52 replies to this topic

[Sophianic]

The Secret Pact: People have agreed to die; it's best not to discuss it.

In chapter 3 of his book, Why Die?: A Beginner's Guide to Living Forever, Herb Bowie writes about the fear of death and the secret pact that many of us have made (often unconsciously) with the Grim Reaper. As he points out, any informed discussion of immortality will necessarily lead to a discussion of death.

Indeed, any discussion of optimal health, "successful" aging, healthy life extension and cryonic suspension inevitably brings up the subject of death. If people are not comfortable with a discussion on the subject of death, they will not be comfortable discussing any of these aforementioned subjects.

But how does one get comfortable with a frank and open discussion of death? By becoming familiar with it. By getting informed about it. By encouraging others to talk openly about it. To these ends, one can usefully carve up the subject of death into four parts:

1. The Reality of Death
2. The Necessity of Death
3. The Finality of Death
4. The Inevitability of Death

Is death real?
The immortalist would say "yes." Others would say: "no, a part of us survives death." These issues come into play: materialism v. dualism, materialism v. spiritualism and naturalism v. supernaturalism.

Is death necessary?
The immortalist would say "no." Others would say: "yes, because death is a blessing, because death makes room for future generations, because death prevents boredom, a depletion of resources and overpopulation ... and you would be selfish to think otherwise."

Is death final?
The immortalist would say "yes." Others would say: "no, a part of us enters heaven (or hell) or reincarnates." In the minds of many, the issues of pain, suffering, judgment and damnation are associated with the finality of oblivion.

Is death inevitable?
The immortalist would say "no." Others would say: "yes, death is inevitable, and there is nothing anyone of us can do about it." This question touches on the feasibility of engineering infinite life spans and the fate of humanity in the universe.

These four topics on the subject of death provide a comprehensive framework for the study and discussion of death. They also provide a hint at a definition of an immortalist: "one who assumes that death is real, but not necessary; final, but not inevitable."

These four topics also contain the seeds for constructing an integrated, comprehensive worldview with potential for penetrating the cultures of the world with the immortalist viewpoint. Properly cultivated, these topics can also serve to educate and enlighten.

Are you comfortable discussing death openly? If so, have you been discussing it lately? If not, why not? Is it perhaps because you've made a secret pact with the Grim Reaper?

The Immortalist Declaration (Version 1.0)
I hereby declare that death is real, but not necessary; final, but not inevitable.

[bacopa]

Our culture seems to have found a unique way of staying happy without getting too intertwined in worrying about death but at the same token we still have a long way to go until we can get to a point where these fears don't occur because the threat becomes less actual

[Sophianic]

dfowler: Our culture seems to have found a unique way of staying happy without getting too intertwined in worrying about death but at the same token we still have a long way to go until we can get to a point where these fears don't occur because the threat becomes less actual

In the philosophy forums, someone recently said: Death finds no place in them who are filled with life. This is an eloquent statement for keeping death in its place, but until the threat of death becomes less actual, even those who are filled with life will eventually be confronted with the reality and challenge of death.

The Immortalist Declaration (Version 2.0)
I hereby declare death to be real, but not necessary ~ final, but not inevitable.

A note of thanks to Lazarus Long for his suggestion of improvement.

[Bruce Klein]

My choice: death - makes me uncomfortable, but let's discuss it openly

I can not imagine becoming 'comfortable' with the though of oblivion.

Looks like another excellent discussion topic. Thanks Sophianic.

[shedon666]

I voted: does not make me uncomfortable; let's discuss it openly

i see death as a friend, a mirror, awareness. the 'distance' i have got with the subject of death is that it is definately a circumstance just. death is failure. if it was not for death, we would all 'get away with murder' obliviously.

[Sophianic]

I can not imagine becoming 'comfortable' with the though[t] of oblivion.

It's important for me to be comfortable enough with the subject of death to discuss it openly, but I don't think I would ever want to be comfortable with the horror of death.

