• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Who wants to live forever? - Total: 5


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 August 2004 - 02:50 PM


In the spirit of ImmInst's Facing Cryonics project, the following article was contributed by co-founder and chairman of the World Transhumanist Association, Nick Bostrom, PhD as an exploratory into why life extension may be a desirable goal. The article was included in ImmInst's first book:

Posted Image
The Scientific Conquest of Death

Article:

"Who wants to live forever?"
(http://www.immins.org/why)

Posted Image
By: Nick Bostrom, PhD
From: The Scientific Conquest of Death (ImmInst 2004)

For those rooting for a breakthrough in life extension research, to question why it would be desirable to lead a longer and healthier life might seem banal.

But a number of people cannot seem to conceive of any reason why anybody would want to live beyond the currently fashionable limit of about four score.

Some possible answers include:
• Watch your grandchildren and great-grandchildren grow up
• Find out what the future will be like
• Because art and creativity are inexhaustible
• Have more time to help others
• Why not?
• If you live, you can always change your mind about it later; death is irreversible.
• Watch Tibet beat Brazil in the football world cup final
• More time to figure out the meaning of life, if there is one
• Because it would suck to be in the very last generation to die of old age
• There are people who love you and who need you.
• Have a chance to really grow up and find out what kind of wisdom and maturity might be attainable by a healthy 800-year-old
• Spend more time with friends and loved ones without a time bomb ticking quietly inside you all the while
• Learn the answer to some of the great mysteries: How does the mind work? Is there extraterrestrial life?
• Play, create, and make love, to explore exotic mental states
• Build and experience virtual realities
• Live happily ever after
Respondents:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

To add your reply, email support@imminst.org, or post below. Include your name, location, message & photo (Join to post). See http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics for an example of a similar project.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 August 2004 - 03:05 PM

ImmInst Chat

Who wants to live forever?
Date: Dec 19, 2004 @ 8 PM Eastern
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat

Chat archive to be posted below.

------

Posted Image
Robert Ettinger (Father of Cryonics), Bruce J. Klein

Why live forever? Simple, Death = Oblivion.

Bruce J. Klein - Chair, ImmInst.org
Birmingham, Alabama
http://www.imminst.org/bjklein

#3 alex83

  • Guest
  • 119 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Israel

Posted 17 August 2004 - 11:07 PM

I agree with Bruce, the reason is: Death = Oblivion, it's a pity that so few people understand that.

Alex.
Israel.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 September 2004 - 04:05 PM

I want to live forever because it's hard. Dying is too easy.

I don't believe in soul or heaven or reincarnation. Even if you could
prove me that there is heaven or something after death, I would still
want to live forever in this world. Killing yourself just because your
bored or tired is unbelievably stupid.

Maybe immortality in the strongest sense of the word is impossible
(heat death...), but that is not a reason to stop trying. I want to
live as long as possible. I can see myself there, at the end of the
universe, hitting cold stones together and trying to light the last
candle.

Life is hard. So am I :)

Marko Naumanen
Oulu, Finland

Attached Files



#5 pcrinc

  • Guest
  • 3 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 November 2004 - 05:01 AM

I believe that the concept of aging is based on flaws in our genetic code. I understand that the accepted theory is that free oxygen molecules bombard the nucleous of the cell and mutate the reproduction of cells ever so slightly so that over time the cells are imperfect and this causes aging. Also that cancer cells reproduce exact duplicates of themselves only at too high of a rate of reproduction resulting in tumers and other health problems. Anyway here's a hypothosis the key to immortality lies in the cancer cell irronically our biggest killer. I believe that through gentic alteration possibly using stem cells and cancer cells we can create physical immortality. What do you think?

#6 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 12 November 2004 - 08:28 AM

Posted Image

I don't want to retire from the job of learning because thats life to me (AND APPLYING the knowledge). Sooo many miss that latter part. And its not that I find everything interesting, just want to learn what I like.

While I understand criticisms from fellow Immortalists about the well-known aberrant problems with biological decline I find myself thinking its the closest form we have to work with at the moment. Thusly I find myself in the CMB life style: "Think like a Cell."

Logically, if a cell could replace its genetic/epigenetic "footprints" of a more youthful period, it would.

I also want to live past some current stupid things I have to deal with. Maybe someday we can live in a world where boozers don't exist? I'm up to my eyes in sedated deathists here! Ugh.

Not the best of endings...

