
Google vs. Death - weu
http://techland.time.com/2013/09/18/google-vs-death/
======
hosay123
So this article was presumably written beforehand and embargoed to coincide
with the official announcement of Calico. While I guess there's nothing wrong
with that, it does make me wonder what kind of pre-approved message is
supposed to be imparted by a premeditated PR campaign.

Perhaps it is just to avoid scaring investors, going by Larry's concern
assuaging in the second paragraph of his post.

One of the Google founders was also behind funding the first purely lab-grown
burger eaten in London a few months ago. That also had an obviously
professional PR campaign attached to it, although little of this was explicit
in the press. A professionally edited HD recording of the event appeared on
the BBC web site only a few minutes after publication, so obviously some PR
mechanism was at play.

But that event wasn't to promote Google or anything else, it was absent of any
commercial labels attached to the copy or the video itself, and no mention was
made of who organized or funded it. I have no idea what the message, or the
point of that campaign was either.

What are these campaigns trying to tell us?

~~~
bsullivan01
Google does everything in a very orchestrated campaign. Bash Adwords or Search
here and you will see "them" show up to defend it.

But unless Google already transferred $x billions to Calico's bank account, I
have to laugh at the 20-30+ year investment agenda and that somehow Google
will be in for the long run--unlike other companies. This will be shut down
the minute Adwords growth slows down...and they're running out of places to
put them due to over-saturation and "free" traffic to sites is disappearing at
an alarming rate already.

Google, Page, Brin should've put $500 mil each and then pledged regular
contributions.

Or maybe this is Brin's divorce package: Calico will buy 123andMe for a lot of
money ;-)

~~~
DominikR
You don't have any information on how much money they have invested.

All you do is speculate and inform us about your aversion towards Google.

And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this project if
their profits started going down isn't really informative unless you think
that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental logic.

~~~
bsullivan01
_> >"You don't have any information on how much money they have invested."_

I never said I had the info. The people that know this chose not to say it. I
speculated, which is all we can do.

 _> >"And the enlightening insight that Google would probably drop this
project if their profits started going down isn't really informative unless
you think that we all here have problems with understanding fundamental
logic."_

It's not that informative, I give you that; it's Wall Street 101 and most know
by now.

 _> >"about your aversion towards Google._"

Not sure blind love and gullibility is any better, assuming that I have an
aversion to everything Google.

------
nohuck13
When Google sponsors an awesome project like this, I see the tech company
equivalent of Nike sponsoring LeBron James for $105 million. Even if the R&D
angle doesn't work out, Google gets real value (i.e. indirectly
interchangeable for money) in terms of PR and recruiting. Consumer products
companies pay huge amounts of money for PR. Google is just doing the same
thing in a typically Googlish way. I don't think it's as cynical as just that:
Google, and Larry Page in particular have been talking about making the world
a better place for 15 years in a way that makes me pretty inclined to believe
them, but the side benefits must counterbalance the longshot-ness quite a bit.

~~~
modeless
It's a bit more risky than sponsoring a popular athlete I think. Few peope
think we shouldn't play sports, but there is a surprisingly large group of
people who believe we shouldn't be engaging on research like this. Reasons
include religious, environmental, and social concerns.

~~~
breckinloggins
When I first read about Aubrey de Grey, I instinctively knew that he had the
right approach to the problem of aging and immortality but I also suspected
that he would run afoul of the religious, environmental, and social criticism
that you're suggesting.

However, I no longer think that is the case, and I think if Calico takes the
same tack they will mostly avoid it as well.

Here's why: a gross simplification of de Grey's entire research program is
"aging and death happen because things start breaking faster than we can fix
them, and because things start breaking that we have no idea how to fix." One
of the greatest things about tackling the fountain of youth from this
perspective is that it will _continue to look like normal medicine and
cosmetic procedures_.

I predict that effective "eternal youth and immortality" will be achieved, but
by the time the mass population notices enough to care, the majority of the
population will be composed of people who grew up with the idea of
accelerating progress on human health (in the same way that today's kids
simply do not know an era without exponential advances in information
technology). Thus, they will probably experience this threshold as completely
normal, if they experience it at all.

In other words, there won't be a "magic moment". That moment will only appear
retroactively, similar to today's magazine articles that say "hey look, here
we are in the future with our video phones and what not! Isn't that nice?"

Let's say in the next 20 years the following things happen:

1\. A therapeutic AIDS vaccine performs the equivalent of Polio eradication

2\. Highly targeted and effective cancer therapies are developed at an
increasingly alarming rate

3\. An actual cure for baldness is found

4\. A preventative therapeutic regimen for treating obesity at a genetic level
is discovered

5\. A "nano-cream" that restores collagen in the skin becomes available first
by prescription, then over the counter

6\. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's can be detected and prevented early and
completely managed in those that are in advanced stages

Each one of those 6 things will likely face some opposition, but the
opposition's voices will most probably not reach any kind of "critical mass";
people will (for example with the AIDS vaccine) simply regard as cruel the
idea that people should die of AIDS because you don't want them having sex (a
silly protest that I can still predict happening).

Each of these advances will happen individually, and to the average person
they won't look anything alike.

But if you stack enough of these together long enough, you eventually get your
fountain of youth. It's just that by the time it arrives there won't be riots
in the streets, just 90% of the population saying "oh cool" and the other 10%
viewed as harmless luddites with an interesting perspective on life.

