 by -
sinaes
(Mon Jul 28 05:33:44)
|
|
SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- Fancy living another 100 years or more? Some experts said on Saturday that scientific advances will one day enable humans to last decades beyond what is now seen as the natural limit of the human life span.
"I think we are knocking at the door of immortality," said Michael Zey, a Montclair State University business professor and author of two books on the future. "I think by 2075 we will see it and that's a conservative estimate."
Zey spoke on the sidelines of the annual conference of the World Future Society, a group that ponders how the future will look across many different aspects of society.
In a presentation at the meeting in San Francisco, Donald Louria, a professor at New Jersey Medical School in Newark said advances in manipulating cells and genes as well as nanotechnology make it likely humans will live in the future beyond what has been possible in the past.
"What was science fiction a decade ago is no longer science fiction," he said.
500 years
"There is a dramatic and intensive push so that people can live from 120 to 180 years," he said. "Some have suggested that there is no limit and that people could live to 200 or 300 or 500 years."
Outside the conference, many scientists who specialize in aging are skeptical of such claims and say the human body is just not designed to last past about 120 years. Even with healthier lifestyles and less disease, they say failure of the brain and other organs will eventually condemn all humans.
"These people spout off as though a large part of the population is going to be able to do something like this. It's just way beyond reality," said Thomas Perls, who leads the New England Centenarian Study, the largest such analysis of the oldest of the old. "It's just pure science fiction."
"We are fast approaching what our bodies are capable of achieving," he said in a telephone interview. "To get even the average person to be 100 or to get them to 180 is like trying to get a space shuttle to Pluto."
Stamping out disabilities
Any dramatic extension of the human life span would depend on altering the onset of disabilities that accompany the aging process by changing one's genetic make up, said Harvey Cohen, director of the Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development at Duke University Medical Center.
"It's certainly unlikely any time in the near future," he said in an interview. "Sure there is a possibility but there is no data currently available to suggest ways that would happen."
Scientists also differ on what kind of life the super aged might live.
"It remains to be seen if you pass the threshold of say 120, you know; could you be healthy enough to have good quality of life?" said Leonard Poon, director of the University of Georgia Gerontology Center. "Currently people who could get to that point are not in good health at all."
Poon, who leads a study of more than 150 centenarians in Georgia, cited the case of Jeanne Louise Calment of France, the oldest person on record who died at age 122 in 1997.
"At 122 she was fairly debilitated. I visited her when she was 119 in France and at that time she was pretty much blind and having very much difficulty hearing," he said.
I don't primarily want to generate a discussion of whether or not all this is possible, it's simply beyond our powers to know what will happen in 30 or 40 years. But, I would like to ask ... presume that this is possible, do you think it's a good thing? Would you love to live an extra 100 years or more? What would you do with all the extra time? I guess I might as well ask you to presume that if scientists can extend our life span, they can also extend our "youthful" years, and so the extra 100 years will come with at least a proportional increase in that regard :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Jul 28 07:28:50)
|
|
Massive over-population would result, even if the birth rate stayed the same. We better find a way to live somewhere other than this planet. We already have a problem with our population being older.
I'm not saying it isn't a good thing for people to live longer. I just don't think it should happen that fast. Society needs time to ease into something like that. Most likely, the increased lifespan will be an option only for the privileged few, at least in the short term.
What would I do with all the extra time? I have no idea. I guess I'd do pretty much what I'm doing now, or planning to do - but more of it.
|
|
|
Oh bother. *groan* I so do not want to live for more than 120 years - if I did, I'd probably be an ancient crone lying on a bed in a nursing home until I stopped breathing. What, then, is the point of living for so long, if I can't do anything productive?
I do not think it is at all a good thing. As Aule said, there are already problems with overpopulation... allow me to illustrate this by taking a look at my congregation. In the past eight years I've been there, at least a dozen babies have been born (I'm not kidding) and only one person has died. Interesting, hm? Coincidentally, I found myself mulling that over last week.
I do not think that scientists would be able expand our lives proportionately. Already children are growing faster. For example, what girls could do only after age 13, they are now doing at age 9. It would be extremely difficult to expand lives proportionately, and I would not want to live for thirty more years with nothing I am able to do. I agree with the scientists who said that our bodies are not meant to live for more than 120 years.
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Jul 28 09:50:52)
|
|
A Canadian scientist, David Suzuki, says that girls are physically maturing faster because of growth hormones and such in food. He says that the ramifications of this are far reaching, and very bad. Apparently, Canada has had and continue to increase restrictions in regard, so the problem is not as bad here as it is in the USA.
There's nothing wrong with increasing our life spans, but it should be paced to allow society to adjust as it goes.
|
|
|
 Yes, several scientists are attributing this growth to growth hormones in milk (chemicals put in pasture grass so the cows will grow nice and fat so they'll sell better; these hormones, alas, get into the milk), which is why my mother has us drink organic milk (no chemicals in the grass or anything whatsoever). If scientists intend to expand our lives proportionately, farmers will have to stop feeding their cows hormones and will have to live with fewer profits. Which is just one side factor of this whole life-expansion issue.
As for your last remark, I agree that if our lifespans were increased, it should be paced. But I just don't like the idea of living past 120 years.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
Lianachan
(Mon Jul 28 09:05:00)
|
|
 UPDATED Mon Jul 28 09:09:05 |
It would be terrible for human society. Due to a variety of things, advances in medical science not the least of them, there are already problems with over population in vast areas of the world.
I suspect living to 500, if it ever happens (I've read the science, it seems sound in principle) will be an extremely expensive priviledge, and an opportunity for only the richest people in society to prolong their lives. As is, in fact, the case with many of said advances in medical science.
"Eschew obfuscation."- Lianachan
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Mon Jul 28 16:14:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 02:32:47 |
Hmm, I see the main complaint here to be over-population.
To be honest, I've never really understood what that word means. Sure in some areas of the world there are a lot of people, but what's wrong with simply having a lot of people in one place? As long as you have a choice, and most people do still have a choice of moving out into the middle of nowhere, I don't really see a problem there.
What I think you're getting at is the lack of resources to take care of these people, which IMO, really doesn't exist. There's more than enough food and raw materials on this planet to take care of everyone, that is enough to give them at least a decent quality of life. What there isn't enough of is a volition on the part of those who have access to the resources to provide them to those who don't. Now, I'm not advocating abandoning capitalism anytime soon, but I do realize that it's an inherent flaw in mankind and will at some point have to be dealt with. I suspect that science will take care of this issue, with the invention of such a thing as a 'replicator' along the lines Star Trek. It may take awhile, but if it's possible, I'm sure it'll get done.
As to easing into immortality ... no doubt a sudden shift in human lifespan would have a great effect upon society, but I'm of the view that society can handle sudden shifts, even if individuals themselves may not. However, with regards to this perticular issue, it's unlikely there would be a sudden shift.
I can see Immortality being of great demand. Yet I can also see the technology and level of expertise required, severely limiting how many people can perform the necessary procedures. I can also see the process being extremely inefficient at first, that is, it would probably require monthly visits to the clinic for the rest of your extended life. In short, it would be very, very expensive. Only the extremely wealthy would be able to afford it at first.
Now I'm not sure of the wisdom in making Bill Gates immortal  or George Bush for that matter  ... but I am sure that it's generally better to have a person around for a few more years than to not have them around. I've always wondered what Einstein would have done if he were still alive, hey maybe we would have replicators by now. And also what Picasso, Kurosawa, Chaplain, and Tolkien might have done with their extended years. Would it be of benefit to the world to have men like that around a little longer?
As to simply increasing the span of your life, without increasing your youth, I just don't see that happening. Both lifespan and "youthfulness" are intertwined with genetics. If scientists can increase your lifespan then it's probably not that hard for them to increase your "youthful years" either. So I can actually imagine us living as "middle aged" humans for the extent of our extended lifespan. Rest assured, if Bill Gates pays to be immortal ... the next thing he'll want to pay for is to be young again :) Hopefully at some point, he'll start paying to make Einstein's closest embodiments immortal as well :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
As long as you have a choice, and most people do still have a choice of moving out into the middle of nowhere, I don't really see a problem there.
What I think you're getting at is the lack of resources to take care of these people, which IMO, really doesn't exist. There's more than enough food and raw materials on this planet to take care of everyone, that is enough to give them at least a decent quality of life. What there isn't enough of is a volition on the part of those who have access to the resources to provide them to those who don't.
Ah, but many governments do not allow citizens to emigrate, and if they do, there are so much paperwork and fees, etc, that the citizens question whether or not emigrating is worth the hassle.
It's not just the resources, Sinaes; it's disease also. History has told us time and time again that the more densely populated an area is, the faster disease spreads. Even if we were evenly populated, the earth would eventually be overpopulated because there are more being born than there are dying. When disease strikes, it'd wipe out massive numbers - the Black Death took out a third of Europe. Also, what with chronic illnesses, many people would die before they reached their age potential. Is it therefore worth it, to live for 120+ years if the chances of one dying of disease long before that are so great?
I'm of the view that society can handle sudden shifts, even if individuals themselves may not
Really? I find this very interesting. If society can handle something and individuals cannot, what then is society made of? What constitutes "society"? How do you define "society"?
Overall, I simply do not think that we should try to live longer; we already are living longer than our ancestors, what with our vitamins and diets and etc. I mean, as recently as the 1930's, people rarely lived beyond 70. What can we do, in our old age, that those whom we teach cannot?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
[quote] I mean, as recently as the 1930's, people rarely lived beyond 70.[/quote
Just a minor point to make, m'lady, but the increases in human lifespan due to medicine and lifestyle are not as dramatic as is commonly thought. Most figures that submit that the average lifespan of humans in the 15th century was 49 (for example) fails to take into account the high rates of infant mortality. If you drop all humans that die before the age of 3 and recalculate the average lifespan, you get a much higher number. No arguement, the 20th century has produced advances that have extended our lives. Yet for those that were fortunate enough to avoid fatal disease, it wasn't unheard of to live into your 70s, even 500 years ago.
|
|
|
True... the subject of infant mortality, however, brings up another issue. Of those who were born - not those who lived to adulthood - how many lived to what we currently call a "normal" lifespan?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Depending on what you want to know, we have to seperate a few issues. People live longer today than they did a couple of centuries ago, no question about that. But one of the biggest contributors to pushing up the lifespan is midicine. Much lower infant mortality, but also treatment of afflictions that would have killed strong men in their 20s and 30s. Vaccines and antibiotics and such, these have all allowed a person to live their natural span that might have ended prematurely if these tools weren't available. Every person that died of the flu in their young adulthood or suffered an injury that caused death threw blood loss or injury, all of these deaths pull the average lifespan down. And that is worth knowing, but what it's really telling you is how much safer people are today, how less likely they are to contract a fatal illness or die of an injury. This doesn't say anything about the natural span of human life. If you're interested in knowing how long a person could live in the 1500s, should they be fortunate enough to avoid accidents and illnesses, many of them would have lived into their 70s. If the fact that very few do due to above mentioned reasons as well as malnutrition, frequent fighting, etc. it is harder to make a case that the actual potential for long years has increased. The fact that people are safer only means that more of them are allowed to live out their natural span. If that natural span is actually longer is another question entirely.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that the natural span hasn't increased, only that it isn't as dramamtic as has been reported by groups that fail to take these other factors into account.
|
|
|
Ah, I understand. Thanks for making that clear, m'lord.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Mon Jul 28 23:42:15)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 02:33:50 |
Ah, but many governments do not allow citizens to emigrate, and if they do, there are so much paperwork and fees, etc, that the citizens question whether or not emigrating is worth the hassle.
For the most part immortality is not an issue for third world countries. Like I said, it would be very expensive at first so I don't see many people outside of the first world taking part in it.
And as with all new and powerful technology, there's the danger of misuse. I can easily see the Saddams of the world misusing this. But I'm not sure that it's worse to have one dictator rule for many years, than to have several rule for the same number of years. Anyway, dictators and third world countries is really a separate issue.
Getting back to the first world countries, there, you can move about fairly easily. Now I'm not talking about leaving the country, though you can do that too if you want, but more about moving from cities to more rural areas. There's really very little keeping people from moving out of New York into the middle of Montana. So if you ever do get tired of being around millions of people, you can always go someplace else more quiet.
Also, having been around this country a bit ... I can tell you that's there's a lot of undeveloped land out there. Places where really very few people choose to live. Lots of those places are pretty much deserted. Now considering that a lot of people can live on a fairly small piece of land, I think that there's plenty of space available on this planet to support a lot more people.
But that still leaves the issue of other resources and quality of life.
Quality of life is more or less provided by other people: entertainment, education, and various other services. That's one big reason why I don't have a problem with a larger population: all I see is more doctors, teachers, writers, actors, tv repair technicians, scientists, etc.
Ok, but all those people need food, clothing, water, electricity ... the essentials.
Food is easy, there's more than enough to feed everyone already, the problem is really distribution. Water, again, shouldn't be a problem considering the planet is covered by it. But living here in Vegas, I do hear about water shortages and whatnot all the time. Which again, surprises me because the Earth is covered by it 
Now don't get me wrong thinking I don't know the difference between seawater and household tap  , all I'm saying is that problems have solutions. Clothing, water, energy ... for all these I have absolutely no trouble believing that there is as yet an undiscovered scientific solution to them. Replicators for clothing, powerplants based on more fundamental physics for energy, and water should be ok once the energy needs are met.
To simply turn away from Immortality, that is to deny individuals more years to their life, simply because there are problems in the world, well to me that's not really a valid excuse. Yes there are problems, and as always, there are people who complain about them and then there are people who solve them (ussually despite the protestations )
I just don't see how giving some people more time to think about the solutions to things will hurt anyone. People become wiser and more intelligent with time, not less. Sure there's a lot of people who in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's do really stupid things, make really poor choices, but who's to say that those same people will make the same choices when they are 100, 110, 120? What is the benifit to society by having those who are foolish in youth, yet go on to mature through their experience and mistakes, go on to die when they're 70 and 80? Wouldn't it be better to let those people make use of that hard earned wisdom for another 60, 80, 100 years? Or should we just continue starting with an entirely new and still mostly foolish generation, year after year?
It's not just the resources, Sinaes; it's disease also. History has told us time and time again that the more densely populated an area is, the faster disease spreads. Even if we were evenly populated, the earth would eventually be overpopulated because there are more being born than there are dying. When disease strikes, it'd wipe out massive numbers - the Black Death took out a third of Europe. Also, what with chronic illnesses, many people would die before they reached their age potential. Is it therefore worth it, to live for 120+ years if the chances of one dying of disease long before that are so great?
Eowyn, are you saying that we should not increase population because more people might die. I don't know about that one :)
For me every person represents a world of possibility. And while it's true that the majority don't really make the most of what they have, as someone else pointed out, there is the Bell Curve. That is someone will make the most of what they have, not everyone will waste their life away. And guess what, ussually all it takes to dramatically improve eveyone's life, is just for one person to get things right. One person is really all it ussually takes to solve any disease or to unravel the mysteries of the universe that allow yet others to create the technologies that improve our quality of life. It took two people to figure out the structure of DNA, two people to master flight, one person to create LOTR ;)
Above anything else, what one person can contribute, is proving that something is possible. I mean for thousands of years people said flying was for "the birds", I bet even the Wright brothers heard that one more than once while they were going about building their plane. Yet, once they proved that wasn't true ... it wasn't long at all before other people figured out how to use planes for war, for transportation, for amusement, for business, so on. All it takes is for one or two people to plant a "seed", and pretty soon all society has changed for the better.
For me, each additional person that is born represents another chance for the world to find one of these people.
"I'm of the view that society can handle sudden shifts, even if individuals themselves may not"
Really? I find this very interesting. If society can handle something and individuals cannot, what then is society made of? What constitutes "society"? How do you define "society"?
History is full of sudden shifts. In fact, if we weren't living in one now, we would almost certainly recognize that the past century was full of them. Shifts happen, society goes on. Maybe a changed society, but we're still here more or less. When I say individuals can't handle it, what I mean is that some people don't like change. They want to live in their society and their main reason in opposing change is because things will no longer be the same.
Overall, I simply do not think that we should try to live longer; we already are living longer than our ancestors, what with our vitamins and diets and etc. I mean, as recently as the 1930's, people rarely lived beyond 70. What can we do, in our old age, that those whom we teach cannot?
Well, I'll ask you straight question Eowyn: presuming that you are in peak physical condition when you get older, so just like an elf you don't appear to age, are you saying that you don't feel you can contribute more to society as a 50 year old than you could as a 20 year old?
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
For the most part immortality is not an issue for third world countries. Like I said, it would be very expensive at first so I don't see many people outside of the first world taking part in it.
