39 replies to this topic

[neonnexus]

Death is a product of evolution. We die for no other reason than because evolution requires it. We are given life through what some might term a miracle of nature. Death takes that miracle away from us without consideration for the individual. It does not know our hopes, dreams or potentials. We die because nature has found a method that worked. Evolution works but it is not perfect. As intelligent beings we can find ways to accomplish the task of evolution without death. Science and technology can become our new form of evolution. Death should be our choice not something that happens to us over which we have no power. The problems of overpopulation can also be managed by science and technology and intelligent management of resources. As a species we tend to be so limited in our thinking. We should look for problems not as an excuse to give up or not try but to find solutions to them through ingenuity. There is almost always a way around problems given enough time , thought and experimentation. The earth has plenty of space above and below ground to sustain billions more people. For example, crops could be grown using artificial lighting or reflected light in multi stories stacks of fields that utilise land space from a 3 dimensional perspective. Then of course there is the vast resources of space, other worlds to inhabit and materials to be utilised. Through technology we can one day continually expand not only on earth but also on many other worlds through space. Through emerging technologies such as nanorobitics we will one day be able to reverse ageing, disease and evolutionary (genetic) problems. Those who embrace immortality will ultimately be able to live perpetually in their youth or prime through the continual renewal of their cells. Every life is a miracle of nature and every effort should be made to make that life to continue indefinitely in health and enjoyment. Another advantage of extended life and ultimately immortality is that one may live into a time when ones memory, intelligence and creativity can be increased through technology if one chooses. Children born with syndromes, deformities and genetic problems will be able to be repaired through future technologies, the kind of technologies promoted by immortalists.

[gashinshotan]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

(edited by Matthias: full quote deleted)

Edited by Matthias, 23 March 2008 - 09:33 PM.

[forever freedom]

I think quite the contrary. The more people around, the more chances i have of surviving. The more people around, the more minds to think and to try to figure science's many enigmas and the faster we will evolve as a civilization. Of course some people are just burdens to society but it doesn't seem the case of neonnexus.

(edited by Matthias: full quote of the full quote deleted)

Edited by Matthias, 23 March 2008 - 09:34 PM.

[vyntager]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

[gashinshotan]

It also seems like a contradiction, opposing immortality for survival. Gashinshotan is probably just ****ing around.

It's not a contradiction - I was referring to the survival of other immortalists who would become a threat to myself in the future.


(edited by Matthias: full quote of the full quote of the full quote deleted)

Edited by Matthias, 23 March 2008 - 09:41 PM.

[gashinshotan]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

[forever freedom]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Yes but if there were no immortalists it would greatly delay the onset of radical extension therapies, and the probability that they would not come to existence in your lifetime would be greater.


Maybe more people could be a threat once we reach biological immortality, but that's another issue that i would rather worry about once i do reach biological immortality. Until then, there's no reason we shouldn't work as a team with a common objective.

[gashinshotan]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Yes but if there were no immortalists it would greatly delay the onset of radical extension therapies, and the probability that they would not come to existence in your lifetime would be greater.


Maybe more people could be a threat once we reach biological immortality, but that's another issue that i would rather worry about once i do reach biological immortality. Until then, there's no reason we shouldn't work as a team with a common objective.

The highest levels of life extension research is done at higher echelons of academic and commercial research. Do you really believe that those who already are going to live significantly longer during our lifetimes are going to share this information with us? They will release it commercially first, at ridiculously high prices again restricting only to the elite until they've milked trillions. This is why I'm pursuing a medical career, so at least I can be one step closer to the relevant discoveries, both intellectually and economically. And of course I would seek profit from doing so .

[forever freedom]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Yes but if there were no immortalists it would greatly delay the onset of radical extension therapies, and the probability that they would not come to existence in your lifetime would be greater.


Maybe more people could be a threat once we reach biological immortality, but that's another issue that i would rather worry about once i do reach biological immortality. Until then, there's no reason we shouldn't work as a team with a common objective.

The highest levels of life extension research is done at higher echelons of academic and commercial research. Do you really believe that those who already are going to live significantly longer during our lifetimes are going to share this information with us? They will release it commercially first, at ridiculously high prices again restricting only to the elite until they've milked trillions. This is why I'm pursuing a medical career, so at least I can be one step closer to the relevant discoveries, both intellectually and economically. And of course I would seek profit from doing so .

