80 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

I was posting in an atheist forum as well as Richard Dawkins forum and people are crazy cynical! The majority of people I spoke to tonight all said things like "why would I want to live longer? Death is part of life" It's like they've never tried to go against the status quo deathist mentality. Than there are people who say "why would I want to live longer to enter a world with problems like overpopulation, global warming, environmental troubles, and blah blah blah?" I told them is that sufficient reason to accept oblivion? If we don't push the envelope now we'll never know what we can achieve. It's like people are conditioned to be cynical and negative. It really sucks! I personally would rather be alive in a terrible world in terrible conditions and at least have consciousness than be dead forever. And on top of that many of these responders replied to me as if I was some delusional quack with crazy far out ideas....stupid asldkfjalk;jaskldfj;alskjdfldkfj.

[Cyberbrain]

It's crazy I know, and it gets to you even more when atheists and agnostics also say they hate LE. The problem is that people never really explored this subject on their own, and for someone to come up to them and present an idea that they never thought of before will seem far fetched to them ... plus everyone loves being a critic even if they like LE. People don't like to deviate from social norms a lot, even if they claim to be non-conformist.

The best thing to do is not to debate them, but to instead just present material about LE so they can explore it on their own (i.e. links, videos, books, etc).

Also getting more celebrities (ex Richard Dawkins) to endorse LE will also help spread the LE meme for the simple reason that a celebrity acts like a bill board. People will not be bothered to explore LE unless if it's in the mainstream, otherwise they won't even hear about the idea.

[tunt01]

it's a perception issue only.

if you tell people you are interested in: "health, wellness and longevity" then you are normal

if you tell people you are interested in: "immortality and healthy life extension" then you are some kind of abnormal trekkie-like freak.

[quadclops]

Hey! I'm an "abnormal trekkie-like freak!" Are you saying that's a bad thing?

[gregandbeaker]

I think it revolves around that whole idea/fact that currently death is an inescapable part of life. I know that for me personally it took a lot of scientific evaluation and information before I started to believe that we may be able to materially affect the quality and length of life spans. The whole idea of death can make a lot of life absurd and meaningless, especially to an atheist. It may be a defense mechanism to ignore it and accept it as inevitable. We all have a tendency to embrace the irrational when reality sucks ;-)

It takes a lot of guts and determination to "Rage, rage against the dying of the light!"

[Cyberbrain]

it's a perception issue only.

if you tell people you are interested in: "health, wellness and longevity" then you are normal

if you tell people you are interested in: "immortality and healthy life extension" then you are some kind of abnormal trekkie-like freak.

Oh my yes, that's very true as well.

Instead of forever say indefinite.

Instead of life extension or immortality say longevity.

[bacopa]

It's crazy I know, and it gets to you even more when atheists and agnostics also say they hate LE. The problem is that people never really explored this subject on their own, and for someone to come up to them and present an idea that they never thought of before will seem far fetched to them ... plus everyone loves being a critic even if they like LE. People don't like to deviate from social norms a lot, even if they claim to be non-conformist.

The best thing to do is not to debate them, but to instead just present material about LE so they can explore it on their own (i.e. links, videos, books, etc).

Also getting more celebrities (ex Richard Dawkins) to endorse LE will also help spread the LE meme for the simple reason that a celebrity acts like a bill board. People will not be bothered to explore LE unless if it's in the mainstream, otherwise they won't even hear about the idea.

Precisely, I don't know maybe some people have some inbuilt gene to fear death more. No even if that's true that's not what's going on here. It's what you say that these people never thought long and hard about it and it goes against the grain. True that about critics! People find it so cool to be able to use their "wonderful" logic to find faults in theories. I guess it's ingrained in us. I've just always thought it sounded so cool to live longer. I was always a free thinker though, although I'm not brilliant at it still or even close.

Yeah the debates I've been having were about Cryonics and it happened naturally because I asked "why aren't people more into it," kind of thing. But I should have just maybe given a non-biased description followed by links.