What I'm wondering is, how would they begin? Would they just choose a random family and play around with their genes? In that case, it's still on the level of experimentation, and the family would be paid because it's their genes that are being messed with. At this point the whole concept is still conceptual and things are very likely to go wrong. And what if it is successful? And other families want it done?
On the more fantastical side... if - after a while - this intentional mutation of genes is constrained only within richer countries (the States, Canada, a handful of European countries, perhaps), other countries, including third-world nations, will want to know how we did it. And then they, too, will want to live longer. I cannot tell you how many historical figures have tried to find a magical elixir that would make one immortal; if so many people of the past wanted virtual immortality, then it's only logical that just as many or more people do today. Like I said, this is a little fantastical, but I'm willing to bet that wars will start because "only rich folk can afford it" and new hatreds and prejudices will sprout.
but more about moving from cities to more rural areas. There's really very little keeping people from moving out of New York into the middle of Montana.
The reason why rural areas are so uninhabited is because they are inhabitable. Do we want people moving around in the deserts of North America, searching for oases, as if they were nomads? Do people who live comfortably in the big city with conveniences at their doors want to move into a log cabin in the middle of the woods because the government says we need to evenly distribute our population?
There is also the matter of environment preservation. Once, in the 1700's, a squirrel could run from branch to branch, without ever touching the ground, all the way from Texas to Florida. How many of those trees have survived? Our national parks make up - I'm hazarding a guess here - 5% of the country. Would the government want people to move to rural areas, even that aren't part of a national park, to hunt down all our endangered species and to chop down all our trees?
living here in Vegas, I do hear about water shortages and whatnot all the time. Which again, surprises me because the Earth is covered by it
Considering less than 13% of Earth's water is drinkable... it would cost more than it's worth to even try to filter ocean water, anyway.
Sure there's a lot of people who in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's do really stupid things, make really poor choices, but who's to say that those same people will make the same choices when they are 100, 110, 120? What is the benifit to society by having those who are foolish in youth, yet go on to mature through their experience and mistakes, go on to die when their 70 and 80? Wouldn't it be better to let those people make use of that hard earned wisdom for another 60, 80, 100 years? Or should we just continue starting with an entirely new and still mostly foolish generation, year after year?
The thing is, we've been doing that (training up an immature generation into a reliable source of information and support) for every generation of Earth's existence. It works. If it didn't, we'd have tried something else many centuries ago. Are you saying that prolonging lives is the better solution? I doubt that many would be willing to take such a risk, if they look at long-term effects.
Eowyn, are you saying that we should not increase population because more people might die. I don't know about that one
Yes, I am. The spread of disease, etc, is enough to counteract overpopulation.
One person is really all it ussually takes to solve any disease or to unravel the mysteries of the universe that allow yet others to create the technologies that improve our quality of life. It took two people to figure out the structure of DNA, two people to master flight, one person to create LOTR
While it's a cool concept, such a statement is inaccurate. In the words of Sir Isaac Newton - "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." In other words, Sir Isaac could not have done the things he did or discovered the things he discovered if he had not studied the works and experiments of his predecessors in that field. The same goes for Watson and Crick, the Wright brothers, and even Tolkien himself. Allow me to elaborate.
Watson and Crick were an American-English team, only one pair of many trying to discover the structure and components of DNA. Rosaline Franklin headed her own research and produced telling photographs of DNA. The fact that Watson and Crick stole a key photograph of hers is widely-known, and the fact that Watson suddenly realised, after analysing the photo, the structure of one component of DNA (which, conseqently, was the key to their unravelling the rest of DNA) is also well-known. It goes without saying that Watson and Crick could not have done what they did without Rosaline Franklin's photograph. In fact, Franklin would have been given a Nobel Prize alongside Watson and Crick, had she not died of breast cancer before she could receive her well-earned prize.
Now the Wright brothers. They did not suddenly dream up ideas for a flying machine. They did, however, intensely study, among others, the papers of Leonardo daVinci, who drew up plans for a flying machine (which was unsuccessful, due to only a few factors) more than half a century before. The similarities between daVinci's plans and the Wrights' plans are uncanny.
Finally, our beloved J.R.R. Tolkien. While much of his work was original, there are several unmistakable similarities between his works and mythology. You can take a look at my "Odyssey vs. LotR" thread for a pantheon of examples, but the most notable is Beowulf. Tolkien had a passion for Norse mythology, and he read Beowulf extensively. Bilbo's encounter with Smaug and Aragorn's entrance at Meduseld - among others, and characters besides - are amazingly similar to Beowulf's adventures. Arguably, Tolkien could have written an adequate version of "The Hobbit" and LotR without studying mythology, but I doubt it would be the epic fantasy series we know today.
Now, let's wrap up this portion with a few final words. Yes, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, with Franklin's help (though she refused to aid them and thus they had to steal, not borrow, the picture). However, that is only the first step of the many things we can do with DNA today, such as cloning. Without someone taking Watson and Crick's observances and acting upon them, we wouldn't be altering genes or battling viruses or cloning at all. Instead, we'd merely be studying the structure of DNA, without knowing what we are able to do with it. Yes, the Wright brothers built and flew the first successful airplane. But if someone had not taken their ideas and expanded on it - instead of being the awed and otherwise uninterested passerby - we wouldn't have warplanes, passenger airlines, or private jets. And etc, etc, etc.
It is therefore necessary that we leave behind a record of our doings, for people in the future to study and act upon in an effort to improve their lives. If all we did was make discoveries and just look at the pretty pictures and do nothing about it, we'd still be in the Middle Ages, at the latest.
All it takes is for one or two people to plant a "seed", and pretty soon all society has changed for the better.
I've already expanded on this general idea, but this is a slightly different deviation from the general idea. Yes, it only takes a handful of people to plant a seed, but it is up to those who follow those people to care for the plant - to water it, protect it from predators, etc. If we do not nourish the plant, it will die and we will lose the seed - the idea/discovery - until someone buries around looking for it.
History is full of sudden shifts. In fact, if we weren't living in one now, we would almost certainly recognize that the past century was full of them. Shifts happen, society goes on. Maybe a changed society, but we're still here more or less. When I say individuals can't handle it, what I mean is that some people don't like change. They want to live in their society and their main reason in opposing change is because things will no longer be the same.
 I still don't understand how you define "society."
presuming that you are in peak physical condition when you get older, so just like an elf you don't appear to age, are you saying that you don't feel you can contribute more to society as a 50 year old than you could as a 20 year old?
 Would scientists even be able to do such a thing?
Anyway... that wraps up this message.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 13:21:41)
|
|
First, thanks for that long and well-thought out response
What I'm wondering is, how would they begin? Would they just choose a random family and play around with their genes? In that case, it's still on the level of experimentation, and the family would be paid because it's their genes that are being messed with. At this point the whole concept is still conceptual and things are very likely to go wrong. And what if it is successful? And other families want it done?
This is part of the reason why I think there's a good chance science will have found solutions to resource issues by the time immortality enters common usage. Even if the technology for immortality were to be developed in the next 60 years, it will still need to be tested on humans.
I'm sure that at first it would be a few volunteers, probably very late in age. Then they'd be observed for decades to see that the treatment was actually working and what side-effects it was having. Then they'd have to test the procedure for people even younger. I'm pretty sure it will take decades of testing and research before 'immortality' would actually be a medically approved procedure. So what we're looking at here is something that won't even be available for another hundred years. Then, when it's gotten medical approval, it will still be a very expensive procedure. I don't see too many doctors being qualified in the procedure, the equipment necessary will be highly specialized, and the demand for 'immortality' will be so great ... that the price will have to be astronomically high.
I can easily see this being a million dollar+ procedure by today's standards, and that's probably being conservative. So that does fairly restrict who will be able to take part in this at first.
On the more fantastical side... if - after a while - this intentional mutation of genes is constrained only within richer countries (the States, Canada, a handful of European countries, perhaps), other countries, including third-world nations, will want to know how we did it. And then they, too, will want to live longer. I cannot tell you how many historical figures have tried to find a magical elixir that would make one immortal; if so many people of the past wanted virtual immortality, then it's only logical that just as many or more people do today. Like I said, this is a little fantastical, but I'm willing to bet that wars will start because "only rich folk can afford it" and new hatreds and prejudices will sprout.
I do see a new prejudice for the rich, but they're not very much liked by poor folk anyway Besides the rich are wealthy enough to stay secluded from the rest of the world and still be relatively happy. Also, remember that most of those rich enough to afford the procedure will be actors, athletes, writers, scientists, etc. In other words, people the public admires and generally respects. That should help to offset some of the prejudice. But what will really offset it is when the rich immortal 'elves' decide to be magnanimous and start funding research for a cheaper way to achieve immortality :) Maybe I'm being a bit idealistic, but I see a lot of insentive for those who have become immortal, to not want to be isolated from everyone else due to that.
I don't ever see wars starting because of this, that really wouldn't help anyone. I do see wealthy countries of the world collaborating to find a cheaper way to undergo immortality. Most likely this will eventually be the sort of thing one takes out a loan for, you know half a million dollars. So you'll be spending the next hundred years working it off (for anyone who was wondering what immortals do with all that free time) ... but hey, at least you get to live longer too. Maybe that will give people an insentive to find a job they really love.
Third world countries are another matter. Honestly, if there still are third world countries by the time immortality becomes a household name, then shame on us, the first world-countries. However, even if the procedure isn't at first available to the third world, I see it greatly benefitting them in the long run.
Despite what other people have said, you can't really replace an Einstein. Yes, he can write down everything important he knows, he can teach that to the next generation, he can shown them how he thinks and arrives at things. But ultimately, only Einstein is Einstein. Everytime a person like him dies, it's a tremendous loss to science and human civilization.
Now, what if all the Nobel caliber scientists didn't die? Do you think the progress of science would remain at the same rate it's at now, or do you think it would exponentially increase as the Einsteins of the world accumulate over time? Now science can't solve everything, but a lot of things it can. How to provide energy for all the world's population, how to provide water and food, hopefully someday, how to provide any material good as well.
I can easily see these things being done once the scientists of the first world reach immortality. Immortality may create new problems in the short-run, but it's also part of the solution to all those problems in the long-run.
The reason why rural areas are so uninhabited is because they are inhabitable.
Well, don't tell that to the rural folk ;)
Do we want people moving around in the deserts of North America, searching for oases, as if they were nomads? Do people who live comfortably in the big city with conveniences at their doors want to move into a log cabin in the middle of the woods because the government says we need to evenly distribute our population?
No, I'm not advocating forced movement. All I was saying was that you have a choice to move to a small town if you think cities are getting too crowded. For most of the world's population this isn't a problem. Generally, if you grow up in a large city, you pretty much get accustomed to living in that kind of environment, and you actually wouldn't feel comfortable moving out to a small town in the middle of nowhere.
There is also the matter of environment preservation. Once, in the 1700's, a squirrel could run from branch to branch, without ever touching the ground, all the way from Texas to Florida. How many of those trees have survived? Our national parks make up - I'm hazarding a guess here - 5% of the country. Would the government want people to move to rural areas, even that aren't part of a national park, to hunt down all our endangered species and to chop down all our trees?
My pity goes out to the squirrels But really, I'm a bigger fan of the human species. I don't believe that it's at all wrong to change land usage from the natural environment to the human environment. That said, I'm not looking for Earth to turn into Coruscant anytime soon  I think that the natural world is entirely an important part of our human existance. But I think there's room for humans and squirrels, though I think the squirrels may have to live with not having the entire continent to themselves anymore :)
Considering less than 13% of Earth's water is drinkable... it would cost more than it's worth to even try to filter ocean water, anyway.
By modern tech, yes. But I wonder what the "worth" of the water is if in fact it's a necessity. In any case, I think this problem will be solved once science gives us a cheap, abundant source of energy. Hey, just the solar power alone that goes wasted everyday, would probably be enough to filter that water if we could only harness that energy effeciently.
"Yes, I am. The spread of disease, etc, is enough to counteract overpopulation."
Spread of disease is only a worry for communicable diseases, almost all of which we already have a cure for. In the first world countries where immortality would be popularized, this wouldn't really be a big problem.
Third world countries, would be something else. But again, I'm hoping all those Einsteins working together can figure out a cheap way to produce medicines as well.
While it's a cool concept, such a statement is inaccurate. In the words of Sir Isaac Newton - "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." In other words, Sir Isaac could not have done the things he did or discovered the things he discovered if he had not studied the works and experiments of his predecessors in that field. The same goes for Watson and Crick, the Wright brothers, and even Tolkien himself. Allow me to elaborate.
Well, I know that :) No man is an island. What I should have said is, all it usually takes to solve a problem is one person working with what was already there ;)
Yes, it only takes a handful of people to plant a seed, but it is up to those who follow those people to care for the plant - to water it, protect it from predators, etc. If we do not nourish the plant, it will die and we will lose the seed - the idea/discovery - until someone buries around looking for it.
But this part is almost a given. I mean it's not like Francis and Crick where researching DNA 'just because' or the Wright Brothers decided to build a plane just for fun. No, with almost all major advances in technology, there was already a huge demand for the product long before anyone had discovered it. People have been wanting to cure heredetary disease, stop aging, fly, etc for thousands of years. They just didn't know how. As soon as someone plants that seed by making the breakthorugh discovery, it's pretty much a given that people will explore that concept to its natural fruition.
"presuming that you are in peak physical condition when you get older, so just like an elf you don't appear to age, are you saying that you don't feel you can contribute more to society as a 50 year old than you could as a 20 year old?"
"Would scientists even be able to do such a thing"
Actually, yes. If they can keep you alive forever, then they can manipulate the genes to regenerate your body the way it did in it's youth. The two fields "life extension" and "rejuvination" are more or less linked.
Again, thanks for your reply :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
My pity goes out to the squirrels But really, I'm a bigger fan of the human species. I don't believe that it's at all wrong to change land usage from the natural environment to the human environment.
Well that's a rather selfish human attitude to take! Pish tush and fie sir, I think you should share and share alike! Goodness. And they set up an ASL against me. 
But I think there's room for humans and squirrels, though I think the squirrels may have to live with not having the entire continent to themselves anymore :)
I'll show you! I'll SHOW YOU ALL!
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
 the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 19:21:38)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 03:31:15 |
Careful Ms. Squirrel, the ASL is in a lull, you wouldn't want to rile them up again would you? huh? huh?
I knew the mention of squirrels would get your attention
As soon as Eowyn brought them up I thought to myself, "how long will it be before a certain someone show's up"
On a more serious note, of all the displaced creatures, squirrels have the least to worry about. Humans like to keep trees around, even if they have an aversion to entire forests. Not only that, squirrels have been known to adapt well with the human environment so long as it's not overly developed. I've known many squirrels that lived in the trees of people's yards. Then there's always the park, squirrels run rampid there ;)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Rile them up again? Pah, they don't frighten me. Fools!
Yeah well you can't get away with mentioning my fellow squirrels without drawing my attention. Nothing slips past this fearless leader! 
On a more serious note , my point was only using squirrels because that's what people associate with me - I still say that it's terribly selfish of humans to "have an aversion to entire forests" where animals - and not necessarily squirrels - have established their natural habitats. You don't see animals bulldozing down houses to re-plant trees and stuff to accommodate their ever expanding populace now do you!
the bells the bells! SANCTUARY! The bells are my friends you know...
|
|
|
| by -
Lady-Eowyn
(Tue Jul 29 16:46:34)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Aug 4 13:06:00 |
I'll reply as thoroughly as I can later. Just fyi!
Much Later...
Here is the reply, as promised.
Now, what if all the Nobel caliber scientists didn't die? Do you think the progress of science would remain at the same rate it's at now, or do you think it would exponentially increase as the Einsteins of the world accumulate over time?
Yes, I suppose our knowledge and understanding of the world would exponentially increase. It is worth noting that most Nobel scientists won the prestigious award for discovering something new. However, it takes someone who looks at the entire project from a different angle and who thinks differently from the Nobel scientist to apply that knowledge; in other words, Nobel scientists very rarely do more research or test their finding's applicability, and their success at their continuation of the project is even more rare. Which means that at some point the usefulness of the Nobel scientist expires, because his point-of-view may blind him to more applicable factors.
I hope that isn't confusing... my mind is full of loose cogs and wheels today.
All I was saying was that you have a choice to move to a small town if you think cities are getting too crowded. For most of the world's population this isn't a problem.
I can understand how you've reached such a conclusion, but I disagree. Yes, people have the choice, but how will they choose? Which path will they tread? Humans in general are notorious for being short-sighted, and that could be the downfall here. Many people will not realise why they should be distributed evenly, so they will not move from their comfortable dwellings in the city and suburb. If the cities become more and more populated because everyone is immortal (this is in the far future), the government will eventually have to step in and distribute the population. Which introduces a jolly new set of political problems.
