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

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

While waiting for a way to immortality, should we live in a bunker?

risk fear expected value

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#61 cats_lover

  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 10 October 2014 - 11:16 PM

Even stars like our sun die.  Does the second law of thermodynamics ultimately kill.  There is a time we didn't live will there also be a time we don't live in the future.  We already have not lived indefinitely. 

 

Well, thats true.

 

Anyway, like a star, a rock or the mouse of your computer; the biological structures are formed by matter. All structures formed of matter suffering some kind of wear. The difference is that the biological structures have the ability to regenerate that wear. Like the skin of a snake, the matter of which we are made is constantly changing.

We do not know why aging exists (life probably would not be possible if species not die after some years of life), but from biological point of view, live without agein is posible, so unlike a star, we can regenerate our wear forever (in theory).

 



#62 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 October 2014 - 11:38 PM

We do regenerate, all living things do.  However, it is never enough and entropy soon takes over and we run out of gas so to speak.  Everything is running out.  We may extend our lives if we provide good care but there is no reason to believe death will not be a part of the cycle of life.  Real life is perhaps a cycle.  Being old is just a part of it like being young.  No part of the cycle has all the benefits pf life.  If one defines disease as aging then aging and disease are the same thing.  So ebola is aging.  How about war or an earthquake kill anyone?  Does man kill?  All human societies have also died.



#63 cats_lover

  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 11 October 2014 - 12:03 AM

We do regenerate, all living things do.  However, it is never enough and entropy soon takes over and we run out of gas so to speak.  Everything is running out.  We may extend our lives if we provide good care but there is no reason to believe death will not be a part of the cycle of life.  Real life is perhaps a cycle.  Being old is just a part of it like being young.  No part of the cycle has all the benefits pf life.  If one defines disease as aging then aging and disease are the same thing.  So ebola is aging.  How about war or an earthquake kill anyone?  Does man kill?  All human societies have also died.

 

I dont know if is correct to define disease as aging, but aging dramatically increases the likelihood of certain diseases, and aging causes a malfunction (or imperfect functioning) of certain organs (which can be considered a disease).
 

Ebola is an specific virus, so it is not correct to associate it with ageing process (i guess).



sponsored ad

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

#64 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 11 October 2014 - 12:18 AM

I don't think it is correct to define disease as aging.  So, as I said, what is aging?  What is the connection of aging with death?



#65 cats_lover

  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 11 October 2014 - 12:37 AM

I don't think it is correct to define disease as aging.  So, as I said, what is aging?  What is the connection of aging with death?

 

I really have no formally and accurate definition for "aging", maybe someone involved in biology could help us with this ;)
 



#66 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 11 October 2014 - 09:25 AM

 

I don't think it is correct to define disease as aging.  So, as I said, what is aging?  What is the connection of aging with death?

 

I really have no formally and accurate definition for "aging", maybe someone involved in biology could help us with this ;)
 

 

 

At this moment there is no universal definition for the aging, that all the scientisis to agree. In my view old is someone, who has developed the aging chnges.
 


  • Agree x 1

#67 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 October 2014 - 08:46 PM

I think most of the answers in this thread miss the point.

 

Would you leave the bunker once you had a chance of living forever?

 

If you are not living your life to the fullest then what is the point of "just living" forever?

 

Live now and forever.

 

Or as I like to say:

 

Live to learn, learn to love, and love to live


Edited by Lazarus Long, 11 October 2014 - 08:46 PM.


#68 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 12 October 2014 - 09:44 AM

I think most of the answers in this thread miss the point.

 

Would you leave the bunker once you had a chance of living forever?

......

 

 

Well, the topic is named "While waiting for a way to immortality, should we live in a bunker?"

 

WHILE waiting for immortality is different than "once you have a chance of living forever".



#69 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 October 2014 - 10:51 AM

If you don't embrace life before becoming immortal do you think you will be more likely to take chances with it after achieving it?

 

Part of embracing life is embracing worthwhile risk.  Just like overcoming failure is a part of the path to success, love is a risk, exploration is a risk, innovation is a risk and those that do not learn to embrace a measure of risk are not likely to survive the bunker.  A life worth living should be the goal regardless of how long it is lived.



#70 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 October 2014 - 12:06 PM

I should add that counter intuitive to what many might believe; I consider the "bunker mentality" to be among the great obstacles, which need to be overcome in order to achieve our goal.



#71 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:48 AM

Yup, if in a bunker, we can not develope. If we can not develope, we will die from aging.



#72 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 October 2014 - 10:47 PM

What ever aging is.  It does not matter what you die from if you are dead.  Living safely is an issue and each of us decides what that is.



