Uldrich-125x250
Banner_125x125
Convergence_conference_125

Install a Future Scanner button on your blog.

Nanotechnology: healthier, longer lifespan coming soon

August 11 2008 / by futuretalk
Category: Technology   Year: General   Rating: 7 Hot

Death could be a thing of the past if certain advances are made.

By Dick Pelletier

The most hyped science of all time – nanotechnology – promises a utopian future with no food shortages or disease, and a world of leisure and unlimited lifespan.

Nanotech’s basic concept is to build things atom by atom using machines called assemblers. Assemblers can make food, or other products, by reassembling atoms from air, dirt, or seawater.

As early as 2025, a nanotech assembler could be sitting on kitchen counters providing food, appliances, or clothing; at little or no cost. In addition, by 2030 or before, nanobots could be roaming through our bodies protecting us from the ravages of disease and aging.

Cryogenic enthusiasts who have their body, head, or cell culture frozen when they die believe that nanotechnology will someday be able to re-create information from their brains, repair their damaged body, or clone a new one, and let them resume their life. Whether this will ever be possible is open to debate, but certainly billions of nano-probes connecting to every cell in our body offers some hope for this way out concept.

Could nanotechnology eliminate death? Today, we consider death as one of the great certainties of life, along with taxes. Taxes have not always existed though, and in the future, they may again be unnecessary. Death statistics are interesting. Over six billion people are alive today, but less than 6 billion have died since our species began. Why, if less than half the people ever born have died, do people say death is certain?

A person born today can expect to live 85 to 120 years or more – nearly three times that of 100 years ago. British Telecom’s Ian Pearson suggests that advances in genetics and nanotech expected over the next three decades will be sufficient for us to make a realistic stab at ending death. “Unless one is unfortunate enough to die from accident or disease, many people alive today have a good chance of not dying at all,” Pearson says.

Deborah Norville recently asked legendary reporter and skin cancer survivor Sam Donaldson when he would retire. Sam answered, “Deborah, if you retire, you die, and I intend to live forever”. Experts say living forever may not be realistic; but technology will soon be able to undo much of the damage caused by aging and disease, and keep our bodies eternally young and healthy.

Just how far we get with this vision has yet to unfold, but we can certainly expect progress to continue. While naysayers focus on overpopulation problems caused by lower death rates, advocates explain that nanotech will create plenty of food and make the environment cleaner than it is today with new exotic nano-bots.

Nanotech also offers renewed hope for space enthusiasts. By packing their minds and genetic codes in a tiny capsule along with some assemblers, astronauts could travel at faster-than-light speeds through wormholes to distant planets. On arrival, nanobots would make the planet safe for habitation, and then simply rebuild the astronaut’s bodies to continue the mission. Comments welcome.

Do you think you will ever enjoy an indefinite lifespan?

or Show Results

Comment Thread (8 Responses)

  1. Lets wait till scientists figure at least some very general idea about how to build the most primitive prototype of these “nanobots” before claiming that this technology is just around the corner.

    Posted by: johnfrink   August 06, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  2. You make a good point, Johnfrink, but as a positive futurist, I like to push the envelope.

    Posted by: futuretalk   August 06, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  3. John Frink, I know you get some small kick out of being a naysayer, but put yourself in the shoes of a scientist. Are scientists “waiting” for the day when the prototype is built? Are they playing Solitaire, maybe? Nope. They’re actively working towards these technologies, in small but important increments.

    And above all, since this technology will eventually be invented in time (2035? 2135?), your negativity has no benefit, and brings nothing to the discussion. It may even turn away potential business leaders in the field, or aspiring scientists. At least if we view molecular nanotechnology as an objective we have a chance at doing it.

    The unique feature of out time is not just acceleration (and despite what the naysayers say, acceleration is an natural product of our progress – new discoveries and tools build on previous ones). Today, we push aggressively for technology applications, instead of relying on serendipitous discovery. We made a lot of progress the old way, but the new way is even better.

    Johnfrink, most naysayers turn out to be wrong. There are a few exceptions, and sophisticated pessimists latch onto them (e.g. where’s my flying car, why don’t we have colonies on the moon). Don’t risk being part of the huge majority of failed predictions which were negative (google failed predictions – and do a tally of which ones were by pessimists, and which ones were by optimists).

    Posted by: CptSunbeam   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  4. “Over six billion people are alive today, but less than 6 billion have died since our species began. Why, if less than half the people ever born have died, do people say death is certain?”

    I really like that point because it makes us think about how we think about death. Maybe we’re always thinking in the back of our heads, “so many people died, everyone dies, duh! I might as well die” well, not really!

    I think the number of humans who have died is around 85 million? Could that be possible?(unfortunately I don’t have a source for that…)

    Posted by: AJ0111   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  5. CptSunbeam,

    I think healthy skepticism that leads to a discussion is much more useful than mindless cheerleading.

    Posted by: johnfrink   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  6. More than 50 million humans will die this year; the majority of whom might have survived with 2030s technologies (strong AGI, molecular nanotech, advanced biotech); many would continue to live with 2020s technologies (regenerative medicine, nano-aided therapies); and even a few could be saved with science available in the next decade (stem cell, genetic engineering to repair failing body parts).

    In my mind, the fact that the general public is not made aware of tomorrow’s life extension possibilities could be interpreted as the most horrific crime against humanity – ever. When will our world wake up?

    Comments welcome.

    Posted by: futuretalk   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  7. “Over six billion people are alive today, but less than 6 billion have died since our species began. Why, if less than half the people ever born have died, do people say death is certain?”

    Death is not just a human disease. There’s nothing particularly notable about humans (yet) that would indicate they have a better chance at living indefinitely without technological boosts than most other organisms—so the population of interest also includes organisms which lived and died anywhere in the last few billion years, and I’d guess well over 99.99% of organisms that have ever lived on this planet are now dead.

    However, the fact that some organisms have managed to live thousands of years in equilibrium is good news that there’s nothing inherently limiting about carbon-based life spans in general. We just need to fill the gap for our own case with technology.

    Posted by: gremlinn   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

  8. Fortunately for the human species, we will not be tied to our biology in the distant future. During the 2030s and 2040s, a few bold positive thinkers believe that non-biological components could replace all of our biology.

    By mid-century or slightly beyond, biological humans may only be a distant memory of our crude past. That’s the hope for this writer, anyway.

    Comments welcome.

    Posted by: futuretalk   August 07, 2008
    Vote for this comment - Recommend

Related content from the Future Scanner and Future Blogger