• 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
- - - - -

Emortalism 101 - Till Noever


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 till

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 10 September 2003 - 05:26 AM


Emortalism 101

Introduction

This is the first in a series of articles, in which I will try to put before you, budding or wannabe immortals—and some, I notice, detractors!—a selection of issues that I think have to be dealt with, but which immortalists usually ignore, all reiterations to the contrary notwithstanding.

A warning: some of you will find what I say offensive. I know you will, because I’ve read your postings, and I realize that if some of you are not offended or feeling threatened, or think that what follows is all a lot of crap or maybe just heresy, then I’ve probably not done my job very well.

To those who object to what follows, and which they might consider arrogant and insensitive, let me note the following in anticipatory response:

1)    It wasn’t meant to be offensive, but thought–provoking. You are not afraid of thought, are you?

2)    You wanna be an immortal? Live with it then, because if you are offended by simple questions of truth and self-inspection, you may live to a ripe old age, but in a state of steadily increasing mental sclerosis.

3)    Ask yourself what really bothers you about what you’re reading. Is it that you don’t want to think about these things in that way? If so, why not? Is it that you simply disagree? Why does that bother you? Do you think you will learn nothing from being made to read about issues you will have to address some day, possibly soon?

4) Give it some more years in an emortalist state of mind, some more thought, some maturing of your own ideas, and a lot of you, I predict, will end up with thoughts that will, at least to some degree, parallel those I’m outlining below. I may be rather blunt about it, but then again, a born diplomat I’m not. So, sue me.

I shall presume that everybody else, despite their potential disagreement, will be provoked sufficiently into examining themselves and their motives and aspirations for these articles to have had some value. They are not written because I have nothing better to do with my time—because I do!—but because, while I cannot contribute much to the immortalist effort in scientific terms, there are some things I’d like to share with those who, at least with respect to the basics of immortalism (‘I don’t want to die!’) completely agree with me. It may save you some time in your philosophical agonizings—which I hope you have!—and also help; because here’s someone who has spent a long time being a conscious, declared emortalist (and an even longer time being one in spirit, though in-the-closet), and he has asked himself a lot of very troublesome questions throughout the years, and despite it all, he’s still an emortalist—more so than ever. That’s got to be telling, yes?

[Sidebar: So, if I have other things of significance to do with my time, why am I writing this? Two reasons that I can see. 1) Because, though I have what is generally called a ‘full’ life (family, work, friends, writing, moviemaking, kenjitsu, and more), it is still true that in one particular aspect of my life is essentially solitary, needs to be constantly concealed, and there’s basically nobody around to ‘understands’. The existence of an on-line community is important and helps somewhat to alleviate a certain loneliness many of us live with every day. Man and woman are not islands. 2) Because writing things down helps me with gathering a lot of material and thoughts together and putting them down in an, at least semi-coherent, form. This helps me, too. 3) Emortalists need to spend more time thinking seriously about themselves and the future in the context of humanity as a whole, and less about themselves as isolated entities. If I can do anything to help that along a bit, I must try.]

Where to start? There’s so much to say.

How about we start with why I dislike the word ‘immortal’?

1)    because of the linguistic and contextual baggage

2)    because it’s the wrong word

Nobody will live ‘forever’. Period. Not anyway ‘alive’ as they know it now. Whatever they end up as—and I decline, for cogent reasons, which I may get to later, to consider my ‘mind’ in a computer as ‘living’—if they last forever, which is a very long time indeed (and I doubt that those who wish to have any notion what it actually means!), they won’t be recognizable, not even by themselves, as anything like what they are now. That may be OK for those unable to await the ‘transhuman’ phase of their lives, but… Later.

So, since nobody will live forever, ‘immortal’ is a really crappy word, and Alvin Silverstein’s ‘emortal’, implying an existence without the necessity to die—though it may still happen any moment through any number of contingencies, probably accidental—is a much better term. Henceforth I shall continue to use it, coming back to ‘immortal’ only in instances when it is really more appropriate and always with deliberation and for purposes of nuance.

[Sidebar: excuse my lingering on terminology, but if you think in sloppy terminology your thoughts are likely to be sloppy as well. This is not opinion, but fact.]

In my years as an emortal (so far, so good, and who can prove that it’s not so?) I have made an extensive study of those who profess to aspire to the same things I do. I have spoken to some, corresponded with others, read shitloads of material from many more. I have come across a few I’ve learned to respect and admire, a disconcerting number of lunatics, plenty of pseudo-new-age self-centered/self-important pompous idiots, religious fervents (Christian, Jeish, and pseudo-‘Eastern’; though somehow Muslims never seem to drift into the camp, unless it’s the occasional ‘lapsed’ one), ardent capitalists, neo-conservatives, Libertarians, and the list goes on and on.

A lot of the immortalists I am aware of are disconcertingly deluded and/or shallow. The deluded ones are mostly those who adopt ‘immortalism’ as a kind of religion, not realizing that the moment it becomes that way is the moment it begins to defeat its own purpose. The rest, those who at least have no illusions about afterlife and God and mummery like that…well, you’d hope they’d do better—but beyond not wanting to die and doing whatever it takes to make this desire into a virtue—meaning adopting, or constructing, philosophies that provide suitable justifications for their desire—they haven’t really gone very far. In addition, tender souls that they are, many of them are incapable of dealing with criticism of their immortalism by those who disagree or find it incomprehensible and/or ludicrous and/or unnatural and/or whatever. In other words, instead of embracing immortalism in a religious way, they do the next best thing: embracing it as an ideology—which is just about as bad. The emortalist cause cannot be helped by brainless fervor. What it needs is implacable determination.

