|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Dan GoodmanDan Goodman Date: Dec 24, 2007 16:35
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy schrieb:
>>Gene Ward Smith gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:25e13488-af72-4162-b958-afbb9c160fcd@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.c
>> om: >>> On Dec 24, 10:07...
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
|
| | 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Keith F. LynchKeith F. Lynch Date: Dec 24, 2007 17:33
Jon Schild xmission.com> wrote:> Maybe when you are 20 or 30 the idea of living forever seems
> attractive, but wait until you get older and assorted body parts
> no longer work like they should.
The wearing out of those body parts *is* aging. If we can prevent all
deaths by old age, it will be by preventing or perfectly repairing
such deterioration. There's no chance that death will be conquered
by allowing people to live more and more decrepitly, like Swift's
Struldbrugs.
> Then you can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at
> several worldcons:
> "Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"
I interpret that as meaning that there may be a finite number of
things to learn and do, thus people may become severely bored after
a few trillion trillion trillion eons.
|
| |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael AshMichael Ash Date: Dec 24, 2007 22:02
In rec.arts.sf.science Keith F. Lynch keithlynch.net> wrote:> Jon Schild xmission.com> wrote:>> Maybe when you are 20 or 30 the idea of living forever seems
>> attractive, but wait until you get older and assorted body parts
>> no longer work like they should.
>
> The wearing out of those body parts *is* aging. If we can prevent all
> deaths by old age, it will be by preventing or perfectly repairing
> such deterioration. There's no chance that death will be conquered
> by allowing people to live more and more decrepitly, like Swift's
> Struldbrugs.
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:47
> On Dec 24, 10:07 am, Robert Clark yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are
>> accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase more than
>> one year for each year that passes in about 15 years.
>
> Back in the sixties, I read an article in Analog where the author
> claimed speeds attained by humans were increasing so fast that before
> the end of the century we would be able to travel faster than light.
> It came equipped with a graph, which extrapolated these speeds into an
> asymptotic blowup. Finding the fallacies in this class of argument is
> left as an exercise for the reader.
Life EXPECTANCY and life LONGEVITY are two different things. The former is
increased by lowering EARLY deaths, from war, malnutrition, famine, crime,
disease, accidents, etc., the latter has pretty much stayed around 120
years--for millennia. The recent oldest person who died was around 116 years
old.
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:51
>
> Robert Clark wrote:
>> Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
>> posthuman world?
>
> Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or 30
> the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get older
> and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you can
> understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several worldcons:
>
> "Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"
That's assuming you continue to deca
--as opposed to stabilizing around 30
years physically. And that pain medication loses effectiveness. One of the
biggest fears of age is pain.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:54
"William December Starr" panix.com> wrote in message
news:fkpf6a$d71$1@panix1.panix.com...> In article news.xmission.com>,
> Jon Schild xmission.com> said:
>>> And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or 30 the
>> idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
>> older and assorted body parts no longer work like they
>> should. Then you can understand the full meaning of a button I
>> have seen at several worldcons:
>>
>> "Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"
>
> That presumes that immortality == being stuck in the same worn-out
> meat forever.
>
> --
> William December Starr panix.com>
>
|
| Show full article (0.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:57
"John Schilling" spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:p730n3p1mqm94ui7sa6sdo488s2qb80ga6@4ax.com...> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild xmission.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Robert Clark wrote:
>>> Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a
>>> posthuman world?
>>
>>Absolutely. And it isn't that hard a question. Maybe when you are 20 or
>>30 the idea of living forever seems attractive, but wait until you get
>>older and assorted body parts no longer work like they should. Then you
>>can understand the full meaning of a button I have seen at several
>>worldcons:
>>
>>"Immortality -- A Fate Worse than Death"
>
> Which mostly only means that the English language doesn't yet have the
> right terminology for discussing "immortality".
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:59
> On Dec 24, 11:57 am, John Schilling spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>> So, "immortality" in the body you had at twenty-five? Because I think
>> that, barring a short transitional period, that's the only sort that's
>> really in the cards.
>>
>> And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
>> within fifty years.
>
> What's your definition of "immortality"?
"Eternal youth" (with "youth" being around 20-30 years physically).
Of course some would add an INability to di
--period.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 07:02
"Matthias Warkus" wrote in message
news:fkpcng$88q$3@news.nnrp.de...
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy schrieb:
>> Gene Ward Smith gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:25e13488-af72-4162-b958-afbb9c160fcd@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.c
>> om:>>> On Dec 24, 10:07 am, Robert Clark yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:>>>> Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are
>>>> accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase
>>>> more than one year for each year that passes in about 15 years.
>>> Back in the sixties, I read an article in Analog where the
>>> author claimed speeds attained by humans were increasing so fast
>>> that before the end of the century we would be able to travel
>>> faster than light. It came equipped with a graph, which
>>> extrapolated these speeds into an asymptotic blowup. Finding the
>>> fallacies in this class of argument is left as an exercise for
>>> the reader.
>> And practical fusion is only 20 years away.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Howard BrazeeHoward Brazee Date: Dec 25, 2007 08:50
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:00:02 -0800 (PST), Gene Ward Smith
gmail.com> wrote:
>Back in the sixties, I read an article in Analog where the author
>claimed speeds attained by humans were increasing so fast that before
>the end of the century we would be able to travel faster than light.
>It came equipped with a graph, which extrapolated these speeds into an
>asymptotic blowup. Finding the fallacies in this class of argument is
>left as an exercise for the reader.
I strongly suspect that a lot of those articles were designed to
illustrate the fallacies.
But not all of them.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