[Sophianic]

shedon666: i see death as a friend, a mirror, awareness.

I see death as a dark, impersonal but powerful force. Not unlike a black hole holding together an entire galaxy. The image of the Grim Reaper, in spite of its connection with the wages of sin, is a potent reminder of the horror of death and its connection with virtue and vice. For me, death is neither friend nor foe.

shedon666: the 'distance' i have got with the subject of death is that it is definately a circumstance just. death is failure. if it was not for death, we would all 'get away with murder' obliviously.

At times, a certain level of detachment is required to discuss the subject of death. Death is multi-faceted and complex. The more I study it, the more I want to study it. The more I experience its complexity, the more I want to understand it. As my understanding of death grows, so does my reluctance to judge it as good or bad.

[Sophianic]

Some food for thought from a woman with a passion for life ... a topic of discussion for the infinite females among us?

THE CULT OF DEATH by Bernadeane

There are many cults on this planet, but the largest one is the cult of death. It's composed of human beings who have made an agreement to die. All down through history, this agreement has been the strongest force at work on the planet.

Let me give you an example of how this cult works. I remember a lady we met in Los Angeles a couple of years ago. She was in her eighties, and she was saying that all her friends were telling her to slow down, because it wasn't right for her to be so alive at that age. You see, she was making her friends very uncomfortable, because she had so much more energy than they did. So they were telling her she needed to slow down and get ready to die.

This lady needed to be around people who would encourage her to really live! There is something wonderful about finding people who really want to live. Find as many as you can--create a world around you, and an atmosphere and environment that is unto your living.

You see, most of the world today is in total opposition to staying alive. So it's very easy to become intimidated if you are not willing to break that agreement with death in your own body.

This agreement has made it easy to die, and hard to live. I want us to turn this around. I want such an agreement to live that we make it hard to die, and easy to live.

I am here to cause people to question their belief in death. I am here to bring about a feeling in human beings that will make them uncomfortable with dying.

I can't understand why so many human beings want to remain in an agreement to die. Death is so awful. There is nothing beautiful about the body aging and dying. It is absolutely horrible to see people get sick and experience pain and disease. There is nothing wonderful about it.

Oh, let's raise up a standard within flesh to agree to live, to really be healthy! This is my agreement--to see an earth filled with people who are so alive, so healthy, so loving, so giving unto one another that there will be no more wars, no more taking of another's life.

I am so thankful I'm here! I'm so thankful I had a hunger in my heart, even before I knew it would be possible for us to outlive that agreement with death, before I knew there would be an agreement to care for one another, to really be together on this planet--an agreement stronger than death.

I feel such a fire burning in me. I want to find more people who feel as I do. I want to wake people up, to let them know that there is a new way of life here for all of us. And I want this fire to spread, to cover the globe, until we have created such an agreement to live that we have made it impossible to die, and only possible to live.

- - -

Originally published in Forever Alive magazine, Issue no. 20. Copyright © 1994 by People Forever International.

[Omnido]

I would not say that Death makes me uncomfortable at all.
All in all, I would claim that I have experienced far worse than the death of the body, or the deprivement of the flesh.
I would go as far to claim that I have experienced the death of the soul; a far worse tragedy than the death of the mortal shell.

How would one explain such an occurance?
It is difficult to put into semantics, and I will not spend lengthy amounts of time discussing it.
Suffice it to say, when one begins to ponder the nature of all things, coming to terms with the laws that are most likely and the events that are most probable, one journeys across the great chasms of time and space within one's own mind, and begins to take more comfort there than in the present where ones abilities and would-be actions are forced into limitation.
After a time, one deduces many possibilities of the probable and the plausible, often leaving one with a sense of loss; a sadness at the realization of the lack thereof for the aforementioned.

What the hell did I Just say? /sigh
It is a tale not so easily told.
I live now for only one purpose, and that is to find a purpose worth living for.
I have yet to find that purpose, and those that I have ventured to find generate huge wells of hopelessness due to the consequential nature and reality of our species at its current stage of development.
The "Likelyhood" balances on the brink of the non-plausible, but not the impossible.

