|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Robert ClarkRobert Clark Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:14
On Dec 25, 7:57 am, "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 (4.85Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:22
"Wallace Wright" wrote in message
news:e3baa2308cb192273538dc6dc05f37d42310b@4ax.com...> On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 02:17:22PM -0600, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>> "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?
>>>>>> ...
|
| Show full article (3.30Kb) |
|
| | 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:29
"Nate Edel" sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:1gva45xnu6.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...> In rec.arts.sf.written Howard Brazee brazee.net> wrote:>> "Keith F. Lynch" KeithLynch.net> wrote:>>>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.
>
> Depends on your view of "you."
Experience + personality = you.
IOW, "you" changes with more and more experiences, even if the baseline
personality remains basically the same. And even one's personality can be
subtlely, over time, be affected by experience--or radically affected by
traumatic experiences.
|
| Show full article (2.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:34
"Wallace Wright" wrote in message
news:30a2d586806b5372ffae9c5d5435d98a8dccb@4ax.com...> On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 06:51:22AM -0600, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>> "Jon Schild" xmission.com> wrote in message
>> news:fkovp0$mlo$2@news.xmission.com...>>>
>>> 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 (2.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:37
"Howard Brazee" brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3mk4n3dvmkeuebhof1tne7nii97jv20sni@4ax.com...> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:33:56 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
> comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> So what do you guess the half-life is of how long average people will
>>> be interested in living?
>>
>>Infinity.
>
> Half-life of infinity? You mean most EVERYBODY would want to live
> forever?
Yes.
Pert near everyone would want to live forever, forever young, that is.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Yes, of course, there are the rare exceptions.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ken from ChicagoKen from Chicago Date: Dec 26, 2007 17:38
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:11:17 -0700, Howard Brazee brazee.net>
> wrote:>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:33:56 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
>> comcast.net> wrote:>>>> So what do you guess the half-life is of how long average people will
>>>> be interested in living?
>
>>>Infinity.
>
>>Half-life of infinity? You mean most EVERYBODY would want to live
>>forever?
>
> I personally want to live at least long enough to catch up on my reading.
> But
> more books come out every month...
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Keith F. LynchKeith F. Lynch Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:04
Ken from Chicago comcast.net> wrote:> ... and for immortals, travel to the stars becomes totally doable,
> even at subrelativistic speeds.
Or even at walking speeds. Build me a rotating cylinder extending
from Earth's surface to the surface of some planet around another
star, and I could walk its length. It would only take a few tens
of billions of years.
(We'd better give immortality to the stars, too. And deal with their
relative motions somehow.)
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Keith F. LynchKeith F. Lynch Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:12
Michael Ash mikeash.com> wrote:> It has been argued that the only thing which allows true change is
> the old leaders dying off to make room for the new. If this is
> true, then when the old leaders stop dying off, change will cease.
If so, that's yet one more reason to get rid of all leaders.
Nobody has yet mentioned one major downside of immortality: The
chances each year of being sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole for a crime one didn't commit is small, but not zero. If
people live long enough, eventually the vast majority of them will
be permanently in prison.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Keith F. LynchKeith F. Lynch Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:17
Nate Edel sfchat.org> wrote:> ... if, however, there is a medical way to keep the brain as plastic
> as it is when younger, it may prove to be a non-issue.
I was dismayed by James Hogan's "Giants" series when it was revealed
that the Giants had immortality but got rid of it because it caused
stagnation.
Inflexible thinking may be a bad thing, but I don't think it deserves
the death penalty. Also, if you've got a society, as they apparently
did, in which everyone is happy, well-educated, and well-fed, what's
so terrible about stagnation? Must one always be striving for a goal?
Can't one *reach* the goal, then cease striving?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Keith F. LynchKeith F. Lynch Date: Dec 26, 2007 20:05
Splicer nomail.com> wrote:> 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 -
ObSF: _Rollback_ by Robert J. Sawyer.
> 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?
Sure, just like they do now. Rich people can already afford all sorts
of things most people can't.
Presumably the price would gradually come down. Almost everything was
first available only to the rich.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
