I'm convinced all of Kurzweil's predictions through the years can be simplified as (and originate from) "whatever least-implausible dream scenario allows a man of Ray Kurzweil's exact age and health to barely avoid the hitherto-universal icy grip of mortality."

▲

bluealienpie 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was awed by the future he promised, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte

Looking back, he’s great at selling a future of possibility as long as you don’t track all the errors.

▲

Ygg2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This SMBC comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif

▲

Terr_ 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Tangentially related in terms of "old stuff from other things I read", this 2006 critique [0] by Derek Lowe:

> Later in Kurzweil's article, he says:

> > "So what does the future hold? By 2019, we will largely overcome the major diseases that kill 95 percent of us in the developed world, and we will be dramatically slowing and reversing the dozen or so processes that underlie aging."

> [...] I really do expect to put cancer, heart disease, the major infections, and the degenerative disorders in their place. But do I expect to do it by 20-flipping-19?

It's hard to be optimistic when it's been those 13 years plus another 7 and somehow measles is back again, although I admit that's one isn't a pure technology-problem.

[0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ray-kurzweil-s-fut...

	▲	sanderjd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But that's kinda the point, there's no such thing as "a pure technology-problem". I think that's the fundamental - and obvious - thing that these folks seem to constantly miss.