We didn't have a way of getting to the moon based on technology available in the 1800's. Would you say that the idea of going to the moon wasn't representative of reality? Last I checked, we've been there, done that. Current technology isn't the issue. Heck, we can't cure aging with current technology.
True, we did reach the moon, but...
[tung]
I would say claiming you've already reached the moon in the 1800's might slow your progression there -- especially if you wanted to be taken seriously by other scientists who might actually get you to the moon...it goes back to the in vitro assumption thingy...we don't even know infinity exists, except for theoretically, right? What's our plan to get there, really -- based on our current understanding of the universe?
For Infinite Lifespans is an assumption not based on any evidence, right? Going to the moon, as an idea, yes, was probably laughed at in the 1800s -- so was flying. But was there any evidence to suggest we could get there based on our available technologies in the 1800s? Did they have a plan in the 1800s to reach the moon? I'm not sure, but I don't think that idea was developed such that it could be effectively implemented in the 1800s, and I think if we formed a faction called "flying to the moon club" in the 1800s, it would not advance our progression to the moon whatseover.
It was, if I understand it correctly, the convergence of several technologies that allowed us to travel to the moon -- not the existence of a group whose front line message was "For the moon..." Maybe I am just too skeptical.
It's just I don't think being unrealisitic will do anything but perhaps hurt our chances of achieving our goal -- especially among fellow scientists, that are generally a more conservative lot than most.
For extended lifespan sounds pretty good...and realistic too..and not extremist, or far fetched. What do others think?