I have no problem discussing death, for while it may be considered an atrocity to many would-be immortal enthusiasts, there is alot of positive that comes from oblivion. It is indeed a strange occurance that I would have ventured so far away from my origins as a "Die-Hard Immortalist extremist", but in the end, immortality doesnt satisfy my thirst for knowledge of the objective absolute, if there does indeed such a context.
If immortal life becomes futile, meaningless, unendurable, then it MUST be allowed to end.

It is my opinion that all immortalists will eventually seek oblivion, due to boredom or satisfaction.
A pointless existence is not worth maintaining, and anyone who would disagree with that concept, obviously does not recognize what it means to possess such an existence.

[Sophianic]

Omnido: I would go as far to claim that I have experienced the death of the soul; a far worse tragedy than the death of the mortal shell.

My body is a temple; it's death would be the death of me. The death of the soul, as in "a dark night of the soul," is temporary ~ a natural breeding ground for the Phoenix.

Omnido: I live now for only one purpose, and that is to find a purpose worth living for.

The purpose of life is a life of purpose. I have set myself the purpose of exploring and articulating fully the implications of oblivion after death. All in the service of life, love, truth and beauty.

Omnido: I have no problem discussing death, for while it may be considered an atrocity to many would-be immortal enthusiasts, there is alot of positive that comes from oblivion.

More precisely, I would say that our individual and collective appreciation of life is enhanced by a keen awareness of, and respect for, the reality and finality of oblivion after death.

Omnido: It is indeed a strange occurance that I would have ventured so far away from my origins as a "Die-Hard Immortalist extremist", but in the end, immortality doesnt satisfy my thirst for knowledge of the objective absolute, if there does indeed such a context.

I've said it before; I'll say it again: immortality is pure potential. What if the promise of immortality could inspire you to identify 'the objective absolute?'

Omnido: If immortal life becomes futile, meaningless, unendurable, then it MUST be allowed to end.

If it did, and I doubt that it necessarily would, what if we had engineered ourselves so that it could not be allowed to end? What attitude would you require to endure the 'unendurable?'

Omnido: It is my opinion that all immortalists will eventually seek oblivion, due to boredom or satisfaction.  A pointless existence is not worth maintaining, and anyone who would disagree with that concept, obviously does not recognize what it means to possess such an existence.

Not necessarily. Boredom is your signal to begin anew. Satisfaction can be forever renewed. I believe that we will forever have the ability and willingness to challenge our darkest perceptions and realize our brightest expectations. This is optimism at its best.

[Omnido]

Sophianic:
It appears to me that you are in fact claiming that there exists no absolute perfection, or state of being perfect, that an immortalist could ever achieve.
To be perfect is to be "Complete and wholly finished, lacking nothing and requiring nothing, for which there can be no improvement nor regression, to be final, unchanging, ended."

In one of many words: "Done."
This is not possible with your aforementioned statement:

Boredom is your signal to begin anew. Satisfaction can be forever renewed. I believe that we will forever have the ability and willingness to challenge our darkest perceptions and realize our brightest expectations.

Can you offer any other logical rhetoric? Or perhaps a different model than what you envision?

As far as perfection goes, the absolute is the absolute, end of story.
If "God" is perfect, then "God" is done, gone, see ya later.
Unless "God" is not objectively perfect, which is a notion that I could readily accept as plausible...

I only seek to attain that which is perfection, in all possible forms, at the highest level of absolute context.
This ideal is not impossible, merely improbable, but it would according to its own nature define an eventual "end" to the immortalist or any other reference with relation to perfection.
What other possible ideal could surpass that which is the highest?

