Big Think: Can Nanotechnology Make Us Immortal?

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/ray-kurzweil-the-nanotech-revolution-will-bring-immortality

On Big Think this afternoon, I came across this article. Before you dismiss it as utter fallacy, I'd like to point out that this isn't a new idea; I've seen several documentaries on several networks that have discussed both the possibility and the potential of boosting the human immune system with nanobots. Said documentaries corroborate the claims made in this article. The article itself is extremely credible, quoting the futurist and inventor to whom it refers, a man by the name of Ray Kurzewil. Whether or not Kurzweil himself wholly credible is debatable, and requires more knowledge. However, the article establishes that this is a possibility, not fact, through careful word choice. For instance, the author states, "But IF life expansion becomes available..." rather than, "But WHEN life expansion becomes available...". A limited degree of subtlety establishes the author as a credible source; rather than stating that these claims are a fact, when they are in fact speculation, the author states Kurzweil's opinions and acknowledges their potential possibility. And the potential is there, make no mistake. Top scientists from around the globe have estimated that, within a few decades, we will have nanobots capable of being injected into the human body for an individual's entire life, preventing a specific type of illness without harming the individual. This theory opens up doors we have searched for, such as a cure for cancer; and doors we have barely even considered, such as a cure for rabies, HIV or other seemingly incurable infections. It's an appealing idea, isn't it? Get an injection of nanobots when you're a baby, and you'll never need to get treated for Tetanus? Or maybe even nanobots in the bloodstream to fight blood clots? That would certainly be popular in the US, especially when the future becomes the present. As for me, I could do with a set of nanobots to fight sunburn. I may hate technology in general, but I have to admit, it has potential.

The other question the article poses is whether such technology would become affordable to the masses, or solely to the one percent. The point made in the article is legitimate, that such life-expanding technologies (which would theoretically keep people young for longer periods of time) would initially be less effective, and only available to the extremely wealthy. The article cites the example of cell phones, which were initially extremely expensive and quite faulty by today's standards. The question here, assuming such technology is invented, is not whether it would improve over time; it's how long it would take for it to a) significantly improve, and b) become available to the majority of the population. We don't even know when such technology would come to be, assuming any form comes to be at all. Will any affordable version of such technology come to be in our lifetimes? It's doubtful at best. And even if it does, most of us will probably be on our deathbeds, and not overly interested in extending our lives for a few centuries. Now, if they could get working on a way to reverse aging - that'd be something. Will it happen? I'd say it probably will. Will it happen in time for it to impact us? I have my doubts. At any rate, I'm not getting my hopes up.