~~~
seiji
_I instinctively knew_

Why?

~~~
blake8086
death is bad

~~~
pjscott
That doesn't imply anything about the most effective way to increase
longevity.

~~~
tedks
I think you're reading too much into the words "right approach." In this case,
"right approach" (I think) means something like "understanding that death is
bad and trying to fight it."

------
stiff
There is something very weird about people routinely speaking of immortality
as something that is actually a thing. For all we know, stars die eventually,
the sun will burn out eventually, the universe as we know most likely comes to
an end and so forth, you can not cheat basic physics. To me this is the same
kind of refusal that makes some people believe in god, and that shows how
hopelessly biased we get on topics we are emotionally involved in. On any
other topic with the information available everyone sane would asses the
likelihood of success as maybe less than 0.001%, but if you ask about this
specific thing, it's more like 50%...

(Speaking in advance: I understand this is in fact about life extension)

~~~
flatline
Due to these circumstances, I suspect that this having possible applications
into life extension is a really good way to get funding for your research,
because death is 100% certain, and a .0001% chance of evading it sounds so
good to some people that you can just about write your own check. Agreed
though, death can be terrifying, but the idea of immortality is flawed in more
ways than one. Are you really the same person you were 10 years ago? 10
Months? Weeks? Days? Minutes? Seconds? What is it, other than one's own
fragile ego, that people are trying to perpetuate into eternity? A few extra
years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to me.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> A few extra years is one thing, immortality sounds like a fool's paradise to
> me.

Feel free to pass on it then, assuming you'd actually make that decision if
you really had the choice. That problem will naturally solve itself: the set
of people still alive will trend towards 100% rejection of having a limited
lifespan.

"Everyone who had serious philosophical conundra on that subject just, you
know, _died_, a generation before. [...] didn't need to convert its
detractors, just outlive them." \-- Cory Doctorow, "Down and Out in the Magic
Kingdom".

~~~
stiff
And what is your solution to not getting hit by a truck over an infinite
period of time?

~~~
loup-vaillant
That's a technical problem, not a moral one.

More seriously, we could scan backups. Or we could live in the Matrix, not as
meatbags plugged through the neck, but as _programs_ –which could be backed up
as well. (Don't ask me who gets to be root.)

~~~
flatline
It's funny, because Eli was making a moral argument, but I was not, yet that
seems to be the default argument against immortality. I think you last
question is actually close to what I was striking at - who is it that's
immortal? What does it mean to be a consciousness freed from its humanity? I
honestly am not sure that many people would end up being happy in such an
arrangement, or necessarily actually survive in any sense as "themselves" for
very long, despite the persistence of a body or simulant or whatever.

------
nsxwolf
If this random stat I found on Gizmodo (yeah, I Googled and couldn't find
anything better) your chances of dying of an accident in a year are 1 in 1656.

So "immortality" is really a couple thousand years.

Don't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me that
I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) I'm sticking with a
couple thousand years tops.

Impressive life extension. Not immortality. Not even talking about the "heat
death of the universe" here - you're getting nowhere near that.

You can live your life through robotic surrogates, and that could extend your
life further, but wherever you warehouse your body becomes a single point of
failure so it had better be secure.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _Don 't get me started on "brain uploading". Unless you can guarantee me
> that I'll still be me (which is really a religious question) […]_

Luckily, religions are false. The supernatural is unlikely, and immaterial
souls even more so. But we have quantum mechanics.

Current quantum mechanics say that copy&paste transportation doesn't kill you.
(Yep. The question was philosophical, and the answer came from physics.) The
reason is, you're not a heap of atom, you're an _arrangement_ of atoms. Mind
uploading goes a bit further, but should work just as well. Imagine a
"temporary" uploading, where your memories from the Matrix are downloaded back
into your brain (by rewiring your neurons accordingly). It's still you, only
older. Anyway, a deeper understanding of our brains' inner workings may
resolve the question of mind uploading more definitely. We'll see then.

