Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  Hmm, I think this is a problem of loose definitions. I take "purposely programmed" to mean that someone did the programming. |
Well, I did not mean to imply that some kind of God figure did the programming. I do believe, however, that the invention of death (by nature) was not accidental.
Obviously, when multi-cell organisms first evolved, it proved to be beneficial to have those complex organisms expire. Death occurs differently in single-cell organisms. Bacteria et al can be killed, but a single-cell organism will in principle live and multiply as long as there are sufficient nutrients to feed it. There is no multi-cell organism alive today that, even when well nourished or not otherwise threatened, will not expire after some amount of time. So, I'd say that particular kind of death was invented with the introduction of multi-cell organisms. In that sense, I used the words 'purposely programmed': death by old age was programmed into multi-cell organisms, because it proved to be beneficial to evolution.
.
Quote:
|
Ahh, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, but by saying "I'm glad to have missed out on that one because that also means that the likes of Hitler were mere mortals" it seems you're implying that they're linked.
|
No, it was not my intention to imply a link between the two. Sorry if my words came across that way.
Quote:
|
I was pointing out that Da Vinci or Hitler's contribution to humanity has nothing to do with the worth of the other's immortality. (besides, if we had methods of achieving immortality surely we'd also have methods of ending it, or at least rendering a person unable to influence everyone else)
|
Fair enough. I was merely trying to point out that immortality for important figures from the past would have pros and cons. And you're right, even if we manage to thwart death by old age, we could probably still kill people using bullets, toxins or other weapons.
Quote:
|
As with your use of the words "purposely programmed" here you seem to be saying that a non-sentient construct (or process in the other case) is capable of intention. Is that what you're saying?
|
I guess I am. That is, I'm inclined to see evolution as more than an endless series of happy accidents.
Quote:
In either case if that's what you believe then I'll leave you alone since you're happy for others to believe differently. But I might still point out why I don't agree  |
Absolutely. As I said in response to Sam earlier, it's interesting to explore each other's points of view and learn from that.
Jim.