how to live forever...

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by songwriter

The artist quote... is was somehow a joke but somehow true because you continue to influence the world after your death.

Okey, but what is immortality? (I love to get the definition of words ).
Is it to "never die"... Dying is... losing your consciousness with no way back or so... so being immortal doesn't means you can not be like almost a plant forever... or even in comma. I think what we want to avoid is damage. If something was "very damaged" but alive... I don't think he would want to live forever... well, maybe yes... but as the damage went bigger...

There's a Greek Gods legend about it... I think some God punished some other or some man, by making an eagle destroy the man's chest and heart and when the man was about to die... the God gave to him a brand new heart then the eagle started again... so forever.

I explained before that i dont actually mean "immortality" in its dictionary defination. but it is the easiest way to generalize the idea of living far longer than we currently do.

and the beauty about the looking at this development as a possibility in the future is that as it seems to be projected, we wiuld have full control of whether we want to continue to become younger or live longer or if we would rather follow old age on its normal course to death.

there wouldn't be any Prometheus' bound to a rock and tortured by an eagle eating at his imperishable liver, because Prometheus could simply select to not continue. At least that's how it works in my glorified view of the future of immortality.

beocming very damaged brings up completely different problems altogether. hopefully by the time we have figure out immortality issues, we would have also figured out incredible advances in medicle science and therefore even "very damaged" would be repairable. but again, thats an optomistic speculation on my part.

first, we need to destroy coorperation.

[DrMartinRussell]

Originally Posted by persephonevii

I don't think I would want to live forever. But I always thought living for only 70-80 years was a bit of a raw deal, I wouldn't mind living for a few centuries or even millenia before kicking the bucket. I always feel a bit miffed I missed out on historical events and eras, and that I would want to see well into the future too.

And if we lived for centuries we'd get miffed we didn't get to participate in ice ages and epochs. It's all too relative. Trees, dogs, flies and bacteria are interesting lifespans to try out.

I like Viktor Frankl's idea that life has no meaning UNLESS it is finite.

So I'd like to live longer, sure, that's fine. But literally forever?

How about someone lets me get started on the first few hundred years to try it out, and I'll decide later when I'm better informed :-)

[geekchic9]

I would want to live forever, but only if everyone else could, too. Every time I think about extending lifespans and being crynogenically frozen, I remember Faye Valentine in Cowboy Bebop -- so sad....

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by williamhessian

Boring? Wow. I really don't grasp the idea of quitting something as amazing and incredible as life because it is boring. I can't beleive people get bored at all actually. It doesn't seem to hard to search and find new things that are the oppostie of boring. Jim, no offense, but being bored is a lame excuse for not wanting to live forever. On the other hand, your 'all good things come to end' concept makes a lot more sense to me. Even though i disagree.

I didn't say that my life is boring, I just said that the concept of living forever (as in a million years) doesn't entice me. Let me rephrase... my stance is that my life is more interesting precisely because it is relatively short. If I'd have all of eternity ahead of me, that'd just be too many reasons to procrastinate.

If I'd live forever, my choices would loose all of their meaning and power. Instead of carefully picking which books I devote my precious time to, I'd have the time to read them all. Gone is the satisfaction of reading that exceptionally well written novel I chanced upon in the one bookstore I hardly ever visit...

Eternal life would also rob me of the honor of being remembered. Again, the notion of leaving some kind of legacy (big or small) is a great motivator for me.

Jim.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I didn't say that my life is boring, I just said that the concept of living forever (as in a million years) doesn't entice me. Let me rephrase... my stance is that my life is more interesting precisely because it is relatively short. If I'd have all of eternity ahead of me, that'd just be too many reasons to procrastinate.

If I'd live forever, my choices would loose all of their meaning and power. Instead of carefully picking which books I devote my precious time to, I'd have the time to read them all. Gone is the satisfaction of reading that exceptionally well written novel I chanced upon in the one bookstore I hardly ever visit...

Eternal life would also rob me of the honor of being remembered. Again, the notion of leaving some kind of legacy (big or small) is a great motivator for me.

Jim.

I am pretty sure you can be remembered without being dead. Hell, you can walk out of the room and the people remaining could remember what you have just said, or just done. Being remembered has nothing to do with death.

