Immortality
iNsO...@webtv.net
immortality. Immortality, if it is to be taken literally, means "no
death" which means nothing could kill you. We think of it as glamorous,
the idea of being forever young. But, eternal youth and immortality are
not necessarily the same. The way I see it, as an immortal, our bodies
would age to the point closest to death, and would be suspended right
there forever. So imagine if you will, an immortal invalid. He feels
constantly on the brink of death, but can never reach it. He lives for
thousands of years. He watches the world change, until one day, the sun
goes supernova. He is able to grab a pressurized spacesuit before the
earth is vaporized, and is left to float around endlessly in space. His
body constantly crying out for air that the suit had run out of ages
ago. Glamorous. The idea that i'm trying to point out is that
immortality is not as desirable as pop culture wants us to perceive. If
you believe in heaven, then what would be the purpose of living forever
on earth? I am reminded of something "...Who could fardels bear/ To
grunt and sweat under a weary life/ but that dread of something after
death,/ the undiscovered country from whose bourn/ no traveler returns,
puzzles the will/ and makes us rather those ills we have/ than fly to
others we know not of?" (Hamlet 3.1.77-83)
J. Robert Wilson
P.S. Weasel, a quick dirty joke, a white horse fell in mud. (What can I
say, its the best I could do, I AM 15, you know!)
Ape
<iNsO...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14746-39...@storefull-624.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Braden
fiction. To me thats just a wanker. I mean its like me complaining about how
James Bond seems to get younger.
Braden
have perfectly healthy bodies.
Ape
Ape
"jan sand" <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39569d4d...@news.mindspring.com...
> Don't knock it until you've tried it.
>
> Jan Sand
jan sand
Seraph-sama
>P.S. Weasel, a quick dirty joke, a white horse fell in mud. (What can I
>say, its the best I could do, I AM 15, you know!)
I think 15-year-olds are good at making jokes. BTW if you are only 15, I'm
impressed with your insight :-) Most people overlook that aspect of
immortality.
Seraph-sama
17/m, so don't call me "sera" or nothin'
http://members.tripod.com/~SeraphSama
jan sand
sure it will be very popular.
Jan Sand
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:16:12 -0700, "Ape" <Naked...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>And just how does one go about trying on immortality to see how it fits?
>Ape
>
>"jan sand" <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:39569d4d...@news.mindspring.com...
lem...@my-deja.com
No, immortality means the body's tissues have an unending ability to
regenerate themselves. You simply grow to maturity, say 18-20, then
you just maintain from then on. The only thing that could kill you
would be massive trauma - severed head, evisceration, radical
mutilation. Why would an immortal's body fail to the point of near
death, then linger in that state? That doesn't make any sense.
In my opinion, there are two basic problems with immortality. First is
the idea that an immortal would outlive everyone else and therefore
have to be constantly subjected to the pain of seeing friends and loved
ones die. The second, in the event that everyone became immortal, is
the problem with overpopulation. That could become rather unpleasant
if we all couldn't get off this planet.
Thinking about immortality and its ramifications is not purely idle
contemplation. In the near future, as medical science continues to
extend the average life expectancy, these issues may become
significant. Of course, if we'll probably run out of fossil fuels
before any of that happens, which will render the whole thing moot.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jan sand
extension. A recent report indicated that a chemical which broke the
bonds of sugar in the system of old animals has rejuvenated tissues to
the flexibility of a much younger age. We are on the edge of
discovering some revolutionary processes to prevent, or at least stall
some of the aging processes. In a world already overpopulated, this
could cause some very bad problems. But the biological sciences are
just beginning to be able to make major revisions in human physiology
and the results could be quite surprising.
Jan Sand
Weasel
That's funny. I have one for you: A 6 foot tall screwdriver walks
into a bar. The bartender looks over at him and says "Hey, isn't that
funny -- we have a drink named after you." The screwdriver replies,
incredulously, "You have a drink named Bob?" Har har har.
Okay, on to more important matters. Your post reminds me of the story
of the Sybill at Cumae, old Greek chick who (for some reason or other
which I can't remember) was granted a wish by the gods and chose
immortality, but sadly forgot to ask for eternal youth at the same
time. Those naughty gods! They gave her immortality alright, but she
slowly turned into a hideous old scrag, begging to die so that she
could be released from her pain. What can we learn from this? That if
you are ever granted a wish, make sure you consult a good lawyer who
specializes in contract-law before you open your damn fool mouth and
get what you asked for.
Actually, what I was getting at in my immortality suggestion was
something a little more metaphysical. The fact that we die is, I
submit, part (and a big part) of what it means to *be* a human being.