Agreed on the celebs. I always thought in that way, I more formally introduced the celeb thread. This one girl keeps going on how when the time comes to "step aside" and let her children live on she will as if it was some noble rule she must adhere to.

[Cyberbrain]

This one girl keeps going on how when the time comes to "step aside" and let her children live on she will as if it was some noble rule she must adhere to.

Yeah I've heard this from other parents as well. There are basically two arguments:

(1) "If need be I'd sacrifice myself in a heart beat to save my childs life" - This I think is the same for all parents including transhumanists.

(2) Is the argument you said, which is the same argument as "I want to die so newer generations can take over" - This argument is meaningless and empty. It's just a reinforcement of the social norm that "my purpose is be born->work->have kids->grow old->die". It's actually just an accidental norm that was unconsciously conditioned in all of us as a consequence of living in a human society that is governed mostly by meme's that were manifested by emotions rather then by rationality or our evolutionary nature. But I'm hoping things will change as science and technology progresses

[bacopa]

Yeah I've heard this from other parents as well. There are basically two arguments:

(1) "If need be I'd sacrifice myself in a heart beat to save my childs life" - This I think is the same for all parents including transhumanists.

(2) Is the argument you said, which is the same argument as "I want to die so newer generations can take over" - This argument is meaningless and empty. It's just a reinforcement of the social norm that "my purpose is be born->work->have kids->grow old->die". It's actually just an accidental norm that was unconsciously conditioned in all of us as a consequence of living in a human society that is governed mostly by meme's that were manifested by emotions rather then by rationality or our evolutionary nature. But I'm hoping things will change as science and technology progresses

I told her why can't you and your child live long, healthy and happy lives simultaneously? She did not have a reply to this. I have no problems with the first argument you presented.

[simon007]

Not that long ago people where cynical about the planet not being flat

I'm convinced the things where discussing here is the future!!

Besides for the last 100 years the medical science already paved the road to immortality, every 10 year the lice expectancy increases with 4 years or so. Immortality is something that reality sooner or later(better sooner of course)

[niner]

I was posting in an atheist forum as well as Richard Dawkins forum and people are crazy cynical! The majority of people I spoke to tonight all said things like "why would I want to live longer? Death is part of life" It's like they've never tried to go against the status quo deathist mentality. Than there are people who say "why would I want to live longer to enter a world with problems like overpopulation, global warming, environmental troubles, and blah blah blah?"

dfowler, you selected two groups of people who are likely to have a particularly deathist bent. Because they are atheists, and don't have access to the usual salve for the terror of death, many of them have "accepted" it instead, and even have constructed reasons for why it's a good thing. If you surveyed the general population, I don't think you would see the same level of negativity. Of course, talking about longevity, which is widely viewed as desirable, is going to elicit a better response than talk of immortality, which is widely viewed as crazy...

[brokenportal]

dfowler, you selected two groups of people who are likely to have a particularly deathist bent. Because they are atheists, and don't have access to the usual salve for the terror of death, many of them have "accepted" it instead, and even have constructed reasons for why it's a good thing. If you surveyed the general population, I don't think you would see the same level of negativity. Of course, talking about longevity, which is widely viewed as desirable, is going to elicit a better response than talk of immortality, which is widely viewed as crazy...

Exactly, you have to pick your crowds, and even then your only going to get a certain percent, but thats alright, thats exactly what your going for. You need to extract the open minded susceptable people from the crowds you go to and not expect them all to agree. Getting some to agree is a great success. They will them meme more and more to the people in those circles, to the people that take more time to get through to, or are harder to get through to. Dont forget that also, when you go to other forums, you get bamboozled by their trolls, and you think your getting the consensus, but its just because you dont know how to distinguish the trolls from the critical thinkers in their forums very well, if at all yet.

I like the spreading discussion where people are pointing out that we need to not talk about it in terms of "Immortality" and "living forever" with many crowds. People then usually go on to say that we should talk about it in terms of longevity and life extension. That is better, but remember also, if a concept like living forever is many times to strong, so can a concept like life extension many times be too soft in meming. I suggest sticking with indefinite life extension, and unlimited lifspans as much as possible. Yes sometimes the softer meme, and some times the stronger meme, but most of the time It seems to me that people should be aiming for phrasing like indefinite life extension and unlimited lifespans.

