Which advance will humanity achieve first? (poll)

[Christine Wheelwright]

Justin and I were debating this on another thread which got a little off topic. I say immortality, he says man on Mars. I think it would be fun to get more opinions.

Just to clarify - by 'immortality' I mean some kind of breakthrough by which the ageing process could be halted (presumably through genetic engineering). Life would be lengthened, but I am not suggesting a person would be invulnerable to bullets, vehicle accidents or serious diseases.

 

[Valtharius]

Some new member (who I guess quickly disappeared) started a bunch of arguments on here about immortality (he was kind of a monomaniac on the subject) a few months ago.
In the course of my research (I was watching the argument as an uncommitted observer) I came across a quote from a scientist from one of the immortality research firms to the effect of "Yeah our leader is bullshitting people". Wish I could remember where it was.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Obviously man on Mars (or more probably neither). Species that are biologically immortal don't actually live forever, they just live a relatively long time. Maintaining telomere lengths in DNA isn't enough, and humans aren't capable of creating new cells indefinitely and discarding the older ones, according to biology professor Daniel Martínez. Even if it was possible to make the human body continuously rejuvenate itself, it would still be a matter of time before some external cause kills it. Nothing actually lives forever.

 

[Justin Swanton]

As for the Mars landing, yeah. If it happens it won't be with Musk's starship.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Obviously man on Mars (or more probably neither). Species that are biologically immortal don't actually live forever, they just live a relatively long time. Maintaining telomere lengths in DNA isn't enough, and humans aren't capable of creating new cells indefinitely and discarding the older ones, according to biology professor Daniel Martínez. Even if it was possible to make the human body continuously rejuvenate itself, it would still be a matter of time before some external cause kills it. Nothing actually lives forever.

Yes, I understand. Immortal is probably the wrong word, but can human life be significantly extended - by perhaps a couple of hundred years? I think it may be possible.

 

[Extollager]

“Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: Σίβνλλα τί ϴέλεις; respondebat illa: άπο ϴανεΐν ϴέλω.”
Petronius, Satyricon, qtd. by T. S. Eliot in The Waste Land.

Likewise, the sensory deprivation of a journey to Mars and back is dreadful to contemplate.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

“Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: Σίβνλλα τί ϴέλεις; respondebat illa: άπο ϴανεΐν ϴέλω.”
Petronius, Satyricon, qtd. by T. S. Eliot in The Waste Land.

Likewise, the sensory deprivation of a journey to Mars and back is dreadful to contemplate.

Ah, you know I am an Eliot enthusiast. Perhaps from my 75 word story entry this month.

 

[Swank]

Likewise, the sensory deprivation of a journey to Mars and back is dreadful to contemplate.

Clearly, you haven't hung out with the crew of a nuclear missile submarine.

I went with Mars, simply because we could get there 5 years from now if it was important enough to bother with. Nuclear fission, big water tank for radiation, not worry too much about crew safety or why we are going so no big payload. The crew might not live very long afterward, but I think we could do it with relatively primitive tech just be spending a lot of cash and ignoring nuclear treaties.


But I always do wonder about a relatively simple virus-spread bit of code that fixes the telomere problem or shares the shark cancer resistance. Maybe it would start as a treatment for the sick, but then turn out to have wholly unexpected benefits.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Mars before immortality because I don't think it's that far away.

 

[mosaix]

Cause of death stats from life insurance companies indicate that, on average, immortal people would still die of an accident somewhere between 700-800 years of age.

Just as a side-effect of living that long can you imagine the burden of send out birthday cards to all your living descendants?

 

[Pyan]

Mars, definitely.

Besides, you start work at about 18-20*, work till you're 65-ish then retire: what, for 800+ years? And where do you put all the people? There's about 130 million people born every year - if no-one dies, how long till we run out of room?
Heinlein, and others, used this as a plot-line: Methuselah's Children


*I'm speaking generally - no need to tell me that you had to go to work at t'mill every day for tuppence a month, etc.