[bacopa]

You seem hung up on perfection and maybe that is why you feel a loss of soul and meaning to the world perhaps because anything outside of the boundries that you've set for yourself is not worth considering. I believe once you let go of this need to achieve a self perfected state, once you let this bit of ego go than maybe you'll start seeing the endless possiblities for excitement, fun, and interest again and thus understand the immortalists viewpoint to the world. As far as idealism goes why not pursue idealist ventures along with other ventures? Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?

[Sophianic]

Omnido: It appears to me that you are in fact claiming that there exists no absolute perfection, or state of being perfect, that an immortalist could ever achieve.  To be perfect is to be "Complete and wholly finished, lacking nothing and requiring nothing, for which there can be no improvement nor regression, to be final, unchanging, ended."

Omnido, I like your definition of 'perfect.' A finely cut gem or crystal might serve as a wonderful symbol for that which is perfect. I don't see why immortalists could not achieve a state of perfect harmony within which to ... let us say ... dwell. A Zen Buddhist monk might have a lesson for you. But I know what you mean. You're wondering whether we could perfect the universe to sustain life in perpetuity, and whether that would be an objective worthy of our efforts. To answer these questions, I think we need to view them in context ~ personal and social ~ a context that I, unfortunately, do not have access to at this time. We can imagine, but until the "promise" of perfection in the universe comes close to fruition, that is all we can do. And even if it came close to fruition, I'm not sure that we would want it, or want it forever. We might, say, plant the seeds that sets the stage to create ... dare I say it? ... another universe. We could be living in that universe. If so, are we prepared to make the same choice? Or choose another: not seek perfection, but maintain a balance between imperfection and perfection? What do you imagine that balance would look like if we could play with it forever?

[Casanova]

.If you are implying that the definitive definition of "death" is oblivion, nothingness, or the great Orwellian double-speak term, "neuronal cessation", then of course you are going to be frightened by it.

But "death" can also mean the end of one thing, and the beginnning of another thing, such as in "death" to this world, or realm, but an entrance into another realm of existence.

The word "death" is just a word. It is what we bring to that word, what we clothe it with, the signs we give it, the associations we add to it, that creates an emotional response in us.

Over, and over, again, the subtext that is hidden in these Forums is the fear of your "ego's" death, or the end of participation of that "ego" in this physical universe.
The hope of immortalizing your ego, within the confines of the physical universe is, in my opinion, "megalomanic narcissism".

There is ample evidence that there are other realms, beyond the physical realm, and even many realms that move up the scale toward God, with each ascending realm being less material than the preceding one.
We are most likely at the very rock bottom, of this "ladder of realms", so that there is no way but up.
Then again, there might realms below this one.

C. S. Lewis felt that we end up getting the heaven we deserve, or think that we want, and that it sometimes ends up being hell.
Here I go recommending an old 1960s Twilight Zone episode again, but I feel that it graphically displays the heaven and hell idea.
The episode is titled, "A Nice Place to Visit."

.

[randolfe]

[color=blue]
Is death inevitable?
The immortalist would say "no." Others would say: "yes, death is inevitable, and there is nothing anyone of us can do about it."  This question touches on the feasibility of engineering infinite life spans and the fate of humanity in the universe.

I object to this simplistic definition. I consider myself an immortalist, a realistic immortalist. That means I realize that being "mortal" implies my present physical life "must end". Now, I would love to have 500, 1000 or 5000 years of life.

However, things happen to living beings. They die in fires, get blown up by terrorists, they even get run over by steamrollers. Unless you subscribe to the idea that "you" can have "yourself" uploaded into a computer and stored, (an idea I have trouble with partially because I believe I am 'too big a person to be sent by email') your existence in its current incarnation ends in such cataspheric circumstances.

To be an Immortalist means that one "dreams the impossible dream". We embrace life and make its continuation central to our existence. To be an Immortalist does not necessitate that one deny the fragility of one's current mortal existence.

An Immortalist simply loves life and seeks to have as much of it as is humanly possible. Let us not make "Immortalism" another politically correct creed with defined parameters of permitted thought.

