• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Why are people so cynical about LE?


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#61 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 07 August 2009 - 07:06 AM

Yall have never heard of a middle ground have you ? It's either taking anything and everything in stacks that could possibly increase your lifespan and trying to get a sect-like following by finding ways to convince certain target groups or it's sitting around waiting to die right away and care as little for your well-being as possible.

Also why give so much emotional meaning to phrases like "resource hogs". Yeah you consume tons upon tons of various resources, ain't nothing wrong with that. Just make sure you move over so others get a slice.

With this LE, you are all only thinkin about your individual gain, not humanity as a whole. If any of yall cared for mankind, you wouldn't be trying to so selfishly deny others life by exetending yours and turning into some celibate bio robot with titan receptors :)


What are you talking about? I think most of us agree with you. A random middle ground is the way to go. People that want to live are sects and cults, we agree. Like them hospital cults, that NIH cult etc... Oh, and like the Army, when people come to try to kill us, I dont know why that cult has to get in their way.

Why wouldnt we get emotional about terms like resource hogs? After all, we dont want people taking more than their fair share. There are people that arent even conceived yet that deserve it more than us. Why, after all, would we deserve to retain our bodies and memories and possessions and hopes and dreams? Thats rediculous. Move over, like you say.

It is selfish to not want people to die. I think people need to take that into account and stop trying to save lives. Selfishness is a vice and needs to be done away with, that is a good point you make. The things you say make sense, Im going to have to think about it all more and come to better conclusions.

#62 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 07 August 2009 - 10:22 AM

With this LE, you are all only thinkin about your individual gain, not humanity as a whole. If any of yall cared for mankind, you wouldn't be trying to so selfishly deny others life by exetending yours and turning into some celibate bio robot with titan receptors

Okay first off, yes we are a selfish species. We all want to maximize survival and well being. Everything we do is in accordance with that. But there are two types of selfishness. Sensible self interest and stupid selfishness. Most people are actually stupidly selfish, they live for the moment maximizing well being without thinking about the future or of others. However transhumanists are in favor of sensible self interest - that good will to all man is an evolutionary survival tactic. By helping humanity as a whole to cure aging, disease and suffering we are in effect helping our selves as well.

Yes we want to extend our lifespan, but no one here would argue doing that at the cost of another human life! Where did you here that we would deny others life? That right there is an example of left wing bioluddism (not to be confused though with left wing politics, that's different). Arguments against life saving technologies on the basis of social conflicts. Transhumanists take ethical considerations extremely serious, they're interested in saving lives and bettering them. They're not greedy rich elitists who hate everyone and want to enslave or destroy mankind for their own benefit or amusement. People who think like that are way too much into conspiracy theories :)

#63 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:46 AM

I have a hard time buying that line above about sensible self interest.

Politicians also tell you that there is abuse of power, then there's responsible use of your priviliges as a public servant.

I don't need to tell you which of the two scenarios above plays out more often. Like Henry Kissinger said: "Some 90% of dirty corrupt politicians are giving every politician in the world a bad name!"

Knowing human nature, I do not trust myself nor other human beings to make any decision out of sensible self interest and not pure selfishness if you wanna split up the term like that.

Also nothing "sensible" is really possible with factors such as fear and other emotions at play. And too much is never enough for any human being, so I have a feeling the scenario could play out a tad different than some anticipate...and not in a good way.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 07 August 2009 - 12:21 PM

I have a hard time buying that line above about sensible self interest.

Knowing human nature, I do not trust myself nor other human beings to make any decision out of sensible self interest and not pure selfishness if you wanna split up the term like that.

I don't trust others either, but we must all work with each other to better things.

I would argue though that to achieve sensible self interest, one would essentially become a Vulcan. :)

Edited by Cyberbrain, 07 August 2009 - 12:22 PM.


#65 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 07 August 2009 - 12:30 PM

Politicians also talk about "we should all work together" etc. Maybe you/they have the best intentions in mind now, but what if the first seed is planted and you see the vile potential of this?

What's gonna make you stop, when it's natural to want more and more until it's never enough like I said. 

That's the problem I think, the initial desire for this may even be a grand holistic vision of humanity, but when you get to the "in practice" part it's a bunch of dirty elitists running everything for themselves.