I can understand the need for ‘ideologizing’ emortalism—up to a point. Unlike the vast majority of you, I’ve lived through a period where emortalism was really considered…well, stupid, I guess. Terminally dumb. It couldn’t be achieved, so why even think about it, and besides it was unnatural and ungodly and blahblahblah. I know what it’s like to live under such circumstances. I suspect that being an atheist in Iran comes fairly close. (OK, so I’m kidding! It’s not half as bad as that…Being an atheist in Iran, I mean…) Sometimes the only defense against the majority deathist attitude appears to be the ardor of fervor. Still, I’m not sure it’s the best approach to take. Fervor, or so I have observed, only begets sclerotic stupidity. Not a good start for the emortalist project…

The scintillating spectrum of immortalists (not ‘emortalists’ since few even know the term, much less use it) leaps into clearer focus when we look at some of the reasons why people ‘join’ the camp, so to speak. Over the years I have discerned the following:

The common factor is, not unsurprisingly, that ‘I don’t wanna die’ —and who can blame us?

But what makes someone ‘become’ an ‘immortalist’?

Let’s look at a small sample of the gaudy collection of folks I’ve chanced across:

1) Those who have had a true brush with death and don’t like it one bit.

2) Those who have undergone an ‘awareness experience’ of death—meaning folks who have allowed themselves to drift into a region of their deep, dark psyche, where they become aware of the sheer terror associated with the notion of personal extinction. It is rare that people allow themselves to go there, because it is a very, very dark and frightening place—especially if you have no religion and if you are possessed of that elusive quality known as ‘imagination’.

3) Those who couldn’t stomach the religious ‘afterlife’ bullshit anymore.

4) Those who believe that some immortal guru has given them a revelation that they, too, can be like him.

5) Those who surfed the web and came across a ‘physical immortality’ website, and thought ‘wow, this is nifty—why don’t I join?? here’s something really cool!’ or something along those lines.

6) Those who read too much Robert Heinlein—though I don’t know if you can do that—or other immortalist-related fiction (and there is stuff out there aplenty).

7) Those who are total losers with shithouse lives—or no lives at all—who just want more time to get a chance to procrastinate a bit longer, and preferably much longer, not doing now what they can then postpone indefinitely as well.

8) A related category, many of which you’ll also find at science-fiction and fantasy conventions, for whom ‘immortality’ just takes the place of any other whimsy they might fancy. Think devoted ‘Trekkies’. (BTW, I am a Star Trek devotee myself, but I also write fiction. So…)

9) Those who have had people they loved die, usually from some stupid disease they wouldn’t have died from is only society spent more time, effort and money on healing sick people.

10) Those who think it’s going to make them really, really rich and powerful.

11) Those who really just want to be ‘transhuman’ and ‘explore’ every facet of what they think of as ‘existence’. (These folks generally think that being ‘human’ is a rather low-value thing, so eager are they to be ‘more’.)

12) Those who want to travel to the stars and find out if there’s life out there. (Not the armchair type, but those who realize that long life is a prerequisite for getting the space drive started again.)

13) Those to believe that ‘Time will have all the answers to all the ancient questions’.

14) Those who do not want those they love to age, get sick and/or die.

15) Those who will readily interchange ‘immortalism’ with any other framework of belief, provided it satisfies them at the time. They might as well be Greenies or Mormons, and might, indeed, switch in due course, when their whimsy takes them that way.

16) Computer geeks whose ability to relate to their fellow human beings is so stunted, that computers are the closest thing to a ‘relationship’ they’ll ever have.

17) Those who want to be around, to make sure that they can do what they can to help the human species survive.

18) Those who just want to ‘be around’ to see what happens.

19) (The rarest breed of all, but I know of a very few who I believe genuinely fall into that category.) Those who just want to be around so they can help people and make the world a better place for all.

It’s a subset of ‘immortalists’, but a colorful one, as you will admit. There will be others, to be sure. The human creature is so varied and fascinating. Far too fascinating, I’d like to submit, for any need, for the foreseeable future and maybe a significant number of centuries beyond that, to become ‘transhuman’—except in the sense that being emortal would be a kind of ‘trans’-human existence, because emortality would change its most fundamental parameter.

A lot of those listed above share a feature which in non-immortalists I wouldn’t worry about in the least, but which in people who aspire to live forever, or at least for very long, becomes an highly undesirable feature. It’s the me-me-me! thing. What I want. The life I lead. The things I will do. And so on, ad nauseam.

Don’t misunderstand me: there’s nothing wrong with egocentricity. As I said before: emortalism emerges from our desire not do die—and that is all about ‘me’, and anybody who denies this is a fraud. Most who come to emortalism do so motivated by their fear—yes, ‘fear’—of personal extinction. In the good old days they would have become devotees of whatever religion was handy; but not so today, because most of us know it’s bullshit—or, at best, metaphor. Furthermore, the generations raised in the post-60s climate of Californian-bred narcissism, will probably see nothing wrong with that anyway. ‘I want to stay alive and that’s just got to be good’, period, and screw anybody who thinks different and anyway ‘I’m supposed to love myself, right?’

Right. And wrong. Because, you see, narcissism is, after all, a ‘deathist’ state of mind to live in. Selfishness is essentially puerile. A lot of people never grow out of it, of course—but that’s not the point, is it?

What is the point?

That we have to learn to assume the point of view of people who will live for a long time indeed. And that means, folks, that a lot of customary knee-jerk reactions and entrenched behaviorisms just won’t do anymore. Things you assumed were OK aren’t: not for emortals. You may justifiably ask to be excused while you’re a self-centered jerk during your growing-up phase (and who isn’t?), but don’t expect the world to be a good place to be, or the future to hold any promise, with a gazillion of you swarming around, all looking out for number one and screw the rest. The future will not just depend on our eco-consciousness but also on our social maturity. That’s infinitely more important than our ability, or not, to amuse ourselves with endless games and pursuits while we live beyond our customary limits.