 

[CupofJoe]

I could see that a humanity that lived hundreds of years would have to develop some sort of sabbatical system. For every forty-fifty year career you can have a ten year sabbatical. This could let you "retire", retrain, spend more time with the great-great-great grand kids, travel etc. Then you would be on to your next career life. Marriages might also go that way, becoming fixed term contracts. Maybe not as romantic, but practical with extended lifespans.
Oh... And to answer the question.
Mars by a long way. I think we will be able to fix more and more human frailty and illnesses but the fundamental structure isn't designed to go on for ever.
Getting to Mars is just technology. I'm not saying its worth the risks or the cost but it is doable.

 

[Pyan]

I could see that a humanity that lived hundreds of years would have to develop some sort of sabbatical system. For every forty-fifty year career you can have a ten year sabbatical. This could let you "retire", retrain, spend more time with the great-great-great grand kids, travel etc. Then you would be on to your next career life. Marriages might also go that way, becoming fixed term contracts. Maybe not as romantic, but practical with extended lifespans.

Sounds just like the Culture...

 

[Ian Fortytwo]

Neither. Enough said.

 

[Justin Swanton]

According to a Wikipedia article (link here as I can't incorporate it in the text: Human mission to Mars - Wikipedia), the estimated cost in 2010 for a manned Mars mission is at least $500 billion, though in all likelihood it will cost much more. Personally I put it at the trillion dollar mark. NASA spent $280 billion (adjusted for inflation) for the Apollo moon programme between 1960 and 1973 (link here: How much did the Apollo program cost?). In 1966 NASA's budget reached 4,41% of the entire US Federal budget. That's more than many nations spend on their military. I simply cannot imagine the US government committing 10-15% of its Federal budget to land a couple of astronauts on Mars, not for any reason. And Musk can't do it without NASA money. In any case it's off the cards for the indefinite future as the US economy is tanking and international co-operation in space exploration has collapsed.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The good news is that space is the perfect place for unmanned spacecraft. NS-5 robots will inherit the galaxy.

 

[M. Robert Gibson]

Whenever the subject of immortality comes up, I'm always reminded of the immortals from Gulliver's Travels

During his stay in Luggnagg, Gulliver hears about the Struldbruggs, people in Luggnagg society who are immortal. Gulliver's first reaction to hearing about the Struldbruggs' immortality is one of envy and enthusiasm because it would allow a person to gain immense wealth, wisdom, and the philosophical serenity. He fantasizes what he might do if he were one. However, when an interpreter explains the reality of life as a Struldbrugg — that is they grow old, feeble, decaying, and forgetful — Gulliver's enthusiasm for a life of immortality disappears as quickly as it began.

Struldbrugg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[J-WO]

Mars first, but I think we'll crack extended life/youth before we visit another star. In fact discovering the former might well be the answer as to how to do the latter.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Whenever the subject of immortality comes up, I'm always reminded of the immortals from Gulliver's Travels

Struldbrugg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rather like Tithonus.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

According to a Wikipedia article (link here as I can't incorporate it in the text: Human mission to Mars - Wikipedia), the estimated cost in 2010 for a manned Mars mission is at least $500 billion, though in all likelihood it will cost much more. Personally I put it at the trillion dollar mark. NASA spent $280 billion (adjusted for inflation) for the Apollo moon programme between 1960 and 1973 (link here: How much did the Apollo program cost?). In 1966 NASA's budget reached 4,41% of the entire US Federal budget. That's more than many nations spend on their military. I simply cannot imagine the US government committing 10-15% of its Federal budget to land a couple of astronauts on Mars, not for any reason. And Musk can't do it without NASA money. In any case it's off the cards for the indefinite future as the US economy is tanking and international co-operation in space exploration has collapsed.

I love this post! The problem is that fantasists get preoccupied by individual technical challenges and their potential solutions. They do not consider the whole, as you wisely do Justin. Of course it is fun to consider how, say, artificial gravity could be achieved. Much more fun than wondering why we would spend a trillion dollars on something that doesn't make a profit. Or where we are going to find the engineers required to make it all happen. This is why I believe greater advances will be seen in the field of biological sciences. Smaller but talented groups working with achievable budgets to produce outcomes that are quickly monetized.