I do see your point about procrastination, and thats a valid argument. You might just not be suited for immortality. and there is nothing wrong with that.


I do not agree with choice losing meaning and power, we live to be 60 yrs, that doesnt mean choices we make now dont have any meaning or power simply because we have X amount of time left. Meaning and power holds relevance only in the current timeframe no matter where along the timeline it may occur, nor does it matter how long the timeline might be. Choices are still choices, 'what to do today' is still a question everyone has no matter if they are 5 years old, 50 years old or 500 years old.

I prefer to read the books that i like, and then if i have time to read them again. even with immortality i would still be reading the books i like, and hopefully finding more great books to add to my list.

Jim, you and i have very different outlooks on this subject. I look forward to hearing more from your point of view.

ps. i need to watch more cowboy bepop. i have enjoyed what i have seen so far.

[Mayo]

People are very divided in the question of immortality and the debate about it will be more and more main stream. In my own view the point of spiritual immortality is a fact rather than fiction, i personally have only to test some things in practice (OBE et. al.).

Now about physical immor(t)ality: yes!

Why? The sole reason that i don't want to pass the cycle of rebirth again. Personally i want to continue the flow of memory, thoughts and feelings that i have re-accumulated in this lifetime. To achieve spiritual immortality (continuation of thought) you really need to be able to have a continuous flow of experience and not fragmented and interrupt multiplicity of avatars.

How to achieve this? Clone therapy, hormonal substitution, nanotechnology, ... well it does not matter now if you are in your even in your early 20's if you are of modest financial possibilities. Clone therapy, nano therapy... all of them cost money, and a lot of it, even in 2050. they will cost a lot.

Want to achieve physical immortality? Then get rich and invest in different clone therapy and nano thechnology firms and participate in that companies actively, invest in new promising techniques, supercomputers and scientists.

How not to spend money: don't get your head frozen because then it will be only peace of crap that is only liable to get dumped into trash bin. You will never be able to resurrect dead tissue and esp. the spirit that will be long gone from the carcase, even if the science does get to resurrect dead tissue i don't know if "you" will reappear back in that shell.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Why? The sole reason that i don't want to pass the cycle of rebirth again. Personally i want to continue the flow of memory, thoughts and feelings that i have re-accumulated in this lifetime. To achieve spiritual immortality (continuation of thought) you really need to be able to have a continuous flow of experience and not fragmented and interrupt multiplicity of avatars.

good post. especially this paragraph. i agree.

now i need to make money and invest in immortality. smart.

[Sam988]

Answering JimOfferman; I seriously, really, can't grasp this line of thinking at all. Maybe because we're all different and some have more genetic predisposition to want to live forever than others, i don't know.
I'm sure that's the case, while some can admit death, others abhor the idea of having their consciousness/existence finished. I'm obviously in the second group. But there's nothing wrong with being in the first group, because that's just the way you are, people are different and variety is a good thing.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I didn't say that my life is boring, I just said that the concept of living forever (as in a million years) doesn't entice me. Let me rephrase... my stance is that my life is more interesting precisely because it is relatively short. If I'd have all of eternity ahead of me, that'd just be too many reasons to procrastinate.

You see, i'm exactly the opposite. There are so many things that i don't do now that i would love to do if i had unlimited time. I don't do these things now because there are other more urgent/important things to be done. And no matter how much time i have, be it 100 years or a million years, there's always something that i will want to do but won't because there's more urgent/important stuff to do.

If there was no time limit, i wouldn't have to think this way anymore and i would SOOOO much enjoy wasting my time in useless yet enjoyable stuff, since time wouldn't be an issue anymore.

An example would be playing online RPG games (like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Second Life, and others). I would spend like many many years just playing them without any guilt in my consciousness that i should be doing more useful/better things, because i know that i can do them all later and time isn't a problem.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

If I'd live forever, my choices would loose all of their meaning and power. Instead of carefully picking which books I devote my precious time to, I'd have the time to read them all. Gone is the satisfaction of reading that exceptionally well written novel I chanced upon in the one bookstore I hardly ever visit...