Ah well that's one approach

Lol i'm actually sort of a living example of what you said. I am going into business to get as rich as possible and also be able to benefit from life extension treatments as soon as they appear no matter what price. And if i get rich enough soon enough, i will fund many researches dealing with extreme LE, and if one of these does some LE breakthroughs, i'm going to sell it for awfully large prices, only to the elites . Well depending on the economic viability and in maximization of profits i may make it available to a larger part of the population because the more people i sell it to the more money i could make.

But don't worry, the fellow imminst people here would receive some good discounts

Of course i would then use these tons of money to fund even more researches into various technology fields, benefitting us all in the end.

Edited by sam988, 24 March 2008 - 06:11 AM.

[mike250]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Yes but if there were no immortalists it would greatly delay the onset of radical extension therapies, and the probability that they would not come to existence in your lifetime would be greater.


Maybe more people could be a threat once we reach biological immortality, but that's another issue that i would rather worry about once i do reach biological immortality. Until then, there's no reason we shouldn't work as a team with a common objective.

The highest levels of life extension research is done at higher echelons of academic and commercial research. Do you really believe that those who already are going to live significantly longer during our lifetimes are going to share this information with us? They will release it commercially first, at ridiculously high prices again restricting only to the elite until they've milked trillions. This is why I'm pursuing a medical career, so at least I can be one step closer to the relevant discoveries, both intellectually and economically. And of course I would seek profit from doing so .

Ah well that's one approach

Lol i'm actually sort of a living example of what you said. I am going into business to get as rich as possible and also be able to benefit from life extension treatments as soon as they appear no matter what price. And if i get rich enough soon enough, i will fund many researches dealing with extreme LE, and if one of these does some LE breakthroughs, i'm going to sell it for awfully large prices, only to the elites . Well depending on the economic viability and in maximization of profits i may make it available to a larger part of the population because the more people i sell it to the more money i could make.

But don't worry, the fellow imminst people here would receive some good discounts

Of course i would then use these tons of money to fund even more researches into various technology fields, benefitting us all in the end.

so what sort of business are you going to do in Brazil

[gashinshotan]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Yes but if there were no immortalists it would greatly delay the onset of radical extension therapies, and the probability that they would not come to existence in your lifetime would be greater.


Maybe more people could be a threat once we reach biological immortality, but that's another issue that i would rather worry about once i do reach biological immortality. Until then, there's no reason we shouldn't work as a team with a common objective.

The highest levels of life extension research is done at higher echelons of academic and commercial research. Do you really believe that those who already are going to live significantly longer during our lifetimes are going to share this information with us? They will release it commercially first, at ridiculously high prices again restricting only to the elite until they've milked trillions. This is why I'm pursuing a medical career, so at least I can be one step closer to the relevant discoveries, both intellectually and economically. And of course I would seek profit from doing so .

Ah well that's one approach

Lol i'm actually sort of a living example of what you said. I am going into business to get as rich as possible and also be able to benefit from life extension treatments as soon as they appear no matter what price. And if i get rich enough soon enough, i will fund many researches dealing with extreme LE, and if one of these does some LE breakthroughs, i'm going to sell it for awfully large prices, only to the elites . Well depending on the economic viability and in maximization of profits i may make it available to a larger part of the population because the more people i sell it to the more money i could make.

But don't worry, the fellow imminst people here would receive some good discounts

Of course i would then use these tons of money to fund even more researches into various technology fields, benefitting us all in the end.

so what sort of business are you going to do in Brazil

He could short-sell stocks of American failing companies lolz. If I knew beforehand that the economy would become so crappy I would be a millionaire by now.

[forever freedom]

Ah opportunities are everywhere. The good thing about the global village that we're living in currently is that the doors of the world are open no matter where you live.


And even if i should only do business here, there are still many opportunities and it's not hard to make money at all.

[JonesGuy]

I'd like to point out that Evolution doesn't cause death or require death. Evolution requires reproduction along with variation, that's it. Unfortunately, organisms compete for nutrients, but an organism can evolve into a novel environment where it is not competing. Once there, it will continue to evolve and change.

[gashinshotan]

I'd like to point out that Evolution doesn't cause death or require death. Evolution requires reproduction along with variation, that's it. Unfortunately, organisms compete for nutrients, but an organism can evolve into a novel environment where it is not competing. Once there, it will continue to evolve and change.