Think about that! The vast majority of emortalists I know and have heard of, or whose writings I’ve come across, from books to websites, have no idea—not even a notion that they should have an idea!—of the responsibility we are all going to assume for our future, and the future of the species!, by seeing the emortalist project to completion.

Think of this: that emortalism will demand of us, more than ever, to understand that no man or woman is an island; and that, ultimately, the stupid egocentrism that currently pervades the emortalist camp, is not only futile, but ultimately will prove destructive and the undoing or perversion of the project itself—and that, at the deepest level of our being we will never—not as long as we remain ‘human’—find any kind of fulfillment in ‘games’, ‘interests’, ‘pursuits’ or whatever you want to call it

Let me finish this introduction by leaving you with these thoughts (yeah, I know, I’ve said enough, but so what?):

There’s a saying, probably Chinese, that says that you learn more from those who disagree with you than those who agree. Or, to put it differently, an enemy will always teach you more than a friend.

Which is why I love Leon Kass. I do! I’ve mentioned this before, but let me say it again: he provides legitimacy to our project (nothing provides legitimacy like a high-profile adversary!) and free publicity besides (we should pay the man!). The value of any anti-immortalist speech by him to the emortalist cause is inestimable.

Instead of being petulant and derisive of his arguments, maybe we should use them to become clearer about why he is wrong. I mean, he is wrong—at least from my point of view; and probably from yours as well. But he has some valid points, lurking inside his arguments, ethics and morals, and unless we address these and use what he says and writes to clarify our own ethical position—beyond saying ‘of course it’s a good thing!’, which is a religious/ideological answer and I already noted that emortalists cannot afford ideologies or the ideological mind-set!—unless we deal with the the points he tends to raise again and again, we’re not making the best use of the guy. We’re also lying to ourselves—and emortalists, unlike ‘ordinary’ folks, cannot afford that either. Above all, we will never be able to counter his arguments and convince others that his persuasive rhetoric conceals the truth about what could be.

And now, to end, let me debunk an emortalist myth, as old as the movement itself: one of those things that everybody seems to believe and everybody parrots over and over again, mainly because they want to believe it. It’s a comforting statement-of-faith and it’s something you can throw in the face of anybody who disagrees and brings up the subject of eventual ‘boredom’.

The myth it this: we will always find something to interest us, no matter how long we live; the world is such an exciting place that there will never be an end to the possible ‘projects’ we can take up.

This is bullshit. Or, to be more precise, the assumption that this somehow must be true is bullshit. People who parrot it evidence the kind of profound lack of imagination that sometimes makes me feel rather bleak about them being around forever and a day.

Why is it bullshit? There is no ‘why’! It just is. People don’t function that way, and it’s not going to change any just because they live longer. On the contrary: it’ll only exacerbate the problem.

Ever seen the cartoon about the writer, sitting behind his word-processor, unable to come up with ideas about what to write next? Then his wife comes in and says ‘Honey, we’ve got to be off now, to see the Whoevers for dinner!’—and all of a sudden the ideas pop into his head from every direction…

It is a fact of human psychology that this represents a very true and fundamental human condition: urgency, especially the urgency created by a lack of time, is a major creative influence. (I know this well: I am a writer, and I have worked hard on dealing with this kind of torpor; and the only way to deal with it is through a mental state known as ‘discipline’, which we also cultivate in our martial arts sessions in the dojo.) Without discipline and the important additional factor of ‘meaning’, the availability of vast amounts of time creates what basically amounts to a ‘playboy’ mentality, which is just an adult form of puerile aimlessness.

Now, some people would argue that that would be OK with them, as long as they don’t have to die. A problem better had than not. Let’s jump off that bridge when we get to it. Right?

There’s something to be said for that. But dismissing the issue like that evidences, at best, a lack of imagination and insufficient self-knowledge. It certainly proves that those who say it aren’t even remotely prepared for an emortalist existence. They do not realize that the currently-implicit finitude of the basically frivolous life many people lead is one of the major reasons why people can sustain it. The mere existence of ‘projects’ and ‘interesting activities’ to tackle is not a sufficient for engaging in them. In other words ‘it’s there’ is not enough of a reason for ‘let’s do it’. More on this in the next article.

Why do we ‘do’ things?

Well, apart from often being driven into them through contingency or as a consequence of the inexorability of cause-and-effect, we occasionally actually have the luxury to choose, and, if we’re lucky, we manage to base our choice not on some external or narcissistic pressure but because we realize that we have found something meaningful to invest our time (and lives) in. This is important—and becomes more so for emortalists. Most people look for ‘meaning’, whether they know it or not. The rest do what they can to distract themselves, or are forced by circumstance into situations where they have no choice but to be distracted, from the fact that they are.

The emortalist condition will amplify our awareness of the need for ‘meaningful activity’—for this is part of what distinguishes humans from animals, and it has it roots in evolution and the structure of our brain. If you want a less neurological perspective, you may prefer to see it as being a part of our ‘psyche’ or even ‘soul’—but that all just words for the same thing.

I’ll tackle the issue of ‘meaning’ in an emortalist context in the next article.

Let me leave you with this quote, usually attributed to Marcus Aurelius:

“Were you to live three thousand years, or even thirty thousand, remember that the sole life which a man can lose is that which he is living at the moment...”


About The Author: (Excerpt From Till's ImmInst Introductory Post)

Posted Image

My name is Till Noever, and I live in Dunedin, New Zealand.

