This assumes we have an understanding of nature and evolution (or more broadly, cause and effect) beyond what we actually do.  Again, we need to go back and generate models of what would happen if 20%, 50%, even 90% of the population lived for centuries or forever.  What would happen to us biologically?  As a species?  Would it allow for new growth, or would it lead to stagnation?  I have a distinct fear that, should we never clear out the old growth in regards to genes or ideas, we will have no space for fresh seedlings, and where there is no growth, there is rot.



Evolution is a function of nature (although perhaps we're using different terms here).  And while I do think nature is functional, I certainly don't think it is constant.  You're right, a species evolved 5,000 years ago may (or may not) be suitable for life today.  But similarly, a mindset that evolved 5,000 years ago may not be suitable for life today. *cough* umm... don't apply that to any thread but this one.



I'm not sure I agree.  I don't know that I have a 'right' to determine the universe around me.  I don't think I have a right to choose when I die any more than I have a right to choose what waits for me after that point (as in, God exists or not, Vishnu exists or not, etc.)

My right to life doesn't mean I have a right to a long or happy life, but I have a right to not be killed, and a right to fight to hang on to that life.  But I'm not sure, really.  These philosophical concepts are sort of soft.  Does a person struck by lightning have a 'right' not to be killed?  Did nature ignore that right?  Or do rights only extend to interactions between people?  Is old age between people, or is it between individuals and nature?



And in the space of this quote is where things have the potenntial to go catastrophically wrong.  Should we proceed into such a dark unknown?  This isn't splitting the atom, it's questioning the very nature of what drives us.



I think it was Heath who indicated that Revelations isn't the end of the Earth, btu rather, the change from one age to a new, better one.  I thought this was very interesting, as it suggests that, perhaps, getting to that point won't be one of destruction and suffering, but of human creation, and that the second coming is God saying 'you got it.  Now YOU have made heaven, and through your efforts you have found the way to be true creators yourselves."  It's an idea I've toyed with (although obviously we are so very, very far away still).

Which is sort of my point!  When you tell me God put his rules down in the bible, I have to assume you didn't get your wires crossed.  If someone different says god put their rules down in some other holy book, I just have to decide which of you I think is less likely to have gotten your wires crossed.  Which is the same situation we were in from the start: trying to decide whom to believe.


I don't know, "accept me or suffer an eternity of torture in hell" sounds an awful lot like "my way or else" to me!  I don't know that I've heard of any religion that promises any thing worse than that if you don't follow their god.

And, of course, there's that Jonah story...
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:41, Wed 15 Oct 2008.

*** Well, are we making them live forever, or just allowing them to? Forced immortality would be wrong, but if someone wishes to choose that, why would it be undesirable?


*** Yes, I do.


*** See, this is what I meant above (in response to Katisara); if someone wants to choose to put off their death, why would that be bad? And using the nature argument is like saying we shouldn't try to cure cancer, or AIDS, or polio (or any other "natural" disease).


*** While I totally agree with this, I worry that the arguement would be something along the lines of, "Anyone who wishes to commit suicide isn't thinking rationally, and thus can't." It's Catch 22.


*** Isn't that what we have to do in order to discover new things? Albert Einstein didn't intend for his theories to be used in the creation of the hydrogen bomb; should he then not have formulated them? For that matter, Christ (I am certain) never intended for His life to be used as justification for (un)holy wars; would we better off had He not lived? There are always unintended consequences, and if we get caught up in worrying about them, we'll not accomplish anything.


*** Becos what right does anyone else have to choose it? Are we not masters of our own selves, if nothing else?


*** Well, if we could figure out how to pull off that trick, I'd be in favour of it.


*** Yes. What's the problem?


*** Well too, one would hope that once we're that sufficiently advanced, there won't be any more Republicans. (Or at least, that whatever party(s) we do have will be better than all the ones we have now.)


*** Okay, now this one is funny. Also a very good point.


*** Well you know, in the end, there can be only one ....


*** You meant "pick chocolate", right <grin>?


*** Well, unless and until He decides to make His opinon clear on the subject, I don't really see the logic of worrying about what He thinks.


*** Okay, given that, it still doesn't matter what He thinks. If He's gonna do whatever He intends regardless of our actions, then we still don't need to worry about Him.


*** One of the arguements made against immortality (not sure who made it, sorry) was that after a while depression may set in, which is what led to the whole suicide discussion. If we're going to let people be killing themselves off, won't that make new space?


*** It seems as if you're equating these, and if so, I don't see how.


*** So you're agreeing, then, that we have "a right to fight" for immortality? And do you not agree that if one has a right to life, one also has an equal right to death?


