[DrTodd13]

Consciousness transfer to a human-like robotic body and brain may be down the road but in the interim, we will soon (soon being relative, 50 or 100 years...not necessarily too close) have the capability to produce nanobots that can go in and repair all damage due to time from the body. Lifespans of 1000s of years or indefinite may be possible. If such technology is indeed possible, I doubt God will allow humans to possess it. I can't constrain God but He did at one point reduce human lifespan to around 120 years for a reason and I don't see that reason as having changed. Another version talks about how each man is appointed once to die and so while very long lifespans might be allowed, indefinite postponement of death might not be.

For the person that said he once was a Christian but was now an atheist. I hope that you realize that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a deist or theist. In the continuum of likelihood of God's existence, both extremes require faith. In many cases it is impossible to prove a negative and this is one such case. You can't prove that God doesn't exist so you can be rational and say that the probability is low that he exists but to conclude to a certainty that He doesn't exist is not a scientific rational conclusion, it is an irrational faith/belief. And yes, I am agnostic about flying purple dinosaurs as well. I think the odds that they exist on earth or elsewhere are very low but I can't make the statement that they don't exist.

[pbleighton]

"And yes, I am agnostic about flying purple dinosaurs as well. I think the odds that they exist on earth or elsewhere are very low but I can't make the statement that they don't exist."

This wasn't addressed to me, but...

Because of this argument, I classified myself as an agnostic for decades. About ten years back, I decided that the practical, "flying purple dinosaur" definition of atheist (and my estimation of the probabilities are equal) fit me better than the theoretically correct agnostic tag.

If you would like to call me an agnostic, be my guest.

However, there are lots of people out there who call themselves believers who have a lot more doubt of God's existence than I have of his nonexistence. I have no quarrel with their terminology.

Peter

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Mar 21 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

If such technology is indeed possible, I doubt God will allow humans to possess it.  I can't constrain God but He did at one point reduce human lifespan to around 120 years for a reason and I don't see that reason as having changed.

OMG...

Are you actually a Biblical literalist? Do you believe that Methuselah lived 969 years? (It sounds like you're taking Genesis 6:3 as factual)

What about young earth creationism?

[mike777]

helene_t, on Mar 21 2007, 06:24 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 21 2007, 06:38 AM, said:

A more important question will be what does human mean?

I disagree. To me, that's an utterly boring question. You can define the word "human" whichever way you please. Sematics, seschmantics. Just like other boring discussions about the meaning of "terrorism", "war", "objective moral" etc etc etc. Yawn.

But fortunately, interests are there to differ, just like tastes. I suppose some would say what I spent my life doing is utterly boring.

Incidently, I do find Justin's questions interesting. Whether they are important, I'm less sure.

Helene, the question of what is human maybe boring to you but obviously it is not to many people even today. Just look at the heated abortion discussion and debate.


Now add nanobots, bio/robots, AI and chips in the brain to the discussion for babies born today or next year and I think this will become quite the discussion in the near future for these children. Boring, well not to me.

As for the discussion of extending life to thousands of years, maybe. It would not surprise me that some babies born today may live that long. As I mentioned before extending their productive lives ten years at a time.

But as discussed in another post perhaps imbuing the universe/space/time/whatever with a consciousness will become possible.

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Mar 21 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

This is quite a horrible suggestion. Consider that if the government to reduce cost on healthcare decided to "get rid" of everyone over the age of 80. Don't worry, humanity will take more to eradicate than living forever (isn't that a contradiction?)

No. Imagine if women could live forever now, but only remained fertile until their 50s. Very soon, we would either have no children or overpopulation. If we choose overpopulation, we'll eventually all starve to death. If we choose no children, then as people died off (due to war, suicide, or other non-natural deaths) there would be nobody to replace them. This is very common in nature, when you remove a species' natural predator.

In effect, cancer is our predator. Killing off our predator may have some very non-intuitive effects, including quite possibly killing us off.

[Codo]

Go(o)d questions...

1. I am a christian, so I live forever and that is fine. Okay, maybe this is not the answer you were looking for.... I would hate to live this life on earth forever. I have a wonderful life and would like to stay a little longer, but forever is much too long and will get boring. I mean forever is not 200 instead of 85 years. Forever is forever. And the thoughts about children are valid arguments against even longlivety too.