~~~
krapp
_Current quantum mechanics say that copy &paste transportation doesn't kill
you. (Yep. The question was philosophical, and the answer came from physics.)_

[citation needed]

As far as i'm aware, there's no evidence that the mind is anything more than a
physical construct. As such, the idea of 'uploading' it makes no sense. You
can create a copy, sure, and perhaps even a running simulation might be self-
aware and identify as you, but you still only last as long as does the
hemisphere of jelly in your head.

I agree though that it is a question of philosophy, but a different philosophy
altogether. We will have to redefine what a 'mind' is to take into account the
persistent pattern of the brain in whatever form it takes as software, but
that's not actually going to solve the problem of mortality any more than
religion does.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _[citation needed]_

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_id...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_identity/)

It's long, but it's worth it. I personally enjoyed reading all this.

~~~
krapp
Thank you, that was enjoyable. But...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-
cloning_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem) and the
uncertainty principle suggest to be that while it might be possible to create
a model which appears indistinguishable from an existing person, and could be
considered "similar enough" philosophically or legally, by definition it would
have to be considered a 'different' object because perfect copies are
impossible.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _perfect copies are impossible._

Sure. But from one nanosecond to another, we're perturbed by thermal noise,
without any qualms about what that noise does to ourselves.

I think we can safely assume that a copy whose imperfections are on the same
order as thermal noise is a second original. That, or we admit that room
temperature is enough to change us.

~~~
krapp
_That, or we admit that room temperature is enough to change us._

It might be, at some level, I don't know.

Am I the same person I was when I was born? Am I the same person when I wake
up as when I dream? Was Phineas Gage a different person after taking an iron
shaft in the brain as before?

Maybe it's more accurate to describe people as processes rather than objects.
Which could support your premise while not necessarily invalidating mine,
since the whole concept of a singular, coherent self would itself be an
illusion.

------
bproper
Can anyone find meaningful detail in here about how Google hopes to solve the
problem of death? Beyond the name of the company and the guy running it, this
seems like a stock profile of Google X.

------
gmack
Succeed or not in their stated goal, it could end up throwing off a lot of
interesting science, assuming actual bio/neuro/genetic science is backed by
the venture. Presumably all this enhanced by vast amounts of computational
prowess, as well.

That said, there are a lot of questions about what the philosophical,
cultural, sociological and political underpinnings and implications might be.
Creating a friendly environment for discussing those could be a worthwhile
exercise as well. For example, what is the interaction between individual
wellbeing and longevity, and the quality of world in which you live? Perhaps
it's a two-way street, a wholistic set of factors that includes social
wellbeing in addition to medical health, taking for example the case of that
Greek island with famously long-living people (Ikaria).

As someone said, it's not the years in your life, it's the life in your years.

------
radley
What's with the fake, trollish headline on HN?

It should say "Google vs. Death".

~~~
raldi
It does say that, now.

What was the original headline?

------
vibrolax
Last week, my fiancée telling about me a novel she was reading "Google
Démocratie" by David Angevin and Laurent Alexandre (2011, French language).
This article sure makes the premise of the novel (genetically modified trans-
humans vs the good old fashioned kind) seem a little less far-fetched.

------
devanti
after money, fame, what else? the google founders desire to live forever

~~~
nullc
Desire _everyone_ to live forever.