[russianBEAR]

Well, one can easily argue that LE in itself is negative, because it's a product of fear. Ultimately one of the biggest fears is the fear of death, of the inevitable. 

I personally just don't think any living being on this planet is important enough to warrant habitating this earth for longer than it's average lifespan, there needs to be a life and death cycle and constant refreshment of the species so to speak. 

No matter how hard you try, at the end you really can't cheat mother nature so I think accepting your mortality is really the ultimate comfort you can achieve. 

The young generation needs its chance to shine, I can imagine I'd be quite a stubborn snob set in my ways if I was 105 or older And if everyone was like that there would be a bunch of uptight, uncreative old people who are full of supplements, but really should be long full of embalming fluid in some grave



What you can try instead is believe in rebirth so that way you know once this physical body of yours dies, then your soul will be back and you'll be brand new soon again

[bacopa]

Well, one can easily argue that LE in itself is negative, because it's a product of fear. Ultimately one of the biggest fears is the fear of death, of the inevitable. 

I personally just don't think any living being on this planet is important enough to warrant habitating this earth for longer than it's average lifespan, there needs to be a life and death cycle and constant refreshment of the species so to speak. 

No matter how hard you try, at the end you really can't cheat mother nature so I think accepting your mortality is really the ultimate comfort you can achieve. 

The young generation needs its chance to shine, I can imagine I'd be quite a stubborn snob set in my ways if I was 105 or older And if everyone was like that there would be a bunch of uptight, uncreative old people who are full of supplements, but really should be long full of embalming fluid in some grave



What you can try instead is believe in rebirth so that way you know once this physical body of yours dies, then your soul will be back and you'll be brand new soon again

Why can't we live much much longer along with our children? Why do people get sooo defensive at the thought of wanting to prolong only the most important thing which is life? Russian Bear you are not doing any kind of service by dying at the ages we die at today. It's not "noble" to die it's just terrible. Not that you're saying it, but where is this nobility coming from? No one is doing a service to society by dying at normal death rates. If we can fix the overpopulation problem than a society of wise, educated, and ultra experienced people is preferable to a society where people die just at their peak. By peak I mean the vast knowledge and experience that comes only from being able to live a very long time.

Russian Bear! With all due respect. Most of us just don't believe in a soul at this site; so this argument is silly. If you can give me proof of a soul or even a good argument I'd be happy to hear it.

Edited by dfowler, 11 July 2009 - 11:18 AM.

[russianBEAR]

Never used the word noble, nor did I say I believe in soul. I said believing in that helps one embrace the inevitable, doesn't mean I do it

By arguing that dying is terrible, while it is as functional and as natural as death IMO is just acting on emotion. Why interfere with nature's cycle? 

Around here we are done pretty quickly, the average lifespan for males in my country is just over 50 years old  

[Cyberbrain]

If you can give me proof of a soul or even a good argument I'd be happy to hear it.

Even if we do have a soul, I think it's still better to live in this world .... where we can evolve (and perhaps to the level of god?)

I can think of several arguments that make living longer/forever more worth while and noble if there really is a god, afterlife, etc.

1. By living longer you could spend more time doing "gods" will. --- And btw, why is doing god's will more important then our own? Are we inferior to god, should we be slaves to god?
2. If there is an afterlife, what makes this universe any less special? The ability to feel pain?
3. I think it's more noble to live forever and MAKE something of yourself, rather then go to the after life and have god do everything for you like a child.
4. Like the last one, it's more noble to work and achieve your goals and dreams on your own rather then living a lazy life and then going to live in heaven where everything will be provided for you.
5. Who said what the afterlife will be like? Anything is possible.

also...
People say just pray and god will make us healthy and live longer.
Praying does nothing useful (even if there is a god, he's proved to us he doesn't answer them) it's just a way to make your self feel better, a way of wishing things were better - it's like me screaming in my head to get an A on a test. It's just to make me feel better. The only difference is that I know it will have no effect.