2. Luckily I do not know anybody personal who suffers from never ending pain. But what I read about makes my opinion quite clear. There is a borderline where people should be allowed to come to an end. On the other hand: Who is allowed to judge whether a life should end or not? Even if you talk about your own life. Are we allow to decline this gift? If we are allowed, where is the borderline? Am I allow to kill just myself? Or am I allowed to judge for my friends and relatives too? What is a valid reason? Too much pain? Or just the will to end for personal reasons? Thios is a very ugly can of worms.

3. No, because the reasons to life are much bigger then personal relationships.

4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them.

[pbleighton]

The much more likely medium-term scenario is the continued extension of physical life without the corresponding extension of mental faculties.

What happens if (when) technology allows us to keep some large percentage of the population alive for 20-30 years after complete senescence?

The cost to society if all are kept alive will be staggering. What will the benefits be?

Society will face excruciating choices, and will likely do things we consider unthinkable today.

Peter

[mike777]

With all the possible tech advances, I see no reason that we cannot feed everyone today let alone whatever number in the future. Only some version of politics would stop that just as only politics stops it today.

As for the no children issue, can artificial wombs be that tough in the future to manufacture? Heck we may see those in my lifetime let alone 100 years from now.

As for excruciating choices, yes, we are already facing those decisions today in deciding who lives or dies and what is a worthwhile human life to continue living or not today. To what degree can we medicate for pain and suffering or should we.

Very excruciating for families today.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

With all the possible tech advances, I see no reason that we cannot feed everyone today let alone whatever number in the future.

Well, as the lifespan approaches infinity, so would the population.

Quote

As for the no children issue, can artificial wombs be that tough in the future to manufacture?

OK, so in a thousand years, we find that a trillion people don't really fit on this planet. Nobody has children for the next 4000 years, when we find the population winding down from non-natural causes. At that point, we discover that the last egg created by a woman was 3950 years ago. No eggs means no artificial wombs. We can try to clone, but it turns out that the older you are, the more damaged your cells are, and the harder it is to make a successful clone. It might take a hundred thousand years for humanity to wind down, but with no replacement population, it's just a matter of time.

[mike777]

I do not accept either proposition, too much too assume.

To be fair I am the guy who posts all the those posts that ask; what if AI is billions of times more intelligience than all of humanity by 2050 and hundreds of trillions more in a hundred years and what will it mean to be human in the coming years so.......

If you believe in some form/version of human evolution we may evolve.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards

Ethical standards should be uncoupled from belief. And that atheists do not have ethical standards is nonsense.

Quote

you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them.

You may think so and that's okay, as long as you do not try to impose your standards onto others, and yet that is what many religious movements do. Ethics is not a simple question and people should be ENCOURAGED to think about them, not discouraged by telling them that all the answers are already engraved in stone. Of course you PREFER the easy way because it's easy. But reality isn't easy. Ethics isn't easy.

[pbleighton]

"If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards"

This is ignorant and offensive.

Peter

[DrTodd13]

pbleighton, on Mar 21 2007, 10:19 AM, said:

"And yes, I am agnostic about flying purple dinosaurs as well. I think the odds that they exist on earth or elsewhere are very low but I can't make the statement that they don't exist."

This wasn't addressed to me, but...

Because of this argument, I classified myself as an agnostic for decades. About ten years back, I decided that the practical, "flying purple dinosaur" definition of atheist (and my estimation of the probabilities are equal) fit me better than the theoretically correct agnostic tag.

If you would like to call me an agnostic, be my guest.

However, there are lots of people out there who call themselves believers who have a lot more doubt of God's existence than I have of his nonexistence. I have no quarrel with their terminology.

Peter

I have a problem with their terminology because in order to effectively communicate, we all have to generally agree on what words mean. People usually don't actively think about what words mean and so word usage can become pretty sloppy. It sounds like these people are substituting "I believe God exists" for the more correct (for them) "I believe there is a high likelihood He exists." The former statement to me precludes any doubt.