--Ryan Bates

Edited by Bates, 09 June 2005 - 09:52 PM.


#7 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 December 2004 - 08:05 PM

Posted Image
"The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant"

Posted Image
by Nick Bostrom

Once upon a time, the planet was tyrannized by a giant dragon.
The dragon stood taller than the largest cathedral.... [More]

#8 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,797 posts
  • 10

Posted 16 December 2004 - 09:04 PM

I want to live forever.

Reason: Why the hell not?

Posted Image

#9 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 20 December 2004 - 04:25 AM

ImmInst Chat Archive:

BJKlein -- why life extension for you?
Harv -- My answer is: I'm not suicidal. I see no reason to cut my life short without reason!
BJKlein -- are most people like you?
Harv -- Sadly, no. Most people think they need a good reason for life extension. They see dying as the natural default.
BJKlein -- is it our duty to change their minds?
Harv -- Good question. I always feel uncomfortable trying to change people's minds.
BJKlein -- why?

Harv -- I think science and facts can be presented so that everybody sees the same data. But for personal choices or preferences, I think everybody has to make up their own mind for what they want.
Harv -- We certainly can explain our preferences and reasons, to see who agrees with us. But I don't see a need to try to make people agree with us.
BJKlein -- perhaps, if more people agreed, it would improve our chances at life extension?
Harv -- That is an indirect argument. Directly working toward life extension would improve our chances. Getting other people to agree in case they might help work seems to be an indirect approach IMHO.
BJKlein -- Perhaps it depends on opportunity cost in one's current work..
Harv -- Perhaps.
BJKlein -- Do you see the ImmInst conferences as a possible benefit to life extension?
Harv -- To be totally blunt, I see them as recruitment. I don't see recruitment as a big goal. I know that we have a lot of political opposition. But disease and old age are the more direct threats in my opinion. I think we focus too much on recruitment because it is easy.

BJKlein -- welcome Chestnut.. how are you?
Harv -- The Internet already gives us high bandwidth communications at low cost. I am not sure we need to physically meet all together at the same place and time. It is lots of fun, but it costs a lot of money and doesn't buy us much.
BJKlein -- Thus, Harv, you think we should be further along in life extension research?
Chestnut -- ;)

Harv -- I don't know that we "should" be further along. I think it will be a long and slow process of research. Each disease or cause of old age death we cure will only buy us a few short years until the second leading cause of death kills us. I think we will need to cure almost every disease before immortality is attained.

Harv -- I question people who think we can cure aging in a decade or two. Even fixing all our genes won't change maximum lifespan. Adding telomeres won't stop replicative copy errors. We are now living long enough for everyone to get heart disease, diabetes and alzheimer’s. Each of these will be very difficult to solve. Solving it won't extend lifespan much because of the others. Every single one has to be solved differently, because they have different causes.

Harv -- This doesn't mean that I am against life-extension or don't think it worthwhile. I love my life. I want it to last indefinitely. We definitely should keep working on curing all diseases and extending lifespan!
BJKlein -- sure, i agree.. just wonder if we should skip the biology and go straight to mind-computer interface

Harv -- I'm not sure that is much easier. I work in the IT industry, and we still can't keep our computers from crashing. Even though it seems like computers are better understood than biology, they are definitely not more reliable. Meat humans still greatly outlive machines.

Harv -- Back to the topic. Why?
Mind -- Because life is good
BJKlein -- how do you know?
Harv -- Yes. We want more of it.
BJKlein -- perhaps death is better?
Mind -- I guess it isn't for everyone, but for me it is good enough to want it to continue indefinitely
Mind -- Non-existence is not better than existence
BJKlein -- or, perhaps, rather, what is after death is better
Mind -- nothing is after death
Mind -- nothing
Mind -- NOTHING
Mind -- NOTHING!!!!!
LazLo -- More than we want it, more than we have evolved with the imperative to defend and expand it, we need more life to grow not only as individuals but as a species
BJKlein -- how do you know?
BJKlein -- seems hard to know about 'nothing'
Mind -- No one has ever contacted me after being dead
BJKlein -- perhaps they're to far away
Mind -- There is no reliable evidence that any consciousness exists after death
Harv -- I don't know if we "need" to grow as a species. this is just a preference. You want to. I want to. Some people don't want us to. I don't know that we can prove one way is right.
Mind -- I play in the real world....not in the imaginary one
LazLo -- We need to grow to prevent extinction
BJKlein -- seems three options: Die - Stagnate or Grow
Harv -- I don't take medicines that haven't been tested. I don't load software that hasn't been scanned for viruses. I don't trust people until I know them. Likewise, I don't want to let my life end without good evidence of an afterlife.
LazLo -- there is no steady state, survival of the fittest, extinction for those that don't
Schaefer -- You scan all software you download for viruses?
Harv -- That is true, Lazlo. If we don't grow, we stagnate and die. So that is a good argument for "needing" to expand.

⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#10 Kallazze

  • Guest
  • 14 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 December 2004 - 05:19 AM

I want to live forever because it will be fun!

#11 sorce

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 December 2004 - 05:05 PM

I want to live forever just out of curiosity.

#12 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 December 2004 - 07:11 PM

sorce, do you have a digital pic handy? if so, please email to bjk@imminst.org.

thanks,
bruce

#13 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 25 February 2005 - 09:40 PM

Is the question- why living forever?
Because I need enough time for answering that question!!!
Death shall make it all nothing, not only bring me lack of time but will take also time that I already had, it will actually take me, since there will be no me, there will be total nothing, absolutely nothing. Simple- do you remember how was it before being exist? as a spermatozoon maybe? before that? before the existence of your parents? since you didn't have a brain (you didn't have the existence of yourself) you cannot remember a thing, and you didn't know a thing, and "you" weren't even "you", simply NOTHING! Everything, including everything is better than nothing, and being dead means- nothing. Since it'll take me eternity to answer that question with all of my reasonings and examples, I will stop answering and start seeking for a way for immortality, so I won't be runing out of time, you shall have plenty of it to hear me talking till you go deaf in Elronds 10,000 birthday. LMAO I couldn't not mantion it again!! Oh that is so funny! [g:)], Elrond I hope you saw this and this: http://www.imminst.o...445 ... So sorry I am rolling on floor laughing from it all the time, hehe.
That joke is a good enough reason to live forever, LOL, better than... well... simply nothing! That would be a pity to forget with all of myself also the memory of the invitation to Elrond's 10,000 birthday, as it would be a pity to forget his birthday pphahaha [g:)]. So sorry dear Elrond I can't stand it [lol] , that is so funny!

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#14 immortalitysystems.com

  • Guest immortalitysystems.com
  • 81 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Sausalito, California, USA, Earth

Posted 26 February 2005 - 06:19 AM

I must be immortal, because time und space are infinite and so is my power of imagination (Vorstellungskraft).

#15 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 June 2005 - 08:38 PM

Update, posted to WTA-talk from Nick Bostrom:

I wrote yesterday about writing letters to the editor etc. As chance would have it, an opportunity has arisen to do just that.

A paper of mine, The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant, was published recently in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The journal has an on-line commentary section to which anybody can submit a reply. (I'm not sure whether they will publish them all.)

The following was the first response to appear:

= = =
Dear Editor,

I cannot believe that a serious journal of medical ethics has published this article. There is no sensible ethical argument that we should not try to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible, but the idea that we should actively and purposely aim to prevent death is absurd. It is also, going with the principal of distributive justice, simply immoral while 80% of the world does not have clean drinking water, there is an infant mortality rate of 25% in the poorest countries, and there are countless other health problems in the world which have solutions that are ignored.
= = =

I've just submitted the following reply:

= = =

TITLE: Scientists find death can damage your health

Neville Goodman comments that there is "no sensible ethical argument that we should not try to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible". With this I strongly agree. Yet he goes on to assert that "the idea that we should actively and purposely aim to prevent death is absurd". There is a tension between these two claims inasmuch as dying has been shown to be associated with serious negative long-term effects on health.

Goodman also claims that working to defeat aging is "simply immoral while 80% of the world does not have clean drinking water". I submit that both the lack of clean drinking water and the lack of means to remain healthy as we grow older are huge problems that we need to solve. But it does not follow from the urgency of providing clean drinking water that it is immoral to work on defeating aging, any more than it follows from this that it is immoral to work on cures for cancer or diabetes. We can, and should, vigorously pursue both objectives.

The sheer scale of the human misery, disease, loss of capacity, and untimely death that is caused by age-related decay of our bodies boggles the mind. The amount of death and suffering that is caused by the consequences of human senescence (circa 100,000 deaths every day) is much greater than the amount caused by the lack of clean drinking water, although both are unfathomable. We have a strong moral obligation to work to put an end to both as soon as possible. The first step is to recognize that this obligation exists.