#73 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 October 2014 - 09:42 PM

Shadowhawk "living safely" is neither the same as "living in a bunker, nor necessarily "living well". Some risks aren't just important, they are necessary.  Consider for example the "hygiene hypothesis" and what is suggests about our immune systems.

 

There is the importance of confronting authoritarianism, especially when manifested as despotic tyranny.  Sometimes a life worth living is just not safe.  

 

Talent aside; a commitment to the arts will rarely return a real financial reward but it may make you truly happy if it is true to your self as a path of choice and often the same can be said for those in science that buck the establishment and risk gain and reputation to pursue innovation and discovery.  "Safety" can be a subjective state when to be safe we avoid the "path not chosen" and that can lead to parochialism and opposition to change even in the face of fact.

 

For example climate denialists are often taking the "safe"position because it defends a status quo of vested interest even if to many it seems radical due to its "political incorrectness".

 

Living well does not mean taking unnecessary risks. However, when it becomes obvious that a goal is of value and worth the associated risk (classic cost benefit analysis) don't just accept the risk, embrace it and ride the whirlwind or surf life's wave. Sometimes fighting against overwhelming force  to do what you think is "safe" is more dangerous than riding the storm out.



#74 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 October 2014 - 09:57 PM

Shadowhawk "living safely" is neither the same as "living in a bunker, nor necessarily "living well". Some risks aren't just important, they are necessary.  Consider for example the "hygiene hypothesis" and what is suggests about our immune systems.

 

There is the importance of confronting authoritarianism, especially when manifested as despotic tyranny.  Sometimes a life worth living is just not safe.  

 

Talent aside; a commitment to the arts will rarely return a real financial reward but it may make you truly happy if it is true to your self as a path of choice and often the same can be said for those in science that buck the establishment and risk gain and reputation to pursue innovation and discovery.  "Safety" can be a subjective state when to be safe we avoid the "path not chosen" and that can lead to parochialism and opposition to change even in the face of fact.

 

For example climate denialists are often taking the "safe"position because it defends a status quo of vested interest even if to many it seems radical due to its "political incorrectness".

 

Living well does not mean taking unnecessary risks. However, when it becomes obvious that a goal is of value and worth the associated risk (classic cost benefit analysis) don't just accept the risk, embrace it and ride the whirlwind or surf life's wave. Sometimes fighting against overwhelming force  to do what you think is "safe" is more dangerous than riding the storm out.

 

I agree with you,  :)  I did not start this thread.  My point is there are a lot of things that will kill you beside old age and indeed life is a risk.  I take risks all the time but I fully expect to die from something soon given the broad picture of things.  What is soon?  Two lifetimes would be grand but what are the real chances?
 



#75 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 October 2014 - 05:46 AM

If you live cautiously, you will die from aging, even if you live outside of the bunker. The big issue is  how not to die from aging, e.g. how not to die from the age - related diseases. So get out of there.



#76 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 15 October 2014 - 06:14 PM

So age now causes disease?  Solve age and no disease.  Get out of THERE.  Where is there?  Be happy. :)



#77 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 16 October 2014 - 07:36 AM

Aging causes diseases. Not all of thediseases, but it causes some of them. They are named as "age related diseases". In brief each prgan of the human body has its age related diseases. The most important, and the most known are the age related diseases of the internal organs - the heart, the lungs, the kidneys, etc.

 

Solve age and no diseases to die from - the other deadly diseases can be prevented.

 

By there I ment the bunker.

 

Who told you, that I am sad :) :) :) :) ...


  • Good Point x 1

#78 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 October 2014 - 07:36 PM

Everything runs down, including us from one organized state to another less organized,  As we go through these states we are less capable of doing things like healing or repairing ourselves.  Our defenses against disease fall apart and someday something kills us.  So is it age or the disease that kills us?

 

We turn to faith when we don't have the evidence.  So your faith in indefinite life is the hope to turn back the second law of thermodynamics and never run down.  How is it going?  Everybody I see is getting old.  There are childhood diseases which kill.  Are they from old age?



#79 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 October 2014 - 10:26 PM

Top 10 things that kill most of us.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/index.htm

 

 

 

 


  • Informative x 1

#80 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 17 October 2014 - 06:09 AM

Everything runs down, including us from one organized state to another less organized,  As we go through these states we are less capable of doing things like healing or repairing ourselves.

 

You can be immortal, without violating the laws of the thermodynamics. Look at the human body as a car. The thermodynamics says, that the car has to go from one organized state to another less organized state and inevitabely has to brake down beyond reparement some day. This is true. However, if you always have the spare parts needed for repairing it, the car will always be repared, and it will run forever. This also is true.
 

