At some point one could become the other. If technology eventually goes from just extending life to sustaining life indefinitely, isn't that immortality?
2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
At some point one could become the other. If technology eventually goes from just extending life to sustaining life indefinitely, isn't that immortality?
Maybe.
So now you worship man and machines and place your hope in that?.
It could be less worship and more of a prediction. I'm sure immortality will come with it's own set of problems, as would sentient machines of limited life span.
I think that would vary from person to person. Some Worship Science and see it as their protector/Saviour/Hope.
I don't worship anything. But yes, I place my hope in future science, because it's done pretty good so far.
And yes, Spidergoat, longer life will bring a lot of new issues to deal with. The nice thing about man made immortality is that we can reserve the choice of having it or not, hopefully. Imagine a forced immortality where you eventually decide you don't want any more of it, but can't get out. That would be a hell.
You place your hope in Science, is this a lasting hope or a fleeting one?, do you hope science will make you immortal in this life time or do you just hope other people become immortal at some point, does it make a difference if your one of the ones who gets to become immortal or not.
Pretty good at what? 120 years is the "Current" limit for a human life span insha'allah. What hope have you and Faith in science for longer on this earth than 120.
And you wont be around in 120 years to argue this point.
David Worth
Registered Member
How convenient for you. Every entity has the freedom to live as long as it wants, and the freedom to live where it wants, as long as it does not interfere with the same type of freedom interest of other entities. I will certainly will not let myself be bound by your primitive system.
David Worth
Registered Member
Evidence, well .. you die because a mechanism was / is blindelesly programmed to create evolution through death, I think that's evidence.
There's no need to restrict one's existence to a place he does not want to be, you have no right over him. He needs to be free in that regard. Not sure if this counts as evidence.
There's no need to restrict one's existence to a place he does not want to be, you have no right over him. He needs to be free in that regard. Not sure if this counts as evidence.
How is that evidence that an "entity has the freedom to live as long as it wants"?
It doesn't follow from an organism being effectively pre-programmed to die that it will live as long as it desires. Rather the converse, wouldn't you say?
It's not even an argument.
You claimed "entity", rather than "person", but let's stick with person.
To live wherever one desires requires money (none if you're poor - no freedom), permission (in/ from some countries - no freedom there either)...
The fact is that some people are restricted (others have "rights" over them). What someone "needs" or desires can be, tends to be, largely irrelevant due to circumstances.
David Worth
Registered Member
Not for an entity that gets trapped in an organism he did not choose, nor asked for it.
You're talking about lack of freedom here.
Pardon?
What do you mean "trapped in an organism he did not choose"?
Er yes. Which would imply that such individuals do not have "freedom to live where it wants".
QED. It's quite simple really.
David Worth
Registered Member
Pardon?
What do you mean "trapped in an organism he did not choose"?
I mean on the moment of birth, one entity gets forced to follow a predetermined condition. It might be an effective death programming for you, but that does not mean it has to be effective for others as well. Are you scared of alternatives that much ?
Such individuals ? It's the system that you defend which creates those individuals, now all the sudden it decides it does not need them ? Those individuals did not decide on their own to come into this world, they were brought without their knowledge.
How does that explain what you meant by an "entity" being "trapped in an organism"?
Why do you think that, since all organism appear to be "pre-programmed" to die that it's not "effective for others"?
What do you mean by "alternatives"?
Please explain your statements.
So what?
The FACT that they are without freedom means exactly that they are not free. Even (in some cases) to the extent that they do NOT have ""freedom to live where they want".
And what system do you think I'm defending?
David Worth
Registered Member
An entity created in a organism programmed to follow an ancient evolutionary mechanism.
I mean no one has the right to decide what's best for others.
Genetic engineering might be an alternative, getting another body / platform.
So you think it's okay for someone to opress others because they wish something else ?
"So what ?" does not argue at all the problem I stated.
A system that denies personal freedom, like the one programmed to kill "effectively" others that are different. capitalism follows this path in some ways.
Last edited:
You appear to be using "entity" and "organism" in a manner unfamiliar to me.
How does an "entity" become "trapped in an organism"? And how does it choose to do so?
That's one opinion.
Did I say that? Did I imply that? No, to both. On the contrary: "so what?" points out that the fact remains, indisputably, that not everyone is free. Which invalidates your original claim.
And now you're making assumptions.
- Status