the only thing that is in question is whether the original's subjective experience extends to the clone. If it doesn't, the clone is useful for those who aren't the original, as a means of backup for important individuals. But, such a clone isn't a viable way to pursue immortality (for the original), as you'd still die if you are cloned in such a fashion; 'your' experience would end as the clone succeeds you, much like the case of having children.
I'm reminded of the case of blindsight here, can something be called immortality if it is the equivalent through another body?
If you created multiple copies, they would all be equally 'me', although obviously yes, as they then went on to live different lives, they would become different people from each other, just as there are many different paths my life could take looking into the future now.
How does that compare to creating an exact replica of you today (assuming that ever becomes possible, which personally I doubt)? At the moment of replication, which of the two is really "you" (can anyone, including you, tell?), and how will that identity develop into the future as the two have divergent experiences? If one of them is destroyed, is the remaining one automatically "you" from then on?
>If you have an identical twin, is your twin "as much you" as you are yourself?
No in pretty much all meaningful senses; there was never a point where you and your identical twin had the same memories.
>At the moment of replication, which of the two is really "you" (can anyone, including you, tell?), and how will that identity develop into the future as the two have divergent experiences?
This is where the concept of personal identity itself gets tricky. I would say that in a way both of them are you. As far as my subjective experience is concerned, what makes me "me" is primarily my memories, and both instances would share that at that point in time.
This also means that, as two instances exist with diverging experiences, their "identities" diverge as well.
An outside observer might view the original and the copy differently, but personally I view subjective experience as the most important factor here.
There are known trees whose ages easily exceed a thousand years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees#Individ...
I think this is generally where our species is heading..., we are going to continue to further blend ourselves with technology.
Humans are extremely flexible, and it really seems like some people don’t have naturally severe depressive episodes even with strong external tendencies. Beyond that, I can say that depression is often combated, in some of the less extreme cases, by recognizing it incoming and developing tools to keep yourself from spiraling.
I’ve dealt with depression, and have had plenty of external things start a spiral. After many years of dealing with it, I have learned how to prevent it from getting overwhelming. I really don’t see the end of an indefinitely life occurring via suicide, assuming you’re not in isolation or alienated, or some crazy circumstance.
That seems like a big assumption over centuries.
The thing is, if you really lived for hundreds of years, society would be radically different. Imagine... You can't get promoted because no one above you ever retires. You can't get an entry level job, because everyone has 200+ years experience!
People struggle to work the grind until they are 65 already. But you can't retire, because your death is so far away. You need to keep grinding another 500+ years...
That kind of world would likely have a lot of systemic issues with depression.
As the saying goes "graveyards are full of indispensable men", and "science advances one funeral at a time". This could mean a total lack of evolution in science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
While not ideal, stagnation at least brings stability of sorts.
This is a societal issue that has nothing to do with a longer lifespan. The thought that you need to keep doing what you do for ten years is already plenty depressing, yet people make it to 65 just fine.
I'm very happy you can feel this way, but yes, on a long enough time scale, depression will get all of us.
We currently cant keep our minds from becoming dependent on an external source of what it can naturally generate.
> The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information.
https://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.1...
Edit, spelling