Immortality and You

[Cavernio]

Re: Immortality and You

I agree with you to an extent. However, even if it's possible to make human beings immortal, it doesn't change the implication that coming into existence means that one day that entity will come out of existence, or cease to exist (at least in the same place and form).

Not really, that's based on the assertion that there is some sort of innate symmetry in the world. Wanting it to be that way doesn't make it so.

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Re: Immortality and You

Not really, that's based on the assertion that there is some sort of innate symmetry in the world. Wanting it to be that way doesn't make it so.

I agree, but I'm expressing to you that ceasing to exist is implied in the existence of an entity. The definition of imply is that an idea "suggests something as a logical consequence" according to the Google Search definition. Although ceasing to exist is not certain when a being is brought into existence, it is still a logical outcome.

Also, by your reasoning, we have no idea whether something won't happen if someone wants it to happen either.

[Spenner]

Re: Immortality and You

It's as simple as this: lego blocks scattered in a crate. Crate is poured on the floor for a bunch of children to come running to them with shirts that have "forces" stitched into them. They build lego sets. After awhile, the forces will probably destroy the lego sets and once more forces find those same parts, they will be utilized for something else. Nothing ceases, it re-materializes, and is re-purposed. We're a buncha carbon lego bricks.

[Cavernio]

Re: Immortality and You

I agree, but I'm expressing to you that ceasing to exist is implied in the existence of an entity. The definition of imply is that an idea "suggests something as a logical consequence" according to the Google Search definition. Although ceasing to exist is not certain when a being is brought into existence, it is still a logical outcome.

It's not logical to presume the world is symmetrical, you've made an implication I do not share with you.

Also, by your reasoning, we have no idea whether something won't happen if someone wants it to happen either.

Umm, we have no idea of the certainty of something happening based on the will of someone else unless that will then leads the person to be able to do something. In this case, the will of someone to perceive that something exists is not, in fact, changing the existence of that thing. It would if they, say, wanted to bake cookies then they went and made cookies though.

[Dynam0]

Re: Immortality and You

If we continue to reproduce but live immortally it's a pretty easy concept to grasp that we will either:

a) Run out of living space
b) Run out of resources

As Spenner said, we're carbon lego blocks...we only have a finite box of legos to work with

Unfortunately, death is a consequence that is also a necessity in order to perpetuate new life

[devonin]

Re: Immortality and You

Unfortunately, death is a consequence that is also a necessity in order to perpetuate new life

I'm pretty sure that before the UNIVERSE runs out of lego blocks, we can stick around for a while. Maybe on Earth death is necessary to perpetuate new life, but that's why we should be working on leaving while we still can.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Immortality and You

We're still centuries/millenia away from [thinking about] relocating to another planet

[Dynam0]

Re: Immortality and You

@dev Yeah I can agree with that since the universe is immensely vast; however I think it would be more wise to adopt a system where the recycling of resources is a priority. Science and human discovery is proving to be akin to a slippery slope where once we know about something we can exploit, we continue to exploit that thing until we're in a compromising position and it is perhaps too late to resolve. A number of examples are out there but one that comes to mind for me is the huge industrialization boom in Europe in the 15th century leading to disease, overpopulating, and eventually the colonization of the Americas.

I find it somewhat unsettling that some of us still feel entitled to interfere with and displace other civilizations solely out of necessity from being unable to manage our own territories responsibly.

Now a planet like Mars that is devoid of any life? That seems like fair game to me.


edit: @rushy, yes. If we manage to exploit immortality before we manage to colonize other planets, our goose is cooked so to speak. Death will continue to be a necessity until we have the ability to branch out and have more room to house more people.

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Re: Immortality and You

Science and human discovery is proving to be akin to a slippery slope where once we know about something we can exploit, we continue to exploit that thing until we're in a compromising position and it is perhaps too late to resolve.

I find it somewhat unsettling that some of us still feel entitled to interfere with and displace other civilizations solely out of necessity from being unable to manage our own territories responsibly.

Now a planet like Mars that is devoid of any life? That seems like fair game to me.