In the end, it's our evolutionary nature to WANT to live forever, we're programed to die due to defects in our biology, but we're not programed to accept death (otherwise we'd just lay down and stop breathing). Accepting death is just you lying to your nature. Like Dylan Thomas said:

"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light!"

[Cyberbrain]

Never used the word noble, nor did I say I believe in soul. I said believing in that helps one embrace the inevitable, doesn't mean I do it

By arguing that dying is terrible, while it is as functional and as natural as death IMO is just acting on emotion. Why interfere with nature's cycle? 

Around here we are done pretty quickly, the average lifespan for males in my country is just over 50 years old  

Indeed death is terrible, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't go down without a good fight and a smile on their face

Instead of embracing or hating death we should learn to instead love life and do our best to get the most out of it!

Edited by Cyberbrain, 11 July 2009 - 11:54 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

Why interfere with nature's cycle?

Who said we're interfering? We are nature! We're nature becoming aware of its self.

Transhumanism is the philosophy of embracing our evolutionary nature by taking control of it and fixing the defects of biology in order to maximize our survival and well being (which is the purpose of all life).

[Luna]

sometimes I just hate this world :X

[bacopa]

Russian Bear you said that the average age of death in your country is 50! Is this acceptable to you in any way? I would think that it wouldn't be acceptable to the most religious praying man in the world! The fact that average life expectancy is soo young in your country could and imo should fuel I fire in you to do something about it! It's like Cyberbrain said. We ARE nature but we're in a unique position to understand it and do something about it. Just remember when people's avg. life expectancy was around 40 over one hundred years ago it's not anymore, because we developed sciences to fix the problem. Since you are so stuck on the "natural order of things," would you prefer for researchers not to find a cure for Cancer for instance?

So I assume your position is living the best quality of life possible as things stand right now. But I'm sure if they gave you a pill that could increase your age by 50 years you would take it. Why not shoot for more?

Edited by dfowler, 11 July 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[Athanasios]

Unfortunately, the most on-topic part of this post is in the quotes and links at the very bottom.

Well, one can easily argue that LE in itself is negative, because it's a product of fear. Ultimately one of the biggest fears is the fear of death, of the inevitable. 

It is true that this is the motivation of some members. I am not sure I would knock it, as it does not seem to be irrational in and of itself, but it does cause some members to be biased in reasoning.

However, I would go so far as to say that the majority are for life extension for other logical reasons. I am not afraid of death but see it as a huge waste of resources and a large source of suffering for those that are alive. One member put it like this (paraphrasing):

"It takes 40 years for someone to grow up, get trained, be competent in his/her field, and generally just get the hang of living. Once he/she reaches this point they are already well on the decline biologically. In terms of wasted resources, this is like flying a supersonic jet for a 10 mile trip."

Hopefully I didn't butcher it too bad but you get the idea. One hundred and fifty thousand people a day die to age related disease. Very quickly it becomes hard to put into perspective the amount lost.

The population argument has been refuted years ago and is common knowledge for anyone who has been paying attention. Resources wont be a problem as we will be able to do more with less, as history can attest. I mention these as they are usually the next concerns put forth.

If anyone is interested in seeing the thoughts who have explored these things deeply, I will offer a few links:

The Immortality Institute Book (PDF format):
http://www.imminst.org/SCOD.pdf

a FAQ:
http://humanityplus..../philosophy/faq

Transhumanism as Humanism:
http://www.singinst....ified-humanism/

More in-depth analysis, including published works:
http://www.nickbostrom.com/
and on life extension in particular: http://www.nickbostr...-extension.html

If possible, why don't we hear more about it?:
http://www.fightagin...stantdeat-1.php
http://www.fightagin...ng-the-trad.php
http://www.fightagin...ifestations.php

Some excerpts and commentary on common debate:
http://www.overcomin...rary-silli.html
Excerpt:

