27 replies to this topic

[chrwe]

Hey folks,

I`m personally an agnostic on the basis of the fact that man does not know everything about the universe and even the human brain and given the development of knowledge during the last 100 years, I don`t think man will anytime soon. But since no one has ever convincingly raised any evidence that there is an afterlife or that there is even a chance consciousness does not depend on a functioning brain (I am thinking brain damage resulting in deep personality changes and effects of alzheimer here), I do not see how one can be very hopeful about a personal afterlife which is, to be frank, all that counts for me. All I am hoping for at the moment is for a nice, comforting illusion at the end of my life, but you cannot even be sure of that (see: The percentage of so-called near-death experiences which is around 20%, may be higher for natural deaths).

So! Physical immortality is what to strive for and I think 99% of us here will agree.

But here is a thing: don`t forget in any and all of these threads, even if you are ardent atheists, that faith can provide a comforting buffer for people and that seeing a higher purpose in life has been proven to be psychologically stablilizing, therefore a good spirituality of any nature WILL prolong your life. For that reason, I never talk people out of their faith unless they use it to hurt me and/or others.

[Alex Libman]

Hmmm... Does daemon worship count?

[chrwe]

Hmmm... Does daemon worship count?

lol

Psychology insinuates that it probably will if it makes you feel happy and comfortable with your lot in life, does it ?

[chris w]

faith can provide a comforting buffer for people and that seeing a higher purpose in life has been proven to be psychologically stablilizing, therefore a good spirituality of any nature WILL prolong your life.

Then I guess I'm screwed

[Kolos]

I heard faith could be good for health, mostly because it lowers stress but it have to be a strong faith and one that don't make you hate yourself for every little thing. But I don't think you actually need religion for that, some philosophy, support group etc. might be just as good.

[firespin]

I heard faith could be good for health, mostly because it lowers stress but it have to be a strong faith and one that don't make you hate yourself for every little thing. But I don't think you actually need religion for that, some philosophy, support group etc. might be just as good.

You don't need it. Studies show having a pet have the same effect, since pet owners was found to live longer. So it is a case of finding how to limit stress to increase your lifespans

Edited by firespin, 01 May 2010 - 12:52 AM.

[e Volution]

I heard faith could be good for health, mostly because it lowers stress but it have to be a strong faith and one that don't make you hate yourself for every little thing. But I don't think you actually need religion for that, some philosophy, support group etc. might be just as good.

You don't need it. Studies show having a pet have the same effect, since pet owners was found to live longer. So it is a case of finding how to limit stress to increase your lifespans

Atheists and Animal Shelters should join forces "Forget religion, get the same health benefits and help out nature. Adopt a pet".

[chris w]

I heard faith could be good for health, mostly because it lowers stress but it have to be a strong faith and one that don't make you hate yourself for every little thing. But I don't think you actually need religion for that, some philosophy, support group etc. might be just as good.

You don't need it. Studies show having a pet have the same effect, since pet owners was found to live longer. So it is a case of finding how to limit stress to increase your lifespans

I only have fishes, I guess not much benefit there.

[Alex Libman]

Pets suck. The best way to lower stress is greenhouse gardening - and it will improve the quality of your nutritional intake too!

[chris w]

Pets suck. The best way to lower stress is greenhouse gardening - and it will improve the quality of your nutritional intake too!

Ok, I just read what you wrote there and the last lines about killing your pets ( that I had to read two times not really believing my all seeing eye ) made me wonder if you're just fooling around or is this all for real. "I call on all rational beings everywhere to abandon the mental illness known as "pet ownership" before it is too late! Please, for the love of life and all good things that are possible in it, please - kill every animal that you own! Now. Right now, before their wickedness causes you to lose your resolve. Then post pictures / video here to help encourage others."

If it's real then I cannot think of you as anyone else than a bearded, fat, dirty pedophile type spanking your dick in front of mondo movies with one hand and pizza in the other one, in a shirt stained with your own shit and saliva. Alex Libman of New Hampshire, who the fuck are you man ?

I understand that this post will be removed and it's fine, but still I had to say what I said

Edited by chris w, 01 May 2010 - 04:28 PM.

[Alex Libman]

Pets suck. The best way to lower stress is greenhouse gardening - and it will improve the quality of your nutritional intake too!

