The War on Death
- Thread starter LeeDa
- Start date
We die because our cells are programmed to die. Our bodies are also extremely fragile. Some scientists suspect that the Methuselah tree is one of the few life forms on earth that does not age. Perhaps we will be able to genetically engineer humans that don’t age in the near future. Click on the link below if you are interested in immortality.
http://www.imminst.org
http://www.imminst.org
Avatar said:
I disagree with most of what you wrote. Evolution can continue without death because life and death are just illusions. I don’t think there is any real difference between an inanimate object and a human being. Everything is programmed to do something. I believe that what we perceive as life is nothing more than chemical reactions. I don’t see any reason why we can’t create a life form that can live until the end of this universe. (I am assuming that there will be another big bang that starts another cycle of time)
Our society would have to make some drastic changes if we want to become immortal. There is a limited amount of space on this planet and we are living in an overpopulated world despite all of the deaths that occur everyday. Creating a life in the future would have to become a privilege rather than a right. Abortions would have to become culturally acceptable worldwide. Unwanted pregnancies would have to become a thing of the past. Some of these things can be accomplished by genetically engineering females that can only be impregnated when they want to be.
There are so many other changes that our societies would have to make. Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where people had the ability to transfer their memories to another body. Getting a new body could be no different than buying a new car. Some of these things may sound impossible to you, but I think it could be a reality in the near future. (100 – 200 years) Things like nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering could create a world that is very different than the world that we exist in today.
Depends at what scale you are looking at what we call human.
Evolution needs death for the species to change and adopt to new environments and environmental conditions.
And you are wrong, there is difference. The difference is in the complexity at the atomic level. Compare an ant and a crystal under a powerful microscope.
As is time.
Maybe we could, but there's no point in that.
Good, you become, I don't want to. It's just stopping the natural order of things and you become a cancer to your environment.
It's fine as it is, I like it. Of course technology will change, but it won't change such things as friendship, kinship, pride, sorrow, etc., so I don't see what's the big deal about immortality.
The only thing it would achieve is the prolongation of your ego system, which could easily backfire on the whole environment.
Avatar said:
Complexity at the atomic level or the molecular level. Atoms are atoms. It doesn’t matter if some carbon atoms are in a pencil or in a human. The chemical reactions within us is the thing that makes the difference.
I am interested in immortality because I am not happy with the current state of humanity. I have no way of knowing if things will be better in the future, but I believe that our technology could make the world a better place for me. I feel like a carbon based life form that is living in the wrong place at the wrong time. I want to live to see the things that could make me happy. (Virtual reality, memory transferals, genetically engineered bodies)
You can say that creating immortal human beings would mess up the natural order of things, but I disagree with your subjective opinion of what is and isn’t natural. Human beings have the potential to evolve into gods. Why should we continue to live like primitive apes? Why should we continue to live with the pain and misery that we experience when we age?
Sorry, English is not my native language, I ment a level on which multiple atoms can be observed in their position relative to others, so yes, that would probably be called molecular. And that complexity is there from the 1:1 to molecular.
Heh, there's an old saying, but it applies to this too: "There is no white magic or black magic, it depends on how you use it." Technology without application is nothing. If stupid persons will apply it, you'll get a pretty screwed up place.
And what is a god? It's fantasy. How can you evolve into fantasy?
Furthermore, evolution doesn't mean improvement to some standart, it just means a better adoptation to the environment.
If you lead a primitive life, then it's your problem.You don't have to, it's just a matter of perspective on things - life, the universe and everything.
It's a purely psychological problem and the solutions have been around for thousands of years.
I suggest you read, for example, the Upanishads.
Avatar said:
I’m not talking about the god or gods that are in religious books. I am talking about evolving into a life form has more control of the space in which it exist. (The atoms and molecules that around us and within us) I don’t think this definition of god is a fantasy. It doesn’t exist at the moment, but it is a plausible prediction of the future.
I think all humans are primitive because we are slaves to our emotions. Human beings are illogical self-destructive creatures, but we have the potential to evolve into better humans.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-06-brain-study_x.htm
Having a positive attitude can reduce the pain and misery in a person's life, but psychology can’t cure age related illnesses.
Last edited:
Almost everything is plausible in an eternal universe.
Again - a psychological problem. Technology won't cure that.
By the way, imo, it's nicer to have emotions than not. If everyone acted only rationally, this would be a boring place to be.
It's nice and enjoyable to be happy and buy a bunch of flowers to give them away to people even if you think it's not rational.
No, but it can change how you view those illnesses. There are plenty of happy old people.
Anyway, to finish this discussion on my part:
1. I see no problem in mortality. I support it.
2. I see no problems with this universe and the natural order. It's more rational to strive for harmony with nature than try to overrule nature.
3. Human psychology has place for improvement, but it's mainly a social problem, because many individuals have become improved. Religious folk call them enlightened.
Last edited:
Last edited: