how to live forever...

[ChaosKiwi]

Even if you could figure out a way to live forever, you'd still die. I mean after the first 300 years or so it would get boring, people would probably kill other people for kicks. No fear of jail time or hell if you are religious. And thats if you dont get hit by a bus or something crossing the street. How would money work when you could save for hundreds of years?

[JimOfferman]

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sam988]

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.

Actually, we die because "Aging is a set of progressive changes in body composition, at the molecular and cellular level, which are side-effects of essential metabolic processes. Many of these changes are eventually bad for us -- they are an accumulation of damage, which becomes pathogenic above a certain threshold of abundance."


Look at our body as a complex machine, and throughout our lives, this machine slowly accumulates minor damages. After a certain time, those damages get too big and our body can't keep up anymore, and we die. But it wasn't programmed to happen, the point is that our body is just not perfect, it would need much more DNA complexity to be; therefore our mechanisms happen with minor errors that accumulate and eventually lead to our end.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Actually, we die because "Aging is a set of progressive changes in body composition, at the molecular and cellular level, which are side-effects of essential metabolic processes. Many of these changes are eventually bad for us -- they are an accumulation of damage, which becomes pathogenic above a certain threshold of abundance."


Look at our body as a complex machine, and throughout our lives, this machine slowly accumulates minor damages. After a certain time, those damages get too big and our body can't keep up anymore, and we die. But it wasn't programmed to happen, the point is that our body is just not perfect, it would need much more DNA complexity to be; therefore our mechanisms happen with minor errors that accumulate and eventually lead to our end.

i strongly beleive that our evolution (strongly aided by our intelligence) is following a very logical course at a technological scale. as technology and our knowledge as a race grow, it is only logical for us to live for a longer period of time, and our intelligence is at a climax point in which we can break new barriers. Living for hundreds of years is just around the corner and its simply evolution.

The scary thing is the fact that with this intelligence and evolution we also have the ability to create dangers to the people and the world around us with poisons (in food), pollution, unbalance in power and then zombie-like control over the common people.

With all of our amazing advances....comes amazing dangers.

I for one want to be a part of the solution, and I'd like to be part of the solution forever.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Look at our body as a complex machine, and throughout our lives, this machine slowly accumulates minor damages. After a certain time, those damages get too big and our body can't keep up anymore, and we die. But it wasn't programmed to happen, the point is that our body is just not perfect, it would need much more DNA complexity to be; therefore our mechanisms happen with minor errors that accumulate and eventually lead to our end.

I do look at our bodies as complex machines (see my first post in this topic). And I believe that our bodies know perfectly well how to repair themselves. With the exception of brain cells and a few others, all cells in your body are continually being replaced by newer cells, to ensure the survival of the organism as a whole. As the body ages, the rate of renewal slows and that (amongst other things, such as random mutations) ultimately causes the minor damage you mention and the eventual death of the individual. How fast or slow cells are renewed is controlled, at least in part, by our DNA - just as the growth in your youth was tightly controlled by DNA. The process of aging has thus effectively been "programmed" into us all.

As far as I know, some of the more serious research being done on prolonged lifespans is focussed on identifying and switching off the "aging genes" in our DNA. In theory at least, it ought to be possible to instruct the body to never age (= slow the rate of cell renewal) and thus live forever...

...or at least until you get hit by a truck, or some other unfortunate mishap.

Jim.

[AddictiveX]

Interesting theory with the respirocytes haha would be cool if they automatically recharged and could stick around, we wouldnt need to breath and therefore could avoid all the passive smoking

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by williamhessian

i strongly beleive that our evolution (strongly aided by our intelligence) is following a very logical course at a technological scale. as technology and our knowledge as a race grow, it is only logical for us to live for a longer period of time, and our intelligence is at a climax point in which we can break new barriers. Living for hundreds of years is just around the corner and its simply evolution.

The scary thing is the fact that with this intelligence and evolution we also have the ability to create dangers to the people and the world around us with poisons (in food), pollution, unbalance in power and then zombie-like control over the common people.

With all of our amazing advances....comes amazing dangers.