When people bring up the purple flying dinosaur it is always to try to somehow equate the likelihood of God's existence with that of a purple flying dinosaur. There are a number of well-known scientists and philosophers who were previously avowed atheists or agnostics who have subsequently come to accept deism as a more probable candidate. They have looked at the scientific evidence from a number of fields and have inferred the possible existence of a creator. If these smart guys at the height of their field see enough evidence to believe something transcendental may exist then I think it the atheists go too far in estimating an infinitesimally small probability of the existence of God. If you want to say the number is 5% or 10% and then choose to believe He doesn't exist that is fine with me because a lot of people get to 80 or 90% and then choose to let faith take them the rest of the way. I just have a problem with people exaggerating for the purpose of trying to improve their case.

Which reminds me, I watched the Al Gore presentation to the Senate today and in her openings remarks the chairwoman said something to the effect that scientists had unequivocally determined that anthropogenic gases were the cause of the warming and one or two sentences later quoted the IPCC report where they said they have only 90% confidence that this was the case. That sounds like an equivocation to me. All in all, the meeting was a complete waste of time. Inhofe came off as an idiot and Al Gore's a liar.

[mike777]

Justin I really believe that if you make the huge assumption of life close to infinitity then you must assume that humans have evolved to something that is not by definition modern man(human).


http://en.wikipedia....Human_evolution

Look at how fast humans/pre humans have evolved in just a blink of an eye of time.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? What if this person was 100 years old? What if they were 50? What if they were a teenager? Would you be willing to accept that this could be possible as it would be for you were your age to approach infinity? Presumably it is personal at what point in life you decide you're too bored to live it or too tired of losing loved ones and are ready to call it quits.

You're opening a very complicated can of worms here.

For the moment, I want to exclude suicide's that are forced on an individual because of health conditions or some such.

I couldn't imagine every having a discussion with someone else about a subject as deeply personal as contemplating suicide. What are you hoping to accomplish from the conversation? Are you trying to guilt trip the individual into being a "better" friend, spending more time with you, or acting as your own personal entertainer? The whole process is remarkable difficult to contemplate.

An earlier posting on this list noted (accurately) that any decision to commit suicide has a lot of ramifications on the friends and family left behind. At the same time, I'm not sure that we necessarily have an obligation to go on living our lives in order to make them happy (especially if they aren't providing you with reason enough to live)

Difficult question all arround:

I will note the following: I do think that age has to factor into this all some how. I think that most people gain a certain amount of emotional maturity over time and setbacks that might seem like a crushing blow to a 15 year old get shrugged off by someone who is 30. I think that i'd feel that a 30 year old claim that they wanted to kill themselves was probably more reasonable than a 15 year olds. I suppose that I'd spend more time/effort trying to convince the 15 year to chaige their mind.

[mike777]

Yes Suicide does leave victims, hurting and pained victims. It is not a victimless act. When is it ethical to cause pain and harm to others? I suppose the answer is sometimes it is ok, but when?

My understanding of mainline Christianity is that we do not own our bodies. God does. Therefore we are not ethically free to do what we want with them since we do not own them. My guess is many other religions have a similiar theme.

In any event I think we are trying to apply humankind emotions to beings who have evolved to nonhuman status...tough.

[DrTodd13]

Codo, on Mar 21 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Go(o)d questions...

1. I am a christian, so I live forever and that is fine. Okay, maybe this is not the answer you were looking for.... I would hate to live this life on earth forever. I have a wonderful life and would like to stay a little longer, but forever is much too long and will get boring. I mean forever is not 200 instead of 85 years. Forever is forever. And the thoughts about children are valid arguments against even longlivety too.

4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them.

1. As a Christian, you will spend eternity on earth. AFAIK, nowhere does the Bible say you'll spend eternity in Heaven. Revelations seems to indicate that we will live on a rejuvenated earth in New Jerusalem. I am easily bored and so I've often wondered how I'll manage to amuse myself for an eternity. I must admit the Buddhist (I think it is Buddhism but maybe Hinduism...can't remember offhand) goal of non-existence is sometimes an enticing one but given I believe in the immortality of the soul then eternity with God is better than the alternative.

4. It is an all too common mistake for Christians to believe the atheists cannot have an ethical standard that they live by. Any ethical system has to overcome a few hurdles (like the is/ought problem) but once that is done you can base ethics on religious grounds or humanist grounds.

[pbleighton]

" suppose the answer is sometimes it is ok, but when?"

This is an individual decision.

That's that.

Peter

[mike777]

I hope causing pain and harm to others is not just an individual decision on the basis of your ethics.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Some English guy.