Ok, I just read what you wrote there and the last lines about killing your pets ( that I had to read two times not really believing my all seeing eye ) made me wonder if you're just fooling around or is this all for real. "I call on all rational beings everywhere to abandon the mental illness known as "pet ownership" before it is too late! Please, for the love of life and all good things that are possible in it, please - kill every animal that you own! Now. Right now, before their wickedness causes you to lose your resolve. Then post pictures / video here to help encourage others."

If it's real then I cannot think of you as anyone else than a bearded, fat, dirty pedophile type spanking your dick in front of mondo movies with one hand and pizza in the other one, in a shirt stained with your own shit and saliva. Alex Libman of New Hampshire, who the fuck are you man ?

I understand that this post will be removed and it's fine, but still I had to say what I said

(1) When putting double quotes around a quote that already has double quotes in it, you should edit it to change the internal quote characters to single quotes / apostrophes.

(2) Coincidentally, I just shaved my beard off a few days ago.

(3) ... hmmm ... nah ... that's pretty much it.

[Kolos]

Alex have some point here:

Hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of dollars a year are also lost from the human economy as a side-effect of the "animal rights" agenda: regulation and outright bans on medical experiments that could have raised your life expectancy to 200 years and beyond! Is it possible to grow rejection-proof replacement organs for a human being inside of a pig? Hell yes, but the "animal rights" Nazis won't hear of it! Can much be learned on how to save human lives by breeding millions of gorillas for head transplant experiments? There's only one way to find out, but all the red tape you have to go through to kill just one gorilla makes that completely impossible.

some people seem to value animal life more than human and I'm not sure what to think about this pet issue. I don't really understand why we want to interact with beings that are rather stupid compearing even with retarded humans and will never become equal to us in inteligence not to mention smarter. Perhaps it's similar like with decorative plants, we want them because they look cute and their cuteness somehow affects our social position or we can scare other people with them as is the case with some kinds of dogs, snakes, lizzards etc. Perhaps they are some kind of a substitute for children that never grow up or perhaps we like how some of them (mostly dogs) are devoted to us, almost slave-like. It's really quite interesting when you think about it because pig might be just as good as a pet like dog, but killing pigs is perfectly ok in our culture while dog-killer might be even arrested and it doesnt sound very logical if you ask me. I don't say we should kill all pets but it's not so obvious we should protect them either.

[chris w]

Alex have some point here:

Hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of dollars a year are also lost from the human economy as a side-effect of the "animal rights" agenda: regulation and outright bans on medical experiments that could have raised your life expectancy to 200 years and beyond! Is it possible to grow rejection-proof replacement organs for a human being inside of a pig? Hell yes, but the "animal rights" Nazis won't hear of it! Can much be learned on how to save human lives by breeding millions of gorillas for head transplant experiments? There's only one way to find out, but all the red tape you have to go through to kill just one gorilla makes that completely impossible.

some people seem to value animal life more than human and I'm not sure what to think about this pet issue. I don't really understand why we want to interact with beings that are rather stupid compearing even with retarded humans and will never become equal to us in inteligence not to mention smarter. Perhaps it's similar like with decorative plants, we want them because they look cute and their cuteness somehow affects our social position or we can scare other people with them as is the case with some kinds of dogs, snakes, lizzards etc. Perhaps they are some kind of a substitute for children that never grow up or perhaps we like how some of them (mostly dogs) are devoted to us, almost slave-like. It's really quite interesting when you think about it because pig might be just as good as a pet like dog, but killing pigs is perfectly ok in our culture while dog-killer might be even arrested and it doesnt sound very logical if you ask me. I don't say we should kill all pets but it's not so obvious we should protect them either.