Evolution does cause and require death. Evolution requires reproduction along with variation, both of which can only successfully occur if the previous generation dies off to free up both food and mates for the next generation. Where the hell do you get your ideas? They aren't scientific at all.

Edited by gashinshotan, 24 March 2008 - 06:19 PM.

[JonesGuy]

Competition causes death, no argument.
But what you're describing is competition, not evolution. Evolution is the change of a species over time. Differential reproductive success is the main cause of population change, and you don't need death in order to have differential reproductive success.
Look at it this way: no Bird Flu viruses need die when the flu evolves to be human competent. No staphylococcus needs to die if some of them become capable of breeding in a hospital. If I never die, my lineage will continue to evolve each generation.

I'm only being pedantic because Evolutionary Theory is under massive attack from the Christian and Moslem Conservatives. The reason why more and more environments became available to our ancestors (i.e., crawling out of the ocean) is because the offspring diversified into new environments and enjoyed reproductive success.

[gashinshotan]

Competition causes death, no argument.
But what you're describing is competition, not evolution. Evolution is the change of a species over time. Differential reproductive success is the main cause of population change, and you don't need death in order to have differential reproductive success.
Look at it this way: no Bird Flu viruses need die when the flu evolves to be human competent. No staphylococcus needs to die if some of them become capable of breeding in a hospital. If I never die, my lineage will continue to evolve each generation.

I'm only being pedantic because Evolutionary Theory is under massive attack from the Christian and Moslem Conservatives. The reason why more and more environments became available to our ancestors (i.e., crawling out of the ocean) is because the offspring diversified into new environments and enjoyed reproductive success.

Evolution is variation in a species as a result of evolutionary pressures. Evolution requires death as exhibited by the limited life spans of ALL forms of life. This is a result of evolutionary pressures and is ideal for creating conditions that will allow for the survival of the next generation. Evolutionary change requires the weaker of the species to be killed and inhibited from spreading their inferior genes. This is the reason for death and is necessary for evolution to occur. Bird Flu viruses do die during evolution to become more competent, this occurs naturally in all viral life cycles which consists of binding to a target cell, inserting viral RNA/DNA, and becoming inactivated (dead) after injection and reproduction. Anyway, viruses are poor examples for describing evolution because viruses do not share many physiological nor anatomical characteristics with life - a virus merely consists of a protein coat and viral RNA, nothing more and uses a variety of genetic replication techniques to produce novel strains - this process is largely random and is not a result of evolution. Evolution for life though, requires the inferior beings to be killed to free up resources and mates for the next generation - this is proven by the limited life span of all animals which is hard coded into the genetic code. Life extension is unnatural and anti-survival. You seem to hold an incorrect understanding of evolution. Please read a book or ask a biologist or biology professor to explain it to you.

[JonesGuy]

You're using a rather simplistic description of Evolution. I know you're stuck onto a viewpoint, but just consider this: does the lineage of a tree continue to evolve, even if the tree is still alive?

[gashinshotan]

You're using a rather simplistic description of Evolution. I know you're stuck onto a viewpoint, but just consider this: does the lineage of a tree continue to evolve, even if the tree is still alive?

No. My view point is the scientific view point as taught by hundreds of years of evolutionary theory in all accredited biological science programs throughout the world (I graduated from the 34th ranked program in the world, 10th in the U.S.). Don't believe me? Read Darwin's original work! The lineage of a tree continues to evolve, even if the tree is still alive but this largely applies only to long living trees which already do not undergo much evolutionary pressure. When trees do face strong pressures, such as humans with chainsaws, a tree may survive as a token of a species, but its lineage cannot evolve when its progeny are wiped out.

In every other living thing, practically all of whom hold lifespans of less than 100 years of age (with the majority living for only a few decades at max), death provides the means by which their offspring can prosper. How can a herd of antelope survive without the death of the inferior generation when their continued existence would deny their offspring access to very limited, seasonal resources? The same can be applied to deer, rats, birds, fish, etc., etc. The greatest proof of the necessity of death is that it is naturally programmed into ALL DNA. Why would evolution choose to encode death if it wasn't the ideal for the propagation of the species? The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

[Grimm]

You're using a rather simplistic description of Evolution. I know you're stuck onto a viewpoint, but just consider this: does the lineage of a tree continue to evolve, even if the tree is still alive?