Regarding some things as silly does not seem to result from an estimation that the probability is extremely low, it seems to be a direct rejection of it as unthinkable and irrelevant - not the same thing, although the rejector will quickly argue that the chances of the things happening are minuscule. The rejection has many similarities to the yuck reaction we see in ethics, where certain possibilities are rapidly rejected as immoral with little reflection (c.f. the work of Haidt). So maybe the best explanation of what makes a paper silly is just that it goes against the social intuitions we have built up about thinkable, serious subjects. Space travel is science fiction and science fiction has low status, so hence papers about the economics of space travel must be silly. Life extension is silly, so papers looking at its consequences must be silly. Framing world government in terms of non-silly globalisation makes it non-silly - Anders Sandberg

http://www.overcomin...cted-pro-l.html
Excerpt:

Ronald Bailey: So what about the social consequences of radically longer and healthier lives? In that regard, Diana Schaub in her reaction essay raises many questions for reflection about those consequences, but curiously she fails to actually reflect on them. Schaub … simply recapitulates the standard issue pro-mortalist rhetorical technique of asking allegedly "unnerving questions" and then allowing them to "fester in the mind." Sadly, all too many bioethicists think they’ve done real philosophic work by posing "hard" questions, then sitting back with steepled hands and a grave look on their countenances.

[russianBEAR]

I actually find it pretty hilarious that the average age is so low - shows that people prefer to get the most pleasure out of life (drinkin, wild nights blah blah blah) without any regard for the future. 

Personally I'm a believer that each person has a certain quest in life, and you have to figure out what it is and get in touch with the spiritual side of things and then you die when it's time to go regardless. Thus it's not really applicable here, maybe as part of that quest for some, but not everyone You know how all the great classic musicians died relatively young etc.

The only upside to life extension would be if the politicians are shackled to responsibility. Let's see how they do if they've got a 100 year term and everyone is about 20 thousand yrs old )

I think what's tough for some people to realize is that we're very very unimportant. You might be important to yourself and your loved ones,or if you're famous on a broader scale, but as a part of nature you're pretty insignificant. Yeah humans run this civilization, but ultimately you're still a slave to this universe. You guys don't question grass being green and the sky being blue, or yourself having the need for food and water or certain key proteins or whatever else, but death is now a waste of resources even though it's part of the same mysterious harmony that is our planet?

Edited by russianBEAR, 11 July 2009 - 08:28 PM.

[Athanasios]

You guys don't question grass being green and the sky being blue, or yourself having the need for food and water or certain key proteins or whatever else, but death is now a waste of resources even though it's part of the same mysterious harmony that is our planet?

Yep. I put more value in life than ash. Life is intrinsically valuable and so is experience. I also think self-improvement is an integral part of Fun Theory.

then you die when it's time to go regardless

It is always an option. Life Extensionists, as I know them, believe in both the right to life and the right to death. The question is why choose death over life other than status quo bias.

I would be really interested in seeing the Fun Theories built by those who are cynical about life extension...or would they just ask what is the point in maximizing fun?

[b0gger]

It is really mysterious, why do you call death (ergo suffering) a harmony? What are you? A glutton for punishment? Screw this so called harmony, because it has a lot of inferno.

About fun I always recall this thing: I remember two drunk 21yo guys in a train. They come out for food at Yaroslavl railway station. When they returned, one was upset, because he had a huge spot of mayo on his short. Other guy smothered him, because, he sad, they have to have fun while they still young. Rather artificial fun I have to add - booze as a doping, fun in a rush.
There is a movie I always mention too, called "Escape from Sobibor", it's abt a Nazi death camp. Some victims of "Solution of the Jewish Question" did nothing to escape, and even had fun. Some actually made the escape.

[bacopa]

Well, one can easily argue that LE in itself is negative, because it's a product of fear. Ultimately one of the biggest fears is the fear of death, of the inevitable. 

I personally just don't think any living being on this planet is important enough to warrant habitating this earth for longer than it's average lifespan, there needs to be a life and death cycle and constant refreshment of the species so to speak. 

No matter how hard you try, at the end you really can't cheat mother nature so I think accepting your mortality is really the ultimate comfort you can achieve. 