I agree that it's hard to find a rationalistic reason for bonding with dogs or cats, who might be smart for an animal but nothing more, and not with for ex pigs that we find ok to eat, it truly is illogical. Perhaps many people ( or most ) find pleasure in being the master with a dependent, loving slave, that's true as well. And I realise that for today, if we are thinking about seriously advancing medicine, animal experiments are the only way to go ( Aubrey mentioned establishing a colony of apes to test anti aging therapies, as they age twice as fast as us ). And I'm not so sure about our ability to eliminate suffering among animals as well as humans, what David Pierce proposes ( what would be the effects ? how could this be done technically ? )

But the animal testing falls to me in the same category as undertakers, policemen, whores and methadone - they are what we need as a society, but only because this society lacks something, these are all parts or symptoms of the problem, not things to be cherished. The argument that animals don't contribute anything productive is right, but the same can be said about retards, yet no one who can be taken seriously will argue that we should eradicate them, because "they make us soft as a species", "slow economic growth" or something. This is some fucked up nazi/viking/spartan ethics that this guy Alex holds to in the posts that he linked to, almost like a psychopat trying to find philosophical justifications for his illness. This man would have trouble passing Turing Test, becasue it's hard to believe he is a real, living, breathing person when reading what he wrote there.

Edited by chris w, 01 May 2010 - 11:39 PM.

[firespin]

Are some of you guys mindless robots? It is not hard at all to understand human bonding friendship with animals. The situation is not unique to humans either as many mammals have also bonded with other species. There are document case of wolves (which is the ancestors of dogs) raising a feral child, gorillas raising a kitten or tending to a injured human child, polar bears playing with dogs, wild seals playing with human swimmers, etc.

1. One thing is empathy. Humans and animals that are mammals are different species but we can understand each other by body language and expression. Animals also can learn human language to a extent such as dogs and parrots.
2. Obviously pets fill a void for some people. For some people pets are friends while to others it is a child or guard
3. Pets are often more loyal than humans. You hear everyday of someone claiming to be betrayed by a friend, but you rarely hear someone cry that their dog betrayed them. Pets even risk their own lives for human. There are documented cases of dogs and parrots (yes parrots) attacking who ever is harming their owner.

Many people value the dog's friendship so we don't eat them, but many do not value a pig so there is usually no problem killing or eating them. The following is not the best of examples, but think of how pro-war people will not kill their best friend (usually) but eagerly agree to bomb another country which would kill thousands or millions.

If you guys can not figure out simple human emotions then you have no chance in convincing others about life extension. You pro-singularity people need to remember you are not a machine yet and still live in the world of everyday humans. (I'm for biological immortality, just not big on singularity)

You also have to remember that humans are simply lucky that we evolved opposable thumbs, because if we didn't and instead had paws or flippers, we would still be living in the woods just like any other animal regardless of our brains.

Animal are productive in their environment in which they evolved, so it is wrong to think that they do not contribute anything at all or they would be extinct by now. As for animal testing I have no problem with that since it is neccassery, but the laws exist now because of the improper procedures and unneccassery pain put on the animals in the past.

Edited by firespin, 02 May 2010 - 05:22 AM.

[Alex Libman]

Um, in case anyone missed it, that "Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw" thread was obvious satire.

[...] The argument that animals don't contribute anything productive is right, but the same can be said about retards, yet no one who can be taken seriously will argue that we should eradicate them, because "they make us soft as a species", "slow economic growth" or something.

I've addressed that on an "animal rights" thread here. It is necessary to distinguish which people have the present capacity to be "rational economic actors" (that is to be capable of taking responsibility for their actions, and thus have the Right to Liberty and Property), but empowering anyone to decide when someone stops being a potential "rational economic actor" (and thus loses one's Right to Life and Emancipation) is far too much unnecessary power, therefore any member of any species that fits this criteria should have the Right to Life and Emancipation from the point of physical autonomy (i.e. birth) to the point of indisputably irreversible death.

This is some fucked up nazi/viking/spartan ethics that this guy Alex holds to in the posts that he linked to, almost like a psychopat trying to find philosophical justifications for his illness.

Wow... In your understanding, were Nazi / Viking / Spartan ethics based on individual rights?

Are some of you guys mindless robots?

No, and not all robots are "mindless".

It is not hard at all to understand human bonding friendship with animals. [...]

Hey, I obviously am not trying to outlaw pet ownership here, just expressing my personal opinion about it. If more people spent more of their energy on human children (or at least food gardening) instead of pets, the world would be a much better place. IMHO.

[chris w]

Um, in case anyone missed it, that "Human Egoism - Pet Ownership is a Moral Flaw" thread was obvious satire.