I for one want to be a part of the solution, and I'd like to be part of the solution forever.

Well if the told a guy in the middle ages that in 500 years we would have the technology to destroy the world many times over (atomic bombs) he would think we were insane to produce such a technology. But we can't deny it's positives, and we wouldn't go back prior to the discovery of atoms even if we could.

So my point is that the technological benefits always exceed the technological drawbacks such as the possibility of destroying all human race. We already have the technology to destroy it all but we didn't do it, so i don't think that further technological advances with further dangers will destroy us.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

In theory at least, it ought to be possible to instruct the body to never age (= slow the rate of cell renewal) and thus live forever...

...or at least until you get hit by a truck, or some other unfortunate mishap.

Jim.

Unfortunately, if we slow our cell renewal i'm afraid we would rot and die. Cell renewal is of major importance. What we have to do is avoid the damages that come every time we make these renewals all over our body.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

As far as I know, some of the more serious research being done on prolonged lifespans is focussed on identifying and switching off the "aging genes" in our DNA.

Actually, there are much more researches being done on avoiding the damages that happen throughout our lives than the ones being done to find this "aging gene", which is far from being proven to exist.

One of the biggest aging researchest is this one: Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS): A practical way to cure human aging - Website of Dr. Aubrey de Grey

There they trying to find ways to repair the damages that we suffer throughout our lives. Theoretically, if they manage to find out how to do it. they will be able to stop and even reverse aging, to the point that one looks like a 20 y. o.



But besides all the arguments, no one really knows (yet ) what makes us age, if it's an "aging gene" causing the damages (unlikely), or just the imperfection of our DNA causing these damages (more likely). So we won't reach an agreement because the answer isn't out there yet.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

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.

...

I guess I am. That is, I'm inclined to see evolution as more than an endless series of happy accidents.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I do look at our bodies as complex machines (see my first post in this topic). And I believe that our bodies know perfectly well how to repair themselves. With the exception of brain cells and a few others, all cells in your body are continually being replaced by newer cells, to ensure the survival of the organism as a whole. As the body ages, the rate of renewal slows and that (amongst other things, such as random mutations) ultimately causes the minor damage you mention and the eventual death of the individual. How fast or slow cells are renewed is controlled, at least in part, by our DNA - just as the growth in your youth was tightly controlled by DNA. The process of aging has thus effectively been "programmed" into us all.

Ok, I agree with what you seem to mean, but your choice of words (programmed, invention) still reflects the fairly common misunderstanding of evolution, which sees it as a directed process, as if the genes somehow choose how they'll contribute to evolution.

It seems from most of your posts you understand most of what evolution is about. But granting it intentionality is a major flaw, so I'll go over the basics. The main two processes of evolution are random mutation and natural selection (theres also genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, and possibly group selection, and maybe more). Random mutation is the process of accidental changes that occur in genes during cell division (or through exposure to ionising radiation, or possibly other external influences). Natural selection is the process through which genes which contribute to the expression of a helpful trait are propagated more than unhelpful traits, because of the contribution of those traits to the organism's survival and ability to compete with other organisms.

Natural selection is a non-random process. That is, it happens specifically because some traits are better than others, rather than randomly choosing traits. This is probably why some people, perhaps you too Jim, think evolution is driven by some intentional process. It seems as if either the organism, or the genes themselves, are making a choice of which genes get passed on or not. They're not. The only relevant choice they have is to procreate, or not (and for some, i.e., most animals and plants, they don't even have that choice. They just do it), and to survive in order to do so.

So, if cell death benefited an organism more than immortality, cell death would have been selected over immortality. But according to evolution, the occurrence of death, i.e., whatever causes death to happen, would have been accidental.

Originally Posted by williamhessian

i strongly beleive that our evolution (strongly aided by our intelligence) is following a very logical course at a technological scale. as technology and our knowledge as a race grow, it is only logical for us to live for a longer period of time, and our intelligence is at a climax point in which we can break new barriers. Living for hundreds of years is just around the corner and its simply evolution.