= = =

If you feel like weighing in on this, either by commenting on the original article or the discussion (which might develop further over the coming days), please go to: http://jme.bmjjourna...rs/31/5/273#297

I think you can access the original paper here: http://jme.bmjjourna...t/full/31/5/273. If not, there's a copy here: http://www.nickbostr...ble/dragon.html

Nick Bostrom
Director, Oxford Future of Humanity Institute
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
10 Merton Str., OX1 4JJ, Oxford +44 (0)7789 74 42 42
OXFHI: http://www.oxfhi.ox.ac.uk Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com

#16 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,778 posts
  • 50

Posted 11 June 2005 - 04:56 AM

One readers response to Goodman's idea that saving the world's poor should come before life-extension...

..., I await the news of his retirement from civilized anaesthesiology, insignificant as it is in comparison to the problem of providing clean drinking water to the developing world. His biological expertise will be a great boon to the refugees of Ghana and the children of Bhopal.



#17 traxx1mus27

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 January 2006 - 08:49 PM

I dont want to live forever. Why? All you do is sit around all day and say, "hmm, ive done everything i can do, i guess I'll wait another 200 years so i can eat a new kind of candy. Why would you want to live forever, I believe there is a reason for death. When somebody dies, diseases die with them. Thats why I find saving people who have devistating diseases and will just pass them onto the next generation and life will get hader. Just let Darwins theory go! "Survival of the Fittest" I dont want to go in for therapy or take 20 pills every day so i can sit around and do nothing. We dont know whats beyond death, why not go for an exploration. Sure you might not ever return, but who cares. The only thing you may have ever done would have been death, so why not dive in.

#18 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:22 PM

I dont want to live forever.  Why? All you do is sit around all day and say, "hmm, ive done everything i can do, i guess I'll wait another 200 years so i can eat a new kind of candy.  Why would you want to live forever, I believe there is a reason for death.  When somebody dies, diseases die with them.  Thats why I find saving people who have devistating diseases and will just pass them onto the next generation and life will get hader.  Just let Darwins theory go! "Survival of the Fittest" I dont want to go in for therapy or take 20 pills every day so i can sit around and do nothing.  We dont know whats beyond death, why not go for an exploration.  Sure you might not ever return, but who cares.  The only thing you may have ever done would have been death, so why not dive in.

Not true.
First- if the most of the world were been open-minded and aware to that possibility, the requirement would grow and every resource would have been used for this purpose, and it would come by pretty fast.
Second -I don't know of all, but I do know that many DO study and help researching this. I shall as soon as I can... I help what I can now, still a high-school student, not much I can do. Dying is a goddamn stupid thing. Life turns vain after death, I mean living life whom are temporary are pointless.

-Infernity

#19 Shepard

  • Guest, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:33 PM

I dont want to live forever.  Why? All you do is sit around all day and say, "hmm, ive done everything i can do, i guess I'll wait another 200 years so i can eat a new kind of candy. 


Dude, if you sit around all day it is your own fault. Boredom is a horrible reason to argue against immortality.

#20 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,487 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 24 January 2006 - 11:05 PM

Why? All you do is sit around all day and say, "hmm, ive done everything i can do, i guess I'll wait another 200 years so i can eat a new kind of candy.


Sorry to hear you are so bored with life. I am not bored, therefore I will keep on living, and learning, and exploring...etc.

#21 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 25 January 2006 - 12:05 AM

I really like candy...

#22 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 146
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2006 - 12:45 AM

I dont want to live forever.  Why? All you do is sit around all day and say, "hmm, ive done everything i can do, i guess I'll wait another 200 years so i can eat a new kind of candy.  Why would you want to live forever, I believe there is a reason for death.  When somebody dies, diseases die with them.  Thats why I find saving people who have devistating diseases and will just pass them onto the next generation and life will get hader.  Just let Darwins theory go! "Survival of the Fittest" I dont want to go in for therapy or take 20 pills every day so i can sit around and do nothing.  We dont know whats beyond death, why not go for an exploration.  Sure you might not ever return, but who cares.  The only thing you may have ever done would have been death, so why not dive in.