To tell you the truth Alex, I find many of your views in some way satirical, so no, it wasn't that obvious to me since I did not come across the one line where you say that it is, sorry if you felt unjustly offended.

And by nazi / viking / spartan ethic I meant an ethic where your wellbeing is intrisincly tied to your contribution to what society sees as making it more powerful, something I'm very not much fan of, but libertarians seem to be, so the animal thread looked to me as a brutally logical, unempatetic extension of your stance. And yes, in a primitive form, among vikings and in Sparta ethics was based on individual rights, but of those deemed worthy of it in the first place, by judging the newborn baby and all along the way further as strong enough to contribute in the future ( in Sparta to the state, so I guess that's enough to make this example worthless to you )

Edited by chris w, 02 May 2010 - 12:52 PM.

[ken_akiba]

I think being immersed in what you enjoy is good for longlivety. BTW what was the word for this? (The state of being) Immersed in doing what you like? auto- somthing.... Help me out?

[advancedatheist]

Hmmm... Does daemon worship count?

lol

Psychology insinuates that it probably will if it makes you feel happy and comfortable with your lot in life, does it ?

People have a height bias when it comes to "powers." What if a "lower power" satisfies your spiritual needs?

[Kolos]

And I'm not so sure about our ability to eliminate suffering among animals as well as humans, what David Pierce proposes ( what would be the effects ? how could this be done technically ? )

Mind uploading + VR would be probably the easiest and arguably the best solution. Theoretically it should be even possible to "upgrade" their inteligence to the human level and beyond which I find strange but interesting possibility. We can imagine that many people after singularity (or even before) would like to share their eternal life with their favorite pets so at some point mind uploading and other methods would be used extensively on animals (mostly cats and dogs) and later we might came up with some complitely artificial equivalent, I have the feeling that some singularitarians like Kurzweil imagine "friendly AI" as some sort of very inteligent pet well I have my own opinion about it...

But the animal testing falls to me in the same category as undertakers, policemen, whores and methadone - they are what we need as a society, but only because this society lacks something, these are all parts or symptoms of the problem, not things to be cherished. The argument that animals don't contribute anything productive is right, but the same can be said about retards, yet no one who can be taken seriously will argue that we should eradicate them, because "they make us soft as a species", "slow economic growth" or something. This is some fucked up nazi/viking/spartan ethics that this guy Alex holds to in the posts that he linked to, almost like a psychopat trying to find philosophical justifications for his illness. This man would have trouble passing Turing Test, becasue it's hard to believe he is a real, living, breathing person when reading what he wrote there.

Animals, even pets like dogs or cats can be useful for protection or hunting rats etc. there are many practical uses for animals but I'm not sure how to fell about treating them like friends or even family members like many people do. Anyway for immortality ecology is a much bigger threat.

Many people value the dog's friendship so we don't eat them, but many do not value a pig so there is usually no problem killing or eating them.

On the other hand many people in asia value dogs for their delicious meat so it's largely a cultural thing.

The following is not the best of examples, but think of how pro-war people will not kill their best friend (usually) but eagerly agree to bomb another country which would kill thousands or millions.

If you guys can not figure out simple human emotions then you have no chance in convincing others about life extension. You pro-singularity people need to remember you are not a machine yet and still live in the world of everyday humans. (I'm for biological immortality, just not big on singularity)

So what you wrote about pro-war people is so obvious to you? I'm aware that humans do think this way but that doesn't mean I fully understand it, many things we do and think are quite weird when you analyze them. Anyway I don't think we really need to convince people that they want to live forever or at least longer, when we have technology they will make the choice and I would rather stop many stupid people from living forever.

You also have to remember that humans are simply lucky that we evolved opposable thumbs, because if we didn't and instead had paws or flippers, we would still be living in the woods just like any other animal regardless of our brains.

We wouldn't have such big brains without opposable thumbs so I guess we would be quite happy not thinking about the future and death...

[firespin]

The following is not the best of examples, but think of how pro-war people will not kill their best friend (usually) but eagerly agree to bomb another country which would kill thousands or millions.