*** Yes, we should proceed, and precisely becos it is "such a dark unknown". How are we ever to bring it out of the dark and make it known if we do not proceed? And while a fear of death (as I think you're saying) may be what drives some, it doesn't drive everyone.

That's the whole point of my posts.  We don't know.  And that makes it dangerous.  What might happen if 90% of the population never died?  What would happen to our young people?  Our economy?  Our ability to grow as a society?  I'll tell you one thing, the taxes for social security will be staggering.



Curing basic deases has resulted in a staggering population jump in many countries, to the point that very many children are starving to death rather than a few dying as infants.  It may also be watering down the gene pool, increasing the incidence of genetic diseases.  And by pushing back the amount of time we live, it's also pushing back retirement, to the point that many people won't be able to retire at all.  Not to say these things don't make those discoveries worthwhile, but that everything has a cost.  Accepting a deal without knowing what you're actually paying for it seems dangerous to me.



Nature is not 'anyone', nor would I daresay is God.



In theory, if enough people got depressed, it could be self-regulating.  I suspect it won't be, however.

This is the point that I'm trying to make, we do not know what will happen, and what will happen may be very bad.  Crowding out the mindspace means that we will see fewer and fewer new inventions or new methods.  It means we will stop growing as a culture.  Everyone will still like Elvis and the Ramones will never come on the scene, it'll just be different versions of Elvis.  Everyone will be fine doing division by hand because that's how they always did it, and computers will never become as hugely popular as they are.  It's only by clearing out the old methods that we make space for new methods to be tried, understood and assimilated.  If we invent immortality, I have a fear that social progress will roll to a halt.  We won't continue any farther into the stars.  We won't continue to grow and change our world.  The dreams our own children have not had yet will not be realized.  We'll just be stuck with what we like, what we want right now, and that's where the human race will end.

It would make for a very interesting sci-fi book though, where humans invent immortality, and so the young people all move to a new planet to start a new culture.  Earth is caught in the 21st century, Mars in the 22nd, the moons of Jupiter in the 23rd, etc.




We do have a right to fight for immortality.  But that doesn't mean using that right is prudent.

*** I don't understand this. What if Edison would've lived another, say, fifty years? You don't think he would've invented lots of other things? Or if Shakespeare would've been able to write more plays, DaVinci paint more pictures, Michaelangelo carve more statues? If we have more time to create, why do you think we'll create less? And if we have immortality (or at least longer lifespans), wouldn't that make it easier to go to the stars? The biggest hurdle is the time factor; eliminate that, and we can get to Alpha Centauri or wherever. Our kids' dreams will be realised becos they'll have the time and the ability to realise them. One of the human race's biggest limitations is our physical state; if we can eliminate (or at least mitigate) that, then we can do anything.

Yes, no question, give people more time and they'll produce more of whatever it is they're good at.  Shakespeare would have produced very many more plays.  But would he ever have been able to direct a good movie?  Would Edison have been able been able to add anything to miniaturized circuits?  The old adage 'can't teach an old dog new tricks' has a grain of truth in it.  As we get older, we get more set in our ways, and we have a tougher time adapting.

Of course, if we pick one or two people, that really isn't a bad thing.  There's still a lot that Shakespeare even now could teach us.  There's certainly a lot Edison could teach us.  So having either of them around forever isn't really a problem (for us).  The problem is when EVERYONE lives forever, then what'll happen?

Well, there's the distinct possibility we'll have fewer real geniuses as time goes on.  There's no one with the zim and vigor of youth, nothing 'new', since all of the peope and all of their experiences are old.  There are no more revolutions.  Old timers don't lead revolutions.  Young people do.

Perhaps more of a concern, will we continue to expand our dreams?  Right now we talk about travelling into space.  That's our dream.  We could see travelling to other solar systems, across the galaxy.  And perhaps we will!  But once we've achieved it, then what?  Most people would say 'wow, we've done it, let's sit back and enjoy'.  Most people, once they've paid off their mortgage, they don't go out looking for a second house.  They enjoy their 'golden years'.  The drive is gone.

So when we finally conquer the universe, will we have the drive to go any further, without new blood coming out and saying 'hey, I want my chance!  I want to put MY name on something!'  What dreams of theirs will we lose, or perhaps even shout out?  If in 1700 we found a way to make everyone live forever, would we ever have abolished slavery?  Would they ever have landed a person on the moon?  Or would they have any interest in Bosun particles?  Sure they'll achieve their dreams, perhaps of bringing a human back from the dead or proving (or disproving) God, but will they continue beyond that?

