|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Howard BrazeeHoward Brazee Date: Dec 25, 2007 08:52
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild xmission.com>
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"
Even with eternal youth, would you want to live to be 1000? Remember
the world keeps changing and you would be an obvious outsider. It
would be hard to keep interested in life for a thousand years.
Would you even recognize yourself after that long?
And 1000 years is nothing compared to 1,000,000 years. Which is less
than nothing compared to infinity.
|
| |
|
| | 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Howard BrazeeHoward Brazee Date: Dec 25, 2007 08:54
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:57:30 -0800, John Schilling
spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>And I don't think we'll actually see it in fifteen years, but possibly
>within fifty years.
It's always 50 years away.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Howard BrazeeHoward Brazee Date: Dec 25, 2007 08:59
On 24 Dec 2007 20:33:59 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" KeithLynch.net>
wrote:
>> "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.
Long before that time, "You" will be long gone. All your synapses
would be of memories of the way future.
Other big problems:
1. Living space. It *will* be used up
2. Procreation. The nature of life is to procreate.
3. The turning of generations. Wil McCarthy addressed this need in
the Queendom of Sol series. What will the next generation do?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John SchillingJohn Schilling Date: Dec 25, 2007 09:33
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:57:28 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"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"
|
| Show full article (2.36Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: SplicerSplicer Date: Dec 25, 2007 10:06
Jon Schild xmission.com> wrote on 24 Dec 2007:
> 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"
>
The question for me is, "Who gets to be immortal"? Let's say the treatment
is extremely expensive and only the very wealthy can afford it - will the
poor bastards (i.e. The rest of the world) sit idly by while people they
probably don't like to begin with, get to live forever? If only the
wealthy can afford it, I'd suggest that once treated they hide.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Dec 25, 2007 10:07
On Dec 25, 4:59 am, "Ken from Chicago" comcast.net>
wrote:
>> What's your definition of "immortality"?
>
> "Eternal youth" (with "youth" being around 20-30 years physically).
This would require continual tinkering with the brain, with unknown as
yet effects on its function.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 12:01
> On Dec 25, 4:59 am, "Ken from Chicago" comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>>> What's your definition of "immortality"?
>>
>> "Eternal youth" (with "youth" being around 20-30 years physically).
>
> This would require continual tinkering with the brain, with unknown as
> yet effects on its function.
The body constantly regenerate cells. It's the stopping of regeneration
that's odd.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 12:17
"John Schilling" spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:6ff2n3l9hmaaja039cjtvdqnjb5gkngpv3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:57:28 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>"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: ...
|
| Show full article (2.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 12:20
"Howard Brazee" brazee.net> wrote in message
news:a7d2n3t0fabanolagi7rav3boube4glnl8@4ax.com...> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild xmission.com>
> 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"
>
> Even with eternal youth, would you want to live to be 1000? Remember
Yes.
> the world keeps changing and you would be an obvious outsider. It
|
| Show full article (1.30Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 25, 2007 12:22
"Splicer" nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A1185566427DSplicer@216.196.97.131...> Jon Schild xmission.com> wrote on 24 Dec 2007:
>>> 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"
>>
>
> The question for me is, "Who gets to be immortal"? Let's say the treatment
> is extremely expensive and only the very wealthy can afford it - will the
> poor bastards (i.e. The rest of the world) sit idly by while people they
> probably don't like to begin with, get to live forever? If only...
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