What kind of monster are you that you don't think thats a laudable goal?

~~~
objclxt
> _What kind of monster are you that you don 't think thats a laudable goal?_

I think there are many compelling ethical and philosophical arguments one can
make against wanting everyone to live forever.

We shouldn't confuse live _extension_ with living _forever_. Oddly enough,
David Attenborough is in the news today for suggesting population control is a
huge and growing problem[1]. You could argue that research into extending
human life when we are looking at significant problems with population
overcrowding and competition for resources in the near future is putting the
horse before the cart.

I am not sure which side of the fence I fall on. Medical research can allow
people with previously incurable conditions to live full lives. This is a
laudable goal. But that's not what you said - you're talking about living
_forever_. Is that so laudable? I would certainly not call someone who thought
that was a truly awful idea 'a monster'. Indeed, there's lots of speculative
fiction based around how awful it would actually be to live forever (or even a
very long time).

[1]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-D...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-
David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-
will.html)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Admittedly, you do have to laugh at the sheer irony. Research into life-
extension is taking place in advanced countries that can't even maintain their
current population levels without net immigration.

And also, at the same time, cannot be bothered to raise labor wages.

What the fuck?

~~~
lmm
> Research into life-extension is taking place in advanced countries that
> can't even maintain their current population levels without net immigration.

Sounds perfectly consistent to me.

> And also, at the same time, cannot be bothered to raise labor wages.

As long as the immigrants keep coming, why bother raising wages?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Right, the inconsistency is: the First World goes tsk tsk at the Third World
for its overpopulation and poverty; meanwhile, it critically relies on the
Third World to breed a neverending supply of cheap immigrant labor to exploit.

~~~
lmm
You could just as well say it offers people suffering from those circumstances
the chance of a better life.

------
samstave
A couple of years ago, after it was revealed that Sergey had some genetic
disorder I wrote this sci-fi short story inspired by the fact that
Larry/Sergey would be doing exactly this:

\----

In the year 2010, scientists perfected suspended animation through the use of
cryogenics for the purpose of surgery. After more than a decade of study and
refinement, long term suspended animation became a reality, yet a privilege
reserved for only the most wealthy and influential.

The thinking at the time was that only those who showed a global and
fundamental contribution to society (while still viewed through the
ridiculously tinted lenses of the global elite of the era) were worthy of
entering into such state.

The process was both incredibly complex and costly. As each Transport, as they
were known, required their own stand alone facility to be built around them.
Significant resources were put into the development of each facility as they
required complete autonomous support systems to accommodate whatever duration
was selected by the Transport.

Standalone, yet fully redundant, power, security and life support systems were
essential to the longevity of each facility.

Additionally, it was recognized that monetary resources would be subject to
change over time, especially fiat-currency based resources. Thus there was a
need to place physical holders of value that would be perceived to not
deplete/dilute over time into the facilities for use by the Transport when
they resuscitate.

These resources are the most sought after treasure of the new world.

After hundreds of years of human progress, civilization could no longer
sustain itself in an organized self-supporting system. Through utter
corruption of what some call the human soul, the world has fallen dark. There
are very few outposts of safety in the current Trial of Life, as its now
known.

Many Transporters have been found, resuscitated and exploited already. There
are believed to be many many more, but their locations are both secret and
secure. Akin to your life relying on the discovery of an undisturbed Tomb of a
Pharaoh - even though every consciousness on the planet is also seeking the
same tomb.

They are the last bastion of hope for they alone have the reserves of precious
materials needed to sustain life for the current generation.

Metals, technology (however outdated), medicines, seeds, weapons and minerals
are all a part of each Transport 'Crop'.

One find can support a group or community for years alone based on the barter
and renewable resource potentials in each Crop.

One transport, found in 2465, that of a long dead nanotech pioneer - who was
purportedly responsible for much of the cybernetic medical capabilities of the
21st century, which he sought to cure his genetic predisposition for a certain
disease, was so vast that the still powerful city-state in the western
province of North America was able to be founded.

The resources of this individual were extraordinary, but his resuscitation, as
they all are, was rather gruesome and cold.

The security systems in each Transport Facility are biometric and very
complex. They can only be accessed by a living, calm and (relatively) healthy
Transport.

If the system, and its control mechanism AI, detect signs of duress, stress or
serious injury to the Transport - they go into fail-safe. Which is to say they
self detonate. Taking with them all resources, the Transport and the Seekers
as well.

There have been many instances of this, such that the art of successful
Resuscitation has become an extremely profitable business.

The most active and successful Resuscitation Team (RT) have been the
ironically named, Live Well Group.

The most conniving, well practiced and profitable con in the history of
mankind.

LWG alone has been responsible for the resuscitation of more than 370
Transports. Their group is currently the most powerful in the world. With
their own city-state, established after the Brin case mentioned, they have a
cast of thousands of cons all working to ensure the Transport believes they
have been Awakened to a new, advanced, safe world and that they would be
allowed to stake part in a significant way now that they have been
Transported.

They are fooled into releasing their resources, then brutally tortured for
information about any other Transports or any other knowledge they may
possess, which invariably is less than nothing.

It is a hard world out there now, and the LWGs ruthless strive to locate the
thousands of other Transport Facilities is both the worst aspect of our modern
struggle - yet ironically will serve to be the basis of the ongoing endeavor
of the species.

There is rumor of a vast facility of resources and Transports in an
underground 'CITY' of the most elite Transports ever. A facility supposedly
comprised of the 13 most powerful and rich bloodlines of people to have ever
existed.

It is not known which continent this facility is on, but I believe it is in
Antarctica - fully automated and with the ability to auto-resuscitate at a
given time.

This is my mission, this is my life's work. To find and own this facility and
crush any and all other groups that oppose me.