It will soon be survival of the smartest. People with your mentality will just die off, eventually. I don't want to get in the way with your decision... but people who want to live on should have that right. In the end your view will lose, since everone that holds it will die... unless death is forced on us too. I don't understand why people bring up boredom as a reason not to live forever. Just because I am bored today doesn't mean I'm contemplating killing myself to end it all. If you are bored just get some new hobbies. If you don't have nothing to live for then the world doesn't really need you anyway.

Maybe you are right

Just let Darwins theory go! "Survival of the Fittest

People who have this survival instict, having fun living and generally enjoying their lives want to live forever and maybe are more mentally stable and able to cope with the future both physically and mentally. So I guess you are right =/

[wis]

Edited by Matt, 25 January 2006 - 01:06 AM.


⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#23 th3hegem0n

  • Guest
  • 379 posts
  • 4

Posted 25 January 2006 - 03:45 AM

I want to live forever purely out of spite.

#24 traxx1mus27

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 January 2006 - 08:54 PM

I'm a high school student as well, but i dont see a reason to not die. Another big issue is, if nobody dies, the earth becomes overpopulated, what then? We just let everyone starve until the population is back to where it should be? Or by then have we colonized the moon and mars and are now on our way to Neptune? If nobody ever dies, the world population would increase by about .2% every year. (http://www.wholesome...c.html#worldpop) do the math yourself, so the population of the world would double in 500 years, and thats at a flat rate of births, let alone it being exponential. So, if we start living forever, we will outgrow this world and we will suffer for it.

#25 th3hegem0n

  • Guest
  • 379 posts
  • 4

Posted 25 January 2006 - 09:12 PM

I'm a high school student as well, but i dont see a reason to not die. Another big issue is, if nobody dies, the earth becomes overpopulated, what then? We just let everyone starve until the population is back to where it should be? Or by then have we colonized the moon and mars and are now on our way to Neptune? If nobody ever dies, the world population would increase by about .2% every year. (http://www.wholesome...c.html#worldpop) do the math yourself, so the population of the world would double in 500 years, and thats at a flat rate of births, let alone it being exponential. So, if we start living forever, we will outgrow this world and we will suffer for it.


Overpopulation will not be a problem.

Invent nanotechnology and upload the entire population into a VR interface.

#26 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 25 January 2006 - 09:24 PM

Don't you think it is better avoiding new births, new lives rather then taking the ones who already exist and have things to lose away?
Don't you think those who already live should have more rights then those who are not?
What's the point in offsprings if you can not die? You don't need to continue yourself, because you can survive limitless.
Living without limits will allow you to develop ways to get out of the earth also...

-Infernity

#27 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 25 January 2006 - 09:28 PM

I'm a high school student as well, but i dont see a reason to not die.  Another big issue is, if nobody dies, the earth becomes overpopulated, what then?  We just let everyone starve until the population is back to where it should be? Or by then have we colonized the moon and mars and are now on our way to Neptune?  If nobody ever dies, the world population would increase by about .2% every year. (http://www.wholesome...c.html#worldpop) do the math yourself, so the population of the world would double in 500 years, and thats at a flat rate of births, let alone it being exponential.  So, if we start living forever, we will outgrow this world and we will suffer for it.


If every couple were allowed to have 1 child the population of the world would tend to a limit of around 12 billion. Figuring every generation would be half of the size of the generation before it. Everyone could express their desire to procreate, and over population would not increase exponentially. If we desired to expand the population for extra teresterial colonization or for whatever reason couples could simplely be allowed to have more kids.

#28 boundlesslife

  • Life Member in cryostasis
  • 206 posts
  • 11

Posted 27 January 2006 - 09:47 AM

Living without limits will allow you to develop ways to get out of the earth also...

Population growth challenging our limits gives us motivations to develop new ways of economizing our use of space here on Earth, and also actually could force us to "model" space colonies in a useful way here first.

Paolo Soleri's "arcologies" are a great example of what could be done to 'reduce urban sprawl', where he projects the reduction of this by a factor of one hundred and shows the potential consolidation of cities the size of Chicago and New York into a handful of comparatively tiny focal points.

His book, "Cities in the Image of Man", published in 1969, set the world of architecture on fire at the time, and is still the most elaborate projection of how you can put millions of people "within walking distance of each other" and convert most of the countryside back into natural wilderness.