No. My view point is the scientific view point as taught by hundreds of years of evolutionary theory in all accredited biological science programs throughout the world (I graduated from the 34th ranked program in the world, 10th in the U.S.). Don't believe me? Read Darwin's original work! The lineage of a tree continues to evolve, even if the tree is still alive but this largely applies only to long living trees which already do not undergo much evolutionary pressure. When trees do face strong pressures, such as humans with chainsaws, a tree may survive as a token of a species, but its lineage cannot evolve when its progeny are wiped out.

In every other living thing, practically all of whom hold lifespans of less than 100 years of age (with the majority living for only a few decades at max), death provides the means by which their offspring can prosper. How can a herd of antelope survive without the death of the inferior generation when their continued existence would deny their offspring access to very limited, seasonal resources? The same can be applied to deer, rats, birds, fish, etc., etc. The greatest proof of the necessity of death is that it is naturally programmed into ALL DNA. Why would evolution choose to encode death if it wasn't the ideal for the propagation of the species? The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Very well said. I completely agree. Death is necessary, and the desire for immortality is selfish to the extreme.

[cyborgdreamer]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

[forever freedom]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Exactly. Also, in time we will be the ones making our own evolution eliminating the need for natural selection among our species. Screw the ruthless nature

[gashinshotan]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Self-centered human-immortality vs the billions of years of evolution - what are the implications for the environment and how easy will it be to mess up and unwittingly design our own extermination?

[gashinshotan]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Exactly. Also, in time we will be the ones making our own evolution eliminating the need for natural selection among our species. Screw the ruthless nature

Yes, screw natural evolution - a process that has successfully maintained our continued existence, as well as the survival of billions of other species, in the harsh world for billions of years. The problem is we will never conquer nature to the point where we are able to design our own evolution without impacting the environment and other species which can also lead to our destruction.

[forever freedom]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Exactly. Also, in time we will be the ones making our own evolution eliminating the need for natural selection among our species. Screw the ruthless nature

Yes, screw natural evolution - a process that has successfully maintained our continued existence, as well as the survival of billions of other species, in the harsh world for billions of years. The problem is we will never conquer nature to the point where we are able to design our own evolution without impacting the environment and other species which can also lead to our destruction.

Why do you think that? Once we reach a certain level of technology we will be able to manipulate the whole earth at will. No more need for nature to be the sole architect. It was useful while it lasted, though.

Edited by sam988, 26 March 2008 - 03:08 AM.

[Grimm]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Exactly. Also, in time we will be the ones making our own evolution eliminating the need for natural selection among our species. Screw the ruthless nature

Yes, screw natural evolution - a process that has successfully maintained our continued existence, as well as the survival of billions of other species, in the harsh world for billions of years. The problem is we will never conquer nature to the point where we are able to design our own evolution without impacting the environment and other species which can also lead to our destruction.

Why do you think that? Once we reach a certain level of technology we will be able to manipulate the whole earth at will. No more need for nature to be the sole architect. It was useful while it lasted, though.

People keep saying WHEN we reach a certain level of technology we'll be able to do anything we want likes is fact. It seems like all this emphasis on immortality technology, etc has turned into a religion of sorts. There is no certainty that we will reach the point where we can control everything on Earth. Besides, why should we? Nature works. Natural evolutin works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Besides, knowing humanity we'd screw something up that shouldn't be tampered with.

[gashinshotan]

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Even if immortality halted biological evolution, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. I'd rather have a flawed genome than die. Besides, technology may eventually be able to repair genetic malfunctions.

Exactly. Also, in time we will be the ones making our own evolution eliminating the need for natural selection among our species. Screw the ruthless nature

Yes, screw natural evolution - a process that has successfully maintained our continued existence, as well as the survival of billions of other species, in the harsh world for billions of years. The problem is we will never conquer nature to the point where we are able to design our own evolution without impacting the environment and other species which can also lead to our destruction.

Why do you think that? Once we reach a certain level of technology we will be able to manipulate the whole earth at will. No more need for nature to be the sole architect. It was useful while it lasted, though.