I don't believe that it's at all wrong to change land usage from the natural environment to the human environment. That said, I'm not looking for Earth to turn into Coruscant anytime soon I think that the natural world is entirely an important part of our human existance. But I think there's room for humans and squirrels, though I think the squirrels may have to live with not having the entire continent to themselves anymore :)
 It's not just the squirrels. What about animals that require a broad perimeter in which to live, such as caribou and wolves? No matter how spacious their living area is, many animals will die or grow sickly when in captivity because they don't have enough space. Squirrels and birds and other such animals have adapted marvelously well to new developments in what used to be their territory, but the same cannot be said of the "wilder" species. Only recently has the California condor made its comeback; will its population be forced to dwindle once again?
Spread of disease is only a worry for communicable diseases, almost all of which we already have a cure for. In the first world countries where immortality would be popularized, this wouldn't really be a big problem.
Au contraire, we have very few cures for any disease, when taking into consideration the spectrum of diseases that afflict mankind. A cure is a complete comeback; it thoroughly annihilates the disease. An example? Polio. A vaccine was developed for polio, and as far as I know there has not been a case of polio in the States ever since children were required to be vaccinated at a certain age. Sadly, the same cannot be said of many diseases. While we have antibiotics and other such developments to fight back afflictions such as chicken pox and malaria, they cannot wholly cure anyone with the disease(s). And even vaccinations wear off; there is a reason why you have to get your shots for tetanus and other such diseases during your regular checkup at the doctor's.
Besides, the problem is not just communicable diseases; genetic diseases also have to be considered. Many times in history has the fact that in a concentrated population, genetic diseases are rampant and worse than "usual" been proven. In a concentrated and isolated population, variety within genetic makeup and sequences is highly restricted. Why? Because the same families intermarry, over and over and over again. Furthermore, if a man and a woman - both of whom have the same genetic disease - their offspring will be affected by that disease even more than the parents. And then the grandchildren will be horror stories since the original couple's children will have married people with a gene for that same disease (because this is a concentrated and isolated population). And the beat goes on.
Anyway, I am tired and have a headache because I've been thinking and debating this general topic so much. I think I'll go get a glass of water now.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
I agree with the posters above who have suggested that overpopulation, i.e. increasing the requirements of resources and environmental damage to a point that we cannot cope with, is a hazard of dramatically increasing human lifespan.
I suspect that science, once again, will take care of this issue, with the invention of such a thing as a 'replicator' along the lines of Star Trek. It may take awhile, but if it's possible, I'm sure it'll get done.
Technology may provide solutions for a higher population density, but even with our current spate of years researchers will be hard-pressed to come up with them in a desireable timeframe. What this optimisim also fails to account for is that one area of technology (molecular biology, i.e. life extension) may move well ahead of the fields required to complement it (e.g. waste disposal, food production and distubution, renewable energy sources). Without some very promising technologies in the pipeline to deal with the issues of a massive increase in population, it would be madness to double or triple current lifespans.
I agree with the idea that when science reaches the point where it can extend life, it would extend youth as well. There is already a decent understanding of how the body "wears out" and technology would be used to suspend this process - I don't envision people living in their geriatric years for 50 years.
And also what Picasso, Kurosawa, Chaplain, and Tolkien might have done with their extended years. Would it be of benefit to the world to have men like that around a little longer?
It is tempting to consider the benefits of giving the world decades or centuries more of the people who were a positive benefit upon our history. Now this is going to sound incredibly pessimistic but I'm going to risk it anyways: For every Einstein, how many morons do you have sitting in Jerry Springer's audience? For every Martin Luthor King, how many ignorant bigots, full of hate? If we assume that this life extension would become a standard practice (say part of prenatal care) in the population, I don't know that most people even warrant the 70-80 years that they already have. How many people live utterly bland, unremarkable lives without making any sort of lasting contribution? How many of them are essentially cows that can speak, doing the same things everyday, never really questioning their own existence or trying to expand their abilities? Given how easily governments are able to manipulate their citizens, I'd venture that this describes a large portion of the population. Before you denounce me as a rabid elitist, let me add one more thing: I'm not suggesting that the Joe Blows of the world don't have a right to life, or that I wish they weren't there. Human potential resembles a bell curve; it is the Everyman plugging away that provides the frame of reference for realizing the greatness of the Einsteins (anyone get that pun?) and Mozarts. But it strikes me that the extra years would be wasted upon most of the recipients. Few people would accomplish in 150 years what they couldn't in 70.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 00:09:23)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Jul 29 01:09:21 |
Thanks for your comments.
Technology may provide solutions for a higher population density, but even with our current spate of years researchers will be hard-pressed to come up with them in a desireable timeframe. What this optimisim also fails to account for is that one area of technology (molecular biology, i.e. life extension) may move well ahead of the fields required to complement it (e.g. waste disposal, food production and distubution, renewable energy sources).
The reason why the technology of life extension is developing at a faster rate is because it has been a generally unexplored area until recently. I know it may appear as though we'll be immortal before we can deal with some of the resource issues, but I don't think it's purely blind optimism to expect that that won't be the case. Looking back over the past 100 years, I can confidently say that we have solved many problems which existed back then. If the development of science continues along a similar rate over the next hundred years, I do feel we'll have the technology ready to deal with some if not all of the other issues involved with immortality.
It is tempting to consider the benefits of giving the world decades or centuries more of the people who were a positive benefit upon our history.
Hmm, I see how quickly we moved past this point ;)
Now this is going to sound incredibly pessimistic but I'm going to risk it anyways: For every Einstein, how many morons do you have sitting in Jerry Springer's audience? For every Martin Luthor King, how many ignorant bigots, full of hate? If we assume that this life extension would become a standard practice (say part of prenatal care) in the population, I don't know that most people even warrant the 70-80 years that they already have. How many people live utterly bland, unremarkable lives without making any sort of lasting contribution? How many of them are essentially cows that can speak, doing the same things everyday, never really questioning their own existence or trying to expand their abilities? Given how easily governments are able to manipulate their citizens, I'd venture that this describes a large portion of the population.
Yes, so there are a lot of average people in this world. Apparantly, this translates into some sort of problem, ok fine. So what's your solution?
Well let's see ... we let everyone die just like they've always been doing.
Ok, so Einstein, Tolkien, and all these other Joe Blows fade away ... or do they? Well, Joe Blow does still have children ... and most of them are Joe Blow too. So we're constantly replacing Joe with more Joes, but what about Einstein and Tolkien, have we replaced them as well?
Which brings me to my point, I'm talking about adding to society. I will contend that Joe Blow at age 80 is not nearly the same creature as Joe Blow at age 20. I will also contend, that Joe Blow at age 120 would remarkably, not appear to be so much Joe Blow anymore. I've never really met anyone that old, Einstein or Joe, that seemed like they wouldn't have anything to contribute to society, if only they could.
And in addition to all these wisened former Springer fans ;) ... we also get the wisened Einsteins, which IMO is worth the price of even a whole bunch of immortal unwisened Joes. I strongly contend that if just Einstein had lived to be 120, and thus had had access to all the technologies and discoveries of the past 50 years, that we probably wouldn't be worried about resource needs :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Jul 28 20:02:23)
|
|
With all due respect, that's just naive. We can't sustain much more population growth, and we can't sustain the drain on our resources as it is. We're not talking about individuals here, but humankind. If a few individuals live longer, the worst that can happen is that we have a despot. If all or most of humankind is living longer, in too short a period of time, then we'll have a disaster beyond imagining.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 00:26:11)
|
|
I'm not sure which part you think is naive :)
I'll admit that I may be somewhat naive, though I'm not really sure if it's naive to view human beings as inherently good, and thus the extension of their life as inherently good.
As to the whole immortality thing ...
1) It won't happen for at least another 75 years.
2) It's not entirely unreasonable to expect all of science to have significantly advanced in that time frame, which should be able to provide at least some answers to the resource problems we apparantly have now.
3) At first only the VERY wealthy would be able to afford it.
4) Over time, the procedure(s) would become more readily available ... but I still don't see any way that this won't always be the most expensive medical treatment anywhere.
5) Releastically, I don't see immortality being a possibility for the overwhelming majority for at least the next hundred years. Wich means there wouldn't be a tremendous shift in population. At most it would be the wealthiest 1% that would go through this. That's an extra 60 million people, if even that. That's really nothing the world can't absorb, especially considering that these people are also wealthy enough to be able to support themselves.
6) In that top 1% would be some of the world's brightest minds. Simply stopping an end to losing the Einsteins of the world, should in and of itself, increase the rate of scientific development. Therefore I propose that it will take much less time to find a technological solution to the world's problems if immortality is achieved, then if it is not.
7) The technology of immortality would slowly become available to everyone else. Hopefully, with the boost to science because of the increased number of brilliant minds, 150 years from now when immortality becomes widespread, we will have good scientific solutions to the production of food, energy, and so on.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
I can't, (and wouldn't want to), imagine living that long.
"His madness keeps him sane, doesn't it?"
"Do you think he is the only one?"
|
|
|
I definitely think immortality is a bad idea. We are largely defined by what we choose to do with our lives. It would be meaningless if everybody lived long enough to do everything, or even most things. Choice is vital, so taking away the need to make choices is stripping life of its most important quality.
That said, I don't know whether the current life span is the best possible length. By how much would an extra fifty years of life devalue it? I don't know about that. But I don't think the ideal length would be much longer than it is now.
Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 01:12:45)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Jul 29 01:31:42 |
I definitely think immortality is a bad idea. We are largely defined by what we choose to do with our lives. It would be meaningless if everybody lived long enough to do everything, or even most things. Choice is vital, so taking away the need to make choices is stripping life of its most important quality.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think it would be meaningless if everyone did everything? I don't know, maybe Tolkien's books would be useless if eveyone lived long enough to learn how to write like that. But wouldn't that in fact mean that the world was filled with Tolkien quality works?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a world where every book was that good. And I think choice will still be here :) I mean, some people would choose to become good writers in addition to something else. But others would probably choose to only write. And yet others would choose to only read.
I don't know, I think I'm the only one who sees good in all this. I began the topic by saying 'Real Life Elves'. I believe that immortality is the key difference between men and elves.
Elves live forever, yet they don't have overpopulation, resource issues, etc.
I know that people will say there are other big differences between the two races. But I think that the increased wisdom, grace, and all-around perfection of the elves would come to men with an increased lifespan. Afterall, most people I know, become wiser and indeed 'better' people with age. That is how humans mature and become 'elf-like', by experience. An increase in life-span, would give people time to accumulate that extra experience and thus truly mature. Science would also hopefully be able to give them a youthful body as well, so that they could put that maturity to use. I see immortal humans becoming very much like elves.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
First, Sinaes, I just want to say it's great that you're replying so thoughtfully to everybody who's joined the discussion.
Right, then.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a world where every book was that good.
In my opinion, it's the fact that every book isn't that good that makes us like these. Wouldn't you rather know that you had found something special than know that this is just what you happened to stumble across--that it's not distinguished among everything else? That if you'd happened to stumble across something different, you would feel the same way about it? If everything's the same, everything is interchangeable. You wouldn't know whether every book in the world was excellent, or whether they were all horrible, because you couldn't compare.
Now, I understand the weakness of that argument. You can't quite assume that it's only quality that can distinguish one thing from another. (So why am I not changing what I wrote? Maybe I'm assuming you like stream-of-consciousness replies.) But here's something else you said before that:
I don't know, maybe Tolkien's books would be useless if eveyone lived long enough to learn how to write like that.
Maybe it's not Tolkien's books that would be useless--maybe it's Tolkien himself. Do you really feel your best when you look at something you've done and thought, "Anybody else could have done this as well"? Or what if you did everything perfectly? You could cure cancer and think, "It's no better than anything else I've ever done."
But wouldn't that in fact mean that the world was filled with Tolkien quality works?
Yes. So no one would care when another one came along, really. I mean, as it is now, being hailed as "the next Tolkien" would be an incredible compliment. After a couple hundred "next Tolkiens," the idea would lose its lustre.
Regarding choice, I probably came over too strong on that. You are right to say that people would still have choice. But I really do think that the fact that life is, really, short makes our choices more meaningful. A choice is not only what you actively choose, but what you choose to give up. Knowing that you have a basically infinite amount of time to pursue the lost alternatives diminishes the value you put on what you did choose. (I am talking here about dreams, careers, goals, etc. I realize that some personal opportunity costs couldn't be reclaimed even with an infinite amount of time in which to do it.)
But I think that the increased wisdom, grace, and all-around perfection of the elves would come to men with an increased lifespan. Afterall, most people I know, become wiser and indeed 'better' people with age.
"Better" is good. But "perfection"? This is similar to your analogy with Tolkien's works. They stand out above many other books as closer to perfect. In a sea of perfect books, they would be lost. Or consider people. If there were perfect people, what would we think of those who hadn't reached perfection yet? They would just be flawed. As it is, no one is perfect--no one has every good quality, so we can appreciate the ones individuals do have.
I see immortal humans becoming very much like elves.
What if all the characters in LOTR were elves? What if Middle-Earth was inhabited entirely by elves? They wouldn't be the fairest, the wisest--they'd just be.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jul 31 03:10:55)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 03:23:27 |
First, thanks, for your kind words, I try :)
In my opinion, it's the fact that every book isn't that good that makes us like these. Wouldn't you rather know that you had found something special than know that this is just what you happened to stumble across--that it's not distinguished among everything else? That if you'd happened to stumble across something different, you would feel the same way about it? If everything's the same, everything is interchangeable. You wouldn't know whether every book in the world was excellent, or whether they were all horrible, because you couldn't compare.
Now, I understand the weakness of that argument. You can't quite assume that it's only quality that can distinguish one thing from another. (So why am I not changing what I wrote? Maybe I'm assuming you like stream-of-consciousness replies.) But here's something else you said before that
Ok :)
Maybe it's not Tolkien's books that would be useless--maybe it's Tolkien himself. Do you really feel your best when you look at something you've done and thought, "Anybody else could have done this as well"? Or what if you did everything perfectly? You could cure cancer and think, "It's no better than anything else I've ever done.
Well, I don't really see anyone who truly loves what they're doing, to be saddened by the fact that everyone else can do it now too. I honestly can't picture Tolkien stop writing his stories no matter what anyone else does.
People who truly love doing something (whether it be writing, music, acting, whatnot) do it for the love, not for the recognition or anything else. I'll also submit to you, that anyone who does a work of love, or a work of passion, has the upper hand really over anyone who doesn't do it out of the same motivations. Through the time afforded by immortality, the average person may learn to write extraordinarily well, as well as a New York Times editor perhaps. However it will only be those like Tolkien, those who actually devote their entire life to a given thing ... that will create the truly exceptional works.
I don't envisage a world where only the common man benefits, but also the uncommon man. How much do you think Tolkien benefits, by having everyone be better able to perceive and thus be better able to appreciate the finer points in LOTR? Looking at something and saying it's great is one thing. Looking at something and knowing it's great because you personally know what it would take to create it, is another.
. So no one would care when another one came along, really. I mean, as it is now, being hailed as "the next Tolkien" would be an incredible compliment. After a couple hundred "next Tolkiens," the idea would lose its lustre.
Yes, but now we're getting back to issues of status and recognition, which really isn't all that important. Anyone who sets out to write primarily because he wants to be the next Tolkien, IMO, could better spend his time doing something else, something he truly feels compelled to do.
regarding choice, I probably came over too strong on that. You are right to say that people would still have choice. But I really do think that the fact that life is, really, short makes our choices more meaningful. A choice is not only what you actively choose, but what you choose to give up. Knowing that you have a basically infinite amount of time to pursue the lost alternatives diminishes the value you put on what you did choose. (I am talking here about dreams, careers, goals, etc. I realize that some personal opportunity costs couldn't be reclaimed even with an infinite amount of time in which to do it.
Well, it must be a comforting thought to those who get things right ... that faced with seemingly infinite choices, they chose the correct and best ones. Ok, bravo to the six people out there.
For the rest of us mortals, 20, 30, 40 years really isn't enough time to figure life out. I've never composed music, but who knows, maybe if I knew how, I could be great at it and more importantly I might love it. I think my quality of life would be significantly improved if I could find something like that, and I doubt that it would just be my quality of life that would be improved. As things stand now, it's really a matter of luck. I really don't mind eliminating chance out of the equation.
"Better" is good. But "perfection"? This is similar to your analogy with Tolkien's works. They stand out above many other books as closer to perfect. In a sea of perfect books, they would be lost. Or consider people. If there were perfect people, what would we think of those who hadn't reached perfection yet? They would just be flawed. As it is, no one is perfect--no one has every good quality, so we can appreciate the ones individuals do have.
I'd love to be able to admire everyone :)
Also, I think you'll find that 'perfect' people aren't as critical of those who aren't. Afterall, we were all imperfect once.
