It’s worth mentioning that a lot of the kinds of technology in path A could also lead to immortality (or at least, to extreme longevity, “immortality” is kind of a loaded word) if strong AI either doesn’t happen at all, or happens but for some reason doesn’t help as much as we think, or if we decide to not do it at all, or if it takes much longer then we expect to happen. I don’t know how likely any of those possibilities are, but I don’t think they’re all zero.
I think that without uploading or creating copies (and without AI) any life extension method would give 1000 years life expectancy maximum. It is very long but nowhere near immortality.
Uploading is almost like creating AI, so if we will have EMs, we will come to AI very soon after it. In the earlier versions of the map plan A was named “Victory on aging”, and after it was renamed in “To survive until Immortality”, which is oxymoron, so I think that “survive until FAI” is the best name and idea.
I think that without uploading or creating copies (and without AI) any life extension method would give 1000 years life expectancy maximum
That was Aubry de Grey’s estimate of how long people would live if we cured aging, but that assumes the same rate of deaths from accidents, suicides, ect as we have today. But with advanced cyborg technology, medical technology, biotechnology, and/or nanotechnology, as well as other technological improvements that reduce the risk of accidental death (self driving cars, for example), that could be a lot longer.
Edit: To be clear, I agree with you that if uploading/”making copies” proves possible, that that could theoretically grant a much “safer” kind of longevity that could last much longer on average. I’m just saying that even without that, 1000 years is just a starting point towards what’s possible, and we likely be able to do significantly better then that.
It’s worth mentioning that a lot of the kinds of technology in path A could also lead to immortality (or at least, to extreme longevity, “immortality” is kind of a loaded word) if strong AI either doesn’t happen at all, or happens but for some reason doesn’t help as much as we think, or if we decide to not do it at all, or if it takes much longer then we expect to happen. I don’t know how likely any of those possibilities are, but I don’t think they’re all zero.
I think that without uploading or creating copies (and without AI) any life extension method would give 1000 years life expectancy maximum. It is very long but nowhere near immortality.
Uploading is almost like creating AI, so if we will have EMs, we will come to AI very soon after it. In the earlier versions of the map plan A was named “Victory on aging”, and after it was renamed in “To survive until Immortality”, which is oxymoron, so I think that “survive until FAI” is the best name and idea.
It should be “ems” as it is short for emulation, not an acronym. Sorry for the nitpick, I’ve seen this a lot and it bothers me for some reason.
That was Aubry de Grey’s estimate of how long people would live if we cured aging, but that assumes the same rate of deaths from accidents, suicides, ect as we have today. But with advanced cyborg technology, medical technology, biotechnology, and/or nanotechnology, as well as other technological improvements that reduce the risk of accidental death (self driving cars, for example), that could be a lot longer.
Edit: To be clear, I agree with you that if uploading/”making copies” proves possible, that that could theoretically grant a much “safer” kind of longevity that could last much longer on average. I’m just saying that even without that, 1000 years is just a starting point towards what’s possible, and we likely be able to do significantly better then that.