People keep saying WHEN we reach a certain level of technology we'll be able to do anything we want likes is fact. It seems like all this emphasis on immortality technology, etc has turned into a religion of sorts. There is no certainty that we will reach the point where we can control everything on Earth. Besides, why should we? Nature works. Natural evolutin works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Besides, knowing humanity we'd screw something up that shouldn't be tampered with.

Exactly! Immortalism is really idealism and with the continued degradation of our environment and species, is becoming more and more religious, and such blind idealism has led to disaster more often than not.

[dr_chaos]

People keep saying WHEN we reach a certain level of technology we'll be able to do anything we want likes is fact. It seems like all this emphasis on immortality technology, etc has turned into a religion of sorts. There is no certainty that we will reach the point where we can control everything on Earth. Besides, why should we? Nature works. Natural evolutin works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Besides, knowing humanity we'd screw something up that shouldn't be tampered with.

have fun visiting the nearest hospital and telling this to the retarded, mutilated, old or infected...

Why would evolution choose to encode death if it wasn't the ideal for the propagation of the species?

so you want us to sacrifice ourselves for the higher cause of evolution?

The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

What is inferior in the context of evolution anyway? Have you read gods master plan or what? Evolution is a natural process like gravity and therefore has no goals and does not pass judgment. Apart from that the term evolution is not defined in a way that it only relates to the development of species as long as they don't reflect on their own survival. Otherwise the term "human evolution" wouldn't make sense at all since humanity always interfered with what you think "evolution" is.

[JonesGuy]

The lineage of a tree continues to evolve, even if the tree is still alive but this largely applies only to long living trees which already do not undergo much evolutionary pressure.

My point is only that death is not a necessary component of evolution. Of course death is a huge component of our natural history, duh, but it's only there because the world is a nasty place. Species differentiation and differential reproduction can exist perfectly fine without death. The fact that I can easily think of an exception to the rule shows how unnecessary the rule is. And (again) I'm not being difficult for fun. Creationists are attacking strawmen of Evolution all over the world, and science is really going to suffer.

In every other living thing, practically all of whom hold lifespans of less than 100 years of age (with the majority living for only a few decades at max), death provides the means by which their offspring can prosper. How can a herd of antelope survive without the death of the inferior generation when their continued existence would deny their offspring access to very limited, seasonal resources? The same can be applied to deer, rats, birds, fish, etc., etc. The greatest proof of the necessity of death is that it is naturally programmed into ALL DNA. Why would evolution choose to encode death if it wasn't the ideal for the propagation of the species? The fact that we need and can extend our lives unnaturally only reflects are selfish natures as human beings and exemplified the dangers of artificial life extension in the continued massive, human-caused degradation of the environment, and even worse, the species - through the continued preservation of inferior, defective, and diseased genomes in the name of humanitarianism.

Programmed Cell Death is an anciently conserved DNA package. I'm gonna guess that its advantage is as a populational defense mechanism against viral invasion, or other replicative hostile events (i.e., yeast which dealt with an infection could go through PCD and thus save the colony). The fact that this process has been co-opted for the production of larger animals is not a surprise: evolution builds on what's already present. And yes, PCD is a necessary component of animal development. But is organism 'aging' vestigial? Probably. The fact that evolution was not "smart" enough to dispose of organism death without losing PCD is just a matter of programming. You'll note that in intelligent, parental species there's selection for longevity: having grandma around passing on wisdom leads to differential reproductive success via increased opportunity for survival.

Remember that evolution doesn't really 'idealize' a process, it just streamlines it. Vestigial software programs are going to be all over the place.

Do you believe that the majority of prokaryotes have a Programmed Cell Death system? Because if you want to find out if something is evolutionarily necessary, you might as well sample the largest source of life on the planet, as well as the fastest evolving.

[JonesGuy]

Exactly! Immortalism is really idealism and with the continued degradation of our environment and species, is becoming more and more religious, and such blind idealism has led to disaster more often than not.

I agree that there's a lot of religiosity on this forum (and there's a collective gasp amongst the audience reading our discussion: "No! Not me!" )

I think that there's a solution, though. The sooner we get into space, the sooner we can worry less about destroying our planet. But to get into space sooner, we need people working hard on those technologies and projects. Meanwhile, we need concerned and intelligent people to work very hard on preserving our environment.

But once I get to space (immortal or not), my contribution to the destruction of Earth's ecosphere will drop off massively. I could have a zillion kids, and not negatively affect the biosphere.