What if all the characters in LOTR were elves? What if Middle-Earth was inhabited entirely by elves? They wouldn't be the fairest, the wisest--they'd just be.
You know, I'm kind of surprised that you're such a big advocate of the pyramid scheme. That is, a few creme de la creme with quality progressively getting worse from there. For every person at the top, there's millions in the gutter. Now I'm not the Micheal Jordan of anything, but if I were, I wouldn't be at all upset if everyone else was that good :) Hey, the real Micheal probably would welcome that ;)
Shakespeare, Mozart, Da Vinci, Einstein, I don't really see those people being upset at losing their 'idol' status, in exchange for a world filled with beauty.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Well, it must be a comforting thought to those who get things right ... that faced with seemingly infinite choices, they chose the correct and best ones. Ok, bravo to the six people out there.
For the rest of us mortals, 20, 30, 40 years really isn't enough time to figure life out.
I'm not sure where we disagree here. I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to imply) that anybody ever figures life out, or knows that they make the right choice.
Well, I don't really see anyone who truly loves what they're doing, to be saddened by the fact that everyone else can do it now too.
You did catch a gaping flaw in my argument there. I completely forgot that it is possible to love what you're doing. I know that sounds insane, but when I read that part of your reply, it was like being hit over the head with a hammer, seriously. But before you think I'm too awful, I wasn't thinking very much in terms of recognition from other people either. Although I did think of it, that part of your reply was also mostly a surprise to me. I was focused (way too exclusively) on a personal feeling of accomplishment and achievement.
How much do you think Tolkien benefits, by having everyone be better able to perceive and thus be better able to appreciate the finer points in LOTR? Looking at something and saying it's great is one thing. Looking at something and knowing it's great because you personally know what it would take to create it, is another.
This is a good point. However, to me this benefit would not be worth the disadvantages.
I'd love to be able to admire everyone :)
Also, I think you'll find that 'perfect' people aren't as critical of those who aren't. Afterall, we were all imperfect once
That's generous of you. However, I really don't think any of us are perfect. It's true that if we ever achieved that, the perfect people wouldn't be critical of imperfect people. What I meant was that if some people were perfect, the remaining imperfect people would find it difficult to appreciate the other imperfect people.
You know, I'm kind of surprised that you're such a big advocate of the pyramid scheme. That is, a few creme de la creme with quality progressively getting worse from there. For every person at the top, there's millions in the gutter.
"The gutter" is a little harsh. I never meant to devalue the lives of everyone who isn't "Shakespeare, Mozart, Da Vinci, Einstein". But I do believe that some people's accomplishments give their lives incredible meaning. You knew those people's names, didn't you?
Now I'm not the Micheal Jordan of anything, but if I were, I wouldn't be at all upset if everyone else was that good...I don't really see those people being upset at losing their 'idol' status, in exchange for a world filled with beauty
I think it's starting to come down to personal opinion and preference here. Maybe if I were the Michael Jordan of something, I would feel secure enough as I was, but right now I just feel that without some standard I wouldn't even know I was good at all. It's conceivable that I'd still be happy, though. About the second part there, the "idol" status isn't what I had in mind, but I think that if the world already was totally filled with beauty I'd feel useless, that there was no work for me to do.
Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Aug 6 13:17:47)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Aug 6 13:18:28 |
What I meant was that if some people were perfect, the remaining imperfect people would find it difficult to appreciate the other imperfect people.
Yeah, but people do that well enough already, without immortality. :)
"You know, I'm kind of surprised that you're such a big advocate of the pyramid scheme. That is, a few creme de la creme with quality progressively getting worse from there. For every person at the top, there's millions in the gutter."
The gutter" is a little harsh. I never meant to devalue the lives of everyone who isn't "Shakespeare, Mozart, Da Vinci, Einstein". But I do believe that some people's accomplishments give their lives incredible meaning. You knew those people's names, didn't you?
What I was saying is that a person only standouts from the crowd, because the crowd doesn't itself standout.
Yes, I love what Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Mozart and others have done. That's not the problem. The problem is that their level of sublimity is so exceedinly rare. I mean, we never look at nature and think, wow the world's too beautiful ... forests, animals, sunsets, so on. No one ever says, you know we could really use one more desert over here.
I don't want just a few places on Earth to be beautiful, I wish Vegas where I live, could be as lush and welcoming as Rivendell or the Shire. Why would that take away anything from anyone else? Yeah, maybe if we all could paint like Da Vinci, we wouldn't know his name. But, then we'd all be able to paint like him ;) Which consequently would mean the world was filled with good art :)
I think it's starting to come down to personal opinion and preference here. Maybe if I were the Michael Jordan of something, I would feel secure enough as I was, but right now I just feel that without some standard I wouldn't even know I was good at all. It's conceivable that I'd still be happy, though. About the second part there, the "idol" status isn't what I had in mind, but I think that if the world already was totally filled with beauty I'd feel useless, that there was no work for me to do.
Ok, now you're just lending support to the theory that 'humans define their existence through adversity'. Ok, understandable. Nature by design is adversarial towards life. Life is by nature, adversarial towards other life. Humans are thus, by nature, adversarial towards many things, least of all themselves. Billions of years of evolution.
Well, maybe it's time we evolved past that.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
What I meant was that if some people were perfect, the remaining imperfect people would find it difficult to appreciate the other imperfect people.
Yeah, but people do that well enough already, without immortality. :)
True enough.
What I was saying is that a person only standouts from the crowd, because the crowd doesn't itself standout.
From what would the crowd stand out? But I don't think we're going to get any farther arguing in this vein. We can only keep repeating what we've said before, and we're not changing each other's mind.
Humans are thus, by nature, adversarial towards many things, least of all themselves. Billions of years of evolution.
Well, maybe it's time we evolved past that.
It's an interesting idea. Do you see this as the ultimate stage in evolution? I'm not sure where we could go from there, what progress could be made. And again, I would rather be imperfect with virtually unlimited room for improvement.
How old are you? If you'd prefer to just give a general age range, that would be fine, and I'd understand completely if you'd rather not say at all, but this discussion has made me wonder how our age difference might be affecting our opinions.
Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sun Aug 10 23:15:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 03:16:16 |
From what would the crowd stand out? But I don't think we're going to get any farther arguing in this vein. We can only keep repeating what we've said before, and we're not changing each other's mind.
Ah, the crowd would standout from other crowds. You know, the Hellenistic crowd, the Roman crowd, the Renaissance crowd
It's an interesting idea. Do you see this as the ultimate stage in evolution? I'm not sure where we could go from there, what progress could be made.
Well, human beings have more or less taken nature out of the equation. I guess you can say, we're cheating
I'm sure you know evolution full well, but indulge me a little.
In nature the sum total of environmental influences, "natural selection", works to act as an impetus for evolution. If you can't survive in whatever environment you're in, so be it, and you go extinct. A little harsh, but from nature's perspective, if you can't handle the environment, then you're really just taking up resources from other species who can handle it. Afterall, nature doesn't give anyone a handicap. So it's really the species who make the most of their environment ... that survive.
The species that make the least of what they are given, die off. And as is inevitable, the environment changes, and the cycle starts all over. But eventually, if you keep this up, some species is bound to evolve that can so completely dominate its environment, that it can more or less control evolution. In fact, you can almost argue that the whole point of evolution is to generate a species that can do just that, a species that can trump nature :)
Well, humans are at that point, at least on a planetary scale. Which is all fine and well for the time being :) But really, this is no time to be complacent ;)
I can appreciate the difference between accepting changes to our external machinery, and not our internal, so I'm not advocating genetic engineering of humans or anything like that. But if immortality and eternal youth can be achieved by simply turning a few genes on or off without altering our DNA, then I don't see this as much different than taking drugs to control bloodpressure.
The evolutionary benefit that immortality would have on us, is that it would allow us to use our brains to their fullest. Which really is the only other place we can go on the evolutionary ladder, short of altering our DNA.
It's well known that the structure of the brain changes physically the more you use it. People who really use their brains, have a more developed one. In fact, Einstein's brain should perhaps qualify him as a sub-species ;) Which though I jest, let's remember that the main difference between Homo Sapiens and earlier humans, is in fact our brain power.
Though I don't really know the benefit to our species of having the average person with the brainpower of an Einstein, I can well imagine the benefits.
While cultivating our brains in this fashion, isn't exactly evolution, in effect it more or less is. So really as a thinking species, this is where we should be heading. Else, well, nature on a microcosmic level is well tuned to our needs, but on a macrocosmic level ... it's just as competitive as it ever was.
Asteroids, dying stars, galactic collisions, universal contraction ... and those are just the things we know. What other wonders there are in this ... I can't begin to tell you how BIG place ... well, I guess we'll see. Not to mention the ever-present danger we pose to ourselves Yep, that's at least one good reason why we need people on other planets. If no one has the foresight to at least see that, then maybe nature is right to let the dynamite go off.
Of course, I'm getting far off from the issues at hand :) ... but yes, immortality and eternal youth are the next step. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would argue against the two on a philosphical basis, though I do understand the pragmatic concerns (which are not to be brushed aside lightly).
And again, I would rather be imperfect with virtually unlimited room for improvement.
Hey, there's always room for improvement :) You know, no one would force you to be perfect. At least, the current governmental system doesn't do that. So if you want the room, you can have as much as you want But wouldn't it be great to know that the world as a whole, had less imperfect people in it? Or should we, as a matter of policy, just keep on going the way we have?
How old are you? If you'd prefer to just give a general age range, that would be fine, and I'd understand completely if you'd rather not say at all, but this discussion has made me wonder how our age difference might be affecting our opinions.
Hey, you may have 20 more years under your belt than I, but then I have 20 more years than a child, and that hasn't helped me much now has it 
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Hey, you may have 20 more years under your belt than I, but then I have 20 more years than a child, and that hasn't helped me much now has it
You misunderstand! I thought you were probably older, wiser, and more secure than I am! It turns out you're just a little older than I am. It's just that I'm starting to believe that I've been arguing this in an attempt to convince myself that I could eventually achieve something that matters. I'm not talking about Einstein-level--I'm not that arrogant! I'm just feeling really replaceable at the moment.
I can appreciate the difference between accepting changes to our external machinery, and not our internal, so I'm not advocating genetic engineering of humans or anything like that. But if immortality and eternal youth can be achieved by simply turning a few genes on or off without altering our DNA, then I don't see this as much different than taking drugs to control bloodpressure.
I admit that this is a pretty convincing argument. I think I need to distinguish more between what I think would be right or wrong, and what I think I would like. I mean, if this should really become possible in my lifetime, I wouldn't have to undergo whatever procedures they invent. I'm not entirely retracting what I was said earlier--I still think people would be better off not doing it. But I had begun acting as though it were immoral, whereas trying to impose my own feelings on other people is not only a little worse. It was actually somewhere in my last post that I realized how conservative I was being.
but on a macrocosmic level ... it's just as competitive as it ever was.
Asteroids, dying stars, galactic collisions, universal contraction ... and those are just the things we know. What other wonders there are in this ... I can't begin to tell you how BIG place ... well, I guess we'll see.
It's really funny you mention that to me, because astronomy/physics is one field I'm studying with a serious intent to pursue a career in it. Maybe it suits my preferences even better than I thought.
Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
5 days ago (Thu Aug 14 01:11:11)
|
|
I thought you were probably older, wiser, and more secure than I am! It turns out you're just a little older than I am.
Actually, I was thinking that about you
It's just that I'm starting to believe that I've been arguing this in an attempt to convince myself that I could eventually achieve something that matters. I'm not talking about Einstein-level--I'm not that arrogant! I'm just feeling really replaceable at the moment.
I think you can do whatever you really want to do.
And you're never replaceable. Hey, who would I talk to if not you and the other kind people who've replied.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Thanks, sinaes. I've really enjoyed this discussion with you. I've thought about it a lot even when I'm not online. I really appreciate a subject that holds my attention like that! And your replies have been even more interesting than your original post. Thanks again!
Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
23 hours ago (Mon Aug 18 22:31:52)
|
|
Thanks
And you're welcome.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Personally I find the whole idea of allocating funds, brainpower and research facilities to find yet more ways of cheating death offensive and absurd. We should by now have evolved enough as a human race to have come to terms with the concept of mortality. I know I have. I have no wish to live for another 100 years or even half that (89 is old enough!) especially if this means several extra decades of frail health or outliving everyone I love... but even with added youthfulness for me and my loved ones I find the idea bizarre. Don't get me wrong, I love life, but enough is enough. It's about getting out of it what you can, while you can. Not about breaking records...
Instead of this folly, I would rather see a more dedicated effort go into improving the quality of life instead of its length. And then mainly in the third world. It's deeply shameful in this day and age, that there are still countries where the average life expectancy does not even reach 40.
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Jul 29 19:54:00)
|
|
Many things could be considered cheating death. Most diseases wouldn't have cures if it weren't for a human being sitting down and trying to find it.
I do believe that it's what you do with your life that's important and not how long you live. For me 10, 15, or 20 years is more than enough. I honestly don't need even 1 more year, and I'll be eternally grateful for what I've gotten even if I don't celebrate my next birthday.
That said, life is wonderful. I don't see the desire to cling to it, as any great folly on the part of men. There's plenty of people who wouldn't mind having one more year to experience life, or wouldn't mind having someone else live another year to experience life with.
Unfortunately, I won't get to live in a world full of long-living human beings. Nevertheless, I still contend that a human at 100 is a much better being than the same human at 20. I wouldn't mind living in a world full of people rich in experience and wisened by those years.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
I think you guys are taking this kinda thing alittle too far.
but hey thats just my opinnion could be wrong
I am Keysier Sosse 
|
|
|
| by -
Tindomiel
(Thu Jul 31 01:46:57)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu Jul 31 01:47:44 |
I agree with you 100 percent. Humans are not meant for immortality. We never were and we never will be. Those of you familiar with the works of Tolkien will know that throughout the history of Middle-earth, whenever humans have sought to achieve never-ending life, they have met with downfall and destruction. It is simply not our fate. Death, or rather escape from this world, is regarded in Tolkien's writing as a gift to us from the Creator himself. To try an avert its course would be to try and rebel against our divine fate.
Those who crave immortality or believe it is possible for humans to attain it, would do well to peruse Tolkien's 'Akallabeth, the Downfallen.' It recounts the history of Numenor. The Numenoreans were noble humans who possessed everything desirable: wealth, beauty, a gorgeous island home, the favour of the gods and the friendship of the elves, and the blessing of prosperity and long, but not endless, life. But gradually, their long-life inflamed their desire for still longer existence, and, falling under the influence of Sauron, betrayed by their own greed and pride, they tried to wage war against the gods and wrest immortality from them. As a result, their isle was destroyed, and all their people, save the few who had remained loyal to the gods, were drowned. The lesson to be learned here is that the Numenoreans had everything, and cheated by their lust for more they consequently lost everything.
Immortality is the fate of the Elves, but that does not mean that we humans are of less importance in the designs of the Almighty.
What we should do is live a good life, love and be loved, laugh and cry and dance, instead of worring about matters like infinite existence which are so far out of our hands it is ludicrous to think of aspring towards them and wasting what we have.
We should use our resources to help those places where children have never known laughter, where their parents can never watch them grow.
We should accept and embrace our mortal fate, for if God saw fit to bestow it on us, then we must be satisfied. We cannot escape death, except perhaps to a worse fate.
So in ending I would like to leave you with these dying words of Aragorn:
"Behold! We are not bound forever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jul 31 03:18:18)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu Jul 31 03:19:42 |
You seem to have brought God into the conversation
:)
My own personal beliefs call for immortality anyway ;)
Afterall, when I die I'll go someplace good where I can spend the rest of eternity, happy :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Well said, Wajz and Tindomiel. That is how I feel about this whole issue, but I'd decided to look at it pragmatically.
This may seem odd, but when I first read Sinaes' original message, I thought, "Tower of Babel." Men grew proud and tried to reach the heavens by building a huge tower, but because of God's interference, they were sundered. Here we are, trying to reach the heavens by a different route - by trying to achieve something only spiritual beings have. It makes me wonder what God's going to do about this, if the scientists succeed.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jul 31 20:25:04)
|
|
Tower of Babel huh? :)
Just out of curiosity, what exactly would have happened if men kept building that tower and God hadn't done anything about it?
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
I can't say. I wasn't there.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jul 31 23:05:03)
|
|
hehe, good answer
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Why would God do anything about it? This whole bowing and praising and scraping so as not to piss off his All Powerful Ass gets old after a while and has a strong dose of Primitive Religion invected into it. Maybe Zeus will start hurling thunderbolts if it looks like the mortals are on their way to snagging his secret recipe for ambrosia. I think humans are just a tad presumptuous and self-important when they think that God is worried about what we're doing, or he'll have to intervene when we go too far.