I've generally kept under the radar in the immortality (longevity, 'emortality') debate—though Aubrey de Grey might remember my name from way back and another context. If you type 'Till Noever' into a search engine, stuff will come up from a long time ago.... [ MORE ]


Emortalism 102

#2 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 10 September 2003 - 09:08 AM

Thanks Till for sharing such valuable insights. Most of us don't have the opportunity to get our hands dirty in the lab, but we can at least tap our fingers on the keyboard with the intent of hasting the maturation of the 'emortalist' movement.

#3 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 10 September 2003 - 02:35 PM

If Till thinks the mythology of never getting bored is bullshit, then why does he strive for 'immortality' himself?

I myself am one of those persons who craps on timelimits. If anything oppresses my creativity and productivity, it's timelimits.

I'll pick a timelimitless life any day of the week. I have mental list of dozens of things that I want to become an expert in. I'm sure tens of thousands of new fields will pop up while I concentrate on my mere dozens of things.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 10 September 2003 - 03:03 PM

I do not agree that boredom is any more a threat if we lived as long as possible than it is now. Decadence and stagnation are more a consequence of wealth and the complacency and fear of loss associated with it so this is a simple bait and switch argument. People have suffered from boredom throughout our mortal history, saying it will be worse with longevity is just plain silly.

But they don't call them "deadlines" for nothing. Some forms of procrastination lead to higher risk of death. Ignore your needs for survival and you will live a shorter life, it is a minor paradox though.

I should add that I promise to come back and address the more substantive aspects of the original post including the issue of reading too much Heinlein, which is only true if it was not balanced against not only reading many other authors but also reading much more than merely science fiction and just fiction.

Anyway, at the risk of too subtle a pun I will just add: I resemble that remark! [angry]

[lol]

#5 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 10 September 2003 - 03:24 PM

Jay I concur with your feelings concerning the question of boredom. In addition, I look at it from another angle. I don't think we'll ever reach 100% immortality per say. There will always be challenges and risks, thus we'll never be completely safe in any assumption of infinite existence in any static way. So, unless one doesn't care for their existence (these type people will not last long) then one will care enough to constantly work toward mitigating the risks in an infinite process.. always something to do.. always something different.... and always a 'dead line' ;)

#6 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 10 September 2003 - 08:14 PM

If Till thinks the mythology of never getting bored is bullshit, then why does he strive for 'immortality' himself?

I myself am one of those persons who craps on timelimits. If anything oppresses my creativity and productivity, it's timelimits.

I'll pick a timelimitless life any day of the week. I have mental list of dozens of things that I want to become an expert in. I'm sure tens of thousands of new fields will pop up while I concentrate on my mere dozens of things.


In anticipation of what I'm going to say in the next in this series of articles, and in reply to Jay:

1) Few appreciate the true nature of 'boredom' and its roots: they think that 'being active' is boredom's flip-side. This is not so, but you'll have to wait a week or so before reading more about this—and then maybe you'll figure out also why I'm still an emortalist, and now more so than when I started. ;)

2) I would suggest, Jay, that you seriously examine whether there's ever been anything truly 'creative' done in your life that hasn't been done under some sort of pressure, probably temporal. I predict with some confidence that the answer will be 'no'. If it appears to be 'yes' and you have a handy example (which you might or might not wish to share) let me respectfully suggest digging a little deeper. The issue will probably get murkier as you do.

3) 'Becoming an expert': what does that mean? No, no, I'm not asking for a dictionary definition. I am asking what it means to you. What, in other words, at at the heart of it, is the point of you becoming an expert in anything on your list-of-a-dozen? What difference is it going to make to you—or to anything else for that matter? Just that you are an 'expert'? Again I ask, what for? And even if you sustain this expert-becoming in several fields for a time, how long do you think it will be until you start asking yourself the same questions I've just asked? 'Forever'? Ha!

“Fiction gives life its form,” said Jean Anouilh, and I wonder what he meant. And I agree with Lazarus Long (the Imminst identity): as long as you don't only read Heinlein (or science fiction or fantasy: in other words as long as you realize that, quoting another Lazarus Long, 'Specialization is for insects'), you probably can't read too much of him. The issue of boredom and the 'point' of living was probably best dealt with in Time Enough for Love, which, despite its apparent rambling style, contained many profound insights into the issues associated with living for a long time. Indeed, it was only many years after reading it first that I learned to appreciate the finer points of the book, which now appear so obvious to me that I can't understand how I could ever have missed them.

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 10 September 2003 - 09:08 PM

One reason I have never been thoroughly enamored of the issue of title and self definition as expert is that it tends to destroy that quality of innocence associated with being an amateur. Tis loss of innocence professionally is at least as significant psychologically as the first act of mutual sexual endeavor. It can even be as pleasant or as horrific as well.

An amateur by definition still loves what they are doing even if they have yet to reach full maturity at it. Many acknowledged "experts" have lost that love in all too many cases; though when it is individually kept it is often a marker of true genius. The risk is facing failure in our own eyes when our expectations of self do not come up to the standards we wish to apply. This is therefore the transcendental challenge to "over-come" one's self and metamorphose.

I ran into this problem a while back when defining for myself the Renaissance goal. I do not hope I am not anticipating too much of your article Till.

I want it clear that I agree that boredom is a problem, I just do not think it is directly related to longevity, it is only secondarily associated as such because more affluent societies tended to live longer such that the "effects and affects" of seriously unequal distribution of wealth become disruptive and corrupting of individual character. This induces as I suggested complacency, greed, excess fear of the loss of security, stagnation, dependency on being entertained and at times decadence from the obsessive/compulsive quest for the "new experience".