It is an expression of our finitude, and to be a finite creature,
limited in knowledge, in space, in time, in capacity, in
understanding, in so many many ways, is an essential part of our
nature. Change that, and you change what we are. That, for me, is
what death represents, philosophically speaking. Death is a necessary
limitation which conditions human existence. Of course, other
creatures die too, but we are in the arguably unique situation of
understanding ourselves metaphysically, i.e. knowing ourselves *as*
finite beings. And this too plays a role in making us what we are, I
think.
weasel
iNsO...@webtv.net
lem...@my-deja.com
> something a little more metaphysical. The fact that we die is, I
> submit, part (and a big part) of what it means to *be* a human being.
> It is an expression of our finitude, and to be a finite creature,
> limited in knowledge, in space, in time, in capacity, in
> understanding, in so many many ways, is an essential part of our
> nature. Change that, and you change what we are. That, for me, is
> what death represents, philosophically speaking. Death is a necessary
> limitation which conditions human existence. Of course, other
> creatures die too, but we are in the arguably unique situation of
> understanding ourselves metaphysically, i.e. knowing ourselves *as*
> finite beings. And this too plays a role in making us what we are, I
> think.
>
> weasel
>
You thought on this subject are eloquent. But, I don't think we
necessarily have to reconcile ourselves to our mortality being a
natural state of affairs. I, for one, would prefer to have an
unlimited lifespan. I don't think I would feel less human as a
result. Rather than defining who I am, I feel that my mortality
somehow robs me of who I might become, given more time.
Weasel
>But, I don't think we
>necessarily have to reconcile ourselves to our mortality being a
>natural state of affairs. I, for one, would prefer to have an
>unlimited lifespan. I don't think I would feel less human as a
>result. Rather than defining who I am, I feel that my mortality
>somehow robs me of who I might become, given more time.
If they were handing out immortality, I can assure you I'd be camped
out on the lawn for a week before the gates opened to make sure I get
myself a double helping.
Your way of looking at the issue is interesting. But I don't think
that robbing you of who you might become is incompatible with
claiming that your mortality defines who you are. I don't think it
defines who you are specifically -- i.e. your death does not say to
you "You must be a shoemaker", or "Go to university", or "Get a job",
nor does it make you do any of those things, and those things clearly
do play a large part in defining who you are. Instead, I think your
mortality defines who you are on a large scale: it cicumscribes a
large set of possibilities for you. You can choose various paths
within this set, you can be a doctor, a lawyer, and indian chief,
tinker, tailor, soldier, spy..., but the set of possibilities open to
you is finite. Perhaps this means that you can't do all of them.
Perhaps it means that there are some possibilities that just aren't
there for you to choose. Probably both, in my opinion. But that's how
it defines your being -- by setting out the horizon against which all
your choices are made.
I can't speak for you, but if I didn't have that ultimate limitation,
I don't think I would feel human at all. And I shouldn't focus on
death to the exclusion of birth. Humans are creatures with a
beginning, middle and end. Part of the human weirdness is that we do
not choose to be born, nor to die. Our being born under certain
circumstances will place definite limitations on our possibilities of
becoming things in the world -- I'm descended from Irish whities, and
as a result, I doubt I *will ever* become an indian chief. At the
same time, being born in certain circumstances will open up other
possibilities for my life. I could have decided and worked hard to
ensure that I could go strolling through space on a shuttle mission;
my great-grandfather couldn't.
That's life for you -- they get you coming and going. ;)
weasel
De Vlerk/Via Ritmo
the nova doesn't get you nor does lack of oxygene(sp?): nothing can end
your life, the invalid didn't even need that space suit.
(btw i don't see the point of the guy being an invalid - i you ask invalids
they seldom tell you they feel their life is not worth living. take S.
Hawking as an example)
2. another one is jan sand's infinite regeneration of the body: no natural
cause of death but you'd still need food, air etc.
3. still another one would be to have the mind detatched from the body:
download the contents of the brain (the 'data' or 'software') into a
computer. the computer could be part of a mobile machine, the ultimate
cyborg. you could still die if the computer gets damaged or runs out of
power.
nr 1. seems practically impossible to me.
2. may be possible (lets study that gene map we just came up with)
3. is almost certainly possible, it's just a long way off still.
i for one would not mind to "see it all". if i die when the sun goes nova
or when we get hit by a large meteorite (and we haven't figured out a way
to get out if here) then so be it. it'll be the last thing i get to see,
but it's a big one.
i expect i'd feel sad about it all ending but i'd know i have seen -a lot-
in my lifetime.
Of course things might still end in a less sensational manner (forgot to
put in new batteries - doh). but still, to have seen "a lot" would make it
worth wile.
boredom?
when is long to long? 40 years? (the avg not so long ago). 80 years? (about
the avg now). 100 or 120 years (about the max now)? We don't complain about
it lasting to long, don't usualy complain about being bored. And if we do
complain about boredom it's not because we feel it lasts to long do we?
So when is enough enough? 200, 500, 1000 years? why not 10,000 years? Why
not forever, or just as long as we can?
david