68 replies to this topic

[geneer]

I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059

[chris w]

I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059

It's sad really, as far as I can "understand" religious people being deathists, atheists are a whole different story. I mean, common, actually WHAT OTHER thing is there for an atheist than to pursuit individual, physical immortality if there is a possibility of it? What is so cool about oblivion that I'm just not able to see?

"So to prolong human life in an irresponsible, profligate way would be indeed irresponsible unless you at the same time reduced birth rates. If everybody lived for ever, then we'd better stop any new people being born" - and reducing births is wrong why exactly ? Why are we being forced to take under consideration the wellbeing of entities that don't exist yet ?

"And it's a rather presumptuous, arrogant thing to do, some might say, to say, right, well, the present generation are the last ones to reproduce. We'd better all just sit here and enjoy our lives for thousands of years" - brings to mind somebody in XIX century saying : "So what, you're saying we are to be the last generation to live off slavery and we will have to find other ways? Pretty arrogant, young lad, you obviously don't know how the world is supposed to be."

How can somebody that smart not see that life extension is just a logical conclusion of valuing life in general. You don't say to your loved one "You know honey, I love you, but I hope our love doesn't last that very long, because there would be something wrong about it then".

Edited by chris w, 26 April 2010 - 07:51 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Proclaiming you want to be immoral could make you sound selfish and ruin your image. You may hear excuses now like longevity could lead to over population, etc. But I bet you once the fountain of youth pill is invented everyone will line up for it; atheists and theists alike. Everyone wants to live longer, but few will publicly admit it.

[chris w]

Proclaiming you want to be immoral could make you sound selfish and ruin your image. You may hear excuses now like longevity could lead to over population, etc. But I bet you once the fountain of youth pill is invented everyone will line up for it; atheists and theists alike. Everyone wants to live longer, but few will publicly admit it.

Yeah probably, but still I would hope that a man like Dawkins would not reject the idea just out of hand as he really seems to, because it would definitely be beneficial if some independent, respected figure out of the hard science community acknowledged the possibilty of radical life extension in a pro- fashion, so that Aubrey would not seem such a crazy lone pioneer.

[Putz]

A lot of atheists are stuck in a narrow-minded view of the universe, that the earth is how it is and somehow that's "natural". Far-sighted atheists see human evolution and technology for what it obviously is - the next natural iteration in the universe's evolution. Species have always evolved, consumed resources, changed the makeup of the earth's atmosphere, eliminated other species, and the same is for tech (emotional cognitive biases and visceral rationalizations come into play when comparing technology to endangered polar bears, that is where many atheists become a bit irrationally religious on things like environmentalism). That's the way the laws of physics let things happen, no sense railing against it and being a deathist when you don't have to. It turns out many atheists are ruled by the same impulses that rule theists. Hell, I am ruled by the same impulse when it comes to my faith in technological progress.

The whole Physics>DNA>Brains>Tech>Convergence idea is basically Ray Kurzweil's "epoch" concept.

Edited by Putz, 26 April 2010 - 10:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Proclaiming you want to be immoral could make you sound selfish and ruin your image. You may hear excuses now like longevity could lead to over population, etc. But I bet you once the fountain of youth pill is invented everyone will line up for it; atheists and theists alike. Everyone wants to live longer, but few will publicly admit it.

Yeah probably, but still I would hope that a man like Dawkins would not reject the idea just out of hand as he really seems to, because it would definitely be beneficial if some independent, respected figure out of the hard science community acknowledged the possibilty of radical life extension in a pro- fashion, so that Aubrey would not seem such a crazy lone pioneer.

I am not a big fan of Dawkins but in this case he has a point. I think most scientists would agree with Dawkins, not Aubrey. I am attracted to Aubrey just because he thinks outside the box, not because I think he is right on every point. The majority is not always right and Aubrey needs to be given a fair hearing. Lets hope Aubrey is right and that we all live longer. ( What does “longer.” mean?)

Some members of Immnst think anyone who is not a “believer,” in eternal life with no death, is a “deathist.” It is like being a false prophet. They decry Atheists such as Dawking and Theists as being a kind of enemy of the faith. I have seen more than a few examples of this here at the Imminist institute. Surely there is room for various views on many different questions. Life is a subject of interest of many others beside the members of Imminst.The beauty of Iminst is the wide vanity of views on almost every subject. That is why I am here.

[bacopa]

Dawkins is simply afraid that he's too old to make the cut, and I don't blame him...however I wonder what his take on cryonics would be. Hey, I thought it was "human nature" to want to prolong life? This kind of thing naturally pisses me off...excuse me.

[s123]

He also criticized LE in his book "The God delusion". His argument is the stereotypical overpopulation argument which has been disproven (see paper of Gavrilov and Gravilova in the next edition of Rej. Res.).

I am not a big fan of Dawkins but in this case he has a point. I think most scientists would agree with Dawkins, not Aubrey.

The overpopulation argument has been disproven, Dawkins is wrong.

It seems that I was the only one to comment on the original website. The importance of adding replies to media messages was stressed this weekend at the UKH+ summit. So, please, register and send comments to disprove Dawkins statement.

Edited by s123, 27 April 2010 - 12:21 AM.

[bacopa]

I'm telling you...he obviously doubts his prospects for life extension so he naturally rationalizes arguments that challenge people like us, who have some f ing hope, pride, zest for life, and love of life....only being slightly a jerk.

[shadowhawk]

He also criticized LE in his book "The God delusion". His argument is the stereotypical overpopulation argument which has been disproven (see paper of Gavrilov and Gravilova in the next edition of Rej. Res.).

I am not a big fan of Dawkins but in this case he has a point. I think most scientists would agree with Dawkins, not Aubrey.

The overpopulation argument has been disproven, Dawkins is wrong.

It seems that I was the only one to comment on the original website. The importance of adding replies to media messages was stressed this weekend at the UKH+ summit. So, please, register and send comments to disprove Dawkins statement.

Sven, I also found Dawkins wanting in his position. Since you are the one who criticized him and know he is wrong, perhaps you could be more specific in your criticism. I find other arguments more compiling with the age issue, but would like to see how you deal with population.

[Cameron]

Sad really, the prospect of immortality opens the door not only for extended longevity but for continued growth through technological means. If a human was stuck with the intellect and knowledge of a five year old it would be pathetic, likewise being stuck at the level of an adult human is a point nature has left us stuck at for the moment. As one grows the goals and knowledge of earlier periods seem simplistic, naive and limited, simply growing beyond them is in itself an achievement.

[Cyberbrain]

Proclaiming you want to be immortal could make you sound selfish and ruin your image. You may hear excuses now like longevity could lead to over population, etc. But I bet you once the fountain of youth pill is invented everyone will line up for it; atheists and theists alike. Everyone wants to live longer, but few will publicly admit it.

Yeah probably, but still I would hope that a man like Dawkins would not reject the idea just out of hand as he really seems to, because it would definitely be beneficial if some independent, respected figure out of the hard science community acknowledged the possibilty of radical life extension in a pro- fashion, so that Aubrey would not seem such a crazy lone pioneer.

Technically Dawkins didn't deny that he personally wouldn't like to live longer or that he is against life extension research. He more or less just warned of the danger of LE.

I too would like it if more people came out in support of LE. But it's risky business for scientists (at least on the celebrity level of Dawkins) to admit to LE (and other H+ things like cryonics, singularity, etc). Most likely he fears a retaliation from the religious community that he is "selfish".

Plus I'm pretty sure he gave no thought to this matter, like most people. If he has seen and knew the things we have, he would probably be more optimistic and say "while it could lead to overpopulation, I'm sure we'll find methods to overcome it.".

[Kolos]

Some "militant atheists" embrace death just because many theists say it's something terrible (to die and disappear forever) so atheists try to prove that it's something natural and you can have a meaningful, happy life without any hopes of eternal happiness in heaven. So they have to be quite critical of any "rapture for nerds" visions or theists would accuse them of treating technology and progress as their new religion and if you read about singularity, transhumanism etc. it's not necessarily so far from the truth, at least not far enough for people like Dawkins to officially promote it.
Basically they fear "you want to live forever so you secretly miss Jesus" type of argument.

[s123]

He also criticized LE in his book "The God delusion". His argument is the stereotypical overpopulation argument which has been disproven (see paper of Gavrilov and Gravilova in the next edition of Rej. Res.).

I am not a big fan of Dawkins but in this case he has a point. I think most scientists would agree with Dawkins, not Aubrey.

The overpopulation argument has been disproven, Dawkins is wrong.

It seems that I was the only one to comment on the original website. The importance of adding replies to media messages was stressed this weekend at the UKH+ summit. So, please, register and send comments to disprove Dawkins statement.

Sven, I also found Dawkins wanting in his position. Since you are the one who criticized him and know he is wrong, perhaps you could be more specific in your criticism. I find other arguments more compiling with the age issue, but would like to see how you deal with population.

My arguments against overpopulation are based on first, the study of Gavrilov and Gavrilova who was the first to look at the effects of LE on population size and secondly on m own analysis of this 'problem'. I will only discuss my own analysis and refer you to the paper that will be published soon in Rej. Res.

The current number of children per women in the EU is 1,5. In order to have a stable population you need at least 2,1 children or the people should live forever of course. If you don't live forever and have less than 2,1 children per women than the population will start to decline. For example, let’s examine what would happen if you vary the number of children in a population starting with 100.000 people (50/50 men/women) and they all live forever. In case of 3 children per family a disaster will strike, and the population will increase to about 1 billion people (997.377.019 people) after 500 years. If this is decreased by just 1 child then the population would only count 2,1 million children after 500 years. Let's now see what happens when we fill in the current birth rate of 1,5 children per women. Remember in his scenario everyone is immortal! The population would increase and finally stop after 975 years with a constant population of only 300.000 people (299.997). That's only 3 times the starting population even if not a single person dies! The future problem in the EU is thus underpopulation and not overpopulation. How about the rest of the world? The mean number of children in the world per women in 2002 was 2,5. This is obviously too much but let us see from where we come. In the Dominican republic the number of children per women was 7,6 in 1950 and this dropped to 2,81 in 2005. In Saudi-Arabia the number of children per women was 7,18 in 1950 and this dropped to 3,35 in 2005. In Bangladesh the number of children per women was 6,7 in 1950 and this dropped to 2,91 in 2005. In Mexico the number of children per women was 6,7 in 1950 and this dropped to 2,21 in 2005. In Soudan the number of children per women was 6,65 in 1950 and this dropped to 4,23 in 2005. In China the number of children per women was 6,22 in 1950 and this dropped to 1,73 in 2005. S. Jay Olshansky noted: "The bottom line is that if we achieved immortality today, the growth rate of the population would be less than what we observed during the post World War II baby boom".

[chris w]

Some "militant atheists" embrace death just because many theists say it's something terrible (to die and disappear forever) so atheists try to prove that it's something natural and you can have a meaningful, happy life without any hopes of eternal happiness in heaven.

But wait, isn't it exactly the theists who embrace death as well, as a portal to eternal life ? I guess to them death is terrible only if you are to end up in Hell or something.

[chris w]

I am not a big fan of Dawkins but in this case he has a point. I think most scientists would agree with Dawkins, not Aubrey. I am attracted to Aubrey just because he thinks outside the box, not because I think he is right on every point. The majority is not always right and Aubrey needs to be given a fair hearing. Lets hope Aubrey is right and that we all live longer. ( What does “longer.” mean?)

Some members of Immnst think anyone who is not a “believer,” in eternal life with no death, is a “deathist.” It is like being a false prophet. They decry Atheists such as Dawking and Theists as being a kind of enemy of the faith. I have seen more than a few examples of this here at the Imminist institute. Surely there is room for various views on many different questions. Life is a subject of interest of many others beside the members of Imminst.The beauty of Iminst is the wide vanity of views on almost every subject. That is why I am here.

As for myself, I would only call a "deathist" somebody who claims that we need death / death is right / it gives meaning to life etc, and not somebody claiming that physical immortality or even a radical extension of lifespan is technically immpossible. And I noticed a thing that really bugs me - whenever someone like Hayflick or Olshansky or some other respected gerontologist is asked about the issue of "healing aging" they momentarily reject it as 100% unfeasible, stating that "the human body is very complex" or something along this line, like anyone was arguing against it, and that is ussually the end of what they have to say about it, as this one biological phenomenon called aging was just "by nature" unmalleable, like something otherwordly. Or they don't even make the effort to say anything out of the science field, but start to utter the ussuall "why we really should not pursue immortality". That is just intellectuall laziness of the worst sort, what Aubrey called somewhere "hiding behind double door"

Edited by chris w, 27 April 2010 - 05:05 PM.

[Luna]

I didn't read what he say but I think that on a "natural" evolution perspective then aging "could" be a "good" thing. We're just thinking of artificial evolution now because nature had done most it can for us and it will be better and faster to artificially do it now.

The thing is, aging helps to eliminate the imperfect and failing organisms, until a real perfect one will arise and then finally maybe even become immortal.. Sounds familiar?

Now I wouldn't say humans are perfect, but we are good enough to improve ourselves and become immortals on our own instead of wait for evolution, so here comes artificial evolution. That is that now you don't need an offspring to change the organism. Now the organism can change itself, so no need for it to die and be replaced to fix/get-rid the/of imperfections. So now the organism is making itself immortal because it evolved enough to create artificial and accelerated evolution (not to mention, intelligent instead of random). With this immortality is better for the perfect organism. Have one organism that lives forever AND improves itself intelligently.

[s123]

As things stand today, I think that promoting home - schooling ( regarding what kind of people mostly are in favor of it ) equals promoting the creaton of "islands" of hard core medieval anti - scientism in western societies, so I don't think Dawkins is that wrong when fighting the phenomenon, since not many homeschoolers will teach their children evolutionism and in fact any proper science at all.

It is not because some homeschoolers get a bad education that every homeschooler will. This kind of generalization is incorrect.

Today I read this on David Styles (Imminst Dirctor) blog:

Ellen and I plan to homeschool our child, unless something bucks up somewhere in terms of educational standards.

I'm sure that he will teach his child a lot of science and in fact points to the failing educational system as the reason why he would choose of homeschooling.

I've written a piece today about how the educational system should be reformed: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/not...on/390144623829

[s123]

Amazon’s review states, “For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe.”

You should never attack the person but you can smash wrong ideas to pieces. This does not make you intolerant.

[Kolos]

But wait, isn't it exactly the theists who embrace death as well, as a portal to eternal life ? I guess to them death is terrible only if you are to end up in Hell or something.

Yes, but some atheists want to make it clear that they're not afraid to die even if there is no heaven or other reward after.
If they all of a sudden started promoting life extension or immortality their religious opponents wouldn't miss a chance to ridicule them, they already claim that science is like a religion for atheist and some ideas related to singularity are really close to religion.

[chris w]

As things stand today, I think that promoting home - schooling ( regarding what kind of people mostly are in favor of it ) equals promoting the creaton of "islands" of hard core medieval anti - scientism in western societies, so I don't think Dawkins is that wrong when fighting the phenomenon, since not many homeschoolers will teach their children evolutionism and in fact any proper science at all.

It is not because some homeschoolers get a bad education that every homeschooler will. This kind of generalization is incorrect.

Today I read this on David Styles (Imminst Dirctor) blog:

Ellen and I plan to homeschool our child, unless something bucks up somewhere in terms of educational standards.

I'm sure that he will teach his child a lot of science and in fact points to the failing educational system as the reason why he would choose of homeschooling.

I've written a piece today about how the educational system should be reformed: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/not...on/390144623829

Agreed, I was thinking more about the "you know who" homeschooling, perhaps in Europe things might be different altough I read recently about a German family of I guess Mennonites doing definite harm to their children with the ideas they tought, so I might have been biased

[chris w]

The Atheist Alliance International gives an annual award named in honor of Dawkins, “The Richard Dawkins Award.” Dawkins is an Atheist and it is interesting to read some of the motives ascribed to him by others just because he does not believe in immortality.. I always enjoy reading you.

Shadowhawk, I don't think many peole here "believe" in immortality the way you think. How can you believe or not believe it, if there are organisms on the face of this planet that do not undergo senescence thus being immortal in the sense that we adhere to? This is sort of like asking somebody "do you believe in a flight to Mars ? " It is not a matter of faith, but matter of arrival of appropriate technology, that I admit I sometimes almost religiously hope for, but still it hasn't much to do with religion of any kind.

Edited by chris w, 27 April 2010 - 08:13 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The Atheist Alliance International gives an annual award named in honor of Dawkins, “The Richard Dawkins Award.” Dawkins is an Atheist and it is interesting to read some of the motives ascribed to him by others just because he does not believe in immortality.. I always enjoy reading you.

Shadowhawk, I don't think many peole here "believe" in immortality the way you think. How can you believe or not believe it, if there are organisms on the face of this planet that do not undergo senescence thus being immortal in the sense that we adhere to? This is sort of like asking somebody "do you believe in a flight to Mars ? " It is not a matter of faith, but matter of arrival of appropriate technology, that I admit I sometimes almost religiously hope for, but still it hasn't much to do with religion of any kind.

Hmmm. I am trying to figure out where I suggested all, or “Many,” people on the board do not have all kinds of views? How can you speak for them? Does your criticism extend to the word I used, “some?” I think it would be silly if I spent much time showing you ‘some’ do have the views I was describing. As for organisms that do not supposedly undergo senescence (immortal), all of the ones I have heard of can be killed so none of them is immortal. By the way, a high percentage of people die of accidents so if we extended our life spans double or more, this does not mean we are immortal and sooner or later, I think we will all die.

So, everything I know of can have an ending just as everything I know of has a beginning. This includes the universe of which these so-called immortal organisms are a part and depend upon for their being. The earth itself has a beginning and end. Cause and effect, it is true of everything. It is a basic law. It is a condition of evolution. I suspect the same will be the same with you and Dawking’s is in this case right, though I think his arguments are weak.

Do I believe in a flight to Mars? If I say “yes” will I be saved? If I say “no,” am I lost? And this, unlike everything future, is not a matter of faith? Indeed you are more religious than you know but for me, that is not a bad thing.

[N.T.M.]

I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059

What a disappointment :(.

I'm reading one of his books right now. It's so beautifully written. This really bums me out.

[chris w]

As for organisms that do not supposedly undergo senescence (immortal), all of the ones I have heard of can be killed so none of them is immortal. By the way, a high percentage of people die of accidents so if we extended our life spans double or more, this does not mean we are immortal and sooner or later, I think we will all die.

So, everything I know of can have an ending just as everything I know of has a beginning. This includes the universe of which these so-called immortal organisms are a part and depend upon for their being. The earth itself has a beginning and end. Cause and effect, it is true of everything. It is a basic law. It is a condition of evolution. I suspect the same will be the same with you and Dawking’s is in this case right, though I think his arguments are weak.

Indeed you are more religious than you know but for me, that is not a bad thing.[/b]

I'm not arguing that it is possible to make an organism undestructable, just perhaps to make it non - aging. And I certainly don't hold that by bio tech we could make anybody immune to being stabbed in a back alley.
The whole "everything has a beginning and an end, cause and effect" philosophy is just throwing words full of air, I don't think people like De Grey are aiming to tamper with basic metaphisical laws of Universe, if there are any. And there is no end to evolution on the horizon anywhere near.

Edited by chris w, 28 April 2010 - 07:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

As for organisms that do not supposedly undergo senescence (immortal), all of the ones I have heard of can be killed so none of them is immortal. By the way, a high percentage of people die of accidents so if we extended our life spans double or more, this does not mean we are immortal and sooner or later, I think we will all die.

So, everything I know of can have an ending just as everything I know of has a beginning. This includes the universe of which these so-called immortal organisms are a part and depend upon for their being. The earth itself has a beginning and end. Cause and effect, it is true of everything. It is a basic law. It is a condition of evolution. I suspect the same will be the same with you and Dawking’s is in this case right, though I think his arguments are weak.

Indeed you are more religious than you know but for me, that is not a bad thing.[/b]

I'm not arguing that it is possible to make an organism undestructable, just perhaps to make it non - aging. And I certainly don't hold that by bio tech we could make anybody immune to being stabbed in a back alley.
The whole "everything has a beginning and an end, cause and effect" philosophy is just throwing words full of air, I don't think people like De Grey are aiming to tamper with basic metaphisical laws of Universe, if there are any. And there is no end to evolution on the horizon anywhere near.

OK, are you arguing that immortality is something you could possess if we could just find some way to become like the longevity organisms? .I mean, can we become kind of, or like them? A redwood tree has longevity but we wouldn’t want to be like them in every way. A fruit fly is short lived but we wouldn’t want to become unlike them in every way either. So it is with most things. Immortality is commonly a term applied to the “belief,” that life, can go on forever. It can either involve surviving death, such as in some way there is life after death or never dying in the first place. I suppose the second view is your point in bringing up the so-called immortal organisms. You appear to believe they are immortal even though you seem to acknowledge they can all die. My point is given time, accidents and the nature of the cosmos with its beginnings and ends, cause and effect, true immortality of things is unlikely. All things, of the nature of the physical word we exist in, will die.

I believe Life Extension is possible. I am for it and it is a real possibility. How long? I don’t know. In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

I know your words are not full of air. Dawkins speaks for himself. De Grey is interesting. If there is no end to evolution in your view, it must be immortal even though it brings things to ends. It is both life and death? Philosophy?

[Luna]

Ok, I just read the site and saw he actually was against altering lifespan and not justifying aging just for evolution. Fine, he's an idiot.

My theory is still cool though!

[shadowhawk]

Ok, I just read the site and saw he actually was against altering lifespan and not justifying aging just for evolution. Fine, he's an idiot.

My theory is still cool though!

It is!

[Cameron]

As for organisms that do not supposedly undergo senescence (immortal), all of the ones I have heard of can be killed so none of them is immortal. By the way, a high percentage of people die of accidents so if we extended our life spans double or more, this does not mean we are immortal and sooner or later, I think we will all die.

So, everything I know of can have an ending just as everything I know of has a beginning. This includes the universe of which these so-called immortal organisms are a part and depend upon for their being. The earth itself has a beginning and end. Cause and effect, it is true of everything. It is a basic law. It is a condition of evolution. I suspect the same will be the same with you and Dawking's is in this case right, though I think his arguments are weak.

Indeed you are more religious than you know but for me, that is not a bad thing.[/b]

I'm not arguing that it is possible to make an organism undestructable, just perhaps to make it non - aging. And I certainly don't hold that by bio tech we could make anybody immune to being stabbed in a back alley.
The whole "everything has a beginning and an end, cause and effect" philosophy is just throwing words full of air, I don't think people like De Grey are aiming to tamper with basic metaphisical laws of Universe, if there are any. And there is no end to evolution on the horizon anywhere near.

OK, are you arguing that immortality is something you could possess if we could just find some way to become like the longevity organisms? .I mean, can we become kind of, or like them? A redwood tree has longevity but we wouldn't want to be like them in every way. A fruit fly is short lived but we wouldn't want to become unlike them in every way either. So it is with most things. Immortality is commonly a term applied to the "belief," that life, can go on forever. It can either involve surviving death, such as in some way there is life after death or never dying in the first place. I suppose the second view is your point in bringing up the so-called immortal organisms. You appear to believe they are immortal even though you seem to acknowledge they can all die. My point is given time, accidents and the nature of the cosmos with its beginnings and ends, cause and effect, true immortality of things is unlikely. All things, of the nature of the physical word we exist in, will die.

I believe Life Extension is possible. I am for it and it is a real possibility. How long? I don't know. In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

I know your words are not full of air. Dawkins speaks for himself. De Grey is interesting. If there is no end to evolution in your view, it must be immortal even though it brings things to ends. It is both life and death? Philosophy?

With sufficient redundancy a mind can expect to last until either proton decay or expansion acceleration puts an end to its existence. That gives plenty of time to find a way to overcome such fate, if there is such way. I'm not sure proton decay is proven, if proton decay does not take place and the acceleration of expansion stops, then for all practical purposes the organism is immortal it can traverse the universe acquiring and using fusion resources as it goes about and using black holes to generate energy from non-fusionable matter... of course it would provably have to send a beserker von neuman probe like wave in all direction cleansing all possible threats and competing resource consumers.

Edited by Cameron, 29 April 2010 - 02:55 AM.

[chris w]

In the Bible it is reported people lived far longer than we do now. Kind of Paleo before there was a Paleo diet! If we only knew what the cave people were eating.

The Bible also talks about Joshua making the sun stand still by keeping his hands up for couple of hours, but I'm probably just shooting in the dark right now.

And yes, we roughly do know what the cave men were eating, but I seriously doubt going on paleo diet alone will make us live to 900, but it's always worth to give it a shot if you want.

Edited by chris w, 29 April 2010 - 01:39 PM.