Of course maybe I've got it backwards. I'd tell you that humans created god, not the reverse.
I say we flat-tax the Kyoto Treaty all the way back to the Security Council.
-Dogbert
|
|
|
Interesting way to look at it, m'lord. But my point was, we shouldn't try to do what is beyond our power or control or what is not our job or place to do. If God did not grant us immortality, why aren't we content with His better wisdom? Obviously we are mortal for a reason; why not be have faith that God knows what He's doing?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
My point is that I don't even see the relevence of God in this discussion. If you want to talk about the practicality considerations, economics, ecology, resources and so forth, that's one thing (that's how this started). To add to the debate by saying "Well God doesn't want us to do such and such" - says who? Certain denominations on this planet, that's who. And only some people in those religions even. It's hardly a consensus among the hundreds of religions on the planet. As far as I'm concerned we don't know if god exists, what god is and even assuming his existence, I'd never presume to know what makes him happy or unhappy.
It's the same sort of thing that drives me nuts when people refer to genetic engineering as "playing God". What the hell does that mean? Farmers have bred livestock and cross-pollinated plants for desired characteristics for centuries. The next level of technology allows genes to be manipulated in the laboratory instead of the laborious and inefficent method of doing it through breeding or manual pollination of plants. It became possible through better understanding of gene expression and manipulation, we didn't cross some invisible threshold of forbidden knowledge. If that understanding leads us to cloning, of organisms or tissues, I still don't see how it's defying or mocking God; it's simply the result of knowing how the nuts and bolts of cells work.
That's not to say that there aren't reservations and ethical issues to be weighed (there are), but those can be discussed without invoking religious superstition. Primitive people used to think that they'd anger the gods if they didn't offer sacrifices for the harvest on a seasonal basis. Today we have people who think we'll anger god if we play with stem cells or create life in a test tube. Frankly I don't see a qualitative difference in these views; they both look to appease an anonymous, wrathful parent figure.
Obviously we are mortal for a reason; why not be have faith that God knows what He's doing?
This is the kind of apathy that religion encourages. I think it's a bit naive to attribute everything, from bumblebee wings to human lifespan, to some creator's plan. As I indicated above, I have strong reservations about extending life span, but not out of fear of interfering with some creator's plan. The side effect of human rationality seems to be to bring order from chaos, to explain effects with causes. Whether it's a question of what causes lightning or why we are here, the unknown is always given a divine explanation. That doesn't mean that such explanations are inherently false, but the pattern is enough to dissuade me from invoking them whenever something (such as human mortality) is not full explained.
I know that I jumped the tracks a while back, but everytime this comes up it frustrates me; that people invoke unknown entities that aren't relevent to the issue. I accept that people have their own religious beliefs and I don't seek to change them, but it should be possible to discuss ethics and pragmatic considerations without going into this arena.
I say we flat-tax the Kyoto Treaty all the way back to the Security Council.
-Dogbert
|
|
|
My point is that I don't even see the relevence of God in this discussion.
God is relevent in every such matter. It's His handiwork that we're playing with, since He created us.
As far as I'm concerned we don't know if god exists, what god is and even assuming his existence, I'd never presume to know what makes him happy or unhappy.
This is where a little word called "faith" comes in. I doubt anyone can plausibly claim that he/she has seen God face-to-face. However, if you choose to look, you can see God working through small miracles, which many call "coincidences."
I never said I know what makes God happy or unhappy. I just think that we shouldn't mess with what God intentionally created. What His intention is I don't claim to know, but perhaps if these scientists carry on with their research and experimentation, we'll find out.
Farmers have bred livestock and cross-pollinated plants for desired characteristics for centuries. The next level of technology allows genes to be manipulated in the laboratory instead of the laborious and inefficent method of doing it through breeding or manual pollination of plants. It became possible through better understanding of gene expression and manipulation, we didn't cross some invisible threshold of forbidden knowledge. If that understanding leads us to cloning, of organisms or tissues, I still don't see how it's defying or mocking God; it's simply the result of knowing how the nuts and bolts of cells work.
Breeding livestock and cross-pollinating plants are done for practical reasons. They promote health and facilitate distribution. However, where is the practicality in cloning or becoming virtually immortal? For what practical, beneficent reaon(s) would someone want a clone or want to be immortal? How would cloning help sustain human life? How is immortalising oneself contributing to society?
If man has lived how many million years without cloning or immortalisation, surely he can live another million years without either.
That's not to say that there aren't reservations and ethical issues to be weighed (there are), but those can be discussed without invoking religious superstition.
How do you think ethics and moral systems originated? People may not have figured out that intentional murder and stealing are crimes unless they were inspired by a higher being. Otherwise, they wouldn't know to be remorseful or anything, since they didn't even know that such deeds are a felony. Consciences developed because people learnt what is wrong and what is not, and how else would they learn? And out of the development of consciences came the development or ethics and moral systems.
Primitive people used to think that they'd anger the gods if they didn't offer sacrifices for the harvest on a seasonal basis. Today we have people who think we'll anger god if we play with stem cells or create life in a test tube. Frankly I don't see a qualitative difference in these views; they both look to appease an anonymous, wrathful parent figure.
I disagree. Sacrificial rituals were indeed done to appease a deity - who knows how many tales tell of a deity's wrath being roused by a carelessly-performed sacrifice; but protesting against stem cells, etc, is merely done to avoid trying to alter God's designs for our lives. It has nothing to do with appeasing God; it's just keeping out of God's plans.
This is the kind of apathy that religion encourages. I think it's a bit naive to attribute everything, from bumblebee wings to human lifespan, to some creator's plan.
I am not at all apathetic in religious matters, but I'll elaborate on that statement later.
As for myself, I think it's a bit ridiculous to believe that all life originated from... what was it? Bacteria? I can't remember, in all honesty. I will admit that I am not as well-learnt in many evolutionary ideas as I should like, but it's rather far-fetched to claim that entities as complex as the human eye or the chameleon's disguising abilities originated in a small colony of tiny bacteria, and to claim that a place as vast and variated as our planet Earth was the result of some explosion. If our solar system were created as a byproduct of the Big Bang, wouldn't the nine planets have more similarities amongst each other?
In a side note, I would like to explain my religious background. I believe you already know how I started believing in the faith I do, but there is more. Unlike others in my congregation, I do not study the essays and observations of religious leaders in order to adopt their opinions as my own, nor do I agree with all that my Rabbis say. In fact, I often find myself questioning every opinion piece I read. When I state my opinion in religious matters, I can claim that most of it is my own thought. Scriptures and the occasional researcher's idea with which I agree make up my base; the rest is the product of my mind. My opinions and statements, therefore, are very much open to question and debate; and I acknowledge that what I say probably sounds shaky, but that can only be expected of someone my age.
Concluding with that disclaimer, I will now say that I eagerly anticipate your reply.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Fri Aug 1 16:09:44)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Aug 1 16:11:09 |
God is relevent in every such matter. It's His handiwork that we're playing with, since He created us.
Eowyn, I can appreciate that you're a person of strong faith, I really can. However, it's not really a valid point of discussion.
One of the hallmarks of a free society is that you don't have to accept any religious philosophies you don't want to. As individuals, yeah, you can reject anything for whatever, you don't even need a reason. But as a society, there is no case to be made against immortality, or anything really, because of religion.
Breeding livestock and cross-pollinating plants are done for practical reasons. They promote health and facilitate distribution. However, where is the practicality in cloning or becoming virtually immortal? For what practical, beneficent reaon(s) would someone want a clone or want to be immortal? How would cloning help sustain human life? How is immortalising oneself contributing to society?
 I'm obviously not as good at making points as I thought.
If man has lived how many million years without cloning or immortalisation, surely he can live another million years without either.
Well, yes we can. We can live without the internet, books, and films as well.
How do you think ethics and moral systems originated? People may not have figured out that intentional murder and stealing are crimes unless they were inspired by a higher being. Otherwise, they wouldn't know to be remorseful or anything, since they didn't even know that such deeds are a felony. Consciences developed because people learnt what is wrong and what is not, and how else would they learn? And out of the development of consciences came the development or ethics and moral systems.
Well ... um, one day this person decided to start eating people, yes it was legal. He ate aunt Etna!  Well, next thing you know, Uncle Bob got upset and tried to kill the person (yeah, no law against that either). Bob easily dispatched the deviant. We were all happy  except for Bill, the cannibal's husband! He pretended he was ok with everything, then one night, Bob was gone Of course, Bob's son Roger wasn't too happy. This went on for awhile ... half the village ended up dead. Till finally, the rest of us got sick of all of it and made a new law, "you kill anyone for any reason, including out of hunger, and you hang". Yeah, we had to hang a few people, but there's not much killing in the village these days
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
One of the hallmarks of a free society is that you don't have to accept any religious philosophies you don't want to. As individuals, yeah, you can reject anything for whatever, you don't even need a reason. But as a society, there is no case to be made against immortality, or anything really, because of religion.
I didn't say everyone has to agree with me, or believe the things I believe. But to those who agree with me and believe as I believe - to those people is God relevent in every such issue. My opinion, and others', is that God is relevent. My opinion may not be accurate, but it's what I believe. It is therefore entirely open to question and debate, as we've found.
Well, yes we can. We can live without the internet, books, and films as well.
That's beside the point. The Internet, books, and films do affect our society, as does virtual immortalisation, but in a different way. I know what I'm thinking about this right now, but it's beyond expression - I can't really explain my thought process here; I'm sorry.
Interesting theory, there, about ethics and moral systems. But no further comment!
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sat Aug 2 13:56:17)
|
|
I didn't say everyone has to agree with me, or believe the things I believe. But to those who agree with me and believe as I believe - to those people is God relevent in every such issue. My opinion, and others', is that God is relevent. My opinion may not be accurate, but it's what I believe. It is therefore entirely open to question and debate, as we've found.
Well, see, I don't have a problem with you believing what you do. If the truth be known, I do believe in God.
But that doesn't change the facts. God really isn't a point of debate. Like I said, I do believe in God, and like I have argued, I don't see immortality being any great contradiction to God's will. Which of course you'll disagree with, all fine and good.
However, this isn't getting us anywhere is it? Because as soon as we turned the discussion from a scientific procedure to a discussion on the nature of God, we stopped making rational arguments, and now we're just talking about beliefs.
I can say God wants us to become immortal, but I don't really have to prove that do I. I mean, how would I prove that there even is a God anyway, and that he thinks the way I think he does?
So again, we stopped making rational arguments and really are just posting our beliefs. I'd be happy to listen to your beliefs on what the nature of things are, but let's make it clear that all the beliefs in the world barely add up to one good reason.
That is: "This should/or should not be done because in my heart I feel it's the right thing." Now the judgement and perceptions of Eowyn are not to be taken lightly, so it is something to consider :)
But in all honesty, that's the sort of thing that's much more important in influencing the judgement of others, than it is in helping to find a logical solution.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
No, this isn't getting us anywhere on the issue of the practicality of immortalisation, but it's an interesting debate to participate in. At least I'm doing something constructive and "brainy."
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Yeah, I know - I'll get it to you.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
I never said I know what makes God happy or unhappy. I just think that we shouldn't mess with what God intentionally created. What His intention is I don't claim to know, but perhaps if these scientists carry on with their research and experimentation, we'll find out.
You contradicted yourself several times here. If you do not know what makes God happy or unhappy then how do you know that He doesn't want you to "mess with" what He created? Also if you do not know what His intentions are, then how do you know what He "intentionally" created?
This is where a little word called "faith" comes in. I doubt anyone can plausibly claim that he/she has seen God face-to-face. However, if you choose to look, you can see God working through small miracles, which many call "coincidences."
You already said that you don't know what makes Him happy or unhappy then how can you have faith in this? If you don't know what makes Him happy or unhappy then how do you think He will respond to any given act? How can you have faith that any specific act will meet with God's approval? Is not any action equally valid statistically than any other? Also coincidences are considered miracles? Come on now, let's not be silly.
Breeding livestock and cross-pollinating plants are done for practical reasons. They promote health and facilitate distribution. However, where is the practicality in cloning or becoming virtually immortal? For what practical, beneficent reaon(s) would someone want a clone or want to be immortal? How would cloning help sustain human life? How is immortalising oneself contributing to society?
What is the base reason to promote health? Could it be to live longer? Yes I think so. Is this not what the entire point of medicine is? Now what is immortality? The means are interchangeable as they produce the same result.
How do you think ethics and moral systems originated? People may not have figured out that intentional murder and stealing are crimes unless they were inspired by a higher being. Otherwise, they wouldn't know to be remorseful or anything, since they didn't even know that such deeds are a felony. Consciences developed because people learnt what is wrong and what is not, and how else would they learn? And out of the development of consciences came the development or ethics and moral systems.
Ethics and morals can be explained without invoking divine inspiration.
Murder:
1) The overarching purpose of any species is to propogate itself.
2) For many species (humans included), reproduction is a social act i.e. not solitary
3) If there were no "morals" about murdering people, no one would trust each other enough to interact and thus reproduce. People would lead solitary lives in eternal paranoia.
4) Thus there must be rules or "morals" regarding murdering people for the species to propogate itself.
Lying:
People talk to each other to exchange information. If there were no "morals" regarding lying, there would be no reason to talk or listen to anyone. If I asked you what time it was, and your answer has an equal chance of being the truth or a lie, then I have no reason to believe a word you say, and thus I have no reason to even listen to what you, or anyone else says.
|
|
|
You contradicted yourself several times here.
Self-contradiction can only be expected. Consider my disclaimer, especially the emboldened portion:
I do not study the essays and observations of religious leaders in order to adopt their opinions as my own, nor do I agree with all that my Rabbis say. In fact, I often find myself questioning every opinion piece I read. When I state my opinion in religious matters, I can claim that most of it is my own thought. Scriptures and the occasional researcher's idea with which I agree make up my base; the rest is the product of my mind. My opinions and statements, therefore, are very much open to question and debate; and I acknowledge that what I say probably sounds shaky, but that can only be expected of someone my age.
Moving on...
If you do not know what makes God happy or unhappy then how do you know that He doesn't want you to "mess with" what He created? Also if you do not know what His intentions are, then how do you know what He "intentionally" created?
Why would God want us to toy with His creations if He could just change things Himself? So we could further our minds? In that case, all we need to do is learn about His creations and experiment with them for the sake of knowledge. If applying that knowledge to our lives en masse will be beneficial for Earth and mankind in general (such as cross-pollinating and intentional breeding), then so be it. Let's do it. However, I don't see how virtual immortalisation and cloning are beneficial to either Earth or mankind.
You already said that you don't know what makes Him happy or unhappy then how can you have faith in this?
You misunderstood me. I was saying that I have faith that God exists, in response to Lord N's point that we don't know whether or not He exists. However, since we have not met God face-to-face, we can only trust that He is there. How do we know he is there? Through His miracles. Do you think that miraculous events are coincidences? Consider Dianne Hales's article in the March 23, 2003, issue of PARADE (excerpts below):
Why Prayer Could be Good Medicine
Dozens of studies have shown that individuals who pray regularly and attend religious services stay healthier and live longer than those who rarely or never do - even when age, health, habits, demographics, and other factors are considered. A six-year Duke University study of 4000 men and women of various faiths, all over 64, found that the relative risk of dying was 46% lower for those who frequently attended religious services.
[...]
Among other groundbreaking findings in petitionary prayer research:
- Another Duke study of the same group of 4000 people over 64, found that those who prayed regularly had significantly lower blood pressure than the less religious. A third study showed that those who attended religious services had healthier immune systems than those who did not.
[...]
- According to University of Miami research, AIDS patients who became long-term survivors were more likely to be those involved in religious practices and engaged in volunteer work.
- In studies at several medical centers, prayer and faith have been shown to speed recovery from depression, alcoholism, hip surgery, drug addiction, stroke, rheumatoid arthritis, heart attacks and bypass surgery.
There are many more miracles, other than the ones I've reported above, that I could name but won't. Coincidences? I think not.
If you don't know what makes Him happy or unhappy then how do you think He will respond to any given act? How can you have faith that any specific act will meet with God's approval?
We can look at history - the Bible, to be more precise. Although there are bound to be inaccuracies - for one thing, God spoke through men, and men are flawed and uncapable of expressing godly intentions; for another, the Bible has been translated countless times - we get the general picture. God says what makes Him happy, and we know, by studying the 613 laws He laid down for us, what He doesn't like (apologies for the lack of references, I can't remember them all). We can also analyse His actions and decide what He dislikes.
For example, the Tower of Babel. At the time, all the world spoke one language. Men grew proud and wanted to reach the heavens, so they aspired to build "a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens" (Genesis 1:4, NKJV). God wanted to cut construction of the Tower, so "the Lord said, '[...]Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city" (Genesis 1:7-8, NKJV). What can we learn from this? God doesn't want us trying to be like the immortal, higher beings.