As i said before, i also can't grasp this line of thinking. I would be the complete opposite of this; i would so enjoy having limitless time. I would read books, like "that exceptionally well written novel" with so much joy knowing that many decades later when i forgot it i would be able to enjoy it all again.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Eternal life would also rob me of the honor of being remembered. Again, the notion of leaving some kind of legacy (big or small) is a great motivator for me.

Jim.

People can also be famous/acknowledged for what they do/contributed/genious/whatever in their life. There's no need to play the "dead-and-only-then-famous artist"

[Mayo]

BTW i have found a good book on age "reversal", will start reading it tomorrow after work.

The book is "Younger You" by Eric R. Braverman.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by Mayo

BTW i have found a good book on age "reversal", will start reading it tomorrow after work.

The book is "Younger You" by Eric R. Braverman.

Mayo, please let me know if it seems to give any good insight into that topic. because if it does i will pick it up as well.

[Mayo]

Ok William

[songwriter]

"Forever young" like the song could be a better desire... or "18 till I die"...
There's a lot of concepts mixed: invulnerability, immortality, longevity, lack of aging, etc.

by the way each day. aprox. there are 250000 births in the world and 150000 deaths. If you think the population is growing... just imagine deleting the deaths... that probably will cause people to have more children... even...

[Jared]

Just think of the compound interest!!

[WanderingOak]

I wouldn't want to live forever. If it were just me, I would get lonely right quick, with everybody else dropping dead from old age etc. If EVERYBODY could live 'forever', then unless we could figure a cheap, non-polluting way off of this rock, we would be heading down the road towards environmental disaster as we exceeded the carrying capacity of our home planet. What would be the point of living forever if you and everybody you knew was starving to death, or dying from thirst? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't want to live in the Monkey House.

Besides, I'm not afraid to die someday. I figure those who are must have lived a bad life...

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by williamhessian

I am pretty sure you can be remembered without being dead. Hell, you can walk out of the room and the people remaining could remember what you have just said, or just done. Being remembered has nothing to do with death.

I wasn't talking about people remembering what I said before I left the room. Yes, in the strictest sense of the word, you'll be remembered. But I was talking about how we remember those who are no longer with us, through stories and sometimes legend. Perhaps you are right that the person being remembered doesn't necessarily have to be dead - but he or she would have to be absent for an extended period of time (specially if all who remember also live forever).

I do see your point about procrastination, and thats a valid argument. You might just not be suited for immortality. and there is nothing wrong with that.

Man was not designed to live forever. Nature could have evolved perfect organisms that never die of old age - but it didn't. We have been purposely programmed to die after a certain amount of time. Life needs death to succeed, so - in my mind - to cheat death is to cheat life.

I don't want to cheat life, I want to enjoy it. Every second of it, while it lasts.

I do not agree with choice losing meaning and power, we live to be 60 yrs, that doesnt mean choices we make now dont have any meaning or power simply because we have X amount of time left. Meaning and power holds relevance only in the current timeframe no matter where along the timeline it may occur, nor does it matter how long the timeline might be. Choices are still choices, 'what to do today' is still a question everyone has no matter if they are 5 years old, 50 years old or 500 years old.

I disagree. Choices are devoid of power and meaning if you have the time to try everything. If you have all eternity, you don't have to choose how to spend your time. You can just use brute force and experience everything there is to experience. The individual experiences then become meaningless... little more than ticks on your "done that" list.

I prefer to read the books that i like, and then if i have time to read them again. even with immortality i would still be reading the books i like, and hopefully finding more great books to add to my list.

Of course, I also prefer to read books I like and, if I have the time, read them again and again. But an important part of the satisfaction of picking up a good book is having to choose from the hundreds, or thousands, or millions even of different books available to me. Out of a million possible choices, I picked the one that made me chuckle at every other line.

Jim, you and i have very different outlooks on this subject. I look forward to hearing more from your point of view.

I think where we differ fundamentally, is that you seem to desire to experience everything there is to experience in the universe. I, on the other hand, am content with the few cherry picked treasures I find on my path from birth to death.

I just don't believe that endless time and endless freedom results in a more meaningful life. Just as creativity needs boundaries to flourish (just compare the brilliance of The Matrix to the relative mediocrity of Matrix: Revolutions), a life needs boundaries - a beginning and an end - to be meaningful.