*** Okay, why won't there be "new blood"? Just becos there will be more old (and less dead) people, that doesn't mean there won't be any young people. Logically, if we're living longer, we'll have even more kids, thus, more "new blood" to explore, invent, etc. Then too, it's entirely possible (and probable, I'd think) that if we do have more people (both becos of fewer deaths and more births), we'll come up with solutions for over-crowding, hunger, and other ills.

It has to do with percentages.  If 99% of the population is 100 or older, that's what the culture will be.  How many inventions do you see coming out of retirement homes?

     None, but it won't just be people living in nursing homes. It'll be 90-year olds who are like, middle-aged. I imagine they'll invent lots, given the chance.

The question isn't if they'll invent, it's if they'll dream.

Not saying I believe in immortality or anything, but I think we as humans feel limited in what we can accomplish in this life more often than not. Therefore, a lot of inventions that would otherwise be created get quelled by the rat race, the fight to survive and make ends meet, and the struggle to give your loved ones all you feel they deserve for being that special someone.

For myself, I know that if I quit my job to pursue my dream career, not only does that put all the bills on my fiance while I'm in school, but it also halves our income (more than, since I make more than him) and destroys our ability to have any "us" time where we just take off and do something for ourselves together. (On that note, I think I've found a good online program to go through to get my degree, but I have to make sure I can get the money together. >.>)

Take your courses through the evening program. Or just take one or two classes at a time. I remember a friend who took 10 years to do a 2 year program as they did not want to leave their job, but wanted to improve their skill base.

On the flip side, that same competition drives people to put forth the total dedication required for many of our greatest discoveries.  A cure for cancer certainly isn't something you're going to find in your free time, after all.

     But if you had more free time, you might.

How much free time would it take you to spend ten or twenty years examining dyed slides and noting which have which color slide?  And...  nothing else?

   It's not so much that it'd take free time, I'd just have to not have anything else to do. But I'm sure that for someone interested in that sort of thing, the more free time they have the better.

So you're suggesting than that our goal is boredom?  That the more bored people are, the more likely they are to fill up that time with ground-breaking inventions (instead of say, just looking at lots of porn?)

You make it into an either/or situation, katisara!  Don't you realize internet porn is a groundbreaking invention! ;)

Sorry, carry on with serious conversation, it was just too good a setup to let go. ;)

*** Not at all. I'm saying that for me "to spend ten or twenty years examining dyed slides and noting which have which color slide", I'd have to be very bored. But I do believe that there are people out there who would be interested enough in that sort of thing to do it, provided they had the extra time.

Interested enough to spend 10 or 20 years to do it? I would be pretty surprised. I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely. At minimum, I have to expect it would take a good deal longer, since you no longer have those with a burning interest in examining colors AND those who want to do something else, but took the job for money, but only those who really like looking at colors.

This would be especially true in cases where there's one super cool, important part of the job, and one boring, mind-numbing part of the job. When I worked in an entemology lab, we had about 8 people. One guy was a scientist who spent all his time overseeing us, writing grants, and doing actual studies of insects. One guy was a scientist in training, who helped. The rest of us were people who needed money, and so worked 10 hour days planting, harvesting and searching corn and brassica for teeny little bugs we'd then carefully care for until they die.

I would much rather have been doing the science work, but I needed the money. If I didn't need the money, I (and most likely the other 6 people in my position) would have stayed home and played video games all day, and the two guys who did the cool sciency work wouldn't have had any more insects to study.

     I would presume that people would still be able to get paid to do jobs they'd not do on their own, and for some, the money would be enough of an incentive to do it. But anyway, my point is (was?) that if we have more time, we'll be able to do more. Write more songs, make more films, paint more Mona Lisas, etc. Invent more stuff. Do more.

This message was deleted by the player at 15:35, Tue 28 Oct 2008.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. If Edison hadn't been limited by death, the fax machine likely would have been invented a good deal earlier. But if 90% of Edison's fellow humans survived as well, population would drop and, most likely, we wouldn't have the shift in paradigms which lead to the Internet.

You say that assuming that those people wouldn't have thirsted for the worldwide communications network that led to the creation of the Internet in the first place. After all, the Internet developed from Bell's simple wire-to-transmit-sound telephone to what it is today, and that itself stemmed from a desire for more efficient means of communication.

_{Edit: fixing grammar. I hate being a perfectionist. >.>}
This message was last edited by the player at 23:30, Mon 27 Oct 2008.

You don't generally thirst for something you don't really imagine existing. Do you thirst for the ability to immediately manufacture any three-dimensional plastic object? Probably not. You might like it if you had it, but you don't really think about it unless it's brought up.