I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059
Posted 26 April 2010 - 07:22 PM
Posted 26 April 2010 - 07:38 PM
I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059
Edited by chris w, 26 April 2010 - 07:51 PM.
Posted 26 April 2010 - 08:41 PM
Posted 26 April 2010 - 09:24 PM
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.
Posted 26 April 2010 - 10:21 PM
Edited by Putz, 26 April 2010 - 10:25 PM.
Posted 26 April 2010 - 11:32 PM
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.
Posted 26 April 2010 - 11:57 PM
Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:00 AM
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.
Edited by s123, 27 April 2010 - 12:21 AM.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:36 AM
Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:50 AM
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.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:46 AM
Posted 27 April 2010 - 03:13 AM
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.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.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:36 PM
Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:38 PM
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.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 04:34 PM
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.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.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 04:48 PM
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.
Edited by chris w, 27 April 2010 - 05:05 PM.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 07:08 PM
Posted 27 April 2010 - 07:36 PM
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.
Ellen and I plan to homeschool our child, unless something bucks up somewhere in terms of educational standards.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 07:41 PM
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.”
Posted 27 April 2010 - 07:46 PM
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.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 08:01 PM
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 biasedAs 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
Posted 27 April 2010 - 08:09 PM
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.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.
Edited by chris w, 27 April 2010 - 08:13 PM.
Posted 27 April 2010 - 10:00 PM
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.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.
Posted 28 April 2010 - 07:48 AM
I found this site and was shocked that Dawkins justifies aging. I was about him a better opinion:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17059
Posted 28 April 2010 - 07:53 PM
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]
Edited by chris w, 28 April 2010 - 07:57 PM.
Posted 28 April 2010 - 11:24 PM
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.
Posted 29 April 2010 - 12:10 AM
Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:42 AM
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!
Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:44 AM
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.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?
Edited by Cameron, 29 April 2010 - 02:55 AM.
Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:39 PM
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.
Edited by chris w, 29 April 2010 - 01:39 PM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users