~~~
loup-vaillant
I like the background, though from a narrative standpoint, it is better
presented piecemeal, as the hero progresses.

Just one quibble: cryonics (not "cryogenics") _today_ is much less expensive
than that. Okay, you don't live back (yet). But if we get working suspended
animation, with resuscitation and all, it will probably be much cheaper, much
more dependent on the survival of our current civilization, and much less
protected.

~~~
samstave
I wrote it in 2010 after the wired article about Sergey's gene issue came
out... it was a stream of conscious post, and I hadn't edited it since...

I predicted that given his resources and being found to have a genetic
predisposition to a disease with later-in-life onset, he would focus on
health/longevity.

With the article that came out at the same time about cryonic (thanks)
surgery, I was thinking that he would be more likely to be able to freeze
himself later in life than to cure his genetic disorder.

------
consider_this
You'd think with everything Google already knows about most people they could
just solve for x.

------
tomd01
The date publish on the article is wrong? Its also cuts off and trys to get me
to pay money?

------
michaelfeathers
Funny. No mention of Kurzweil.

~~~
lukev
Kurzweil is a joker. His entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that
computational power is the only obstacle to general AI, which is manifestly
not the case.

~~~
melange
Kurzweil works for Google.

------
kjofol
Damn, I thought Pratchet wrote another book...

------
frank_boyd
I think I'll go with death, then.

~~~
pjscott
That's fine, as long as you _choose_ it rather than having it thrust upon you.
Currently, we lose this choice after less than a century.

~~~
qu4z-2
I worry that it will not be a choice (or at least taboo, like suicide is these
days -- given that's basically what it will be).

EDIT: I wonder if the possibility of living nearly forever will make society
even more risk-averse?

~~~
lmm
Improved healthcare, reduced war and so on have already made society much more
risk-averse. This would just be another bit of improved healthcare.

------
_stuart
Love that it has a cat name... they're the ones with seven lives, right?

~~~
dsego
I thought it was 9.

~~~
_stuart
Depends what country you're from.

------
wissler
Google can't extend human life but maybe it can pick the right people who can.

This is similar to iPhone. Steve Jobs didn't make the iPhone possible. What he
did was recognize something that many engineers had recognized for a long time
and he permitted the resources to flow to the right people. Sure, he
introduced some of his own artistic flair. But the combination of radio, UNIX,
with a nice API was an idea whose time had come. We just needed a CEO with the
balls to let his engineers go for it.

There are many brilliant scientists and engineers that can nearly do magic,
and not enough people who know how to discern what visions to fund. Every so
often we get blessed with a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk who can send the resources
the right way, but for the most part we get Carly Fiorina.