[Sophianic]

Casanova: We are most likely at the very rock bottom, of this "ladder of realms", so that there is no way but up.  Then again, there might realms below this one ... C. S. Lewis felt that we end up getting the heaven we deserve, or think that we want, and that it sometimes ends up being hell.

My response is best summed up from an excerpt taken from the essay, Spirituality Without Faith, by Tom Clark ...

"As much as the characteristics of traditional spirituality provide answers to the questions of death and meaning, two major drawbacks are evident. The problem of death is solved by splitting ourselves into two substances - one material and perishable, the other spiritual and immortal - but as a result the material becomes inherently inferior in its changeability. The physical becomes the merely physical - it assumes a second class metaphysical status. This in turn leads to alienation from our physical selves and indeed from the material world as a whole. Gross matter is denigrated in comparison to subtle spirit, and the material only has value to the extent that it is animated and directed by spirit. It can’t accomplish anything of significance on its own. But of course we are embodied, and our world is material, so from this alienated perspective most of our lives is an unfortunate entanglement with crass physicality while awaiting the better, immaterial world to come."

[Sophianic]

randolfe: I consider myself an immortalist, a realistic immortalist.  That means I realize that being "mortal" implies my present physical life "must end".  Now, I would love to have 500, 1000 or 5000 years of life.

If I felt that my life must one day end, I may call myself a "life extensionist," but I would not be able to call myself an immortalist.

randolfe: However, things happen to living beings.  They die in fires, get blown up by terrorists, they even get run over by steamrollers.  Unless you subscribe to the idea that "you" can have "yourself" uploaded into a computer and stored, (an idea I have trouble with partially because I believe I am 'too big a person to be sent by email') your existence in its current incarnation ends in such cataspheric circumstances.

For me, an integral part of being an immortalist is my ability and willingness to envision a world and future where it is possible to identify, manage and contain threats to life. And do so without seeking refuge (necessarily) inside an agent of machine intelligence.

randolfe: To be an Immortalist means that one "dreams the impossible dream".  We embrace life and make its continuation central to our existence.  To be an Immortalist does not necessitate that one deny the fragility of one's current mortal existence.

To be an immortalist means, for me, that one imagine realistic scenarios that tap into our individual and collective potentials for raising a future of promise and possibility without end. It is because we are so fragile in our current mortal existence that we are impelled to consider these potentials and bring them to realization ~ sooner rather than later.

randolfe: An Immortalist simply loves life and seeks to have as much of it as is humanly possible.  Let us not make "Immortalism" another politically correct creed with defined parameters of permitted thought.

And let not make Immortalism another collection of ineffectual ramblings devoid of purpose and promise.

[randolfe]

If I felt that my life must one day end, I may call myself a "life extensionist," but I would not be able to call myself an immortalist.

Nothing is inevitable.  Perhaps, not even death.  In a million years, death would inevitably become a "probability".  What's going to happen to your immortal self if a comet crashes into Earth?  To be a "I-will-never-die" immortalist is simply a statement of faith--just like those who are "I-will-rise-again-with-Jesus" Christians.

For me, an integral part of being an immortalist is my ability and willingness to envision a world and future where it is possible to identify, manage and contain threats to life. And do so without seeking refuge (necessarily) inside an agent of machine intelligence.

I specifically said that I thought my personality was too big to be uploaded into a computer and send around like and email.  Don't accuse me of "seeking refuse" in "machine intelligence".  I've heard the arguments but remain skeptical that the "real me" could ever exist (or hide) in a machine because I view my body as part of myself.

To be an immortalist means, for me, that one imagine realistic scenarios that tap into our individual and collective potentials for raising a future of promise and possibility without end. It is because we are so fragile in our current mortal existence that we are impelled to consider these potentials and bring them to realization ~ sooner rather than later.

Well, "a future of promise and possibility without end" sounds like you are agreeing with me.  "A future of promise and 'probably' without end" would be what I would expect of a pure fundamentalistic immortalist.  Oh, for a simple holy book of immortality like the Bible and/or the Koran.  There we could find the written truth.

