[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Jim, I'd like to apologise for not considering your words in the manner they were intended. It's hypocritical of me to except you to be accurate to my satisfaction when I don't do the same for others (not to mention it being selfish). So while it seems you didn't take offense I'm nonetheless sorry for how I approached this discussion.

Thanks, but no apology was necessary. I wasn't offended in the least. It only served as a reminder that the same words have different meaning to different people.

I can understand that, but I personally refuse to accept those limits. Of course that doesn't mean I'll go having babies even if it means disastrous over-population, but I would do what I could to allow us all to cope with the population increase.

Understood. If humanity finds a way to extend life, it will also have to find a way to deal with over population - be it by colonizing other planets or by some other method to reduce our numbers.

I don't understand why you equate acceptance of death with doing amazing those amazing things?

I don't equate acceptance of death with doing amazing things per se. I was pointing out that the kind of people who do those amazing things have likely conquered their fear of death (seeing as death is a very real possible outcome of their ventures). It was purely meant as an argument to counter the "you should fear death" stance that was posted a bit earlier in the discussion.

Why not try for both?

Again, I have no desire to live (in my current physical form) indefinitely, so let's just say I would prefer children over a vastly extended lifespan. That is, I wouldn't trade having children in the world for extended lifespans... if we could, as a species, keep death at bay and at the same time solve our over-population problems, then all the better.