The young generation needs its chance to shine, I can imagine I'd be quite a stubborn snob set in my ways if I was 105 or older And if everyone was like that there would be a bunch of uptight, uncreative old people who are full of supplements, but really should be long full of embalming fluid in some grave



What you can try instead is believe in rebirth so that way you know once this physical body of yours dies, then your soul will be back and you'll be brand new soon again

Why do you anti life extension people always make the erroneous assumption that we WON'T be able to reverse or stop the aging proccess in humans? I'm so sick of people saying, "I wouldn't want to be a frail, cranky 105 year old." The whole idea of imminst is to stop aging? I briefly looked over Humanity +'s FAQ's and it explains a lot of this stuff.

Humans are important and so are other animals! We spend our whole lives trying to better ourselves, accumulate knowledge and experiences, look for mates, try to hone our skills by going to college's for multiple degrees, and you make the claim that life is not important enough to save??? If this were the case then why are people obsessed with health and diet???

As to the fact that we are unimportant in the universe. This is correct, however the universe doesn't think or feel, so you can't base this on anything to do with importance. Importance is a concept made up by humans or other life forms, if they exist and are intelligent, in the universe. That still is a very silly and dangerous way to justify not supporting living longer. One poster asked something like, "what's the point of it all?" Someone, I think Caliban replied, "you make the point." We have made the point since the dawn of civilization. If we are so unimportant then why work to cure Cancer or Aids, or work on global warming, or help out third world countries? Why do we have countries, civilizations, governments with elected politicians, and the scientific method? Of course I could go on...Maybe we should just sit on our asses and let the world self destruct because we are so damn unimportant!

Edited by dfowler, 12 July 2009 - 08:21 PM.

[bacopa]

Nice links. I wish we could get more mainstream scientists on board who could influence the funders. But we also need society to wake up to the mission. I am obviously more then skeptical that we can get enough people interested in the short time frame we have. I agree with the last article and tend to think that bioethisists and other "thinkers" ponder these ideas more for self-aggrandizing then anything else. I wish great thinkers cared more about important issues then their own egos. I still don't understand why someone like Richard Dawkins doesn't just come out and support this our cause. He must just not think it will work, or he's too conservative in his thinking and just shrugs it off.

[russianBEAR]

It is really mysterious, why do you call death (ergo suffering) a harmony? What are you? A glutton for punishment? Screw this so called harmony, because it has a lot of inferno.

About fun I always recall this thing: I remember two drunk 21yo guys in a train. They come out for food at Yaroslavl railway station. When they returned, one was upset, because he had a huge spot of mayo on his short. Other guy smothered him, because, he sad, they have to have fun while they still young. Rather artificial fun I have to add - booze as a doping, fun in a rush.
There is a movie I always mention too, called "Escape from Sobibor", it's abt a Nazi death camp. Some victims of "Solution of the Jewish Question" did nothing to escape, and even had fun. Some actually made the escape.

First of all: Zdarova kamrad, kak dela bratuha? )) How are things in the Northern Capital? I'm in the real capital over here.

Second - death and life are all part of one cycle. Just because one causes you to start running around on a piece of terrain, while the other causes you to cease doing so, doesn't mean that they're not both needed. From what I understand the actual process of dying feels good as hell, because you get a massive chemical release, apparently even the tryptamine DMT is released...

It's also appraently released at birth, and at death, so that could also be part of that conclusion that it's all much of the same.

You don't argue why your car has a forward and a reverse gear do you? I can think of death as the same sort of mechanism in terms of how it interacts with life.

And also what I mean by "snobby 105 year old" is not the fact that I'll be physically frail. Even if I'm still in peak physical condition and my brain is still fresh, you'll always be a product of a particular time.

Thus you will be stuck in your ways, the older you are the more...eventually you may kill off progress in much the same way you tried to create it.

Would you be open to new fresh ideas from some youngster who is only 200 when you're 1025 ? Let's push this theory to it's limit...and if you were born over 1000 years ago, you want to do things like "back in the day"...that's the problem there NEEDS to be fresh blood and fresh ideas. That's why other people have to die, or there won't be no progress or change in the way things are done.