Is that so? I personally agree that interference towards other civilizations and their culture is unwarranted, but on the other hand, history has shown us that sometimes acting towards our self-interests yields promising results. For instance, due to interaction among countries, the human race has access to telephones, structurally sound houses, and education from countless viewpoints. Exploiting resources and exhausting our materials has led to many prosperous outcomes too such as medicine and immunizations to help prolong life, architecture for giving human beings shelters, and work places that usually last for decades.

[gold stinger]

Re: Immortality and You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qfC3utQwI
worth a watch. You'll cry.

Took the time to watch that movie tonight. I'll give it to ya that the ending made me a bit teary-eyed, but I didn't cry. Was a nice classic.

[XelNya]

Re: Immortality and You

Immortality would be more of a punishment than a good thing.

[devonin]

Re: Immortality and You

We're still centuries/millenia away from [thinking about] relocating to another planet

We have the technology already, and the resources already. The problem isn't civilisation, it's the people IN the civilisation.

Just when you think maybe we're going to get our shit together, a first-world country invades another sovereign nation. We're supposed to be better than this shit.

[rushyrulz]

Re: Immortality and You

Didn't NASA like lose its funding or something recently?

[Dynam0]

Re: Immortality and You

Is that so? I personally agree that interference towards other civilizations and their culture is unwarranted, but on the other hand, history has shown us that sometimes acting towards our self-interests yields promising results. For instance, due to interaction among countries, the human race has access to telephones, structurally sound houses, and education from countless viewpoints. Exploiting resources and exhausting our materials has led to many prosperous outcomes too such as medicine and immunizations to help prolong life, architecture for giving human beings shelters, and work places that usually last for decades.

All of these things use up an incredible amount of energy and resources to produce, many of which will be depleted within the next few decades. Also, the waste by-products that humans leave behind will only continue to grow. Computers are able to store more data and are twice as fast every two years, but this trend will reach it's limit sooner than you think. What happens if we cannot integrate quantum computers before the silicon age is no more? Although we seem to be bettering our situation on this planet from a technological point of view, by continuing to blaze forward without much of a glance in the rear-view mirror, we're in a race against time to find solutions to all of the problems we cause as a result of our hunger for new and better things.

I could even ask a silly question from a philosophical perspective and ask, what defines quality of life and happiness in general? The feeling of happiness elementally comes from within and is a belief that says, "I am a good person, I am cared about, I am loved. etc." It has absolutely nothing to do with material objects like phones and computers, only the interactions between us and other living things. We continue to convince ourselves that scientific discovery is the key to happiness and prosperity but I could argue that it isn't necessary for that at all. I myself have a university education in the sciences so I appreciate and am intrigued by learning new things, however I think we should spend more time on studying the adverse affects of these new discoveries before putting them in place. Or at the very least, searching for better ways of sustaining our planet so we aren't putting ourselves on a time limit.

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Re: Immortality and You

All of these things use up an incredible amount of energy and resources to produce, many of which will be depleted within the next few decades. Also, the waste by-products that humans leave behind will only continue to grow. Computers are able to store more data and are twice as fast every two years, but this trend will reach it's limit sooner than you think. What happens if we cannot integrate quantum computers before the silicon age is no more? Although we seem to be bettering our situation on this planet from a technological point of view, by continuing to blaze forward without much of a glance in the rear-view mirror, we're in a race against time to find solutions to all of the problems we cause as a result of our hunger for new and better things.

I could even ask a silly question from a philosophical perspective and ask, what defines quality of life and happiness in general? The feeling of happiness elementally comes from within and is a belief that says, "I am a good person, I am cared about, I am loved. etc." It has absolutely nothing to do with material objects like phones and computers, only the interactions between us and other living things. We continue to convince ourselves that scientific discovery is the key to happiness and prosperity but I could argue that it isn't necessary for that at all. I myself have a university education in the sciences so I appreciate and am intrigued by learning new things, however I think we should spend more time on studying the adverse affects of these new discoveries before putting them in place. Or at the very least, searching for better ways of sustaining our planet so we aren't putting ourselves on a time limit.

I agree that the human race as a whole is very irresponsible and should not be inventing new technology and throwing away so much trash without finding a long-term solution first. However, many people work best under pressure, and I believe we have the capability to fix the mess we may put ourselves in one day because there is a time limit.