Something tells me it's the elitists and zionists and the freemasons and the reptilian Atlantis inhabitants that will be controlling this area, and probably like all technologies it will be away from the general public for years. Don't take this literally, but you get what I'm saying: the rich, the famous, the powerful...probably NOT you unless you play golf with them on weekends or have been buddies since high school :)

How would you like the world's elite to be immortal and you some puny human? If this is done, who's guaranteeing you'll get your hands on the pie ? 

That's another issue that comes to mind.

Edited by russianBEAR, 07 August 2009 - 12:32 PM.


#66 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 09 August 2009 - 05:07 PM

I can't really find it. Just because I don't want everybody sticking around way past their intended expiration date

What do you mean by 'intended expiration date'? Quasi-religious new age concepts about predetermined DNA death? What is the evidence that each person has an precisely calculated moment of DNA death?

Even if spirit exists, how do you know it is that calculated and specific a phenomenon as to decide who dies and when, as opposed to a more random quantum phenomenon that knows no more than any other semi-conscious being?

Furthermore who the hell is to say we are not 'intended' to expand our lives? Please don't give me the 'natural' argument. Because we are products of nature and thus anything that emanates from us is also a product of nature. Including life extension.

Edited by TheFountain, 09 August 2009 - 05:08 PM.


#67 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 09 August 2009 - 05:12 PM

I wouldn't say I am against extending human lifespans and I do believe it will occur in the future. I do have concerns on how extended life will impact the world population and the impact it will have on world ecosystems.


Yea, god forbid people move to Montana, wyoming, alaska, and about 20 other underpopulated places (in the U.S alone). They might actually have to build some stuff.

Edited by TheFountain, 09 August 2009 - 05:13 PM.


#68 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:53 PM

I can't really find it. Just because I don't want everybody sticking around way past their intended expiration date

What do you mean by 'intended expiration date'? Quasi-religious new age concepts about predetermined DNA death? What is the evidence that each person has an precisely calculated moment of DNA death?

Even if spirit exists, how do you know it is that calculated and specific a phenomenon as to decide who dies and when, as opposed to a more random quantum phenomenon that knows no more than any other semi-conscious being?

Furthermore who the hell is to say we are not 'intended' to expand our lives? Please don't give me the 'natural' argument. Because we are products of nature and thus anything that emanates from us is also a product of nature. Including life extension.


Why do you chose to hang on the word "intended" so much? I mean I like my Carlos Castaneda too, but not that much. :p I believe that death is encoded in the DNA, there are way too many equally miraculous and disastrous things happening to people when technically they shouldn't. I don't think it's a precise mechanism, but it's one that operates within the given environment, bascially mother earth purges you to the astral planes when it's time to go.

You got super healthy people who have done all regular checkups dropping dead from heart attacks, famous musicians like our great Sergey Kurekhin dying of a "heart sacroma" (I dont even think anyone knew that was possible before that), plus the multitude examples of people surviving against seemingly unbeatable odds. Then you got this guy who drinks and smokes his whole life since the age of 8 and he's over 100 now...the dude in the UK who ran a marathon and had a pint of bitter afterwards and possibly during :p

So you may think you're extending your life, but you're just not "there" yet :p

There's nothing wrong with exploring nature, and trying to get the most out of it for your own good by discovering key concepts, but the idea here is that the planet likes to renew itself. Unfortunately for entropy's sake, this place ultimately does not want you around forever. Just like giving life is functional, dying serves the same purpose. 

That's like wanting to have the yin without the yang and peanut butter without jelly :p

#69 thestuffjunky

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • -1
  • Location:kent ohio

Posted 10 August 2009 - 10:04 PM

I was asked to keep low on respones on the defensive side, however, I have seen the pushing to long going on here. Point to Point, I will tell any non-believer 'I will gurantee you will die!". For people who understand meme, we have a different outlook. I will keep this short. IMMINST is the largest lottery that 1 person won(degrey). he and his principles for HUMANITY are to share and not care if you appreciated the gesture, just that you now have more of something than what you did before. SELFISH would be keeping his research and not letting a single sole know about it.

#70 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 11 August 2009 - 02:43 AM

We cant expect to get people to support the cause all in one go. Give them time, let it absorb, get more information out to them, keep it up, its working, we are getting through.