Human guided evolution

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

...or at least until you get hit by a truck, or some other unfortunate mishap.

Look out for that asteroid! (and don't bother looking for that nearby gamma ray burst. By the time it hits us it'll be too late)

Originally Posted by Sam988

So my point is that the technological benefits always exceed the technological drawbacks such as the possibility of destroying all human race. We already have the technology to destroy it all but we didn't do it, so i don't think that further technological advances with further dangers will destroy us.

If only those who unreservedly oppose stem cell research, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, nuclear research, etc., understood what you do...

Originally Posted by Sam988

But besides all the arguments, no one really knows (yet ) what makes us age, if it's an "aging gene" causing the damages (unlikely), or just the imperfection of our DNA causing these damages (more likely). So we won't reach an agreement because the answer isn't out there yet.

Very true. But then discussions are not necessarily all about reaching an agreement.

[Nelson]

Living forever would be excellent. We'd be teleporting to Alpha Centauri by now if people lived forever...

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ok, I agree with what you seem to mean, but your choice of words (programmed, invention) still reflects the fairly common misunderstanding of evolution, which sees it as a directed process, as if the genes somehow choose how they'll contribute to evolution.

I would rather have hoped my choice of words would instead have communicated my admiration for evolution as a process.

I completely agree with your explanation on purely scientific terms. Scientifically speaking, then yes, evolution is strictly driven by accidental/incidental mutations to organisms resulting in more advantages traits and thus becoming more fit for survival.

However, I am not speaking as a scientist.

Jim.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

(in response to Sam988's post about not knowing the "aging gene")

Very true. But then discussions are not necessarily all about reaching an agreement.

heres some information i found on the "aging gene" which hasw just recently been pinpointed. things are definately going in the right direction:


_________________________


Scientists at Cambridge-based Sirtris Pharmaceuticals and Harvard University are shedding more light on new ways to fight aging, research they say could lead to longer, healthier life.

The scientists, including Sirtris co-founder David Sinclair, reported in the journal Cell details of how a calorie-restrictive diet activates key enzymes that protect cells in lab animals.

The study focused on a group of enzymes, known as sirtuins, which provide a key link between metabolism and lifespan. It provided more evidence for the idea that a low-calorie diet - or a pill that would mimic its effects - activates these life-extending enzymes. Sirtris already has a drug - a concentrated form of resveratrol, which is found in red wine. The drug, called SRT501, now in clinical trials, activates the first of the human body’s seven sirtuins.Yesterday’s discovery establishes a link between activating two other sirtuins, SIRT3 and SIRT4, and protecting cells from death and damage.

“We’ve reason to believe now that these two genes may be potential drug targets for diseases associated with aging,” said Sinclair, who is an associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School.

Christoph Westphal, Sirtris’ chief executive officer, agreed, “These findings broaden the potential of Sirtris’ drug discovery platform and intellectual property focused on sirtuin modulators to treat a number of diseases of aging such as metabolic, mitochrondrial, inflammatory and neurological disorders, and cancer.”

Westphal said Sirtris has not yet developed a drug to activate SIRT3 and SIRT4, but he added that results from human clinical trials of SRT501 should be available by the end of the year. Still, the company is several years from having a drug ready for the market.

That’s too bad, said Westphal, who counts Red Sox [team stats] principal owner John Henry among the company’s major investors.

“We need to get the Red Sox on SIRT3 activators,” Westphal joked.

Scientists study enzymes as keys to longer lives - BostonHerald.com

________________________

"Mitochondria are the guardians of cell survival," said David Sinclair, associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and senior author of the paper. "If we can keep boosting levels of NAD in the mitochondria, which in turn stimulates buckets more of SIRT3 and SIRT4, then for a period of time the cell really needs nothing else."

Researchers conducted tests on rats in which one group was fed a sucrose diet and the other group fasted for 48 hours. In the rats that had fasted, NAD levels increased in their livers, they found.

The scientists believe that SIRT3 and SIRT4 may now be potential drug targets for diseases associated with aging. "We hope that these insights into the importance of mitochondrial NAD will facilitate a new understanding of and the development of novel approaches to treating diseases such as cancer and neurodegeneration," reads the report.