And let not make Immortalism another collection of ineffectual ramblings devoid of purpose and promise.

Certainly not! That would be blasphemous! We have embarked on a quest for possible eternal life here. "Ineffectual ramblings devoid of purpose and promise" will vanish like a morning mist in our rising Sun.

[Sophianic]

randolfe: To be a "I-will-never-die" immortalist is simply a statement of faith

To say that "death is not inevitable" does not imply that "I will never die." It implies that death does not necessarily have to be, either for you or for humanity, if the requisite efforts are made to prevent it. "Death is not inevitable" is a statement of optimism for a future where death is an option.

randolfe: I specifically said that I thought my personality was too big to be uploaded into a computer and send around like and email; Don't accuse me of "seeking refuse" in "machine intelligence".

I was speaking generally and you took what I said personally. A causally privileged agent of machine intelligence will likely be able to duplicate the essence of who you are on a chip, but whether it can transfer your sense of "personal subjective continuity" remains an open question.

[Jace Tropic]

Sophianic: Are you comfortable discussing death openly? If so, have you been discussing it lately? If not, why not? Is it perhaps because you've made a secret pact with the Grim Reaper?

I think I’ve always been comfortable with talking about death. It truly is a wonder why I didn’t discover Immortalism a long time ago—too caught up in other affairs I suppose. I remember in the second grade telling my friends that if I wasn’t super rich by 40, I would kill myself. I’ve allowed that number to decrease a little over the years. I have no desire to have a great deal of power over people, but I’ll be damned if people have power over me. I’ll die first—prospect of immortality or not.

Have I been discussing it lately? Yes. Some of my family and colleagues pretty much know that immortality is part of the plan. It doesn’t make any sense to ignore the possibility with promising life-extensionist technology just over the horizon. If anything, I say that if you pay attention to this stuff, the byproducts are that you try to learn to be as healthy as possible, household planning takes on a whole other meaning, and things that really matter begin to come into focus. These are all good things for their own sake, but Immortalism implicates a newfound appreciation which engenders a kind of control and creativity non-existent with 100-year timescale mentalities.

[randolfe]

I was speaking generally and you took what I said personally.  A causally privileged agent of machine intelligence will likely be able to duplicate the essence of who you are on a chip, but whether it can transfer your sense of "personal subjective continuity" remains an open question.

Forgive my reactionary prejudices. I just find it difficult to believe that the "real me" could be uploaded and then down loaded, put on a chip or erased from a chip, etc.
My concept of "me" includes my connection to my (or a new) physical self. I like the phrase that "my personality is too big to be uploaded into a computer and then sent in an email".
I hate to admit that I, personally, have a connection with the physical body that has housed me for nearly 66 years. That aging and declining body is part and parcel of me. I am not willing, at this time, to give it up even if I could theoretically upload my personality/persopnhood/identity into a computer.
My vision of immortality includes staying with my old worn declining body and "reversing" the aging process. I am comfortable here. I don't think I would want to even "risk" transferring myself to a new body via email or any other system.
Cloningly yours,
Randolfe H. Wicker
www.clonerights.com

[allnewsuperman]

I haven't been talking about it or thinking about it really. I don't really think it's important at this stage. I know what I want and am trying to do everything to achieve it. An aversion to death is just a spasm in my entire body. If it's not in yours you are simply missplacing the meaning of it, you don't understand the word. Otherwise you would never feel any pain, you would just let yourself die, but your body won't let you. It's simply a case of your mathematical, objective side (your brain) having taken over and decided that this "death" thing isn't so bad after all. If only you knew... Jump into a river sometime if you know how to swim and then see how you feel about allowing yourself to die.

[fredski]

We are afraid of death for a simple reason; we do not know exactly what was prior to are birth! therefore we deduce that death could be similar, nothing. We reasonnably link the two, but irrationnaly drop in the garbage bin our whole existence. We are afraid because we don't know, but we should'nt because the difference now is that now we do exist and that is what we bring in death...consciousness.