Of course it seems like a lot of people dont support this right now, but dont let that tell you the product is bad. ..

We can, we will, we are. Keep your head up, keep marching forward, one step at a time, we are getting there. The more we march the more there are that join us. Our army will be vast and the stamping will echo to the ears of the entire world. Like Coke, and Brittany Spears have done, except that we have a much much better, much much more logical product, and it will sell. It will, we are getting there.

Orlando, one of many projects taking more and more root around here is a VIP outreach forum led by people like Dfowler and SVyff. If you want to get in on that then let me, or any of us know.

Are you guys serious?

#71 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:51 AM

Are you guys serious?


dead serious

#72 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:11 PM

Why do you chose to hang on the word "intended" so much?

You used it first in several ways. And you implied that nature 'intends' to remove us at a particular moment of some quasi spiritual DNA encoded interval. Which I say is complete horse shit. I don't think 'mother nature' sits there and thinks these things through. If that were the case then weather patterns wouldn't be so random. As such death is a random phenomenon and what this organization attempts to do is to make it controllable. Yea, there are probably evil fucks out there who would go around killing people and then calling it natures work, but that is another conversation entirely.

I mean I like my Carlos Castaneda too, but not that much.

I never read Castaneda, I am more into PD Ouspensky. I recommend the book 'the psychology of mans possible evolution' in which he describes the beginning philosophy of how we can take things in our own hands. Oh nevermind, you don;t like free will, you like the idea of being puppeteered, it seems to turn you on like a drug.

I believe that death is encoded in the DNA, there are way too many equally miraculous and disastrous things happening to people when technically they shouldn't. I don't think it's a precise mechanism, but it's one that operates within the given environment, bascially mother earth purges you to the astral planes when it's time to go.

You got super healthy people who have done all regular checkups dropping dead from heart attacks, famous musicians like our great Sergey Kurekhin dying of a "heart sacroma" (I dont even think anyone knew that was possible before that), plus the multitude examples of people surviving against seemingly unbeatable odds. Then you got this guy who drinks and smokes his whole life since the age of 8 and he's over 100 now...the dude in the UK who ran a marathon and had a pint of bitter afterwards and possibly during

If you are going to formulate a paranoid delusion like this, why not use any other numbers of catalysts to describe the means by which life and death are meted out so specifically? I mean why not come up with some sort of spiritual jack the ripper or say there is an organization out there killing people and then blaming nature? It is equally plausable as the bullshit you just churned out. I mean, if you're going to waste your mind why not waste it fully on the most crazy conspiracy theory of all? Why hold back with mere nature? Why not blam 'God' for the meting out of life and death? It's basically the same exact bullshit.


So you may think you're extending your life, but you're just not "there" yet

Where? How do you know that 'nature' doesn't intend for some of us to live a thousand years or to become immortal? How do you know that the reason this generation is more aware of life extension than the last is that we are 'meant' to be by the soul of nature? See the bullshit goes both ways.

There's nothing wrong with exploring nature, and trying to get the most out of it for your own good by discovering key concepts, but the idea here is that the planet likes to renew itself. Unfortunately for entropy's sake, this place ultimately does not want you around forever. Just like giving life is functional, dying serves the same purpose.

That's like wanting to have the yin without the yang and peanut butter without jelly :p


Please don't corrupt Zen Buddhism to justify the fact that you think, in your puny opinion, that people should have a specific expiration date. Basically I think if it was up to someone like you all the made up delusions you just churned out would be executed by you yourself. You wish you were the decider but you are not, nor is oh great mystical mother nature. Mother nature doesn't have a consciously directed will, nor does our DNA.

Our DNA does not decide specific end points of specific lives. Assigning conscious will to DNA and then trying to intersperse the idea that there is some consciousness behind it by using the words 'encoded DNA death' is quasi-religious and has no place in a scientific discussion.

Encoded DNA death doesn't mean specificity of individual death, it means every DNA strand has an end point that is not predetermined by anything but how long the individual can survive in a given environment. Jack Lalanne is evidence of that, he chose consciously to survive. And he has, so far.

Edited by TheFountain, 11 August 2009 - 04:15 PM.


#73 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 11 August 2009 - 05:43 PM

Where? How do you know that 'nature' doesn't intend for some of us to live a thousand years or to become immortal? How do you know that the reason this generation is more aware of life extension than the last is that we are 'meant' to be by the soul of nature? See the bullshit goes both ways.


Good point, there are a lot of good points here. We are nature, we are nature trying to work with itself to become more, as the "human" body has always done. We are working to evolve.

#74 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 26

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:02 PM

There is no "intent" in nature. Ascribing "intent" to nature is anthropomorphizing. Nature just exists. It doesn't give a shit.

Intent is formulated by human beings. Different people want different thing and have different goals in mind. This is especially true with life extension. Some people are into it. Some are not. Its a choice, nothing more. If you're into it, great, welcome aboard. if not, thats fine, too. I wish you the best of luck in what ever you want in life. As long as we respect each others choices, there is no reason for life extension to be a contentious issue.

"Sin lies only in causing unnecessary harm to others, all other sins are invented non-sense" Robert Heinlein

#75 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:05 PM

There is no "intent" in nature. Ascribing "intent" to nature is anthropomorphizing. Nature just exists. It doesn't give a shit.

Intent is formulated by human beings. Different people want different thing and have different goals in mind. This is especially true with life extension. Some people are into it. Some are not. Its a choice, nothing more. If you're into it, great, welcome aboard. if not, thats fine, too. I wish you the best of luck in what ever you want in life. As long as we respect each others choices, there is no reason for life extension to be a contentious issue.

"Sin lies only in causing unnecessary harm to others, all other sins are invented non-sense" Robert Heinlein


Exactly

#76 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 12 August 2009 - 06:40 PM

There is no "intent" in nature. Ascribing "intent" to nature is anthropomorphizing. Nature just exists. It doesn't give a shit.

Intent is formulated by human beings. Different people want different thing and have different goals in mind. This is especially true with life extension. Some people are into it. Some are not. Its a choice, nothing more. If you're into it, great, welcome aboard. if not, thats fine, too. I wish you the best of luck in what ever you want in life. As long as we respect each others choices, there is no reason for life extension to be a contentious issue.

"Sin lies only in causing unnecessary harm to others, all other sins are invented non-sense" Robert Heinlein

That's the problem, cynics like russianbear do not respect our decisions, they try to belittle or discourage them and truly, if it were up to them, they would pass a law stating no one could live past a certain age. I am sure he is not the only one who feels that way, but on this forum he is their representative. I just think it is sick when anyone presumes that another's outcome must be controlled by legislation.

And when such laws do not exist they ascribe non-existing laws to nature, making nature seem like it has a persona that directs itself to the activity of giving and taking lives (I.E with the 'Encooded DNA death' bullshit). I feel bad for those who are so bent on control that when they cannot get it they blame nature for their own human shortcomings.

#77 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:24 PM

Why do you chose to hang on the word "intended" so much?

You used it first in several ways. And you implied that nature 'intends' to remove us at a particular moment of some quasi spiritual DNA encoded interval. Which I say is complete horse shit. I don't think 'mother nature' sits there and thinks these things through. If that were the case then weather patterns wouldn't be so random. As such death is a random phenomenon and what this organization attempts to do is to make it controllable. Yea, there are probably evil fucks out there who would go around killing people and then calling it natures work, but that is another conversation entirely.

I mean I like my Carlos Castaneda too, but not that much.

I never read Castaneda, I am more into PD Ouspensky. I recommend the book 'the psychology of mans possible evolution' in which he describes the beginning philosophy of how we can take things in our own hands. Oh nevermind, you don;t like free will, you like the idea of being puppeteered, it seems to turn you on like a drug.

I believe that death is encoded in the DNA, there are way too many equally miraculous and disastrous things happening to people when technically they shouldn't. I don't think it's a precise mechanism, but it's one that operates within the given environment, bascially mother earth purges you to the astral planes when it's time to go.

You got super healthy people who have done all regular checkups dropping dead from heart attacks, famous musicians like our great Sergey Kurekhin dying of a "heart sacroma" (I dont even think anyone knew that was possible before that), plus the multitude examples of people surviving against seemingly unbeatable odds. Then you got this guy who drinks and smokes his whole life since the age of 8 and he's over 100 now...the dude in the UK who ran a marathon and had a pint of bitter afterwards and possibly during

If you are going to formulate a paranoid delusion like this, why not use any other numbers of catalysts to describe the means by which life and death are meted out so specifically? I mean why not come up with some sort of spiritual jack the ripper or say there is an organization out there killing people and then blaming nature? It is equally plausable as the bullshit you just churned out. I mean, if you're going to waste your mind why not waste it fully on the most crazy conspiracy theory of all? Why hold back with mere nature? Why not blam 'God' for the meting out of life and death? It's basically the same exact bullshit.


So you may think you're extending your life, but you're just not "there" yet

Where? How do you know that 'nature' doesn't intend for some of us to live a thousand years or to become immortal? How do you know that the reason this generation is more aware of life extension than the last is that we are 'meant' to be by the soul of nature? See the bullshit goes both ways.

There's nothing wrong with exploring nature, and trying to get the most out of it for your own good by discovering key concepts, but the idea here is that the planet likes to renew itself. Unfortunately for entropy's sake, this place ultimately does not want you around forever. Just like giving life is functional, dying serves the same purpose.

That's like wanting to have the yin without the yang and peanut butter without jelly :)


Please don't corrupt Zen Buddhism to justify the fact that you think, in your puny opinion, that people should have a specific expiration date. Basically I think if it was up to someone like you all the made up delusions you just churned out would be executed by you yourself. You wish you were the decider but you are not, nor is oh great mystical mother nature. Mother nature doesn't have a consciously directed will, nor does our DNA.

Our DNA does not decide specific end points of specific lives. Assigning conscious will to DNA and then trying to intersperse the idea that there is some consciousness behind it by using the words 'encoded DNA death' is quasi-religious and has no place in a scientific discussion.

Encoded DNA death doesn't mean specificity of individual death, it means every DNA strand has an end point that is not predetermined by anything but how long the individual can survive in a given environment. Jack Lalanne is evidence of that, he chose consciously to survive. And he has, so far.


I don't know what fallacy you've used here, but you basically attacked my character multiple times and made it look like my argument was something it wasn't.


Where did I say I like the idea of being puppeteered? Quote me that line with that exact phrase please, or a synonym there of. How is giving a few examples all of a sudden a "paranoid delusion"? Are you only thinking in black and white? Death is bad so goto life extension, is someone not agree goto some fairytale analogy that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? Seems like that's how that brain works.

Why does everything have to have a will or perform some actions that you would understand in order for it to function? I'm not trying to present nature in the form of some kind of a "timer" here. I think that's where the limitations of trying to explain everything scientifically comes into play. If you can't really do it, then it must be someone's fairy tale delusions, but god forbid you don't understand something about the essence of the planet you live on! Why are you suggesting I alter my beliefs to some extreme conspiracy theory nonsense - those have nothing to do with what I said here, good reading comprehension. That's how the ecosystem operates, you can call it "god" or whatever, it's not gonna change the function.

A DNA is no more conscious than the energies that surround us, and that make up this world. They don't have to act in a clear and concise way that you can comprehend and explain, they just do it in a way that this planet is set up to handle tasks. And I know nature doesn't intend us to live a thousand years, because well...it hasn't happened to any species in its long history. This one Chinese guy apparently was the closest :) 

Could now be the time? Not really...nature hasn't changed the way it operates, progress is a distinctly human illusion of moving forward. The leaves, trees, everything else has been the same, way before you, and will be way after you. But I know it sucks to feel so unimportant doesn't it? You'll die and everything will go on the same without you, how can this be!?!?!? I know I hate it too but I'll get over it.

I think people tend to get on their high horse and forget that they're a part of this planet, and begin thinking that this planet is loaned to them and they can do whatever they want here. Nope, you're still governed by nature, directly and indirectly.

Then he says... if it was up to someone like you all the made up delusions would be executed by you yourself...Thanks for assuming and implying, but I don't have delusions of grandeur, I got over that way back in the day. A lot of vanity, yes, craving attention - definitely, but not what you're trying to portray me as.

But the way you like being puppeteered and get off like a drug on these sentences I can definitely tell you that you do :)  See another thing is I'm not really trying to have a "scientific discussion" because I don't know enough about the subject.

I think I'll stick strictly to the supplement/nootropic section, and yap off generic answers about what pill goes good with another pill and some fancy receptor names that may or may not be affected, and how all that affected me in the past...