Eating fewer calories could mean living longer: study

___________________

btw. Mark, excellent short description of evolution.

[hydra888]

Why do you want to live forever? Are you afraid of dieing? Everybody dies! To live in perfection you must accept for yourself that death is a part of life.

Do you know whats in the mind of a dieing person?

Visit me and I'll tell you what.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by hydra888

Why do you want to live forever? Are you afraid of dieing? Everybody dies! To live in perfection you must accept for yourself that death is a part of life.

Do you know whats in the mind of a dieing person?

Visit me and I'll tell you what.

hey hydra. ive got nothing against chakra's or any of that.

but fear of death is a good thing.

if you didnt fear death you might just let the bus smack you crossing the street, i prefer to jump out of the way. if you didnt fear death you'd eat whatever you want, get cancer and die (and think its okay because you've accepted death), i prefer to eat what keeps me healthy. et cetera.

I understand death, which is a lot more constructive than accepting it. I fear it, and therefore am looking for a solution. Enough Fear = Change.

I try to understand anything before i accept it, and i try to understand anything that i fear. With the knowledge of death, comes the desire to avoid it.

I accept life. And do not want to lose it.

[williamhessian]

Originally Posted by williamhessian

hey hydra. ive got nothing against chakra's or any of that.

but fear of death is a good thing.

if you didnt fear death you might just let the bus smack you crossing the street, i prefer to jump out of the way. if you didnt fear death you'd eat whatever you want, get cancer and die (and think its okay because you've accepted death), i prefer to eat what keeps me healthy. et cetera.

I understand death, which is a lot more constructive than accepting it. I fear it, and therefore am looking for a solution. Enough Fear = Change.

I try to understand anything before i accept it, and i try to understand anything that i fear. With the knowledge of death, comes the desire to avoid it.

I accept life. And do not want to lose it.

in fact, the way i see it, anyone that doesnt want to live forever really doesnt understand and appreciate life.

all beings have the desire to survive for as long as they possibly can. animals dont accept death, they run away from predators until their bodies are not fast enough to get away.

we may have the chance to change all of that, and actually survive death. Yet still, there are those of you who choose death over life. And use the words "accepting it" to describe it. I consider that "giving up".

and its sad.

[Mayo]

Why have prolonged physical life span...

imagine being a space scientist and physically traveling across the galaxies for couple of hundred of years...

imagine being able to accumulate enough conscious knowledge and mental capacity to actually get fully "enlightened", to be fully enlightened via kryia yoga system you would need several millenia of life to fully grasp the concept of the metaphysical space that surrounds us, that could be of course be shortened by incorporating external supercomputing resource into your neural cortex, that means you could start understanding un-understandable things in about 100-200 years from now, you could become a teacher that had accumulated knowledge of couple hundred years, you could be the one of the many who would start introducing human race into advanced conscious state

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by williamhessian

in fact, the way i see it, anyone that doesnt want to live forever really doesnt understand and appreciate life.

I'd be inclined to state the exact opposite. Those who want to live forever fail to appreciate life - all life, not just there own. I accept that my eventual demise is the price I pay for living. I understand that my life needs to end some day, so that there may be more life after I am gone.

(After all, if we'd all live forever, pretty soon we'd have to stop producing babies...)

all beings have the desire to survive for as long as they possibly can. animals dont accept death, they run away from predators until their bodies are not fast enough to get away.

That is not actually true. Animals will -by instinct- try to prevent the demise of their population as a whole. Mothers will fight to the death to ensure the survival of their children. In a herd, the old will sometimes surrender themselves to their predators so that the young may survive. Heck, males of the black widow spider even allow themselves to be eaten by their mate for the chance to produce some offspring...

I'd say most animals don't fear death.

we may have the chance to change all of that, and actually survive death. Yet still, there are those of you who choose death over life. And use the words "accepting it" to describe it. I consider that "giving up".

People who have accepted death do amazing things, like climb Mount Everest or venture into space. I have a hard time seeing that as giving up on life.