What is the base reason to promote health? Could it be to live longer? Yes I think so. Is this not what the entire point of medicine is? Now what is immortality? The means are interchangeable as they produce the same result.
This is where my disclaimer comes in handy. But anyway, medicine and good-quality food allow us to live to our natural potential. We know what our more ancient natural lifespan potential was, since we can deduce how old a person was by analysing his/her skeletal remains. In some conditions, many did not live past their thirties, but there were several notable exceptions in which people lived to their sixties.
Medicine and good food make it possible for us to live past our thirties, our forties, our fifties, and our sixties - for some, even past the seventies. Therefore, more of us are reaching our natural lifespan potential. However, if scientists have to dig into our genes and mutilate them (which is essentially what changing them is), that is unnatural lifespan potential. I believe Sinaes said that someday it may be possible for us to live well into the 500-year zone. That is definitely an unnatural lifespan potential.
Murder:
1) The overarching purpose of any species is to propogate itself.
2) For many species (humans included), reproduction is a social act i.e. not solitary
3) If there were no "morals" about murdering people, no one would trust each other enough to interact and thus reproduce. People would lead solitary lives in eternal paranoia.
4) Thus there must be rules or "morals" regarding murdering people for the species to propogate itself.
A fairly convincing argument. However, people would not realise that murdering is a wrong thing to do. All they would know is that if they kill everyone, they don't survive because they cannot reproduce. How would they figure out that murdering is wrong?
Lying:
People talk to each other to exchange information. If there were no "morals" regarding lying, there would be no reason to talk or listen to anyone. If I asked you what time it was, and your answer has an equal chance of being the truth or a lie, then I have no reason to believe a word you say, and thus I have no reason to even listen to what you, or anyone else says
Also a fairly convincing argument. Yet, how would you know whether or not I'm lying, if you had no means by which to tell the time (which was the case for our ancestors) to make sure I am being honest? You wouldn't. All you would know is to trust me because I have given you a fairly plausible answer. When the Earth is tilting on its axis, there is no real way to measure time by the sun because, as we know, the sun sets earlier in the winter (in the Northern Hemisphere). The sun, therefore, is not a reliable source. There were indeed water clocks (used by the Egyptians) and hourglasses, but that's beside the point.
So if you trust that I told you the truth about what time it is because you have no way to prove my (dis)honesty, you would never know whether or not I did indeed tell you the truth unless you ask other people what time it is (which is unlikely for you to do, since you already trust that my reply was accurate). Since you do not know whether or not I lied, you wouldn't know that lying is a wrong thing to do.
Apologies for being so wordy - that's just the way my mind works.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Why would God want us to toy with His creations if He could just change things Himself? So we could further our minds? In that case, all we need to do is learn about His creations and experiment with them for the sake of knowledge. If applying that knowledge to our lives en masse will be beneficial for Earth and mankind in general (such as cross-pollinating and intentional breeding), then so be it. Let's do it. However, I don't see how virtual immortalisation and cloning are beneficial to either Earth or mankind.
What practical good is the knowledge if it is not appliable to something? You cannot advocate cross-polinating and intentional breeding without supporting genetic engineering. It is the exact same thing. Breeding for desired traits IS genetic engineering. For example, in the old days people had to copy books painstakingly by quill and ink. The effort and time expenditures were enormous. We will call the profession a scribe. Technology advances and along comes Gutenburg and the printing press. Now the scribe can copy books much easier because his tools had improved. He is still a scribe is he not? His job remains exactly the same. Is this "unnatural?" No, it's just progress.
Why Prayer Could be Good Medicine
1st Duke Study: I don't believe an entire study without reading all it entails. There's no way I could judge the validity based on a little exerpt. Now I don't know what kind of publication this PARADE is but I don't think it's a respected medical journal. There is no possible way for the scientists to make sure that attending religious services was the ONLY independent variable among 4000 people's ENTIRE lives.
The rest: Correlation does not infer causation. You find praying/attending services and good health have a positive correlation. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing. In another true study they found as ice cream sales increased, so did drownings. Does ice cream cause people to drown? Of course not. The third factor is that during this time it is summer. In the summer people buy more ice cream and swim more.
We can look at history - the Bible, to be more precise. Although there are bound to be inaccuracies - for one thing, God spoke through men, and men are flawed and uncapable of expressing godly intentions; for another, the Bible has been translated countless times - we get the general picture. God says what makes Him happy, and we know, by studying the 613 laws He laid down for us, what He doesn't like (apologies for the lack of references, I can't remember them all). We can also analyse His actions and decide what He dislikes.
I'm sorry but you are begging the question if you are using the Bible to prove something of God's existence or intent. The Bible is hardly irrefutable foundational knowledge. What you are saying here is tantamount to claiming God's true intent and existence is proven by the Bible. Well why should we believe the Bible? Because it's the word of God. See the circular illogic?
For example, the Tower of Babel. At the time, all the world spoke one language. Men grew proud and wanted to reach the heavens, so they aspired to build "a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens" (Genesis 1:4, NKJV). God wanted to cut construction of the Tower, so "the Lord said, '[...]Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city" (Genesis 1:7-8, NKJV). What can we learn from this? God doesn't want us trying to be like the immortal, higher beings.
Well doesn't the Bible also say the Earth is the center of the universe? What can we learn from that? The Bible is rife with contradictions and I bet you could find half a dozen passages that could be interpreted as God wanting us to "be like the immortal, higher being(s)
Medicine and good food make it possible for us to live past our thirties, our forties, our fifties, and our sixties - for some, even past the seventies. Therefore, more of us are reaching our natural lifespan potential. However, if scientists have to dig into our genes and mutilate them (which is essentially what changing them is), that is unnatural lifespan potential. I believe Sinaes said that someday it may be possible for us to live well into the 500-year zone. That is definitely an unnatural lifespan potential.
How are you to define our "natural lifespan potential?" A couple hundred years ago our "natural" lifespan was 40 years or so. That was people's definitive natural lifespan potential. If you follow your logic then you would have to condemn all of medicine as unatural prolonging of life.
"if scientists have inject man-made chemicals into our bodies, that is unnatural lifespan potential." Sound familiar?
There is no difference between modern medicine and a possible future immortality treatment. You cannot logically condemn one and embrace the other.
A fairly convincing argument. However, people would not realise that murdering is a wrong thing to do. All they would know is that if they kill everyone, they don't survive because they cannot reproduce. How would they figure out that murdering is wrong?
[i] Because humans have the ability for rational thinking and abstract thought
So if you trust that I told you the truth about what time it is because you have no way to prove my (dis)honesty, you would never know whether or not I did indeed tell you the truth unless you ask other people what time it is (which is unlikely for you to do, since you already trust that my reply was accurate). Since you do not know whether or not I lied, you wouldn't know that lying is a wrong thing to do.
Why would it be unlikely that I would ask anyone else? You take for granted our modern society's base answer is truth. In far ancient times if someone's answer could arbitrarily be a truth or a lie, then the logical thing would be to corroborate it elsewhere. For example, if I asked a fellow tribesman if there were sabertooth tigers roaming about and he answered no, while the "truth" was that there were, it would lead in the injury or death of myself. Now being a rational being and knowing the answer could be equally true or false, why wouldn't I corroborate it when the stakes are so high? I would go onto the next guy and ask him yet how do I know he is telling the "truth" anymore than the first guy? People would eventually have to come to an agreement on why the truth is "good" and lies are "bad" for there to be any effective means of communication.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sun Aug 3 01:10:04)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 03:02:40 |
Well, I guess I'll play devil's advocate for a bit :)
What practical good is the knowledge if it is not appliable to something? You cannot advocate cross-polinating and intentional breeding without supporting genetic engineering. It is the exact same thing.
Actually no it's not, genetic engineering often involves introducing DNA that isn't even part of a given plant's or animal's natural genome. For example, using potato traits to give tomatoes harder skin. Or taking the genes that make watermelons juicy and adding them to oranges.
Cross-pollination and breeding have been done for such a long time now, that pretty much all the benefits of selective breeding have already been discovered. I can't even begin to name all the varieties (sub-species) of plants and domestic animals that are out there.
1st Duke Study: I don't believe an entire study without reading all it entails. There's no way I could judge the validity based on a little exerpt. Now I don't know what kind of publication this PARADE is but I don't think it's a respected medical journal. There is no possible way for the scientists to make sure that attending religious services was the ONLY independent variable among 4000 people's ENTIRE lives.
The rest: Correlation does not infer causation. You find praying/attending services and good health have a positive correlation. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing. In another true study they found as ice cream sales increased, so did drownings. Does ice cream cause people to drown? Of course not. The third factor is that during this time it is summer. In the summer people buy more ice cream and swim more.
What is scientific is that the mind affects the nervous system, which in turn affects the fuction of all bodily organs. The common nervous system ailment, stress, is known to be a leading cause of many degenerative diseases. At the very least prayer and the sense of purpose that worship provides alleviate stress levels, and thus improve overall health.
I'm sorry but you are begging the question if you are using the Bible to prove something of God's existence or intent. The Bible is hardly irrefutable foundational knowledge. What you are saying here is tantamount to claiming God's true intent and existence is proven by the Bible. Well why should we believe the Bible? Because it's the word of God. See the circular illogic?
Well, you either believe in God or you don't. If your main complaint against God is that a book doesn't accurately prove his existence, well, how would a book even do that? People who believe in the Bible, don't need to have it proven to them that it's God words, anymore than people who believe in God need to have proof of that either. Like I said, you either believe it or you don't. Asking anyone to prove anything where belief is concerned, is rather silly.
Well doesn't the Bible also say the Earth is the center of the universe?
Where?
What can we learn from that? The Bible is rife with contradictions and I bet you could find half a dozen passages that could be interpreted as God wanting us to "be like the immortal, higher being(s)
Contradictions only exist for those who don't understand. Besides, an English version of the Bible is hardly the thing to study if you truly want to analyze the minutea. That's like translating Shakepeare into Chinese and wondering why some people didn't get the wit.
I agree with you that there's ample support within the Bible for the idea that we should strive to be more like the immortal being.
How are you to define our "natural lifespan potential?
I think she means without altering our genes. It's all a matter of scale really, apparantly people don't mind us changing things on the cellular level. But once we get into the nucleus, people are arguing that we're changing our fundamental nature as humans.
Although, the truth is, it's not really necessary to alter genes in order to achieve immortality. Human beings should be able to live forever. It's just that certain genes that keep us "young" turn off over time. Immortality should be a simple question of finding a way to turn those genes on again, or to make sure they never turn off in the first place.
Because humans have the ability for rational thinking and abstract thought
Yeah they do, though they don't show it very often. Afterall, we all agree murder is wrong, yet we can't seem avoiding a war every 30 years can we? Obviously someone isn't understanding why it's wrong to kill another human being.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
What practical good is the knowledge if it is not appliable to something?
That's beside the point, but I'll indulge you. Sometimes we are given knowledge not to inform or teach us, but to further our minds. For example, in my geometry course this past year, we were learning how to write proofs. Everyone in my class, including me, thought that proofs were a waste of time and completely unnecessary - why didn't we move on to learning formulas and etc? We questioned the point of learning to write proofs many times, and every time the teacher gave the same answer: These proofs help refine our thinking process and sense of logic. We didn't believe her.
Of course, in the end, she was right - we geometry students found that we were more capable of picking apart pieces of conversation and dissecting them, of holding our own in a debate, and of using logical sense than the Algebra II students (who were our classmates in other courses), who had only worked with formulas. We did not learn these proofs just to add to the well of knowledge we had to learn; we learnt to write proofs in order to further our minds, just as my teacher had promised.
Another example: evolution theories. I do not believe in evolution, as you have probably deduced. Why, then, should I bother learning evolution theories? Obviously, if I will not believe a word I read, learning these theories will have no applicable relevence. I won't argue or debate on behalf of evolutionists, and I don't intend on participating in creation-vs-evolution debates; nor will I set out to prove evolutionists wrong. Why am I trying to learn more about evolution? To further my mind. To become more well-rounded. Can my trying to expand my well of knowledge be called "practical good"? I think yes.
I said your question was beside the point because I'd already answered it. Here is what I said:
all we need to do is learn about His creations and experiment with them for the sake of knowledge. If applying that knowledge to our lives en masse will be beneficial for Earth and mankind in general (such as cross-pollinating and intentional breeding), then so be it. Let's do it.
If we knew how to create a radioactive device that would bring about the end of the world as we know it, would we make it? I hope not! Why wouldn't we make it? Because it would endanger the lives of 6 billion (more or less) people and countless plants, animals, and organisms.
If we know of a substance that is completely identical to penicillin in function and in availability, what's the use of such a substance? It could not replace penicillin, since it is, essentially, penicillin in a different form. It can therefore only be used as a backup, should penicillin become scarce (which is hardly likely, but that's irrelevent).
Thusly, it is only practical to make use of knowledge that will benefit us. Will virtual immortalisation benefit us? Now we're back at where we started.
You cannot advocate cross-polinating and intentional breeding without supporting genetic engineering. It is the exact same thing. Breeding for desired traits IS genetic engineering.
I did not say that breeding for desired traits is not genetic engineering; I am perfectly aware that interfering with gene selection, etc, is genetic engineering.
However, like genetic engineering, biochemical experimentation has its ups and downs and controversial issues. Results of biochemical experimentation include many medicines and vaccines, as well as weapons such as those which Saddam allegedly possesses. To put it very simply, medicines and vaccines are good. Biochemical weapons are bad. I can advocate the development of medicines and vaccines and look with disdain at biochemical weapons at the same time, though they are all grouped under the same name: biochemical experimentation. The same goes for genetic engineering, though cloning and virtual immortality are not necessarily bad, as opposed to biochemical weapons.
in the old days people had to copy books painstakingly by quill and ink. The effort and time expenditures were enormous. We will call the profession a scribe. Technology advances and along comes Gutenburg and the printing press. Now the scribe can copy books much easier because his tools had improved. He is still a scribe is he not? His job remains exactly the same. Is his "unnatural?" No, it's just progress.
I apologise for not understanding how your example pertains to your message. Please explain its pertinence.
1st Duke Study: I don't believe an entire study without reading all it entails. There's no way I could judge the validity based on a little exerpt.
Yes, I apologise for not providing the entire article, and I realise the faultiness in my offering an excerpt. I would have typed out the entire article, except I cut out portions of it (there was a section on the other side of the page that I clipped, thus cutting out several large blocks of text). Silly me. I also would have provided a link with the entire article but was unable to find one.
However, I'm sure that if either of us did a Google search on the Duke study, we'd find some results. Maybe I'll try later.
Now I don't know what kind of publication this PARADE is but I don't think it's a respected medical journal.
PARADE is a weekly magazine that accompanies many American newspapers. It offers a spectrum of articles, varying from film production updates to news of medical research and politics, and special reports on leading figures or events. I assure you that while it is not a respected medical journal, its information is always accurate.
There is no possible way for the scientists to make sure that attending religious services was the ONLY independent variable among 4000 people's ENTIRE lives.
It is merely a general study. Given all the differing factors, it would be extremely difficult to produce an exhaustive, accurate conclusion such as "If you attend religious services for twenty years, your cholesterol level will decrease by 8%," etc. Duke's research on this topic is just a general observation, but one worth noting.
Correlation does not infer causation. You find praying/attending services and good health have a positive correlation. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing. In another true study they found as ice cream sales increased, so did drownings. Does ice cream cause people to drown? Of course not. The third factor is that during this time it is summer. In the summer people buy more ice cream and swim more.
The mere fact that overwhelming numbers of "religious people" find peace while at service or in prayer transcends other such "correlation and causation" studies. Not only have I read extensively in this subject, but I have also spoken to the ±300 people in my congregation and asked them about what coming to service has done (which I did because I was outlining a just-to-kill-time paper). Nearly all said that they felt empty and meaningless until they started attending synagogue services; many added that they now feel an inner peace and a sense of fulfillment (sp?). To make my would-have-been report (I never got past outlining it) more accurate, I asked the same questions of my churchgoing friends; and they said the same basic thing.
Call me "silly," but I think this is more than mere coincidence.
The Bible is hardly irrefutable foundational knowledge.
I realise some may look at the Bible that way, which is why I said, "Although there are bound to be inaccuracies - for one thing, God spoke through men, and men are flawed and uncapable of expressing godly intentions; for another, the Bible has been translated countless times - we get the general picture." However, please take into consideration that the Scriptures are my foundation and that is what I am basing much of my more "religious" arguments off of. The fact that you question the Bible's "foundational knowledge" is not very relevent to this debate; it only provides the reason as to why you disdain what "religious" comments I say. It does not contribute to the actual content or material of our debate.