Boredom is however neither a direct consequence (IMO) of longevity nor inevitable and insurmountable. It may be that such "bad behavior" (decadence as derived from becomng jaded) doesn't even have to be a direct consequence of the acquisition of wealth either and this last may be much better news as far as I am concerned, but the common connection to longevity is like confusing the symptoms with the disease.

#8 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 10 September 2003 - 10:59 PM

Lazarus Long
I want it clear that I agree that boredom is a problem, I just do not think it is directly related to longevity


Not related to it, but it will be exacerbated by longevity. Actually, longevity will magnify and bring into relief a number of aspects of 'human nature' that currently are not a major focus of attention, mainly because in a being with a finite (anticipated-finite) lifespan they never get a chance, or have no context, to grow into prominence.

More on that later as well. ;)

P.S. the 'Preview' button showed the quoted text not in a nice little box, but with the prefix and suffix from the edit window...

Puzzling! I have noticed this several times before and have yet to find a system behind this erratic behavior.

#9 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 September 2003 - 01:55 AM

The issue is power. As in the old adage; "power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". Knowledge is the ultimate power and as in physics or politics that energy can be used for good or ill.

The same can be said of wealth as it too is a form of power and in the case of longevity it is the very power of life that we are discussing, but it is not the longevity that is the real problem it is how people treat power. The same dilemma has confronted all intelligence since the first thought was created, in fact the issue of power tending to corrupt is the basis of the duality of spirit at the core of all religions. Knowledge is power because it s through knowledge we learn to control power and uncontrolled power is the real threat not the promise. Through longevity we may gain the time to learn responsible control of our power.

Some try to get around the duality of power by saying they are trying to focus on only one side of the coin but generally speaking all they are doing is blindsiding themselves when they do. There is no going back to the past at this juncture of human development, no idyllic return to being coddled by gods.

Ignorance is bliss because it is folly not innocence, in all likelihood life on Earth probably won't survive another man made dark age. It is time to accept responsibility not run away from it by feigning ignorance.

There is no return to the fold possible, no way to just make ourselves simple. We are facing a series of crises and they are related, but longevity is part of the solution not the problem because frankly we should live long enough to learn more to understand ourselves better as a species, acquire not only the wisdom that sadly only sometimes accompanies experience but perhaps even true purpose for living and a sense of the concurrent responsibility that accompanies true power.

Power does tend to corrupt and absolute power does tend to absolutely corrupt but we will still be a long way from absolute power even if we live thousands of years, but in living for thousands of years perhaps we can help provide a sense of continuity and guidance that preserves what is best of the past while contributing to the creation of a meaningful future. The loss of comprehension for what has gone before is contributing to the social collapse and this would be moderated by many people living long enough to teach and share our real memories of life.

#10 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 September 2003 - 03:56 AM

Till,

I thoroughly appreciated learning about these concerns that were brought to my attention for the first time (because I meander and stumble across new ideas sometimes more by chance than by intentionality). As you probably know—as I’m recalling some of your comments regarding blind and underdeveloped immortalist perspectives—I’ve developed self-centered reasons for wanting to become immortal. I also neatly fit in more than one of those immortalist-reasons line items.

The boredom issue is something I had not thought about much until recently—as in now. I agree with both your and Laz’s concurrence that longevity doesn’t necessarily abate this problem. It seems personal values would constantly need to be reinvented, and in time, even the process itself might seem a little redundant and pointless. Indeed, attributing meaning to trivial activities that are part of blanket goals spanning thousands of years seems like it’d be a necessary preoccupation.

I admit that I’m now a little antsy in waiting for an essay of yours concerning your own reasons for emortality. Clearly, the motives during a short, delimited lifespan cannot be the same as those during a lengthy, indefinite one. It’s uncharacteristic of me to impugn the enthusiasm necessarily ascribed to a timeless life, as I may have to adopt the motives of others as I may be incapable of developing acceptable ones of my own.

I certainly don’t have much to contribute to the meme during this phase of my life, but I don’t think it ever hurts to openly acknowledge when my nascent connections are being detangled for better or for worse. The responsibilities are enormous. Social variables far outweigh scientific variables. The ultimately goal is to be complacent and high forever, because it is true freedom, yet, alas, it is not.

For information purposes only, and not to elicit any obligation as I’m sure it wouldn’t anyway, but, Till, I think my fate may rest in your expositions.

Jace

#11 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 11 September 2003 - 05:30 AM

Just my two and a half cents on boredom... Let me get there.. then I'll decide...

For the moment, I can't imagine being bored as we find the universe (and perhaps more) being laid in all it's infinite aurora borealitic glory.. (is that even a word.. ;) I think I'm a fractal and the patterns that may arise from my involvement with the universe will be infinitely varied and dynamic. One thing that modern physics has taught us is that the harder you look at things on both ends of the cosmological scale the more wrinkled things become and the deeper we are drawn. I know I have enough interests inside my unaugmented brain to keep me busy for many lifetimes, certainly a good deal more than it will take for us to possibly evolve past caring about them. By the time we have to worry about being bored, we will have evolved, biologically or electronically or perhaps a melding of both. The knowledge we gain of the universe and it's workings over even the next couple centuries may well provide the platform from which humanity may escape a physical substrate as we know it. Certainly then, does it not seem a bit premature to anticipate that one would be bored in a future so wide open with possibility and the promise of new knowledge and capabilities?

Edited by kevin, 11 September 2003 - 01:25 PM.


#12 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 11 September 2003 - 06:50 AM

A few random thoughts in attempts to layout some long term reasons why I think boredom is not an inevitable problem...