If you guys can not figure out simple human emotions then you have no chance in convincing others about life extension. You pro-singularity people need to remember you are not a machine yet and still live in the world of everyday humans. (I'm for biological immortality, just not big on singularity)

So what you wrote about pro-war people is so obvious to you? I'm aware that humans do think this way but that doesn't mean I fully understand it, many things we do and think are quite weird when you analyze them. Anyway I don't think we really need to convince people that they want to live forever or at least longer, when we have technology they will make the choice and I would rather stop many stupid people from living forever.

Kolos to get to that level of technology we need A LOT of funding. Now to get funding we need to convince people. It is all connected. So we do need to convince people or at least enough that immortality is possible or it would take forever for humanity to gain immortality (no pun intended) As for stupid people, you have to remember as beneficial technology increase that will enlighten and make people smarter so there should be less stupidity.

You also have to remember that humans are simply lucky that we evolved opposable thumbs, because if we didn't and instead had paws or flippers, we would still be living in the woods just like any other animal regardless of our brains.

We wouldn't have such big brains without opposable thumbs so I guess we would be quite happy not thinking about the future and death...

No, the evolution of opposable thumbs is separate from the evolution of big brains. A animal can evolve either one without the other. Parrots brain-to body size ratio have big brains for birds, and at the very least have the mind of a 3 year old. This is why they can learn basic human language and basic math, it is very possible in theory that with natural selection (thousands or millions of years) or artificial selection one day there will be very smart parrots...but because of their evolution and no opposable thumbs they will be able to only talk and fly. So humans are very lucky as a species that we evolved both a big brain and opposable thumbs

Also I do think smarter animals do think about death at least once, as there are documentations such as elephants mourning when a pack member dies or is killed.

Edited by firespin, 02 May 2010 - 07:27 PM.

[Kolos]

Kolos to get to that level of technology we need A LOT of funding. Now to get funding we need to convince people. It is all connected. So we do need to convince people or at least enough that immortality is possible or it would take forever for humanity to gain immortality (no pun intended)

Most people don't want to die and perhaps even more hate the idea of getting old, weak and ugly the problem is it's not possible so it's hard to convince normal people that it's not s-f when for now it's possible only in s-f(and fantasy). Anyway I think immortality will come somehow naturally with progress in medicine, medical nanotechnology etc. people might don't even notice they are already almost immortal. Mind uploading on the other hand is more like a conscious decision to live forever or perhaps exist would be a better word but it should also come rather naturally with development of virtual reality related technologies.

As for stupid people, you have to remember as beneficial technology increase that will enlighten and make people smarter so there should be less stupidity.

I'm quite sceptical about it. You can think 10 times faster but that doesn't make this thoughts more inteligent, luckily most of this not-so-inteligent people would probably "melt" in some sort of virtual paradise but some people with weird and dangerous ideas might be around for a long time with more tools to realise their bizzare visions than they could ever dream of.

No, the evolution of opposable thumbs is separate from the evolution of big brains. A animal can evolve either one without the other. Parrots brain-to body size ratio have big brains for birds, and at the very least have the mind of a 3 year old. This is why they can learn basic human language and basic math, it is very possible in theory that with natural selection (thousands or millions of years) or artificial selection one day there will be very smart parrots...but because of their evolution and no opposable thumbs they will be able to only talk and fly. So humans are very lucky as a species that we evolved both a big brain and opposable thumbs

It's not so separate as it might seem. Without opposable thumbs we couldn't use tools as extensively and easily as we do so there would be no need for abstractive thinking and big brain. Of course it's not like thumbs are necessary it could be something else but we don't know any examples from the real world.For elephants trunk plays similar role while birds use their beak etc. but unlike humans their survival is not completely dependent from skills in using tools and thus inteligence. Elephants have their huge bodies with hard skin, birds can always fly away, even monkeys are relatively safe on their trees so they don't really need our level of intelligence to survive.

[chris w]

Most people don't want to die and perhaps even more hate the idea of getting old, weak and ugly the problem is it's not possible so it's hard to convince normal people that it's not s-f when for now it's possible only in s-f(and fantasy). Anyway I think immortality will come somehow naturally with progress in medicine, medical nanotechnology etc. people might don't even notice they are already almost immortal.