What you are saying here is tantamount to claiming God's true intent and existence is proven by the Bible. Well why should we believe the Bible? Because it's the word of God. See the circular illogic?
I do see how the thought process is circular, but it is not necessarily illogical. While I could spring some more arguments concerning this particular issue by saying that this circular pattern only strengthens the cause, I will not, since this is more irrelevent from the main topic of discussion.
Well doesn't the Bible also say the Earth is the center of the universe?
Not that I know of, but I may be wrong. I am familiar primarily with the first Five Books and the Gospels, and though I read the Bible cover-to-cover several years ago, I do not recall any passage that claims the Earth is the center of the universe. If you could please provide some basis or Biblical reference to such a passage, I would be very grateful.
The Bible is rife with contradictions and I bet you could find half a dozen passages that could be interpreted as God wanting us to "be like the immortal, higher being(s)
Au contraire. If God wanted us to be higher and holier than we are, He would have made us so. I very much doubt He would make us take a test and if we pass the test, we'll be an Angel; if we pass with flying colours, we get to have Double-thick Wings and a 24-carat gold halo. Even Christians or those who believe in God and His Son are no better than unbelievers. The only real difference between Christians/believers and nonbelievers is that Christians acknowledge and value the existence of God.
I know the Bible is self-contradictory, but the only contradictions worth noting are those between the Five Books of Moses and the Gospels. I'd explain why there are discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments, but that would only be leading us off-track.
How are you to define our "natural lifespan potential?" A couple hundred years ago our "natural" lifespan was 40 years or so. That was people's definitive natural lifespan potential. If you follow your logic then you would have to condemn all of medicine as unatural prolonging of life.
Our natural lifespan potential is how long we are able to live without any biological intervention or outside life-endangering factors. A few centuries ago, 40 was the maximum age for many people, but not all. There are reliable records of people living well into their seventies, for example; and I apologise for not providing any references. The fact remains that a very small percentage of many populations lived to their natural lifespan potential (which does fluctuate among several populations but has been increasing as time progresses). Medicines and better food allow a larger percentage to reach natural lifespan potential.
But actually digging into a cell and messing around with genes - that is allowing us to live to an unnatural lifespan potential.
There is no difference between modern medicine and a possible future immortality treatment. You cannot logically condemn one and embrace the other.
There is indeed a difference. Modern medicine allows more of us to reach natural lifespan potential and to enjoy a healthy life. Virtual immortalisation only guarantees a stretched-out, prolonged life. It would only let us live a much longer life, theoretically proportionate to our current lifespan and maturation rate. Immortalisation does not necessarily guarantee a healthy life. We could look as if we are 50 when we are really 300, but will our health as 300-year-olds be comparable to that of today's 50-year-old?
However, people would not realise that murdering is a wrong thing to do. All they would know is that if they kill everyone, they don't survive because they cannot reproduce. How would they figure out that murdering is wrong?
Because humans have the ability for rational thinking and abstract thought
If we're talking about "prehistoric" or "primitive" humans, which are part of an evolutionist's thinking (and therefore not mine), how do we know that "primitive" humans who did not have the imagination to generate a religious system had developed the "modern" human's "ability for rational thinking and abstract thought"?
Why would it be unlikely that I would ask anyone else? You take for granted our modern society's base answer is truth. In far ancient times if someone's answer could arbitrarily be a truth or a lie, then the logical thing would be to corroborate it elsewhere. [...] Now being a rational being and knowing the answer could be equally true or false, why wouldn't I corroborate it when the stakes are so high?
Ah, but since we are so primitive (in the example), we are unfamiliar with the concept of dishonesty. You can only assume that I am being truthful because none of us do not know what lies or deception is. It is beyond our thought. If you find out that my answer was wrong and that I lied to you, only then would you be acquainted with the concept of dishonesty. Otherwise, you would have no reason not to believe me.
Besides, if we are so primitive in this example, we have not had the time or the circumstances in which to develop a sense of logic, as I have already explained above when talking about rational thinking and abstract thought.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Of course, in the end, she was right - we geometry students found that we were more capable of picking apart pieces of conversation and dissecting them, of holding our own in a debate, and of using logical sense than the Algebra II students (who were our classmates in other courses), who had only worked with formulas. We did not learn these proofs just to add to the well of knowledge we had to learn; we learnt to write proofs in order to further our minds, just as my teacher had promised.
"refining your mind" is not of practical use?"
I apologise for not understanding how your example pertains to your message. Please explain its pertinence
it is a literary device known as an analogy .
Au contraire. If God wanted us to be higher and holier than we are, He would have made us so.
so now you presume to know the will of God?
I do see how the thought process is circular, but it is not necessarily illogical. While I could spring some more arguments concerning this particular issue by saying that this circular pattern only strengthens the cause, I will not, since this is more irrelevent from the main topic of discussion.
take any basic philosophy or logic course and you will know that circular logic IS illogical.
Our natural lifespan potential is how long we are able to live without any biological intervention or outside life-endangering factors
and what would you classify medicine as if not "biological intervention?"
There is indeed a difference. Modern medicine allows more of us to reach natural lifespan potential and to enjoy a healthy life.
false. medicinal treatment of cancer or aids prolongs life but does not guarantee the subject to a healthy life.
If we're talking about "prehistoric" or "primitive" humans, which are part of an evolutionist's thinking (and therefore not mine), how do we know that "primitive" humans who did not have the imagination to generate a religious system had developed the "modern" human's "ability for rational thinking and abstract thought"?
and...
Ah, but since we are so primitive (in the example), we are unfamiliar with the concept of dishonesty. You can only assume that I am being truthful because none of us do not know what lies or deception is. It is beyond our thought. If you find out that my answer was wrong and that I lied to you, only then would you be acquainted with the concept of dishonesty. Otherwise, you would have no reason not to believe me.
who said morality was created at the exact moment of the dawn of man? clearly if i can ask someone, "are there sabertooth tigers around?" then the very question presumes rational and abstract thought.
|
|
|
"refining your mind" is not of practical use?"
You misunderstand me. I said that refining one's mind is of practical use. I said, at the end of my third paragraph, "Why am I trying to learn more about evolution? To further my mind. To become more well-rounded. Can my trying to expand my well of knowledge be called "practical good"? I think yes."
You asked me, "What practical good is the knowledge if it is not appliable to something?" therefore questioning the practicality of refining one's mind and contradicting yourself.
it is a literary device known as an analogy
I am very much acquainted and familiar with the meaning and uses of "analogy." I was asking how the scribe's job made easier compares to my advocating only certain areas of genetic engineering, since I could not see the connexion between the two.
so now you presume to know the will of God?
No. Perhaps I was wrong in making that statement, but now you are picking at semantics and not at the meaning behind my poorly-expressed words.
take any basic philosophy or logic course and you will know that circular logic IS illogical.
Well, now I have something to look forward to. I have three years until I am allowed to take any philosophy class; already I am eagerly anticipating my senior year. But in the meantime, considering the most work I have done with logic is the geometry proofs and most I have done in any philosophy-like course is a class I took at my synagogue, my error can only be dismissed as the result of lack of knowledge in that arena.
and what would you classify medicine as if not "biological intervention?"
Again, you misunderstood me. I was defining "natural lifespan potential," since you asked, "How are you to define our 'natural lifespan potential?'" The fact that more people can reach their natural lifespan potential with the help of medicines, etc, is an entirely different point.
false. medicinal treatment of cancer or aids prolongs life but does not guarantee the subject to a healthy life.
True. However, I was addressing the general issue and was not being specific to any particular disease. Looking for exceptions to my statements is only leading us off-track.
who said morality was created at the exact moment of the dawn of man?
That was the sense I got after reading your previous message. We were obviously discussing a very primitive society of humans, but you said that, "In far ancient times if someone's answer could arbitrarily be a truth or a lie, then the logical thing would be to corroborate it elsewhere." You acknowledged that our subject humans are very primitive, but then you assumed that those humans would have developed enough logical sense to back up any answer to a question. And then I said, "Besides, if we are so primitive in this example, we have not had the time or the circumstances in which to develop a sense of logic" just to drive the point home.
clearly if i can ask someone, "are there sabertooth tigers around?" then the very question presumes rational and abstract thought.
True, I concede there.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
I am very much acquainted and familiar with the meaning and uses of "analogy." I was asking how the scribe's job made easier compares to my advocating only certain areas of genetic engineering, since I could not see the connexion between the two.
to connect the two, it requires abstract thought =)
The fact that more people can reach their natural lifespan potential with the help of medicines, etc, is an entirely different point.
you contradicted yourself in the same statement. How does one reach their natural lifespan with the help of an external force? FYI diseases ARE natural. If you die of a disease that is a natural death, and thus the end of your natural lifespan
No. Perhaps I was wrong in making that statement, but now you are picking at semantics and not at the meaning behind my poorly-expressed words.
Its not semantics. The meaning behind your "poorly-expressed words" is the exact same thing as your statement. You stated that if God wanted us to be such a way, he would've made it that way. No matter how you word it it is still presuming knowing God's intent. You cannot make a statement like that without the presumption.
True. However, I was addressing the general issue and was not being specific to any particular disease. Looking for exceptions to my statements is only leading us off-track.
Since medicine can be broken down into preventive or curative practices, and only preventive can be thought to "helping us live our natural lifespan." If you have a flu and take medication for it, and after awhile you are cured, you are not any healthier (except relative to the period of illness) than your base state. You cannot lump the entire curative aspect as an "exception."
|
|
|
to connect the two, it requires abstract thought =)
*groan!* But the thing is, the scribe's job remains the same - it's just easier to do and the process itself is more efficient. However, cross-pollinating and intentional breeding are almost entirely separate from immortalisation and cloning - the only similarities the two entities share is that they both involve genetic engineering and they help prolong life. It is because cross-pollinating and intentional breeding are so different from immortalisation and cloning that I can advocate one area of genetic engineering and not the other; and I still cannot see how my supporting one small realm of a large spectrum is in any way comparable to a task being done more productively and efficiently.
you contradicted yourself in the same statement. How does one reach their natural lifespan with the help of an external force?
Ahhhhhhh! No - you misunderstand me. Maybe it's just the way I'm phrasing it...  All right, let's start over.
Back in the "old days," people rarely lived beyond the age of forty, right? However, there were exceptions, and the few who lived past forty sometimes made it even to seventy. That is natural lifespan potential.
If we did not develop better living/working conditions, more effective medicines, and improved diets, etc, we would still be counting ourselves lucky if we lived to forty. If not for our advances in the medical field, we would still be dying "young." It is with the help of external forces - i.e., the factors I named above - that more people are living to their natural lifespan potential. I will emphasise that without external forces, we would rarely live past out forties.
FYI diseases ARE natural. If you die of a disease that is a natural death, and thus the end of your natural lifespan
Did I say otherwise? I know diseases are natural. However, natural lifespan potential is the age of the person(s) who lives through what nature (untouched by mankind) throws at him/her/them.
Its not semantics. The meaning behind your "poorly-expressed words" is the exact same thing as your statement. You stated that if God wanted us to be such a way, he would've made it that way. No matter how you word it it is still presuming knowing God's intent. You cannot make a statement like that without the presumption.
Okay, fine. *groan!* If God wanted us to be immortal, he could have made us that way. But it is beyond human logic to ask why, if He wanted us to be immortal, He did not just do it and is instead making us dig around in our genes.
Since medicine can be broken down into preventive or curative practices, and only preventive can be thought to "helping us live our natural lifespan." If you have a flu and take medication for it, and after awhile you are cured, you are not any healthier (except relative to the period of illness) than your base state. You cannot lump the entire curative aspect as an "exception."
I never thought of medicines that way, actually; thanks for opening my mind.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Aug 6 13:50:22)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Aug 6 19:33:08 |
:)
Okay, fine. *groan!* If God wanted us to be immortal, he could have made us that way.
That's not much different than the argument the Wright Brothers received.
I wonder, why do some people think that God didn't leave us room to grow. I mean, couldn't it be argued just as well, that if God wanted us to keep things the way they were, he wouldn't have given us the means by which to change it?
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
Yes, but the Wright brothers didn't program our genes so we could fly by flapping our arms or something like that.
We weren't exactly given the means by which to change us; they were lying there and we discovered them.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Aug 6 19:42:05)
|
|
Yes, but the Wright brothers didn't program our genes so we could fly by flapping our arms or something like that.
Yes, but they were told the same reason against flying.
I can almost hear the next generation of arguments ... "If God had intended us to live on Mars, he wouldn't have put as all on Earth"
We weren't exactly given the means by which to change us; they were lying there and we discovered them.
Well I won't debate God's plan, because I don't really know :)
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Aug 6 13:36:43)
|
|
We could look as if we are 50 when we are really 300, but will our health as 300-year-olds be comparable to that of today's 50-year-old?
That's a valid question Eowyn.
I've always said that there's no point to simply extending people's life, without extending their 'youth' as well. That is, ensuring, that people have the physical capacites of a much younger person.
I do very much envision immortal humans as elves, not just in terms of their lifespan, but in health and beauty as well. The latter coming from the fact that people genrally become 'better' the older they get.
The physical aspects would both be provided courtesy of science, which if they can make you immortal, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to prolong youth/health as well. I do see all the physical aspects being simultanously dealt with.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
I agree with you Wajz that the efforts would be much better spent trying to improve the quality of time a person is here already rather than trying to add length to that time. Is it really a good idea to try to go after immortality when there are so many diseases for which a cure hasn't been found yet, some which they don't even know the causes for yet? Sure, maybe I'll be pro immortality on this earth if disease and decay have been totally eradicated from the equation, that's really not possible (at least not anytime in the forseeable future) with how the strains of a virus can mutate and so the antibodies for one form won't always work for another. As the article says, the human body is just not designed to last forever--even for a few hundred years. It naturally begins to decay and things start to slow down and malfunction after a while.
The beasts in the heart of man have stopped howling, they have stopped bleeding.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Jul 31 22:01:33)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 02:58:36 |
I agree with you Wajz that the efforts would be much better spent trying to improve the quality of time a person is here already rather than trying to add length to that time.
First, when I speak about 'immortality', I mean youth extension as well as life extention. Both are tied scientifically, and should really become available about the same time.
Now then, yes, quality of life is very important. There's really no point extending people's lives if you're not going to improve that. However, I feel that immortality brings with it a natural improvement to quality of life.
Afterall, how many of our lives have benefited from Tolkien's LOTR? From the music of Howard Shore? From PJ's directing? From Ian McKellen's acting? From Alan Lee's artistry? Isn't it safe to say that our quality of life could only improve by having men such as these create for a little longer, improve their craft a little longer, do what they do best?
That's just five people that I know could significantly improve other's lives just by being who they are for an extended period of time. There are countless artists out there who could make life better, simply by continuing to entertain, to create, to inspire. This says nothing about truly important people: teachers, doctors, firemen, law enforcement, veternarians, etc. Who honestly thinks that society wouldn't benefit from having these people have an extra 40 years of experience under their belt?
Then if that weren't enough, there's the scientists, the engineers, the researchers ... which really are the ones who get left the dirty work. It's their job to find the cures to all those deadly diseases. It's their job to figure out how to harness better sources of energy, how to create more efficent resource usage, how to grow food in the middle of deserts. They're the one's who'll have to figure out how to reverse global warming, how to clean up the earth's oceans, how to turn rocks into diamonds. I don't really see any reason why having these people have an extra 40 years of experience under their belt would hurt anyone either.
And finally, probably the most important ... parents. If science could somehow delay the decay of the body, so that you're body would physically be 30 even when you're technically 60 ... how many people wouldn't delay having children until their later years? Is there no inherent benefit from having a parent with 40 or 50 years of life experience raise a child, rather than one who only has 20 or 30 such years?
These are just some of the basic improvements to quality of life that could come because of extended life. I could go into crime, economics, politics, etc ... all down the line, and easily make the case as to why having an older (and thus more mature populace) would enhance everyone's quality of life.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
| by -
Speedo_mask
(Fri Aug 1 14:54:29)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Aug 1 15:01:17 |
Well, personally I just think it is exciting to be around in a time like this. I don't really put much stock in the fact that 400 years from now, some of you may still be hanging out on these very message boards, but then again, I don't really know anything about the science of the subject.
WARNING: RANT!