Jim.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Answering JimOfferman; I seriously, really, can't grasp this line of thinking at all. Maybe because we're all different and some have more genetic predisposition to want to live forever than others, i don't know.
I'm sure that's the case, while some can admit death, others abhor the idea of having their consciousness/existence finished. I'm obviously in the second group. But there's nothing wrong with being in the first group, because that's just the way you are, people are different and variety is a good thing.

I can understand that my line of thinking on this matter may be hard to grasp. Humanity, in particularly our (?) Western culture, has a deeply embedded desire for eternal life. All major religions "lure" you in with some sort of promise of a life eternal. Immortality appears to be a de facto obsession for many of us.

I used to have a mortal fear of death and it has taken me quite some time to accept death as a natural part of life - mine as well as others. Death is the one certainty I have in this life and I've adopted the stance that I better not regret any of it, when death finally arrives. I suppose you could also say that nature is my religion - I see the force of nature (including the super natural) in everything. Nature means life. Nature means death.

If there was no time limit, i wouldn't have to think this way anymore and i would SOOOO much enjoy wasting my time in useless yet enjoyable stuff, since time wouldn't be an issue anymore.

An example would be playing online RPG games (like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Second Life, and others). I would spend like many many years just playing them without any guilt in my consciousness that i should be doing more useful/better things, because i know that i can do them all later and time isn't a problem.

That is precisely what I meant when I said that choice looses its power and meaning. If you had unlimited time, you would not have to choose to spend your time wisely. You could waste millennia playing silly games, since there will always be more time to do the stuff that matters...

If you desire to live forever, or just for an extended period of time, by all means do everything you can to realize that desire. I prefer to enjoy the precious little time I have and make the best use of it - even if that means I'll some times have to skip on a good game, so I can spend some time with my girlfriend instead.

Jim.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

. Choices are devoid of power and meaning if you have the time to try everything. If you have all eternity, you don't have to choose how to spend your time.

I don't see why that would be the case, so long as things continue to change. One moment will always be different from the next, never to be repeated (unless people learn to manipulate time), so taking action at the right moment will still have its merits, and you'll never be able to read EVERY book so long as there are people (and maybe AI) writing more excellent books for eternity. Unless/until you can read them more quickly than they're written, which would be an interesting possibility in itself.

Going beyond books/movies, there will be new forms of entertainment/life experience as the complexity of culture increases. Imagine what Da Vinci might come up with if he had a trillion times the thought power and would never die. Even without mental enhancements, incredible things could occur if the world's most creative people weren't limited to a few decades on Earth.

I don't know if physical immortality/radical healthy life extension will happen or not, but I'd be okay with trying it out. For now, I continue to live in such a way that I could die right now without feeling like I'd missed anything critical.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

I wouldn't want to live forever. If it were just me, I would get lonely right quick, with everybody else dropping dead from old age etc. If EVERYBODY could live 'forever', then unless we could figure a cheap, non-polluting way off of this rock, we would be heading down the road towards environmental disaster as we exceeded the carrying capacity of our home planet. What would be the point of living forever if you and everybody you knew was starving to death, or dying from thirst? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't want to live in the Monkey House.

Besides, I'm not afraid to die someday. I figure those who are must have lived a bad life...

i appreciate the vonnegut reference.

lonliness is a problem you would have to solve prior to immortality i would assume. but i do also assume that if you were immortal, your friends and family would have that choice as well. its not like its a random draw or anything, once the breakthrough in science is made then we all have the choice to participate or not.

and over population and living conditions are problems that we have to solve even in our current lifespan, and even moreso if we start living forever. decisions would have to be made. in my opinion, we should already be making those decisions anyways.

environmental disaster is also a huge issue. something that i am very upset about, especially at my US government. again, i want to do something to fix it, and if was told i would live forever, i would feel even more compelled to fix the environment right away. because the world also needs to live forever (or as long as it is able)

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I wasn't talking about people remembering what I said before I left the room. Yes, in the strictest sense of the word, you'll be remembered. But I was talking about how we remember those who are no longer with us, through stories and sometimes legend. Perhaps you are right that the person being remembered doesn't necessarily have to be dead - but he or she would have to be absent for an extended period of time (specially if all who remember also live forever).