Jim.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

People who have accepted death do amazing things, like climb Mount Everest or venture into space. I have a hard time seeing that as giving up on life.

Jim.

Opposite is true, people who climbed Mount Everest and had gone into space wanted to be immortalized, just like poets, sculptors.. they knew they could not live long but their names and legends about them would last for millenia.

People who had accepted some kind of death are actually mediocre people who don't know what to do with them selves. For example the basic point of different yoga teachings (raja, kryia, kundalini) is actually immortality, transcendence, continual consciousness... Da Vinci also wanted to be immortal in some part of his life, and he achieved it! The notion of that incarnation as Leonardo DaVinci will be alive for thousands and thousands of years. All advanced human beings want to have continuation of conscious life, there is ALWAYS something new to add to the existing conscious reality.

[Buddy]

"I do look at our bodies as complex machines (see my first post in this topic). And I believe that our bodies know perfectly well how to repair themselves"

I think the second part of your statement sort of negates the first. We are organisms, not mechanisms. Otherwise I agree.

"People who had accepted some kind of death are actually mediocre people who don't know what to do with them selves. For example the basic point of different yoga teachings (raja, kryia, kundalini) is actually immortality, transcendence, continual consciousness..."

Nonsense. Death of the material body is inevitable. To NOT accept this is delusion and denial. You are not this "life." Your views about yoga are wrong. Sat-chit-ananda does not mean physical immortality.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by Buddy

Nonsense. Death of the material body is inevitable. To NOT accept this is delusion and denial. You are not this "life." Your views about yoga are wrong. Sat-chit-ananda does not mean physical immortality.

Sure death of material body is inevtable, so is the "death" of the machine. But it is not the machine that is important but the ghost in that shell, the interrupted continuation of that software, avoidance of partial disintegration of the consciousness that may or may not be limited but is essential to who we are in essence.
Also about yoga i had not talked about physical immortality, that is impossible and wont be possible ever (probable path is that we will change multiplicity of "look-alike us" bodies through the process of prolonged life reaching at the end the process of shedding our shell and having continual consciousness that will be indistinguishable from our subconscious self, thus achieving what we are already doing today by reincarnation but this time being able to be completely conscious of our metamorphosis).
Well what i'm talking is: the body is just a phase in our life, but we are now conscious of that phaze and if you chose to incrate in the body of human being should be thought as a gift, limited gift but a gift. Some of you will transcend to next shell that could or could not be human and you will not remember consciously the experience of the previous life.

Well some of us want to continue being almost perpetually conscious and that is our choice. It might sound unnaturral but is a choice, just like it's a choice to be passive or active. I choose active choice rather than passive stand-by view.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Opposite is true, people who climbed Mount Everest and had gone into space wanted to be immortalized, just like poets, sculptors.. they knew they could not live long but their names and legends about them would last for millenia.

You missed my point entirely. Yes, those people might have hoped that their names would be immortalized, but you don't go on an adventure where death is a very real possibility if you have not overcome your fear of it. If you dare to embark on the path to the top of the Mount Everest, you have accepted death. And you'll probably have never felt so alive.

Originally Posted by Buddy

"I do look at our bodies as complex machines (see my first post in this topic). And I believe that our bodies know perfectly well how to repair themselves"

I think the second part of your statement sort of negates the first. We are organisms, not mechanisms. Otherwise I agree.

I don't understand what you mean by that. The two statements are not related to each other. (1) I see our bodies as complex machines, or mechanisms if you will, made of organic materials. (2) I believe that our bodies can repair themselves (to a certain extent at least - see my original post for more context). The former does not rule out or negate the latter.

Jim.

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

You missed my point entirely. Yes, those people might have hoped that their names would be immortalized, but you don't go on an adventure where death is a very real possibility if you have not overcome your fear of it. If you dare to embark on the path to the top of the Mount Everest, you have accepted death. And you'll probably have never felt so alive.

You'r talking about Mount Everest...

how about traveling into space with your own astral body..