Aids, cancer, and third world countries' situations are all by products of human activity, even global warming Maybe it would have been better if everyone sat on their ass initially and did nothing. Then maybe things wouldn't have gotten fucked up to this point.

Plus you still need something to do so you might as well take emotional investment in particular issues since you gotta occupy 50-100 years of time with at least something. Someone thought hey I'd do the scientific method while I'm here...others may decide on other activities, just boredom is the engine of progress

[bacopa]

First of all: Zdarova kamrad, kak dela bratuha? )) How are things in the Northern Capital? I'm in the real capital over here.

Second - death and life are all part of one cycle. Just because one causes you to start running around on a piece of terrain, while the other causes you to cease doing so, doesn't mean that they're not both needed. From what I understand the actual process of dying feels good as hell, because you get a massive chemical release, apparently even the tryptamine DMT is released...

It's also appraently released at birth, and at death, so that could also be part of that conclusion that it's all much of the same.

You don't argue why your car has a forward and a reverse gear do you? I can think of death as the same sort of mechanism in terms of how it interacts with life.

And also what I mean by "snobby 105 year old" is not the fact that I'll be physically frail. Even if I'm still in peak physical condition and my brain is still fresh, you'll always be a product of a particular time.

Thus you will be stuck in your ways, the older you are the more...eventually you may kill off progress in much the same way you tried to create it.

Would you be open to new fresh ideas from some youngster who is only 200 when you're 1025 ? Let's push this theory to it's limit...and if you were born over 1000 years ago, you want to do things like "back in the day"...that's the problem there NEEDS to be fresh blood and fresh ideas. That's why other people have to die, or there won't be no??? progress or change in the way things are done.

Well, even if you're right about the massive chemical release, that's for like a few seconds right? That doesn't exactly calm my nerves about death any better, for obvious reasons.

Again, just because death is natural does not make it desirable. Again my example of how undesirable Cancer is even though that is "natural."

I think if the brain is youthful, and fresh, as you say, then people won't be so set in their ways, unless they're not open minded people to begin with. If one is interested about the world, and wishes to progress in life, then that person will not be ever set in their ways.

But of course, maybe you're ignoring the point that we can have old and young living in harmony. And with less children, the young will be cared for and brought up that much better.

Again, you seem to have not addressed my point that saving lives is so necessary. Reference my point about longer lived, more experienced, more educated, having people who have more time to ponder the big questions, having people with more time to fall in love with the planet can never be a bad thing, and the huge problems of the world can better be fixed this way.

Also you never answered my question about if you think it is ok and acceptable to only live on average of 50 years in your country?

Edited by dfowler, 13 July 2009 - 01:40 PM.

[russianBEAR]

The way I look at life is everything is meaningless. We are pieces of meat and plasma and other material who run around on various terrain which is surrounded by other furry four-legged pieces of meat and some sticks growing out of that terrain for instance

We assign various meanings to various concepts, but it really matters little, we're quite helpless but who wants to admit that? 

Living forever would be like eternal sex without ever reaching orgasm - not bad but there's no sense of completeness, and at some point it's really just going back and forth between the same old ) To complete your journey, you gotta die. Otherwise you're overstaying your welcome.

I think it's perfectly acceptable that people die at 50 over here, kind of puts your life more in perspective. No time to procrastinate you just got done growing up and boom - you're halfway in the grave. 

I also don't think saving lives is necessary at all. The world's problems will not be solved if the same corrupt politicians are now in the political arena for 60-100 years or more. They'll want more money and more power since they'll need to worry about the next 500 years. Scheming a few million off the top for a retirement fund? Think about how much a corporate executive would need to steal to cover the next 1000 years of his life  

As far as more time to do this and more time to do that - well if you feel like you need more time, maybe you're not doing what you really want to, or what you should be at this point. 

What I see here is a lot of emotion-laden arguments. Sure death doesn't feel good when you're talking about it and it seems so horrible, but at the end of the day it's as meaningless as everything else if you let it be so.