Man was not designed to live forever. Nature could have evolved perfect organisms that never die of old age - but it didn't. We have been purposely programmed to die after a certain amount of time. Life needs death to succeed, so - in my mind - to cheat death is to cheat life.

I don't want to cheat life, I want to enjoy it. Every second of it, while it lasts.



I disagree. Choices are devoid of power and meaning if you have the time to try everything. If you have all eternity, you don't have to choose how to spend your time. You can just use brute force and experience everything there is to experience. The individual experiences then become meaningless... little more than ticks on your "done that" list.



Of course, I also prefer to read books I like and, if I have the time, read them again and again. But an important part of the satisfaction of picking up a good book is having to choose from the hundreds, or thousands, or millions even of different books available to me. Out of a million possible choices, I picked the one that made me chuckle at every other line.



I think where we differ fundamentally, is that you seem to desire to experience everything there is to experience in the universe. I, on the other hand, am content with the few cherry picked treasures I find on my path from birth to death.

I just don't believe that endless time and endless freedom results in a more meaningful life. Just as creativity needs boundaries to flourish (just compare the brilliance of The Matrix to the relative mediocrity of Matrix: Revolutions), a life needs boundaries - a beginning and an end - to be meaningful.

Jim.

Jim, i agree with you there.

the big difference i feel is that my goals are exponential and transcend the normal lifespan of a human being. not to say, that i have grand goals, but i dont limit my goals or desires to one lifespan.

plus, as a child i have always had the feeling that living forever was a possibility.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by openeyes

I don't see why that would be the case, so long as things continue to change. One moment will always be different from the next, never to be repeated (unless people learn to manipulate time), so taking action at the right moment will still have its merits, and you'll never be able to read EVERY book so long as there are people (and maybe AI) writing more excellent books for eternity. Unless/until you can read them more quickly than they're written, which would be an interesting possibility in itself.

You missed my point. If your time is limited, you'll have to choose between book A and B, or film C and D for that matter. If your time is endless, you can read and see them all. I agree that reading every book ever written would take an eternity and that you'd never finish reading, because people will be writing new books all the time. They'd better! Since you are immortal, you'll need a constant flux of new mental input to avoid eternal boredom!

Going beyond books/movies, there will be new forms of entertainment/life experience as the complexity of culture increases. Imagine what Da Vinci might come up with if he had a trillion times the thought power and would never die. Even without mental enhancements, incredible things could occur if the world's most creative people weren't limited to a few decades on Earth.

Incredible or terrible. Perhaps an immortal Da Vinci would have been a blessing, but I'm glad to have missed out on that one because that also means that the likes of Hitler were mere mortals. I can see where immortality would be fantastic for an individual, but I fail to see the benefits for our species as a whole. Da Vinci was meant to have his brief stint of brilliance and then make place in this world for another brilliant mind.

I don't know if physical immortality/radical healthy life extension will happen or not, but I'd be okay with trying it out. For now, I continue to live in such a way that I could die right now without feeling like I'd missed anything critical.

Sounds like a very healthy attitude to me.

Originally Posted by williamhessian

the big difference i feel is that my goals are exponential and transcend the normal lifespan of a human being. not to say, that i have grand goals, but i dont limit my goals or desires to one lifespan.

Well, as I mentioned before, I'm still undecided on the eternal sole thing... so I'm just focussed on what I can achieve now, while in this physical form. If there is another existence after death, I'll worry about my goals in that existence then

plus, as a child i have always had the feeling that living forever was a possibility.

That's just being normal... all children think they'll live forever.

Jim.

(added responses to openeyes' post)

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

I wouldn't want to live forever. If it were just me, I would get lonely right quick, with everybody else dropping dead from old age etc. If EVERYBODY could live 'forever', then unless we could figure a cheap, non-polluting way off of this rock, we would be heading down the road towards environmental disaster as we exceeded the carrying capacity of our home planet. What would be the point of living forever if you and everybody you knew was starving to death, or dying from thirst? I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I don't want to live in the Monkey House.