[randolfe]

allnewsuperman: An aversion to death is just a spasm in my entire body. If it's not in yours you are simply missplacing the meaning of it, you don't understand the word. Otherwise you would never feel any pain, you would just let yourself die, but your body won't let you. It's simply a case of your mathematical, objective side (your brain) having taken over and decided that this "death" thing isn't so bad after all. If only you knew... Jump into a river sometime if you know how to swim and then see how you feel about allowing yourself to die.

I couldn't agree more with the idea of "jumping into a river sometimes if you know how to swim and then see how you feel about allowing yourself to die" Life has a built in survival instinct.

What you do learn by caring for the dying is that death itself is frequently the welcome end of a horrid and dreadful process. People too often focus on "death" too much and not on the dreadful series of events filled with pain, sufferring, loss of dignity, etc. that preceed it.

[randolfe]

fredski:  We are afraid of death for a simple reason; we do not know exactly what was prior to are birth! therefore we deduce that death could be similar, nothing. We reasonnably link the two, but irrationnaly drop in the garbage bin our whole existence. We are afraid because we don't know, but we should'nt because the difference now is that now we do exist and that is what we bring in death...consciousness.

One does not bring "consciousness" to death. Perhaps one brings consciousness to the doorstep of death. Part of the definition of death is the loss of consciousness. This is shown by the cessation of electrical activity in the brain. In some states, that makes it possible to remove the still living parts of a body such as theheart, liver, kidneys, etc. for transplantation.

The only way to maintain consciousness is to stay alive. Physical Immortality is the only passport to continued consciousness and even that might be compromised by those diseases that destroy the mind like Alzheimer's.

[nefastor]

Just commenting on the poll question : how could anyone be on this forum and not want to discuss death openly ?

Jean

[onsre]

As far as I'm concerned God doesn't exist and thereafore the prospects of an afterlife are nil. Cryonics is the only phisical way into immortality.

[shedon666]

Cryonics is the only phisical way into immortality.

this has been on my mind lately, well for a while, (lol, click my signature). anyways, as it stands in my mind, (and please correct me if i am wrong) cryonics has nothing to do with immortality at all, unless you consider benefitting of the work of others a reward. cryonics is merely suspension, correct? unless it somehow makes you younger or more vital while frozen? (which i highly doubt). if i was frozen, it would be up to the outside world to devise an environment and/or physical/biological engineering structure of being in order for true immortality to be suggested. yeah? to me cryonics is a desperate opt out, (considering my age, because i still have lots of work to do to build the immortal human of me). although in the case of like my dad, i guess if he cant do the mentality it takes, then i would be interested in freezing him, until i can unfreeze him and download the new everlife software into his sanctum. sooo, am i correct of this? i guess i am, but am not sure.

[james]

Interesting points... well i just want to be alive and maintain personal subjective continuity as long as I am having fun... after all, isn't that the whole point of life? i may want to preserve my body as a certain age forever, but being 15 im not that sure of which age, possibly around 25. but anyways, why bother "downloading" your personality into something, whatever it is, if you can't have fun... maybe i would if i could but i like my body at present. Anyways, as to physical was to immortality, our bodys age because each day, cells are replaced millions of times over, and as the cells get further from the first generation copy, the pattern gets somewhat distorted, like copying analog casssette tapes. Perhaps this could be stopped which could prevent (or help prevent). But what of accidental death? apparently in around 20 years, genetic engineers will be able to do this to unborn babies.

[randolfe]

James, cryonics doesn't really solve the problem of accidental death. I don't think that will ever be solved so immortality will probably remain a goal even after great life extension is achieved.

Regarding the age to choose for stopping aging, research shows that at the age of 27, males reach their overall prime. At that age they have the most resistance to disease, the most mental agility and the greatest physical strength. After 27, life is just a long slow downward slide to disability and the grave.