That's why I think the organ replacement thing in upcomming decades will be a sea change, silently pushing the idea of lets say perpetual soma ( as the word "immortal" for most non futurists is pretty much unthinkable right now ) inside people's heads . It seems that in plastic surgery the concept of genuine "renewal" ( as opposed to just faking it ) of certain parts of face or body is slowly beginning to catch up ( thank God for Hollywood ) and later with the maturation of organ printing and replacing technology, able to resemble the state of for ex your liver as it was in your 20s ( that is the final ideal here ), an annoying question will come to mind of all lay people - "Soo, doctor, in principle, can this be done with other parts of the body ?" And when they find out that the answer indeed is yes, what could stop the process then ? The brain is a tricky one, but appart from that I guess there is no hard wall that we could hit along the road, and at some point people will realise, "oh my gosh, honey, we are in fact ... immortal".

Edited by chris w, 02 May 2010 - 11:10 PM.

[Kolos]

Organ replacement might prelong life but at some point you need to replace almost everything which even with low prices would be quite inconvenient and even dangerous (like every operation) there are also other risks, we don't really know how complitelly new organs would cope with much older parts of the body. I would say it would be enough if we could raise the averege lifespan to the natural maximum which would be around 120-130 years, that would alow many imminst members to live to 2100 when even by more pessimistic predictions nanotechnology should be developed enough to help them.

[chris w]

Organ replacement might prelong life but at some point you need to replace almost everything which even with low prices would be quite inconvenient and even dangerous (like every operation) there are also other risks, we don't really know how complitelly new organs would cope with much older parts of the body. I would say it would be enough if we could raise the averege lifespan to the natural maximum which would be around 120-130 years, that would alow many imminst members to live to 2100 when even by more pessimistic predictions nanotechnology should be developed enough to help them.

Ok, I was a bit hasty with my last line, but still I think ( and hope ) that things will get rapid after the first implementations of organ replacement arrive, because then simple people should fully realise that biology is a malleable part of the material world ( a thing they still have a problem with, and keep thinking, even the post religion types, that the human body is something other than just plain atomic matter, like there was some metaphysical source of your life, and that it was in fact this source that goes dry throughout the years, like mana force or smth ). So I'm holding fingers crossed for the guys at Organovo and Wake Forest.

Edited by chris w, 02 May 2010 - 11:51 PM.

[Forever21]

Hey folks,

I`m personally an agnostic on the basis of the fact that man does not know everything about the universe and even the human brain and given the development of knowledge during the last 100 years, I don`t think man will anytime soon. But since no one has ever convincingly raised any evidence that there is an afterlife or that there is even a chance consciousness does not depend on a functioning brain (I am thinking brain damage resulting in deep personality changes and effects of alzheimer here), I do not see how one can be very hopeful about a personal afterlife which is, to be frank, all that counts for me. All I am hoping for at the moment is for a nice, comforting illusion at the end of my life, but you cannot even be sure of that (see: The percentage of so-called near-death experiences which is around 20%, may be higher for natural deaths).

So! Physical immortality is what to strive for and I think 99% of us here will agree.

But here is a thing: don`t forget in any and all of these threads, even if you are ardent atheists, that faith can provide a comforting buffer for people and that seeing a higher purpose in life has been proven to be psychologically stablilizing, therefore a good spirituality of any nature WILL prolong your life. For that reason, I never talk people out of their faith unless they use it to hurt me and/or others.

Indeed.

When I learned this, I kinna wish I'm not an Atheist. We need more non-theistic religion or spirituality.

For now, I'm learning Kabbalah.

[Connor MacLeod]

Hey, I obviously am not trying to outlaw pet ownership here, just expressing my personal opinion about it. If more people spent more of their energy on human children (or at least food gardening) instead of pets, the world would be a much better place. IMHO.

Have you seen the young couples sans children pushing their doggy strollers around town? It is quite strange.

[chrwe]

You can have a non-theistic spirituality. Assuming you, like me, do not think the "quantum consciousness" thing is very believable, you could be spiritual (like me) about:

1. As Sagan says in Contact: In this endless Universe, we have only found each other. Meaning for me that especially if there is no deity, we humans are called for to be everything we can for each other, to help each other along the way.

2. Nature is very beautiful, so is mathematics and physics. I find it quite easy to marvel at the beauty of life.

[chris w]

For now, I'm learning Kabbalah.

Hey, so now there are 2 things in common you have with Madonna - she has also been 21 since the 80s