> In rec.arts.sf.science Keith F. Lynch keithlynch.net> wrote:

>> 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.

>
> Unfortunately this hasn't been really workable so far and there's no real
> reason to think it ever will be.

>> 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....

> On Dec 25, 8:21 pm, Robert Clark yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> The quest for immortality also presupposes that what comes after
>> death is nothingness, or can not be many times better than life.

>
> But that is perfectly reasonable. When I turn off my computer, I don't
> think that the programs I was running on it "go" somewhere else and
> continue executing.

>"Michael Ash" mikeash.com> wrote in message

>> Keith F. Lynch keithlynch.net> wrote:

>>> 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.

>>
>> Unfortunately this hasn't been really workable so far and there's no real
>> reason to think it ever will be.

>
>Limit leadership positions to two CONSECUTIVE terms. Every other term, new
>leadership can get in, fresh ideas be tried, leaders get to live under the
>rules they installed, etc. and if some leaders are...

>Ken from Chicago comcast.net> wrote:

>> IOW, "you" changes with more

>
>Yes, but the change is generally a matter of continuity - with rare
>exceptions, of course.
>

>> 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.

>
>Well, yes. But outside of some radical changes through certain sorts of
>traumatic experiences,

>
> "Michael Ash" mikeash.com> wrote in message
> news:1198737234.666914@nfs-db1.segnet.com...

>> In rec.arts.sf.science Keith F. Lynch keithlynch.net> wrote:

>>> 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.

>>
>> Unfortunately this hasn't been really workable so far and there's no real
>> reason to think it ever will be.

>
> Limit leadership positions to two CONSECUTIVE terms. Every other term, new
> leadership can get in, fresh...

> "Michael Ash" mikeash.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1198737234.666914@nfs-db1.segnet.com...
>

>> In rec.arts.sf.science Keith F. Lynch keithlynch.net> wrote:

>>> 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.

>

>> Unfortunately this hasn't been really workable so far and there's no real
>> reason to think it ever will be.

>
> Limit leadership positions to two CONSECUTIVE terms. Every other term, new
> leadership can get in, fresh ideas be tried, leaders get to live under the
> rules they installed, etc. and if some leaders are really good, and still ...

> 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"

> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0800, Jon Schild xmission.com>
> wrote:
>

>>"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?

> 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.  

> 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...