Our defenses against disease fall apart and someday something kills us.  So is it age or the disease that kills us?

 

The both are correct. The aging and the diseases are connected and are actually one thing (entirely my theory). I may talk more about that, but I am not sure if you will understand it. In brief, this is very close to the wear and tear theory of aging. Look at the diseases as something, that wears out certain parts of your body. In your example - the immune system.

 

We turn to faith when we don't have the evidence. 

 

This is a mistake. Turning to faith will make you staep in one and the same place, without going forward. Turn to the science.
 



#81 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2014 - 08:05 PM

The car illustration: Forever is past, present and future.  The car has not even ran in the past.  It runs in the present but entropy is always at work on it.  Yes an outside intelligence may keep it running as long as interested.  Since this has never happened and other things can and will destroy the car, only a blind faith can say forever.  And then you appeal to science as if it has the answers.  It can not tell you who and who doesn’t end up in the scrap yard.  It so far has made gas chambers along with ways to turn off the power..  Extend life, yes there is evidence for that.  Forever???  We need more than what we have got at a fundamental level..  So far, everyone has died.



#82 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 17 October 2014 - 08:57 PM

This is demagogy. Alright. Except "forever" in the car example, use "from the present to the endless future". Good?

 

"Yes an outside intelligence may keep it running as long as interested.  Since this has never happened and other things can and will destroy the car, only a blind faith can say forever."

Oh, it has happened. There are many old cars, which has been restored to working condition. And they now keep running as long as intended.

 

I appeal to the science, because it has proven to provide solutions, that work.

 

Yes, so far everyone has died, but so far we didn't have a way to provide spare parts, needed for the human to live "from the present to the endless future" :)



#83 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2014 - 10:48 PM

There is no such thing as an "endless future."  Science does not say that.

The automobile is only about 125 years old, nothing is the scheme of things and most of them are gone to the junk pile.  I hope this is not what you mean by, “forever.”  The future for existence for another 125 years is far from certain.  Old cars value is more because of their extreme rarity and hence they are a curiosity.  Do you think millions of frozen humans will be a curiosity?  Will someone unfreeze you because you are rare?  Will science do it?

You use the wrong tense “didn’t” when referring to the fact we “don’t,” have spare parts.  So far these spare parts have not extended life much.  Certainly this is faith if you think this will provide an endless future.



#84 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 18 October 2014 - 06:34 AM

Alright... some demagogy again :) :) How will you name something, that exists now and has the intention never to stop existing from now on?

 

In the old automobile restoration example the key thing is, that it was proven, that a wrack can be restored to perfect condition with spare parts. That's all that was proven. The conclusion is, that as long as you have spare parts, the car will be able to be in a working condition.

 

Here really comes the question for how long you will be able to prvide the spare parts? And the answer is, that it depends entirely from you and the society, e.g. it depends entirely from us. If you start manufactoring the spare parts again, and if you never stop providing spare parts, then the car will never go for the scrap again.

 

Well, I actually said: "Yes, so far everyone has died, but so far we didn't have a way to provide spare parts". Having a WAY to provide spare parts is different than having them right now. And a ways for having spare parts now exist. These are the stem cells derived tissues, the organs, produced from stem cells, groeth of homunculuses for spare parts, artifitial implants, such as the tooth implants, the prostheses, there appeared even technologies as a bionic eye:

 

 

e.g. now the human race has the way to produce spare parts....



#85 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 October 2014 - 01:08 AM

So you live bu faith.  Super Centarians live between 110-120 years old and there are about 65 of them in the entire world.  We need lots of spare parts.



#86 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 19 October 2014 - 07:04 AM

Well, true. Many spare parts will be needed.....



#87 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:07 PM

Not only that but they are so old most of then are bedridden.  You look at them as curiosities.



#88 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:13 PM

Hm... I didn't understand the last one. 



#89 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:22 PM

We put old cars in museums and old people in homes.  They become curiosities.  How interesting, but few are out on the street



sponsored ad

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

#90 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 21 October 2014 - 08:26 AM

Lol man :) I don't know what philosophy you share, but it will lead you to certain death from aging.

 

You are wasting yourself in demagogy without capturing the real meaning.

 

The real meaning is, that if some day WE decide to make SPARE PARTS for OURSELVES, we can do it. And whan we do that, we will be immortal by periodically replacing our cells, tissues and organs. We will not be old people in homes. We will be cappable of work and development young people.

 

OK?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: risk, fear, expected value

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users