Resources or a place to live wouldn't be a problem. Loneliness would for some people. But just remember that when they find a way to cheat death, it's not only you that will benefit but people close to you, too. And if all people close to you, after some millenia, die because of some disaster/accident, you can always meet new people.

Originally Posted by WanderingOak

Besides, I'm not afraid to die someday. I figure those who are must have lived a bad life...

Or maybe they're having an awesome time and don't want this gift called life to end...

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I can understand that my line of thinking on this matter may be hard to grasp. Humanity, in particularly our (?) Western culture, has a deeply embedded desire for eternal life. All major religions "lure" you in with some sort of promise of a life eternal. Immortality appears to be a de facto obsession for many of us.

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Eternal life in the way that we mean it (physically) is not embedded in our culture at all, to the point that if one shows this point of view that in some decades we will start to be able to fight death, the person listening will call him freak or something and have the same reaction you did: "What the hell, death is a natural part of life, what are you talking about!? Living forever? Come on...."

And religion plays a big role in this; again, it does the exact opposite effect of what you're saying. Every religion i know considers living forever after we die, instead of living forever in our lifetime.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I used to have a mortal fear of death and it has taken me quite some time to accept death as a natural part of life - mine as well as others. Death is the one certainty I have in this life and I've adopted the stance that I better not regret any of it, when death finally arrives. I suppose you could also say that nature is my religion - I see the force of nature (including the super natural) in everything. Nature means life. Nature means death.

As i said before and explained in the links i previously put on the thread, death is not as certain as you may think it is.

You think that living physically forever is "unnatural", don't you? So we could say the same about medicine, that extends our lifespans from around 30 to around 80 years. Hell, let's destroy all the medicine technology so we can't unnaturaly extend our human lifespan anymore and let's all only live for as much time as nature wants us to live

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

That is precisely what I meant when I said that choice looses its power and meaning. If you had unlimited time, you would not have to choose to spend your time wisely. You could waste millennia playing silly games, since there will always be more time to do the stuff that matters...

Sounds good to me. I still don't get where's the problem in having unlimited time and being able to choose whatever you want to do for how long you want to do it.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

If you desire to live forever, or just for an extended period of time, by all means do everything you can to realize that desire. I prefer to enjoy the precious little time I have and make the best use of it - even if that means I'll some times have to skip on a good game, so I can spend some time with my girlfriend instead.

I never said that i'm going to spend my entire life trying to live more, that would indeed be senseless. I'm just trying to change some mindsets here.
The more people who believe that death can be beaten, the faster we will make it (since more people will donate/contribute to life-extending researches, technology, and stuff like that).

[JimOfferman]

I still don't get where's the problem in having unlimited time and being able to choose whatever you want to do for how long you want to do it.

Because that is where we differ fundamentally: you find the prospect of an eternity doing whatever you want appealing and I don't. I see the appeal of living out whatever length of time I'm granted on this earth in the best possible way.

You think that living physically forever is "unnatural", don't you? So we could say the same about medicine, that extends our lifespans from around 30 to around 80 years.

As far as I know, it's not medicine but better hygiene and living conditions that extended our lifespans from 30 to around 80 years. And I don't see medicine as 'unnatural'. That is, medicine has little to do with nature per se of course, but it is a (by)product of the natural evolution of man.

But, for the record, I am not against people extending their life for a limited number of years or maybe indefinitely. I'm just not interested in doing that personally.

Originally Posted by Sam988

I'm just trying to change some mindsets here.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. You and I are at opposite ends of the scale on this matter. I have absolutely no desire to change my mind on this - my current mindset suits my life just fine.

Have you seen the movie "The Fountain"? It's a very compelling film, which deals with the very question posed in this thread: "what if you could live forever?" I can highly recommend seeing it! (and if you do... I'm more like Izzi, you're more like Tom)

Enjoy life,
Jim.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Have you seen the movie "The Fountain"? It's a very compelling film, which deals with the very question posed in this thread: "what if you could live forever?" I can highly recommend seeing it! (and if you do... I'm more like Izzi, you're more like Tom)

Enjoy life,
Jim.

whoah. i need to see that movie.

i apprecaite your posts' Jim. i assume there are many people with similar views as your own, and i am glad to hear your responses to some of these issues.

william

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

That is, medicine has little to do with nature per se of course, but it is a (by)product of the natural evolution of man.