Personally, I'm just tired of people on this topic talking about how we as humans are ruining the environment, and how the planet is being destroyed, and all that other utter hippy tree hugging bullcrap. The planet is fine. It's not going anywhere. It's not going to be destroyed by humanity anytime soon. Humanity might be. But to say that we as humans are ruining the planet is egotistical and wrong. How exactly are we going to 'destroy' the planet, or ruin its ecosystem? Polystyrene? Plastic? Deforestation? Radiation? Don't you think the earth has gone through a few disasters in its day? Earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids and Ice Ages, just to name a few. Probably worse than we can reasonably throw at it short of actively trying to destroy it (This isn't "Captain Planet." We don't have super-villains whose only thought is to destroy the environment. Sorry, you were lied to. That should teach you to listen to a blue-green guy with a mullet.). Think about this for a second, folks. Just because humans make something doesn't mean it's unnatural. Losing a few forests or killing off a few species is NOT going to destroy the environment. So we lose a few species. Big freakin' deal! Has it occurred to you that maybe nature has a natural balance, and we're part of this balance!? Do you ever think about the fact that literally millions of species of animals and plants went extinct WAY before humans were even around? Maybe by "SAVING" these endangered species, we are altering the environment for the worse. People who worry about our 'destruction of the planet' aren't worried about the planet, they are worried about quality of life FOR HUMANS on the planet, and that ultimately means THEMSELVES. Self-centered bastards.
ANYWAY, I do have a point, and that is the fact that by lengthening our lives, it is not "playing god" or going against His plan for us, and that by doing this we will not inflict any great harm on anybody. I'm by no means an expert on the bible, but didn't people live to incredible ages back in the old testament? Personally, I am religious. I happen to believe that there is a God. But to say that mankind was not meant to do something out of fear of some invisible parent figure who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago, and says "DO IT AND I'LL *beep* SPANK YOU!" (yes, it's kinda from _Dogma_ if you noticed) is just ridiculous. Who has the audacity to assume that God doesn't want us to use this incredible talent that we as a species have acquired?
If we lived in tolkien's universe, the elves would be much wiser than us. Unfortunately, this is the REAL WORLD. We do not have the luxury of having people like the elves or wizards to guide us with their immense wisdom. Maybe it is our destiny as a human race to live long, full lives, and in this way to help each other. I think it's safe to say that almost everyone who lives long enough gets much wiser with age. Maybe if men were around for long enough, they could share their great wisdom, which can ONLY be gained through experience, with those that need it. Maybe if people were around for long enough, we could figure out a way to forget our differences and love each other! What possible disadvantage is there in that? What is the worst that could happen? Overpopulation? I'm pretty sure the earth has a way of evening things like that out. Yes, I am aware that it probably means the destruction of a certain number of humans. That's what we call nature. In my humble opinion, mankind could probably benefit from a little competition in the gene pool these days. Those that are strong enough to live will do so. If by some chance we create vaccines for every virus and bacteria, and the Earth can't handle all of us, you know damn well we have the technology right now to set up a colony on the moon or Mars. I'm sure there is no shortage of people who DREAM about the opportunity to go there for five minutes!
If this technology were reality, our technological advancements would not be limited by the terms of a person's lifetime. Maybe if certain scientists were around today we would already have a cure for cancer, and a cure for AIDS, improving the quality of life for even those of us who can't afford immortality. How can God see a problem in that?!
If anyone says that we should not use our technology, I say look at Matthew 25:14-30. I'd type the passage out, but I'm lazy. It says that the point of our talents is that we USE them. If people know how to lengthen human life, then they should use that technology to help people.
I see absolutely no reason why God should even be a factor in a decision such as this, since He made us in order that we can do great things such as this. To gain skills and talents, as we have been doing for thousands of years. There is hardly a difference between building a machine and slowing down aging. You could argue that if God had wanted us to use machines, he woulda miracled 'em to us.
Well, I've written enough to bore everyone for now, and it is Friday afternoon. Time to go drink! BYE!
De gustibus non disputandum est
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Fri Aug 1 18:34:56)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Aug 19 02:53:41 |
The environment ... um, not a problem.
One of the possible benefits of cloning is that no species may go extinct in the future Now, I'm not saying bring back dinosaurs or dodos. But we could use a few more tigers and bears.
As to plants and forests, well, their destruction is for 2 main reasons.
1) Resources. Wood, paper, medicines, dyes, whatnot.
2) Space. Hey, that's prime real-estate I mean, if it can support a forest ...
Anyway ... both these can be taken care of by science (at least I think so). #1 will cease to be a reason as soon as we can produce good substitutes artificially. Now this requires a long chain of advancements ... a more abundant source of energy, better computer technology, other advanced tools involving perhaps powerful, precise lasers or nanotechnology. In any case, it's not entirely unforeseeable that the technology will be available some day.
The same goes for #2, when engineers can help us more easily transform deserts into habitable and appealing communities, I think you'd quickly find that forests would be more or less left intact.
So if science and technology are the solutions to environmental problems, how is the world hurt by giving scientists and engineers more time to perfect their craft?
Now, before anyone suggests another solution, like trying to alter human behavior ;) ... I'd only like to say that it was probably a lot easier for Einstein to come up with relativity, than it was for Gandhi to get the British out of India. Certainly, there was a lot less pain involved
God ... blessed be wherever he is
Overpopulation ... um, yeah so you don't like sharing the planet with 6 billion other people. Well, here's a reality check ... there's supposed to be over 10 billion people before the next century is over, that's without the benefit of immortality by the way.
Is overpopulation a problem, well I certainly don't mind having the extra people around, but let's assume there is a problem with this.
Ok, yeah sorry all you all yet unborn babies, the humans of this planet have decided to put a population 'cap' at 6 billion. Yeah it's our planet, we don't want to share it, don't like it?, too bad, you don't have any choice.
You think I'm kidding? In China which is currently the most populated country on Earth, they limit the amount of children you can have. I suspect other countries will follow along similar lines if things persist.
I find this rather sad really. To think that on the most abundant planet known in the universe, people would wish to deprive others of a right to life. "Third kid? Yeah, he could be the next Einstein, but he'll probably be a leech like all the others. We don't need that."
Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh :) Maybe people aren't against others being born, but are really only against us being unprepared to support them :) Ok.
What does it take to support a human in modern society?
1) Oxygen.
2) Water.
3) Food/nutrition.
4) Clothing.
5) Shelter.
6) Shelter amenities ... beds, sofas, whatnot. Let's just call them things.
7) A waste disposal system.
8) Energy, for the things.
9) Other people, ie. relationships, ie. love, ie. whatever people are worth :)
10) A role in society, ie. job.
11) A form of transportation to get to the job, food, clothing, etc.
12) Stability and order (ussually provided by #9)
13) Some level of formal education.
14) For spiritual needs, please consult the nearest human (preferably one with a book handy ), else look to the sky and seek your own devices :)
On the off-chance that you receive a reply, please disregard #1-8 and #11.
Ok, how to provide for these without divine intervention ;)
1) Oxygen - free of charge, wohoo! Just don't foul up the air, a lesson which I think we're learning
2) Water, again provided free of charge, just don't foul up the water. D'oh! Ok, now how to clean that up. Well ... filtration, distillation, osmosis, whatnot. All I know, is a lot of machines and a lot of energy. How to clean enough water for everyone? Mostly, a lot more energy. Which should be provided by science in the future.
3) Food/nutrition - provided by cows free of grass (MOO!) Ok, not that simple. But the fact is, we currently pay farmers not to grow crops ... for fear of overproducing food and making food prices plummet (at least that's what the French farmers keep complaining about). You'd be surprised how relatively few people are employed in agriculture, yet how that really provides enough to feed eveyone. And of course, there's really no reason why China or India, or the nations of Africa can't be just as productive as California.
The main difference is that in California they have the technology, in other places, they don't. Now this is not entirely a problem of science. Yes, scientists can make the technology cheaper and more efficient, hopefully one day that'll be enough, but really this is a problem of society that I will adress elsewhere.
4) Clothing. Made by humans for humans. Required materials - various plant and animal products, tools, and 'slave' labor. As I stated with regards to the environment, those resource issues will be addressed by science eventually. The tools, also provided courtesy of science. The 'slave labor', I use with obvious contempt because I don't think anyone should feel they have to sit in a factory all day, just to be able to live. That said, I also believe that one day we'll see the advancement of "replicator" technology. Yes, it's quite Star Trek of me, but it wouldn't be the first scientific advancement Star Trek has successfully foreshadowed.
The science of replicators really boils down to two things: 1) a better form of energy production and 2) a more fundamental understanding of matter/energy
Once scientists understand the specifics of how mass becomes energy, I think it's pretty much a given that replicators will be coming along. Probably right after the better form of energy production.
5) Shelter - material required wood, metal, so on, tools, humans. As with clothing, I see most of this being taken by science through "replicator" technology. However, unlike clothing, I think people will still need to actually do the work of assembling everything. This goes to #10 role in society/jobs ... yes, some people may just want to be carpenters , what's wrong with that 
6) Shelter ammenities, easy. The same as #4 clothing, with one small exception, some people will still want to take part in creating the "things." Mostly, I see that as designers making a model, which gets stored into a database of things that can be "replicated." Of course, yet others may actually want to craft the things themselves But the point is, no one will have to.
7) Waste disposal - provided by the government. Yeah, let them do something for a change! Actually, with replicator technology, any "waste" just gets recycled, problem solved.
8) Energy - absolutely essential for all scientific solutions. It will be up to science to tackle this issue and to provide us with a cheap, efficient, abundant form of energy. If and when science does this, everything else more or less falls in line.
9) Other people - provided by us :) Free of charge ;)
10) Role in society - Well, it's not really science's place to say what people should do, but science can and should tell us what people don't have to do.
This is probably such an extensive subject on it's own, that I'll probably just touch on it, but here goes.
Replicator technology would more or less put 90%+ of the population out of work. Now at first, like with anything, replicators would be the exclusive property of a few ... but over a relatively short period of time, I doubt they wouldn't become widespread (so long as the energy is there).
Anyway, it would be wise of the government to claim imminent domain with regards to replicator technology ;) That is, on the off chance that anyone who discovers it is foolish enough not to share it with everyone :)
Anyway, yeah so overnight most jobs could be gone. Good thing too because "money" probably won't have any significance. No money you say? How's someone supposed to live?
The bad news is that you'll probably be out of work, the good news is that you won't have to work :) Most of your basic physical needs should be met with the advent of widespread replicator technology. Water, food, clothing, things, etc. With shelter, you'll just have to barter with the architects ;) You know, get a dozen of you together, tell him you'll do all the labor if he teaches you what you need to do and does all the design :)
Could be worse, the government might assign you a job, ha! But then, don't forget to vote
Anyways, once the basics get out of the way ... I see a lot of people learning how to do something else. There will still be a demand for most quality service jobs ... entertainers, teachers, doctors, scientists, etc. You'll have plenty of fields to go into if you feel like it :)
Afterall, you could just sit at home once your home gets built. Ocassionally go use the replicator (which if you're smart, you'll vote into office the people who gaurantee that the government will provide that as a free service). Yes, you could sit at home all day, it's not like anyone really needs you :P And I think most of the younger generation might take this approach ;) But I don't see very many mature adults wanting to contribute nothing to society In fact, it would be very hard not to. But I guess this depends on your view of mankind, whether you think they are inherently lazy or productive.
11) Um, you may have to barter for someone to put your car together ;) Hey, if you're not very good, at least you get a lot of exercise Hey, if you need help just ask ... someone may be kind to you, or try asking a friend to barter for you As a last resort, you could always wait until you learn how to assemble your own car :) You can learn right?
12) Hmm. Well, you eliminate 'things' out of the equation, and that should help make the world a little more stable.
13) Formal education - seek parents, siblings, friends, benevolent teachers, or just replicate yourself some books, a computer, whatnot and get to work.
Whew. Ok. It seems to me that we could all greatly benefit from science. How does immortality affect that? Well, if you stop all the Einsteins in the world from dying year after year, how long do you think it will take them to figure out the things we need them to figure out?
Well, even assuming that immortality is a long-term solution to the overpopulation problem, wouldn't immortality in fact create other problems?
I've stated elsewhere that immortality would be exclusive to the very rich at first. So I don't think it's too diffucult to imagine that scientists will find the solutions I've already discussed with regards to over-population, before immortality becomes widespread.
The main problem I forsee is a new prejudice against 'immortals.' "Yeah, those self-absorbed, unnatural, pointy eared, freaks of nature" Well, I think the rich are rich enough that they can still live a great life even if they do become outcasts. Not that they aren't already ;)
But most of this will be offset by the fact that many of the first immortals will be people who are well-respected. Athletes, actors, musicians, scientists, so on. Also, the fact that most those people will continue to use their extended life for what they have earned that respect, will ease the burden on the average man till immortality becomes widespread. In fact, if the very rich are smart, they'll use their wealth to help along those scientists, while they still have wealth to use
There are other alternatives to banning births.
First world nations have lower birth rates. I don't really know why, but when people are doing well in life, they don't feel the need to have as many children. In fact in Europe (where first-world countries originated), they're approaching zero-population growth. Some of them are even at risk of a shrinking population
And as a last resource, there is mars, the moon, space itself. Like you said, there would be a lot of eager people to go there. Maybe the problem isn't too many people, maybe mankind has simply evolved to a point where they need to get out a little more. Afterall, if there's no ET's like some claim, then that really leaves a lot of space for us to grow into doesn't it :)
And last but not least, God ... fool of a took, mend your own vegetables! lol. There's no reason to invoke God's name. I'm more than confident that no matter what we choose to do, the day God decides to set things right, he will :)
Ok, now that that's over. Sorry for the longest, and possibly most long-winded post I've ever made ( I hope not). Anyways, thanks for enduring my thoughts.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
| by -
Speedo_mask
(Sat Aug 2 06:37:31)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Aug 2 06:41:01 |
umm.... i thought i was arguing for immortality myself, I just included a rant about how environmentalists were stupid because the planet doesn't need our help.
Also, for the part about your alternative solutions to population caps, I was saying that the problem will be naturally corrected because you cannot possibly have enough resources to feed all those people, resulting in some competition and survival of the fittest. The human race could use some thinning out of idiots. Here's an idea to keep the population down: Take off all the stupid warning labels on products, like electrical products that say "don't put this in water" or coffee that says "caution: may be hot." If someone can't figure out this *beep* without having it spelled out to them, I don't want them around in my gene pool. I have absolutely no problem with a few people being killed off. In fact, I think the solution to the hunger problem in third world countries is to let it be. It may sound cold, but there is only a certain number of people that land can sustain. By saving the ones that aren't strong enough to make it, we are *beep* with natural selection. We are allowing the weak genes to be passed on along with the strong ones. The natural order of all things is that the ones who can't survive, don't. It's a self-correcting problem.
I threw in the part about God because if others will be arguing with you using God, they will not listen when you simply say "God isn't relevant because He might not exist." You have to have a point. Perhaps He does not exist and perhaps He does, but if He has already been brought up in the debate, He is relevant and you have to debate either His existance or His will. Personally I find it much easier to debate His will. But people still feel the need to debate evolution as proof that god exists.
One example I can give you for evolution is that some people say that the human brain is so complex that it absolutely MUST be accepted that a brain cannot be developed without divine inspriation. Essentially when you say that you cannot see how something developed naturally without God, this just means you are not open-minded to other possibilities. You can no more say that evolution of the human brain is impossible without divine inspiration than you can say that evolution of the advanced computer that you are using right now is impossible. They are both extremely complex, obviously. The main differences are that brains have had millions of years to develop, where computers have advanced this much (for the most part) within the past century. Computers' advancement is similar to that of the brain, just quicker and over a shorter time line. Do you know how computers have developed? It is horribly complex at the most basic levels, but in the end it comes down to transistors. This one development allowed computers and every other form of electronics to form, and be refined. In the same way the brain is composed of many many nerve cells. We put transistors together to create computers, right? I'll spare you the long-winded boolean algebra explaination, but in the end, NAND gates can be combined to create any combination of AND, OR, and NOR gates. With these gates you can make almost infinite numbers of electronic devices to do absolutely anything. Eventually, we invented the microprocessor using combinations of thousands of these transistors. A microprocessor is a combination of transistors, just as a brain is a combination of nerve cells. Both have specialized areas that perform extremely useful and complex jobs by themselves, but these areas work together to perform even more complex jobs. As you can see, there were logical steps in the development of the modern-day microprocessor, each of which were extremely useful by themselves. In the same way, there were logical steps in the development of the modern-day human brain. Each step was useful in and of itself, eventually putting these systems together allowed the brain to become as complex as it is today. I use the example of computers because everyone can relate to them yet at base levels only a few know how they work, and because their development is extremely well-documented. It is extremely complex, without divine inspiration. I'm sure if transistors developed naturally instead of brain cells, then microprocessors could have logically formed naturally over millions of years in humans.
De gustibus non disputandum est
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sat Aug 2 08:33:11)
|
|
My post wasn't exactly a reply to yours
As to God ... people can bring him up all they like, but I'm not going to turn every scientific and philosophical argument into a question of whether God does or does not exist and what exactly God is.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Aug 5 01:40:52)
|
|
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless
|
|
|
 Oog make mission statement.
|
|
|
Oog make mission statement.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
