[amrcnimgrnt]

You can't reverse aging, that's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

You might be able to restore the body's ability to regenerate itself. But that's a terrible idea. I shudder at the idea of living to 120, never mind 200. Imagine being born in 1821 and having to live today. Imagine how confusing that would be.

[anyfoo]

> You can't reverse aging, that's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Next time someone asks me to do the dishes, I will tell them the same. Hopefully they also forgot about the sun providing energy into the system.

[amrcnimgrnt]

Now start doing the math for how much power (I made it easy, I I'm only asking for the rate) that is required to keep someone alive indefinitely.

Don't cheat! Don't use the caloric needs of a fully grown adult. Their bodies stoically accept a lot of the damage done by entropy. You have expend additional energy to reverse it.

Don't cheat, remember to account for a population growth rate == the current birth rate.

If you don't like having to account for the growth rate, please give a moral explanation for why some select few get to live forever and others croak.

How much power do you need? How are you supplying this power? It's cute to say "Sun". But solar panels (let's assume 100% efficient) require surface area that would otherwise be used by plant and animals for their existence.

So live forever by

1. Radically transforming the Earth into a massive ball of polycrystalline silicon 2. Giving eternity to only a (very) select few.

[elzbardico]

>You can't reverse aging, that's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

We are not closed Systems

[amrcnimgrnt]

Reversing the flow of aging is reversing entropy locally, so you're, overall, increasing entropy more outside of your body.

The live forever types are just assuming that energy will be plentiful enough to sustain hundreds of billions of people indefinitely [1] and heat easy to dissipate

[1] The population of the earth is stable at 7 billion only because people have this nasty habit of dying. If we stopped doing that, the population would grow exponentially at the birth rate of 1.7%. Or a doubling every 42 years. In 160 years (not that far off from the current record of longevity) the world's population would hit 100 billion people.

Of course the "live forever" types never mention that eternity is a promise for the privileged, and not for the masses.

[distantaidenn]

Huh? If you were an immortal, you don't just suddenly appear out of time. A person born in 1821 and still alive today would know more about the world than anyone else.

[anyfoo]

Yeah. I was born and lived before the Internet (in its widespread form) existed. Life was very different back then, and I am not confused.

As long as changes happen gradually, I don't see the problem. If they don't, people of almost all ages will be confused.

[aaaaaaaaaaab]

Related: the movie “The Man from Earth”

[mucle6]

I'd take being confused over being dead

[amrcnimgrnt]

You haven't thought it through. It's terrible to be confused, whereas, it's nothing to be dead. You just rot, blissfully unaware.

Unless you're religious. Then it's not death you should fear, but the judgement.