Kevin's Watch

Murrin wrote:

Ananda wrote:For hooking us into a network, I think this is something corporations and governments would love to do! It could track us all the time. Our access to things can be very easily controlled since access would be granted through a personal implanted device rather than a terminal somewhere. We could become walking, talking receptacles for product consumption to even a greater extent than we are now. And, someone will always know what we're up to and where we are. I think this is something that would only come at the end of our lifetimes.

Tangentially related, they're making big steps forward in the realm of thought-controlled prosthesis technology right now. They're actually at the stage of trying to move from wired to wireless brain implants - being able to control machines and computers with thought wirelessly. That's something that has the potential to leave the medical field and turn into something big 40 or 50 years down the line.

I was viewing a conference just last week where one of the presentations was about exactly that stuff. If the rate of advancement holds for this area as it does in other related fields, I think the time frame you suggest is the longest one, it could happen in 1/2 that time.

Ananda wrote: We don't need everyone living to 150 years.

Everybody won't. Only the extremely rich. Everybody else will die as normal. My pet theory is that this will cause revolution eventually. But that's a different thread.

--A

Self awareness is both a software and hardware issue. Perhaps in some sense it's an emergent (rather than rational) property, but it does seem depend on the individual being able to experience itself objectively as an individual. Kind of the I-know-that-I-know-that-I-know. Other elements are involved as well such as the ability to electively task and plan. I also suspect that implicit imperative programming (i.e., an animus) must provide the underlying impetus to other mental activity.

Avatar wrote:

Ananda wrote: We don't need everyone living to 150 years.

Everybody won't. Only the extremely rich. Everybody else will die as normal. My pet theory is that this will cause revolution eventually. But that's a different thread.

--A

I agree. That's what I said, too sans the revolution part.

Just think about the equality gap when the rich get richer and the poor die...that's revolution in the making.

--A

Avatar wrote:Just think about the equality gap when the rich get richer and the poor die...that's revolution in the making.

--A

Surely a possibility.
But there's an assumption in this that I don't think is necessarily so: that this kind of stuff will be difficult to do, rare, and expensive.
Sure, it is now, but I don't see why it has to stay that way.
Maybe only the rich will be able to afford the integrated wi-fi eye-cam with IR, UV, micro-tele vision [vacation video in real time on your personal web page], the sleek Ferrari/Lambhorghini sport chasis, high-performance multi-terrain suspension/drive train and power plant while the rest of us are stuck with goofy little Vesta-bodies.
And it shouldn't be too hard to get a 30 or 50 year loan when you're going to be healthy and vigorous for 100+ years...there are probably dozens of current and new options for financing/contracting arrangements.

Oh gods, I never thought of that...more ways to get people into debt.

--A

Avatar wrote:Oh gods, I never thought of that...more ways to get people into debt.

--A

hee hee...yea, I know. But think about it...is there anything the ordinary person currently goes into debt for worth as much as 50, 75, 100 strong healthy years of life? Most things we finance are worth much less the instant we buy them.

Yeah, a very good point.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Ananda wrote: We don't need everyone living to 150 years.

Everybody won't. Only the extremely rich. Everybody else will die as normal. My pet theory is that this will cause revolution eventually. But that's a different thread.

--A

That's a strange opinion in a Moore's Law thread. What is it about the declining prices of technology makes you think that only the rich will take advantage of it? People used to think the same thing about computers.

The idea that we don't "need" everyone living 150 years is so foreign to me, I can't imagine why another human being would say that. People are not the problem. They are the point. The more the better. The longer the better. What else does the earth have to do? We're the best thing it has ever produced. If you disagree, there is always suicide.

I don't disagree. Well, not about the longer the better anyway. Personally, I'm going to live forever, or die trying.

But I can't see longevity being something that will be easily accessible to the poor.

People used to think the same thing about computers? They're still right...only around 30% of the world population has internet access. Just because 80% of your country can afford or access it, doesn't mean it isn't a privilege of the (relatively) wealthy.

--A

Don't write off Moore's Law just yet:

The Switzerland-based team used molybdenite (MoS2) - a dark-coloured, naturally occurring mineral.

The group said the substance could be used in thinner layers than silicon, which is currently the most commonly used component in electronics.

It said MoS2 could make smaller, more flexible chips that used less energy.

[snip]

...the thinnest usable layers of silicon used in computer chips have been around two nanometres thick. MoS2, by contrast, can be used in layers just three atoms thick, allowing chips to be made at least three times smaller.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16034693

Awesome. Although of course I would like to see what happened when it did dead-end. But that's just me. Faster, cheaper processors are better.

--A