Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Wheeler on April 30, 2012 at 11:33am

Certainly not totally hindered or there would not be any advances that there are now but religion has absolutely retarded the progress exponentially. Just think if everyone on the planet knew there was no chance whatsoever that they would continue a conscious existence after the cessation of their physical body's life function? Do you not think that a gigantic amount of resources would be demanded to be allocated and utilized to continue individual existence? This would also include ways to preserve and  non destructive expansion of usable human habitation, conservation of the ecological health of the planet and colonization of other planets, moons, etc on top of that? Religion has lulled the majority of the populace into a false sense of security that is certain to destroy them.

Permalink Reply by Adriana on April 30, 2012 at 11:48am

Though I agree with you that religion is a hindrance to science, I think that people are already pretty scared of dying and have always been. But our species is not that great at pulling ourselves together for very long term goals. For most of our existence, it was hard enough just to stay alive and raise kids. For many people in the world, that is still the case. 

On another, more philosophical level, I find immortality even more scary than non-existence. Before I was born I was non-existent, and that was not scary. Immortality is a big unknown. We have no idea what increasing our lifespan by a lot would do to our minds and to our psychological well being. Plus resources are always finite and if we all lived forever, that probably would mean no more children. I'm personally happier dying, knowing that my kids and their kids, and their kids's kids, will have a chance at enjoying life as I did. I think as a species we first have an obligation to make life on Earth much, much better for all humans, that is my moral obligation, as I personally view it. This is where I think resources should go, and not towards making people immortal, that from a scientific point of view is still a gigantic pie in the sky.

Permalink Reply by Ken Wheeler on April 30, 2012 at 5:37pm

The case of non existence before one was born is a simple fact that the chemical and biological processes that were necessary to make you a living and conscious entity had not taken place yet. So of coarse no one can remember anything before they were born. They didn't exist at that point. But now that we do, I am absolutely determined to keep it that way. This is all that I know and, more than likely, all there is so it's absolutely ludicrous and suicidal to cast it aside. Besides there being plenty of room on this planet left both on land and underneath and also the same with the parts covered with water. Way before all of that runs out we will be able to start colonizing nearby planets.

Being alive is an astronomically lucky event. The odds for any one particular being being here makes any power ball lottery look like a flip of a coin in comparison.

Nanotechnology is progressing nicely and will eventually make repairing damage on a cellular level to any degree an every day occurrence. Again, we'd already be there if all of the resources that have been wasted on in pointless wars, religious nonsense and corporate and political greed had been devoted to medical, environmental sciences along with the fields of astrophysics and robotics.

Permalink Reply by Adriana on April 30, 2012 at 5:47pm

We'll have to agree to disagree, Ken. I'm not suicidal at all, I love life. And I'm not casting my life aside, I'm making the most of it. My priorities are simply different than yours. And seeing science from the inside, I see how far we are from anything even remotely looking like the promise of immortality. So I'm simply not worried about it, there is nothing I can do about it, except what I'm already doing. 

It's hard to tell if we had dedicated all our resources to science, where we would be. It sure would be nice if we dedicated more resources to science and less to wars! On that we totally agree. 

Permalink Reply by Ken Wheeler on April 30, 2012 at 6:14pm

I didn't intend to be accusatory. I was trying to speak in a general sense. It all boils down to this is all we have and once it's gone that's it.

I would be great to be able to witness humanity and technology advance as well as being part of it all.

Permalink Reply by Adriana on April 30, 2012 at 7:10pm

No offense taken! :-)

Permalink Reply by Michel on April 30, 2012 at 5:50pm

I trust that all this will happen, but not in my lifetime, unfortunately.

Permalink Reply by Ken Wheeler on April 30, 2012 at 6:05pm

That's the entire purpose of cryopreservation. It's not an absolute guarantee but at least it's a chance. Far better than the alternative.

Permalink Reply by Michel on April 30, 2012 at 6:17pm

I don't have a huge problem with the terminality of personal existence. I sure won't like it if I see it coming but I'm almost certain that after a second lifetime I'd be very tired of myself.

Permalink Reply by Chris on May 1, 2012 at 1:12am

Waking up after being in a cryonic state when a brain transplant is viable would be as bad as it was for aboriginals who were taken to Europe for entertainment and wonderment. You would end up being a circus freak show rather than living in a utopia like fantasy sci-fi shows like Star Trek depict.

Permalink Reply by Ken Wheeler on May 1, 2012 at 10:42am

It's not a brain transplant. Repair of cellular damage is what will be needed for the procedure to be successful.

I'm certain the "out of time" adjustment would be a bit difficult but well worth the effort, again, compared to the alternative.

Permalink Reply by Michel on May 1, 2012 at 11:01am

People are dying right now and our population is still exploding. Plus there is the issue of the boredom that will eventually set in.

This will only happen to people like you and me when we have discovered free energy and the costs of such a procedure will not be be an issue anymore. Until then only the Romneys of the world will be able to afford it.

And I vote against that.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page