Astral Dynamics | Site Index

BTW only an idiot goes into needless certain death(like going with 1000ccm motorbike 150-200mph on the freeway endangering other human life), to really feel alive you should be brave enough to save someones life and get certainly killed in the process... that is the point of risking life, not the cheap thrill but the higher cause!

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mayo

that is the point of risking life, not the cheap thrill but the higher cause!

I'd say it would be entirely up to the owner of said live to determine whether he'd risk it for a "cheap" thrill or a higher cause. I would certainly have more respect for those who risk their lives to save another. Speeding on the freeway deserves no respect at all - that's just plain reckless.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I'd be inclined to state the exact opposite. Those who want to live forever fail to appreciate life - all life, not just there own. I accept that my eventual demise is the price I pay for living. I understand that my life needs to end some day, so that there may be more life after I am gone.

(After all, if we'd all live forever, pretty soon we'd have to stop producing babies...)

Even though i don't think this will be a problem (by the time we figure to live indefinitely, we will have developed enough technology to support much, much more humans on Earh), if i had to choose between generating a new being and consequently having to be sacrificed (considering that in the last case there could be severe government restrictions to having childs) and being allowed to live indefinitely without being allowed to generate a new being, i would choose the second option.

I mean, our species as much all the other species reproduce so they can survire, but if we manage to live indefinitely there will be no more need to reproduce. Of course, our human instinct would still be there, and that could be a problem, but i believe that with enough cultural changes, we would eventually beat it.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Sam988

but i believe that with enough cultural changes, we would eventually beat it.

I can't imagine you would prefer to live in a world that is devoid of children. Count me out!

[Mayo]

There will be by my opinion too little children in the future world, count that we will in next 500 years populate a better part of our galaxy if we don't destroy our selves first.

[manzima]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Sure death of material body is inevtable, so is the "death" of the machine. But it is not the machine that is important but the ghost in that shell, the interrupted continuation of that software, avoidance of partial disintegration of the consciousness that may or may not be limited but is essential to who we are in essence...
......
Well some of us want to continue being almost perpetually conscious and that is our choice. It might sound unnaturral but is a choice, just like it's a choice to be passive or active. I choose active choice rather than passive stand-by view.

Maybe "death of material body" is not but seems to be inevitable just because we choose to believe so. Now that we know we do create our own reality through our thoughts, we can start focussing on living forever in our physical body or at least living as long as we want it! Humans have been living short lives because of their negative thinking about their life span. Now we can change that and extend our life span.
The problem is: do we want to live forever? Many people associate long life with aging. Since we know we have an important role in creating our reality, we can focus on living forever in good shape and good health and make it happen! How about that?

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by manzima

The problem is: do we want to live forever? Many people associate long life with aging. Since we know we have an important role in creating our reality, we can focus on living forever in good shape and good health and make it happen! How about that?

Sure i don't want to be like Prof. Farnsworth from Futurama, for example looking perpetually in your quality 40's-50's would be nice. This will of course in the future depend on the person choice.
Also if you get tired of the life you could get into hibernation and wake up few 100 years later if you chose to instead of ending your life because you got "bored". Unfortunately today the hibernation technology by my thinking is not developed enough and majorly serve to fleece your money.
Now for all this technology to happen there must be put massive amounts of money and personel into it, will the today's science grow up to some of our expectations lets to be seen, but it surely we are at the turning point.

[chaostheory]

i personally have no interest in having my physical body live forever. People don't seem to take into account that this means no matter how crippled or injured one may become, that death is not an option. Noone ever said you'd live forever in perfect health, never get sick and never become injured. They just assume that this immortality makes you injure-proof. What if you got in an accident and became paralyzed or would suffer in pain...and then never die? Would you want to live forever then?

[Erki]

What, you guys mean, I can't live forever then?

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I can't imagine you would prefer to live in a world that is devoid of children. Count me out!

Your phrase should be like this to be more complete: "I can't imagine you would prefer to live in a world that is devoid of children and where everybody looks like 20 years old (or look like whatever age they want to look like) and where nobody dies of old age.

Yes, imagine it or not, i would definitely rather live in such a world.