Solari's project, Arcosanti, about half way between Phoenix and Flagstaff, is an inspirational place to visit. Below is the link to Arcosanti's website. His book (mentioned above) can be purchased there, for less than you'd pay on Amazon.Com, if you decided that you wanted it.:

Arcosanti

Realistically, if the world ever moved toward space colonies, 'arcologies' would likely be the fastest way to get there, because living in 'living cities' here on Earth would be the fastest way to find out how great they will be, in space. It would also build the kind of 'lifestyle mentality' that would be required for a population that wouldn't feel 'confined' by the kind of population density that would be necessitated, in space.

Meanwhile, here on Earth, there would be no necessity to generate artifical gravity, maintain an artifical atmosphere, divorce the living spaces from natural resources (minerals in the ground, water, etc.). Solari's concept is that these huge city-structures would be linked by maglevs, and if you wanted to go for a hike in the open country, all you'd have to do is put your backpack on, take the elevator to the ground level, and "walk out into the woods".

There would be no need for individual fuel burning cars, or the inefficiencies of individual roofs radiating away heat to space in winter or being cooled in summer, and so on. Solari conceived his cities to "fit into the environment", so that they were specialized for location. In one case, a huge power generating dam was the "city itself". In other cases, they were artificial floating islands, that were "world mobile" and utilized resources of the sea. Manufacturing cities were located just above rich mineral deposits, and so on.

Soleri's concepts were very advanced for his time, back in 1969, and still are. In one of his diagrams of future civilization, at that time, he showed a huge thing called a "mechanical brain", and connected to it, from the surface of a sphere surrounding it, he diagrammed people by indicating it as "the living skin of one thousand brains (or 'minds', I can't remember which)". This was the closest thing to foreseeing the Internet that existed, until it actually came along.

The Chinese people may be the ones to pick up the arcology idea first on a practical basis, because it would increase their standard of living enormously and conserve energy. The way the world economy is going, we'll probably have to follow in their footsteps, for the same reason. (It would almost be a sick-sounding joke to suggest that the entryways to arcologies in the U.S. might have "Made in China" stickers on them, but as things are now going, it's not so far fetched!)

boundlesslife

(Note: This is a very sparse and fragmentary discussion of the Arcology concept. Solari's 1969 book went into great depth, with architectural-level diagramming, of the various ways human civilization could "go wrong and destroy itself", or "go right and evolve into something very advanced and satisfying". He saw, even then, the necessity to eventually move beyond "just higher technology", and designated this achievement zone of human development as moving into what he termed the "Aesthetic-Compassionate Domain". Solari is still alive, in his 80's, working out at Arcosanti, a lean, wiry individual who is more active, in many ways, than many are in their 50's.)

#29 rehaulku

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Turkey, Marmara, Istanbul

Posted 08 March 2006 - 04:35 PM

I want to live a long time. How long? For the beginning more than 100 years meaning an ordinary life.

Why? To leave the mother planet Earth. This is not my home. I don't where it is but I know here is not.

How? I don't know. I have a good genetic condition to live 90 or more years old because of my grandparents.

So what will I do? I am a writer written about 20,000 pages and will write 10-100 times more. What for? To learn, to teach. To open a way.

What is the technics? Diet, no harmful input, etc. To think.

Software? No, I prefer to live as a hardware for at least a few millenniums.

This is the beginning. Next will be written.

⌛⇒ new years donation: support LE labs

#30 Brainbox

  • Guest
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2006 - 08:32 PM

I would like to live forever.

Why?

Well, this wish developed over time. After I saw my father die of cancer, which is a horrible sequence of events in itself, I after a while thought “well, let’s try to avoid that”. Not only for me, but also for the people I love.
After a while I discovered transhumanism and imminst during my quest for knowledge about healthy foods and supplements. This discovery transferred my original rather negative motivations into a more positive approach.

What would I do with my time? Right now I have a reasonable good career in the information technology business that takes up a lot of time. Besides that I’m a passionate hobby photographer. I also do some fiddling on my guitar (a Les Paul with a VG-8) And, after discovering imminst I think bioscience/bioinformatics is very interesting as well. But hey, where’s the time to do all that. And I didn’t even mention the quality time to spend with family and friends. So, some extra time will be appreciated.

My current thoughts on the matter are on my imminst custom page, also accessible through the “Who am I?” link on the left.

I think a pragmatic approach is in its place here, but lets not forget that it might be possible in the near future.

This is a great place to be, life in general as well as the imminst forum as a tiny part of it.

My picture is a bit small (see avatar), but to compensate for that it has some “existentional” dynamics. [lol]

Edited by brainbox, 09 March 2006 - 02:12 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users