So it is natural that we in our evolution will eventually beat death, and it will be a natural (by)product of the evolution of men

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

But, for the record, I am not against people extending their life for a limited number of years or maybe indefinitely. I'm just not interested in doing that personally.

I got you and i completely understand you. Some people just don't find the prospect of living indefinitely compelling, while others do. That's ok for both sides

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Have you seen the movie "The Fountain"? It's a very compelling film, which deals with the very question posed in this thread: "what if you could live forever?" I can highly recommend seeing it! (and if you do... I'm more like Izzi, you're more like Tom)

I've seen this movie already and it's great, a bit complex but very good. And yeah i would definitely take Tom's side.

[Mark Lapierre]

Interesting discussion you've got going here =D

Originally Posted by williamhessian

beocming very damaged brings up completely different problems altogether. hopefully by the time we have figure out immortality issues, we would have also figured out incredible advances in medicle science and therefore even "very damaged" would be repairable. but again, thats an optomistic speculation on my part.

I suspect that at some point (in the distant future) we'll even be able to 'repair' death. Of course that assumes souls don't exist and all we are is material, or they do exist but don't necessarily pass on at the point of death.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I wasn't talking about people remembering what I said before I left the room. Yes, in the strictest sense of the word, you'll be remembered. But I was talking about how we remember those who are no longer with us, through stories and sometimes legend. Perhaps you are right that the person being remembered doesn't necessarily have to be dead - but he or she would have to be absent for an extended period of time (specially if all who remember also live forever).

I disagree. I often talk about friends who I haven't seen for some time, whether that be a week or a year. Remembering someone does not rely on the length of their absence, but the strength of emotion they inspire.

We tell stories about people who are still alive. We even call people legends while they're still alive. Dying only makes their story greater if we willingly assign greater meaning to it. Dying doesn't automatically make them great.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Man was not designed to live forever. Nature could have evolved perfect organisms that never die of old age - but it didn't. We have been purposely programmed to die after a certain amount of time. Life needs death to succeed, so - in my mind - to cheat death is to cheat life.

You're assuming we were designed and purposely programmed. There's no support for that claim, at least non I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I disagree. Choices are devoid of power and meaning if you have the time to try everything. If you have all eternity, you don't have to choose how to spend your time. You can just use brute force and experience everything there is to experience. The individual experiences then become meaningless... little more than ticks on your "done that" list.

Regardless of how much time we have we would still be faced with the choice of what we enjoy most. Even while acknowledging that we can eventually do everything, what we want to do now will still have power over the decisions we make.

Even if I had eternity to do what I want, if a close friend wants to travel to France with me now, and another wants to travel to Japan, I'll still be faced with a difficult decision.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I just don't believe that endless time and endless freedom results in a more meaningful life. Just as creativity needs boundaries to flourish (just compare the brilliance of The Matrix to the relative mediocrity of Matrix: Revolutions), a life needs boundaries - a beginning and an end - to be meaningful.

Meaning depends largely upon perspective. What is meaningful to one person is not necessarily meaningful to another. That should be clear from any discussion in which people disagree.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

You missed my point. If your time is limited, you'll have to choose between book A and B, or film C and D for that matter. If your time is endless, you can read and see them all. I agree that reading every book ever written would take an eternity and that you'd never finish reading, because people will be writing new books all the time. They'd better! Since you are immortal, you'll need a constant flux of new mental input to avoid eternal boredom!

Again, while you could eventually see them all, choosing which to see now would still be relevant. The choice may be made for different reasons, but there is still a choice. And if we were all immortal we would have a constant source of new input.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Incredible or terrible. Perhaps an immortal Da Vinci would have been a blessing, but I'm glad to have missed out on that one because that also means that the likes of Hitler were mere mortals.

So Da Vinci is bad because Hitler is bad? That's effectively what you're saying, attacking the worth of Da Vinci because of the stigma of Hitler. Argumentum ad hominem, argument against the person. Or also reductio ad Hitlerum. You may also find Godwin's Law amusing

(on that note, it's equally fallacious to argue that immortality would be good because it would mean Da Vinci would be immortal)

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Da Vinci was meant to have his brief stint of brilliance and then make place in this world for another brilliant mind.

