[batista]

>Actually, these aren't "hard" problems in the sense that physics disallows them. We have existence proofs of them. It's is just a search problem. You have to set up robotic systems that search the space. So the problem is really one of collective stupidity ie. most people are dumbasses debating they value of time and spending it family/friends, or whether gays should be married, when instead they should be demanding mass industrialization of scientific discovery, or building they it (surplus labor is instead going to youtube/wikipedia/tv watching/novel reading etc.)

People in the deathbed are worried they didn't demand enough "mass industrialization of scientific discovery"?

Talk about a dumbass idea, especially in an era where 99% of our life is colonized by the industrialization of scientific discoveries.

[marshallp]

So you're saying people should give up on the idea of living to a millions years old and just suck it in by spending more time with the families/friends in the few years they have?

Death is a solvable problem. There are species and cell types that are essentially immortal. It exists in nature. We have the capability to manipulate things at the cell/molecule level.

I'm not sure what you mean by "colonized by industrialization". If you think things are too industrialized, maybe you should give up the laptop you're writing from and go live in the jungle without any plastics r metal. I'm sure after a day or so you'll come to realize the error of your thoughts.

[akulbe]

"Death is a solvable problem"

Really? Last time I checked, the statistics were pretty clear. 1 out of every 1 people die. That seems to be pretty damning evidence. :)

[marshallp]

solv-able, not solv-ed yet.

[eli_gottlieb]

If you eliminate aging, how do you plan to eliminate starvation?

[batista]

>So you're saying people should give up on the idea of living to a millions years old and just suck it in by spending more time with the families/friends in the few years they have?

People in general (as in "humanity") no. But individual people, as you and me, yes, we should definitely "just suck it in by spending more time with the families/friends in the few years we have". As in, don't waste your life for pie in the sky ideas...

>Death is a solvable problem. There are species and cell types that are essentially immortal. It exists in nature.

Lot of things exist in nature. It doesn't mean they also apply to us, or that we can achieve them in a timespan of 100 years or less. Speed of light also exists in nature. But I doubt we'd see a spaceship approaching 80% of it in the next couple of centuries...

Also, that "solvable" part. As it pertains to humans, citation needed.

>We have the capability to manipulate things at the cell/molecule level.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "colonized by industrialization". If you think things are too industrialized, maybe you should give up the laptop you're writing from and go live in the jungle without any plastics r metal.

Right, because thinking that something has gone too far implies you have to go to the limits of the exact opposite direction, eh?

Actually, I would love to. I've actually lived long stretches of time without internet, or even a laptop.

I like programming, but with a beautiful landscape or a nice beach, friends, women, food, good books, and something to keep me warm, I could care less if I never saw another line of code or another tweet or another phone call.

Which is kinda like 60% of the world's population lives, with the exception that lots of them lack food and water. They could care less for the rest. Take a look at the (subjective but that's the purpose) index of world happiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

Given the essentials (ie. no lack of food, water etc as in parts of Africa), it seems the less "modern" life, the better.