I bet if I lived on a remote tropical island and didn't need to show up to work and do all kinds of other things I don't want to, 35-40 years would be plenty for me...

I guess another thing for me is, I really don't like people. Sure I like some individuals which I associate myself with, but I dont really enjoy being a part of the human race too much, I'd rather be a wild bear or some other animal to be honest

Edited by russianBEAR, 14 July 2009 - 03:29 AM.

[foreword]

I suppose those who haven't been wandering around on this planet for very long, or those whose eyes aren't really open to the world around them, may not have noticed this phenomenon, but most people tend to embark on a certain path early in their life and continue on it until the day they die. Certainly, people CAN change, though most often they often do not. Most merely become MORE of whatever they were previously.

The oft-praised open-mindedness of youth is frequently nothing more than the impressionable, poorly-thought-out-if-thought-out-at-all, rebellious jumping on the bandwagon of whatever the latest political fad is. This pseudo-open-mindedness is clearly revealed as close-mindedness when times change, but the ex-youth continue to hold to the out-dated and out-of-fashion ideas of the past.

I would argue that the ratio of truly open-minded, rational, critical-thinkers to those who, well, aren't, remains approximately the same across all age groups.

Seeing this, however, requires one to be able to recognize the difference between the young people who passionately regurgitate arguments for positions on issues they have little, if any, understanding of, those who offer blind, overzealous support to candidates or political parties whose stances on the issues they have limited awareness of, and the much rarer variety of young person whose rational open-mindedness drives them to look at things from different angles and make up their own minds.

Show me a young, rational, open-minded person, and I will show you an asset to humanity. If he or she has a body and brain that remains youthful and healthy indefinitely, after 100 years passes I'll show you a much greater asset to humanity.

If we are able to maintain youthful and healthy bodies and brains indefinitely, don't worry that humanity will become dominated by eternal, cranky, close-minded old people. I believe you can count on the open-minded, rational individuals to continue learning, growing, reflecting on the world around them, making new opinions, and growing in general. Imagine a world where we are able to keep our Einsteins and Newtons, our Beethovens and Mozarts, our da Vincis, Platos, and Gandhis healthy and vital indefinitely. While there are certainly types of people who are content to aimlessly graze, sleep, procreate, decline and die, there are also those who never lose their thirst for knowledge, their drive to grow and develop, or their passion for life. This second variety of person will significantly benefit from increased healthy lifespans... but the planet and the rest of humanity will benefit even more.

... As to the OP:

Religious people are cynical of LE because most religions, while they have prescriptions for how life should be lived, encourage belief in an afterlife and discourage believers from holding onto this life too tightly, the afterlife being the one that is truly real.

Atheists are often bitter and cynical to begin with. With no God or religion to give them purpose or a mission, many atheists fail to see any reason for life. If there is no real reason for life, why extend it? Fear of death and the unknown is enough to motivate some to be open to LE, however.

I believe that two groups that we can expect to be a bit more open to LE are pleasure-seekers and agnostics (I prefer to use 'rational critical thinker' in place of agnostic as the term agnostic implies being part of some social group or movement to many people, and is interpreted as 'atheist' by many others).

I don't think we can count on pleasure-seekers to be the driving force behind the realization of this technology, but I believe they will certainly enthusiastically use it when it is available and possibly support the development of the tech when it seems possible in the near-term.

If we stick to my definition (which many atheists will angrily resent), I believe agnostics are most likely to be open to supporting and working on developing LE technologies, even if they appear to not be achievable for several decades. However, since many agnostics are more concerned with knowledge and growth than they are with money... other groups of people are going to have to be won over before any significant progress can be made.

For any atheists who wish to make the case that there is no difference between atheists and agnostics, or that agnostics are just creationists in denial, in order to keep this thread on-topic I suggest you read the old thread that got into the atheist/agnostic definition debate. There were some posts in that thread that expressed opinions similar to mine quite eloquently, and I'm not sure I will have time to post again any time soon.