Meant to? Under whose decree?

Originally Posted by Sam988

So it is natural that we in our evolution will eventually beat death, and it will be a natural (by)product of the evolution of men

Only if you define 'natural' as 'through the efforts of humans' (which is not part of the standard definition of darwinian evolution, btw)

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Only if you define 'natural' as 'through the efforts of humans' (which is not part of the standard definition of darwinian evolution, btw)

I don't call it "natural" in the strict sense of the word either; i was just comparing it to JimOfferman's idea of "natural":

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

That is, medicine has little to do with nature per se of course, but it is a (by)product of the natural evolution of man.

[Mark Lapierre]

Oops, I got my quotes confused. Sorry about that Sam!

[JimOfferman]

In response to William:

Originally Posted by williamhessian

i apprecaite your posts' Jim. i assume there are many people with similar views as your own, and i am glad to hear your responses to some of these issues.

Thanks! Do check out that movie

In response to Sam:

Originally Posted by Sam988

So it is natural that we in our evolution will eventually beat death, and it will be a natural (by)product of the evolution of men

Absolutely

In time, man may conquer death. I've read somewhere that people who are born today (in Western society at least) are expected to reach ages of 150 and over... so, perhaps, we're half way there already. I'm just not boarding that train - if only to annoy some immortal philosopher for an eternity over the question why

I got you and i completely understand you. Some people just don't find the prospect of living indefinitely compelling, while others do. That's ok for both sides

Yep. I see this discussion as an oppertunity to compare views on this - both 'sides' can learn from each others arguments.

I've seen this movie already and it's great, a bit complex but very good. And yeah i would definitely take Tom's side.

Lol - glad we agree there! On both counts.

In response to Mark:

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I disagree. I often talk about friends who I haven't seen for some time, whether that be a week or a year. Remembering someone does not rely on the length of their absence, but the strength of emotion they inspire.

Fair enough. I too remember people who are still alive. My point was that I care about how I'm remembered, both while alive and once I'm permantently gone. The latter would of course be a non-issue if I'd be immortal.

You're assuming we were designed and purposely programmed. There's no support for that claim, at least non I'm aware of.

We are in fact purposely programmed to die. There is very strong evidence that parts of our DNA control both aging and the "self termination" of the organism at old age. Strictly speaking, at the celular level, there is no reason why we should die - cells could just be renewed endlessly and flawlessly.

Regardless of how much time we have we would still be faced with the choice of what we enjoy most. Even while acknowledging that we can eventually do everything, what we want to do now will still have power over the decisions we make.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree here. Although I still feel the power of choice is diminshed...

So Da Vinci is bad because Hitler is bad? That's effectively what you're saying, attacking the worth of Da Vinci because of the stigma of Hitler.

Don't put things in my mouth that I did not say! All I said was that an immortal Da Vinci might have been cool, but I am very glad that there is no immortal Hitler.

Meant to? Under whose decree?

That would be nature.

Only if you define 'natural' as 'through the efforts of humans' (which is not part of the standard definition of darwinian evolution, btw)

Yes, my use of the word 'nature' in this thread has been a bit liberal. While not natural by the strictest definition of Darwinian evolution theory, I do see human society with all its ups and downs as a (by)product of the natural evolution of man.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

We are in fact purposely programmed to die. There is very strong evidence that parts of our DNA control both aging and the "self termination" of the organism at old age. Strictly speaking, at the celular level, there is no reason why we should die - cells could just be renewed endlessly and flawlessly.

Hmm, I think this is a problem of loose definitions. I take "purposely programmed" to mean that someone did the programming. So yes, while shortening telomeres signal the approaching end of a cell's life, and various other processes amount to the similar results throughout our body, the existence of those processes doesn't imply they were put there by someone or something. Saying they were "programmed" also invites the question "by who". Saying they were "purposely programmed" makes that invitation stronger.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Don't put things in my mouth that I did not say! All I said was that an immortal Da Vinci might have been cool, but I am very glad that there is no immortal Hitler.

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. 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)

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

That would be nature.

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?

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

[m18pak]

My man, what you don't seem to understand is that death only exists because you believe in life.