What is boredom?
1. Mental state when nothing excites us
2. Evolved to encourage novelty seeking

Is boredom inevitable? No, because:
1. Brain Tinkering - eventually we'll be able to change our source code (our brains)
2. Mathematical Infinity - suggests there's an infinite number of theorems to puzzle over
3. Death Risk - accidental death will always remain a risk, 100% mitigation unlikely, thus preservation of self and world will supply an endless supply of adventure.. role playing (preparations) and/or real life challenges

Robert Ettinger's reply (Jun 2001)

Boredom does not result merely from repetition. Many things we have done all our lives remain pleasant and interesting. If necessary, one could edit memories to reduce familiarity and boredom, but that should not be necessary.
In the "natural" course of events, our memories fade and our interests change. Alan Harrington (THE IMMORTALIST) predicted a future of perpetual game-playing; that was a paltry vision, but a possibility.

In any case, understanding of the brain will make almost everything subjectively possible. (David Pearce thinks it will become possible to
eliminate unpleasant feelings entirely.) You can be changed to want things that now you don't want, to be interested in things that now don't interest you. To want something, and to want to want it, are two different things. I don't like jazz, but I want to like it, and one day I probably will.

Reference: http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=16677



#13 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 11 September 2003 - 07:22 AM

Till: P.S. the 'Preview' button showed the quoted text not in a nice little box, but with the prefix and suffix from the edit window...

Puzzling! I have noticed this several times before and have yet to find a system behind this erratic behavior.

Till, I'm not familiar with this problem.. nor have I been successful in recreating it. Is this something that happens every time for you?

#14 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 11 September 2003 - 12:33 PM

In anticipation of what I'm going to say in the next in this series of articles, and in reply to Jay:

1) Few appreciate the true nature of 'boredom' and its roots: they think that 'being active' is boredom's flip-side. This is not so, but you'll have to wait a week or so before reading more about this—and then maybe you'll figure out also why I'm still an emortalist, and now more so than when I started. ;)


Good, because you're not answering my question right now. ;)


2) I would suggest, Jay, that you seriously examine whether there's ever been anything truly 'creative' done in your life that hasn't been done under some sort of pressure, probably temporal. I predict with some confidence that the answer will be 'no'. If it appears to be 'yes' and you have a handy example (which you might or might not wish to share) let me respectfully suggest digging a little deeper. The issue will probably get murkier as you do.


I am usually wary of strangers who greatly worry for me. Not that I don't appreciate your concerns or anything...

My greatest creativity is when I am not pressured by a timelimit. A couple of years back, when we got programming-assignments to be completed two weeks later, I'd always go home straight after school and program the sourcecode the very same day, thus giving my self plenty of free time in the next two weeks.

I loved the anticipation of going back to school the next day, and telling my friends I'd already finished the assignment, beating the timelimit by a maximum amount of time. I used to tell them:"Man... you actually *need* the pressure of the two-week limit in order to get some work done? How pathetic is that? Where is your natural strive for self-improvement?"

Seriously man... taking two decades to teach yourself how to program... what a dystopian situation!

People will either do absolutely nothing, or make improvements fast. There is no way in between, because when one is improving slowly, one will find himself stuck at a very meager level quite soon. Some guitar-students of my guitar-teacher jump to mind: some of them have been coming for 6 years, and still can't play jackshit.

It's pretty sad.

My personal axiom always has been, is, and always shall be: I want to get things done quickly for the sheer thrill of it, not feeling the stress of any timelimits.

This is a bottomrule. It doesn't go any deeper than that. I do not see how this can be different for other people besides me, but I do accept the fact that it is. I feel sorry for those who would suffer from lethargy when they would live forever.


3) 'Becoming an expert': what does that mean? No, no, I'm not asking for a dictionary definition. I am asking what it means to you. What, in other words, at at the heart of it, is the point of you becoming an expert in anything on your list-of-a-dozen? What difference is it going to make to you—or to anything else for that matter? Just that you are an 'expert'? Again I ask, what for? And even if you sustain this expert-becoming in several fields for a time, how long do you think it will be until you start asking yourself the same questions I've just asked? 'Forever'? Ha!


Not likely. My philosophy is: don't philosophize. This is a result of one of my more positive aspects: I have no doubt whatsoever. This is because of certain axioms that I maintain. There is no deeper meaning. There are only axioms. For me, that is.

What being an expert means to me, is irrelevant, even though I would say that you reach this level when you are hitting the skyrocket-part of the exponential learningcurve. This is something that you feel yourself.

It matters to both me and the world. It will make me feel damn good about myself, thus providing me with positive feelings. The world will eventually benefit from my expertise as well, since I am greatly motivated to make inventions that raise the lifestandard. I feel that people should be able to focus on things that they are fascinated by, instead of continuously having to manage their high-maintainance bodies. I'd sure love to develop and program nanobots that perform useful functions in our bodies.

I'd get better and better at this when I make myself an expert in numerous fields. Normally spoken, the jack of all trades is a master of none. But this is exactly what I am planning on becoming. And I am right in doing so.

So there you have it. ;)


“Fiction gives life its form,” said Jean Anouilh, and I wonder what he meant. And I agree with Lazarus Long (the Imminst identity): as long as you don't only read Heinlein (or science fiction or fantasy: in other words as long as you realize that, quoting another Lazarus Long, 'Specialization is for insects'), you probably can't read too much of him. The issue of boredom and the 'point' of living was probably best dealt with in Time Enough for Love, which, despite its apparent rambling style, contained many profound insights into the issues associated with living for a long time. Indeed, it was only many years after reading it first that I learned to appreciate the finer points of the book, which now appear so obvious to me that I can't understand how I could ever have missed them.


There will be no boredom in my eternal life (unless you keep reading philosophy and turn yourself into a Nietsche-wannabe). I will be living proof of this. Deathists will look upon me and think to themselves:"Ye Gods! Jay was right all along! His way is the only correct way of living your life. Quick! Let's adapt to it!".