Edited by russianBEAR, 26 August 2009 - 10:27 PM.


#78 boundlesslife

  • Life Member in cryostasis
  • 206 posts
  • 11

Posted 27 August 2009 - 03:17 PM

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).


Right! About 40 years ago, attempting to briefly answer the question "What am I?", it came out as (in part):

I am a child,
Among infants who call themselves adults and imagine that their days of growth have passed.
I will remain a child, because to mature is to prepare for death,
But, my goal is life.

The purpose of life is survial.
The weed and the Sequoia both survive, but somehow, there is a difference.
Humans, being self conscious, can act to alter their natures.
The human with the stature of a weed can seek to become like a Sequoia,
The human with the stature of a Sequoia can seek to become anything he or she can comprehend.
But the adult who calls himself (or herself) an adult seeks nothing!

(It went on from there, and in the original version it had "man" vs. "human" and so on, but no real difference.)

Now, with the potential for emergence of cyberbeings (re: Kurzweil's vision of the Singularity), the "Sequoia" image gets upgraded.

In contemplating what it will be like to be in 'conversation' with a cyberbeing (hopefully on the way to becoming one), we may expect to feel like Sequoia trees in a grove, trying to have a conversation with humans visiting the grove, and hoping that none of them are carrying chainsaws. After all, if these beings can think 100,000 times faster than we and have access to the Internet, robotics, etc. they can be speaking with thousands of us at once and planning, replanning, coordinating with each other, etc. at rates that will make the comparison of a human and a Sequoia tree almost realistic.

Back in the early 1990's, at least 15 years ago when even email was in its infancy, a guy named Kevin Brown (who still runs Cryonet, I think) posted a rather alarming idea to a bulletin board that freaked out a lot of the watchers. This is not exact, but it went a little like this (it's short).

With time, so much of our identity related information will reside outside our bodies (in computers vs brains) that more of what's "us" will be outside us than within us. At such a time, it will be possible for this information-based-being (self-conscious, of course) to support multiple biological bodies, and naturally the computer centers will be backed up, so that such a being would be virtually indestructible. This doesn't mean it will be a perfect world. There will still be treachery and skulldugery. A normal human being won't stand a chance in a game like that, but it will be the only game in town. Let the good times roll!

The response was predictable; tremendous hostility. One response was, "You stay away from me with your scalpels and soldering irons. I'll fight to the death!" Well, it doesn't have to be such a negative outcome as that, but the world is in motion to change and all of the reluctance to paddle for the wave won't do any good for those who choose to bury their heads in the sand.

Buckle up, Dorothy; it's the blue pill or the red pill; you can't live in Kansas for all eternity!

Boundless Life

For more fun with ideas like this, visit LifeQuest

#79 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 30 December 2009 - 12:19 AM

Buckle up, Dorothy; it's the blue pill or the red pill; you can't live in Kansas for all eternity!


Right, deathists are like those the old people that dont want to start using one of them fancy colorin' tv's, or one of those old fashioned people who would never use one of them space man mechancal iron horse cars, or even further back, one of those people who knew that people like Columbus were loony for trying to sail for what was certainly the edge of the earth. In this light you paint here, it makes me think, deathists may be that way in large part just because they are too dull witted to change their mind, even about death being the norm.

#80 SATANICAT

  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 28
  • Location:Texas

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:27 PM

Some people are just a little closed minded. Ignore them.

Provide a something that's simple; something they will almost be forced to accept.
Like,
"Life isn't about quantity, it's about quality. I would rather have both!"
or more simply
"Life's a game, why quit?"

They might not be true, but they have remote sensibility, and they're fun :D

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#81 shawn

  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • -4

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:14 PM

Who has ever set into stone or established that we have a reasonable expiration date???
That is just crazy.
As we progress we have seen that people now live much longer in general.
That is good.
Mind expansion should be the first priority though, as what good is a really old and closed-minded opinionated person.
Often, in order to make progress, the old bastards who held things back needed to just get old and die, and then things changed for the better, so I can see an advantage with short life spans on that score.
But if people would work on the technologies which expand people's perceptions and thoughts and creativity, then it would be beneficial for people to live longer as they would enrich the world we all share, and these things should not be kept just for the rich or the elite, but should be made available to all.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users