My biggest expectations are "to become the machine". "Bodies" made of nanobots that can spwan at will to anything.

In the medium term, life extension, medical progress, new tools and improvement of almost all mathematical processes.

I hope I am wrong about the following post:

I don't think anything will ever pass the Turing test. No AI, no alien, no animal - nothing except humans.

If anything were to be considered equal, humans would have to share. We are not good at sharing resources. Treating everything else as "Not Intelligent" or not "Conscious" is a good way to not have to consider the rights of any other species.

Tl:dr The turing test is not there to test whether something is human. It is there to prove that something is not human.

A hardware implant would also be ok.

The process of merging has already begun.

We are very closely connected with our smartphones. What is still missing is a physical fusion aka transplantation.

Perhaps the present can be compared to a phase in which we have created important basic applications for what we will later implement in our physical body (navi, wiki, calendar, email, multimedia applications, image recognition and analysis a la Google Lens, virtual folders for storing and sharing information...).

Very many people are already taking care not to be separated from their smartphone. This also has many obvious and commonly known advantages. So currently the open beta is already running.

I do not want to hurt anyone and apologize if I hurt anyone with the following.

Maybe there is still a key technology missing. The BCI. As with prosthetics, it is people with their backs against the wall who are voluntarily testing the latest technologies. They are also the ones to whom we as a society are happy to provide these technologies as compensation for a stroke of fate, if they so desire.

This application of these technologies to themselves represents a massive intervention in the organism. You lose something and you gain something. Lower leg prostheses enable their owners to achieve better results in several disciplines of athletics, which is why people with these prostheses cannot participate in competitions with people without these prostheses. It would be unfair.

On the other hand, at present it is not possible to receive and process sensory impressions from these pieces of physical hardware.

Currently, the break evan point has not yet been reached here, where healthy people begin to seriously consider trading their sensory ability for better performance in athletics.

Prostheses are still considered unnatural to some people. Perhaps they should be seen more. Perhaps now is not the time for a widespread shift in perceptions of prosthetics, which I believe is coming.

A BCI could (if a prosthesis is equipped with appropriate sensors) calculate and simulate emo sensations to the brain. Also with BCI, it will be people who colloquially have their backs against the wall and who we as a society want to help improve their situation.

Yes I think a successive fusion has begun. Perhaps now is not the time for a widespread shift in perceptions of prosthetics, which I believe is coming. We will greatly change our image of what it means to be human. But that won't feel bad at the time. Perhaps the curve of genetic and implant changes in the human body is also exponential.

We are in an open beta right now and with market readiness of a key technology, a transformation point could be reached quickly.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers aging to be a natural process. This makes it difficult to get FDA approval for drugs that seek to slow or reverse the biological process of aging. Instead, drugs intended to target aging must target a disease that often results from the aging process in order to demonstrate efficacy and gain approval.

But there is growing consensus and effort among scientists to convince the FDA that aging itself should be classified as a disease and an appropriate target for drug development."

source

Edit: You're right, not at the moment. But the perception is changing.

Why not? As I said before, people will (unfortunately) continue to die. Accidents, diseases, violence, natural disasters.... Everyone dies for sure. But no longer from old age. Just as we no longer die of smallpox today. It's okay that we don't die of smallpox. It will be the same if we don't die of old age. We just die of other things. The more time, the higher the probability that risks will be realized.

If you take the term euthanasia in its original meaning: a "good death," "nice death," or "good dying" from the point of view of the dying person and their loved ones, then that's okay for me.

Should someone want the treatment (even if only in old age) I would never refuse it. For me it would be like refusing a cancer therapy to a prisoner. For me, that would be unethical.

And yeah, no gov or a person or a ngo should force someone to take the treatment.

If we fight the disease via cell regeneration, it could be that our cells will eventually start to get sick again and treatment will be needed on an ongoing basis. This would mean that one can decide again and again.

Yes, aging is finally being recognized as a disease.

People will continue to die.

Diseases, accidents, violence and many things will still kill people. But it doesn't just happen anymore .So everyone can decide for themselves* whether they want to live longer.

*For me it's okay if you want to continue living or if you want to die.

Only one thing isn't ok: If you try to dictate it to others. No life- or deathsharia.

Nobody has to live, nobody has to die, the choice is yours.

This year, next, definitely soon.