;)


[edit]
Errorcorrections...

Edited by Jay the Avenger, 11 September 2003 - 06:03 PM.


#15 immortalitysystems.com

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

Posted 11 September 2003 - 03:37 PM

Why I want to be homo immortalis!

I AM AMUSED

#16 vizikahn

  • Guest
  • 49 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Oulu, Finland

Posted 11 September 2003 - 03:59 PM

I'm with Jay the Avenger in this. For me, to think boredom as a problem of eternal life is little weird. If boredom is a problem when we are immortal, then we have a urgent problem to solve; boredom, that is. When we solve it, boredom is not a problem anymore. It really is that simple, I think ;)

And even if eternal life would be boring and repetitive, i'd still rather take that hideous eternal boredom than death.

#17 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 September 2003 - 04:25 PM

Vizikahn:
If boredom is a problem when we are immortal, then we have a urgent problem to solve; boredom, that is. When we solve it, boredom is not a problem anymore. It really is that simple, I think ;)


This is not only the correct attitude in my opinon, you can simply substitute the word "alive" for immortal and you might better understand my disagreement with Till.

I hope no one sees what Jay and I are saying as somehow mutually exclusive however; but Till I hope you see how they are independent disagreements with your implied conclusions.

I have no doubt I am still ignorant of what they will be as I have yet to read the promised essays but know this, they are welcome regardless of anticipated agreement or conflict. It is our goal to recognize such dissent and forthrightly address it in as rational and constructive a manner possible, so as to better dispel the prevalent prejudice and paranoia that often accompanies our stated mission.

Vizikahn:
And even if eternal life would be boring and repetitive, i'd still rather take that hideous eternal boredom than death.


Let us just see this a nothing more than the next in an infinite series of challenges that are to be met like the dawn, not mere "Sisyphus's Stones". Life's greatest purpose is found in living it, not losing it.

At times some have demonstrated the greatest level of love by accepting the risk of losing it knowingly as the highest expression of a "will to love" but never confuse this for a "love, or need for death", as that would pervert their truest purpose.

We accept such "self sacrifice" as a better manner of insuring the continued well being of those we love to such a great extent that we place their well being above our own person in this respect but such sacrifice is most (and perhaps only) respectable as it is voluntary.

It is never the taking of life that demonstrates such love but the giving of one's life at times has effects far beyond any power imaginable and is definitely NOT just about dying.

I should say that I see the "Will to Love" as the reconciliation of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. For it should be seen as a desire to define power and the power of creativity. Love is a "power of Life's creation" and ultimately trumps "hate and Death's destruction;" it may in fact be the only way to accomplish this.

I know it sounds clichéd and I can barely say it without smiling [lol] So what? Enjoy it [!]

#18 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 11 September 2003 - 08:51 PM

Good to see debate stimulated. I notice that few agree with me, as expected, but I hope that will change when I've put together the follow-ups.

A few brief replies:

To Jay:

No, I'm not 'greatly worried' (not even 'slightly worried') about what you think or do or how you are. I've very much given up on worrying about anybody except those entrusted into my care by my own choice or by contingency. You're not in that group.

To BJK:

"What is boredom?" you ask. A state of mind (and associated physical states of the CNS) induced by a sense of pointlessness or lack of perceived meaning. The "nothing excites us" is merely one of many indicators of the existence of the state, and that it "evolved to encourage novelty seeking" is wishful thinking. The state has definite and entirely detrimental physical correlates, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has any survival value whatsoever (which is what would qualify it as 'having evolved to' do anything).

"...it will become possible to eliminate unpleasant feelings entirely..." That is a grim thought. There is a German saying: "Wer jeden Tag nur Kuchen frisst, der weisst nicht mehr, wann Sonntag ist." which translates approximately as "He who eats cake every day doesn't know when it's Sunday".

To Jace:

...who wrote, inter alia, "Till, I think my fate may rest in your expositions." Hmmff... I hope not. I will make it my goal to convince you of at least two things: 1) that your fate rests in your decisions and that your decisions, if based on considerations of personal integrity will be 'right', and 2) that asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong ones. The essay containing my own reasons for wanting to be emortal will be the penultimate of the series—but I think that by the time we get there it'll all be pretty much obvious. First I need to lay some groundwork: say something about meaning, identity, and context, and death and sex; all those huge subjects—and hopefully I can do this without writing a convoluted philosphical treatise.

As for you saying: "I may have to adopt the motives of others as I may be incapable of developing acceptable ones of my own," all I can say is don't let yourself down like this. There are gazillions of people around to think they are so sure of this and that and the other, and it's all quite 'acceptable' to them. Almost all the strife in the world is created by idiots who are certain that they 'know' something to be true—and usually have not even one leg to stand on. Your obvious doubts do you credit. Your conflicts about this issue do you credit. Certainty is for fools. One of the most noble qualities of the human mind is the spirit of enquiry, which however requires a pre-existing awareness of one's ignorance. Pat yourself on the back for not 'knowing'. The Buddha himself is said to have started out that way. You're in noble company indeed. If you can, treat yourself to Herman Hesse's Siddartha.

The last article in the series will be about prediction. After all, I am (outside my day-job) a writer of fiction and, insofar as my published work is concerned (only one, but we're working on getting more 'out there'), of speculative fiction. ;)

[Sidebar: I'm always interested in 'test readers' of my writings. The wider the demographic the better. A list of available PDFs of novel-drafts can be got by emailing me (for this purpose address emails to theodorickthegreat@hotmail.com), but if I send someone a novel it will be on a strictly 'private' basis, and with the understanding that the reader will answer a few questions about his or her responses, preferably honestly. ;) ]

#19 bitster

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 September 2003 - 09:59 PM

Congratulations, Till, you're the first emortalist to have actually discouraged me.

why "emortal", and not "amortal"?

more later... maybe... *sigh*

-=-bitster

#20 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 11 September 2003 - 10:08 PM

To Jay:

No, I'm not 'greatly worried' (not even 'slightly worried') about what you think or do or how you are. I've very much given up on worrying about anybody except those entrusted into my care by my own choice or by contingency. You're not in that group.


Join the club!

Looks like I hit a sensitive string there. ;)

On a serious note: I would have rather seen a reply on the other, more interesting, stuff that I have written. This makes me feel like I accidentily insulted you, since you seem so keen on telling just how little you care for me. This, ofcourse, is not necessary, since every healthy human being (me at least) has a healthy portion of selfcentredness (egoism, if you will). It is important for a person to shut himself off from the outside world up to a certain level. Otherwise we'd all be like John Koffee from The Green Mile!

Boy would that suck! [B)]

#21 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 11 September 2003 - 10:42 PM

Bitster wrote: Congratulations, Till, you're the first emortalist to have actually discouraged me.

From what? Emortalism? If a smidgeon of reflection is all it takes to 'discourage' you, you may be in the wrong game here...

To Jay:

It takes a lot to even begin to make me feel insulted! ;)

Apart from that you seem to be quite certain of your position. Congratulations. Maybe in due time 'for the trill of it' will lose its appeal as a motivation for you. Or not. Let's face it, it's nothing but a mental correlate for what at physiological level is adrenaline-addiction. That may or may not be a good thing.

You also wrote: "This is a result of one of my more positive aspects: I have no doubt whatsoever."

I'm fascinated by your breezy confidence, but I have nothing to say in response.

#22 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 11 September 2003 - 11:02 PM

I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way till. And thank you for your compliment.

#23 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 11 September 2003 - 11:20 PM

I'm glad you didn't take it the wrong way till. And thank you for your compliment.


eh?

#24 bitster

  • Guest
  • 29 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 September 2003 - 12:03 AM

If a smidgeon of reflection is all it takes to 'discourage' you, you may be in the wrong game here...

Your original post is hardly a "smidgeon of reflection" ;) What I'm saying is that you have great points - good enough to make me second guess myself where other critics have failed.

Most of my estrangment from immortalism relates to my own inability to find a relevant course of action within it. All in all, I *am* an armchair futurist with little to contribute, and that irks me. Obviously, I'm not going to fault you for that.

#25 Jace Tropic

  • Guest
  • 285 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 September 2003 - 12:07 AM

Laz and Till,

I'd be interested in a more in-depth discussion on something important that Laz hinted at in his last post, I think, concerning family. Till, from what little I've read of your thoughts (your posts in this forum), I think I'm understanding you when I say that we must question our reasons for emortality if it's cause and realization is to bring us happiness. Because I'm not yet rigorously trained in the sciences, currently more of a dilettante in some areas that immortality is concerned with, my imagination of a universe with much more advanced technology is limited.

As a thought experiment, the most I can do is transiently become an idealist, and conjure up some amazing things that would alleviate all suffering in anything that can suffer. After all, in the peculiar mind-state I presently possess, because I don't ever feel completely fulfilled despite any luxuries I currently get to enjoy, I find that I cannot fully enjoy them because the fact exists that others aren't so lucky. What also really bothers me is that as long as I live in a place where it is quite possible that I will die and see my loved ones die, there will always be that disturbing void, another source of constant distress.

I'm sure everyone won't share my attitude, especially those who have better relationships with computers and books than with their family and friends and colleagues, but trying hard to put myself aside, I cannot think of anything more fascinating and rewarding stemming from being emortal than to be assured that I and my family and friends all get to choose if and when we die. Before I thought about immortality and whether or not it was possible, since death was a given, it made sense that one of the primary reasons people could find comfort in God was because the thought of never seeing a loved one again after death is the most difficult-to-cope-with and devastating thought imaginable.

Is this what you're both getting at?

(I hope so.) ;)

Jace

#26 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 12 September 2003 - 03:18 AM

Laz and Till,

I'd be interested in a more in-depth discussion on something important that Laz hinted at in his last post, I think, concerning family. Till, from what little I've read of your thoughts (your posts in this forum), I think I'm understanding you when I say that we must question our reasons for emortality if it's cause and realization is to bring us happiness. Because I'm not yet rigorously trained in the sciences, currently more of a dilettante in some areas that immortality is concerned with, my imagination of a universe with much more advanced technology is limited.


test

#27 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 12 September 2003 - 03:20 AM

Sorry about that last posting. As they say 'an error occurred'... :(

#28 till

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 12 September 2003 - 06:53 AM

bitster wrote: Your original post is hardly a "smidgeon of reflection"

Yes, it is. I was summarizing (as I am in the next article).

bitster wrote: my estrangment from immortalism relates to my own inability to find a relevant course of action within it. All in all, I *am* an armchair futurist with little to contribute, and that irks me.

I understand completely. Read my next article when Bruse posts it. You may find that I, too, would have liked to contribute more than I have. But why let it irk you? At the moment 'intention' counts for a lot. If nothing else, try some proselytizing. Also, develop skills you think might be useful in the future.;)

I hope 'Emortalism 102' changes your mind. I really do!




 

#29 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 12 September 2003 - 08:54 AM

Here we go... Emortalism 102

#30 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 12 September 2003 - 10:46 AM

eh?


What don't you understand?

You said you were fascinated by my breezy confidence. I looked up breezy in the dictionary, and the meaning of it in this context seems to be positive. Hence, I viewed this remark as a compliment.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users