NationStates Jolt Archive

I seriously do not expect to die, ever (or at least for a dozen centuries or so). Genuinely.

The way I see it, I am 20 years old now, and I live in a developed country. My life expectancy places my natural death towards the end of the 21st century, sometime in the 2060s. However, I come from a healthy family, with decent longevity, and live a healthy lifestyle, so I would be seriously pissed if I didn't make it to the 2070s. I could also die prematurely in some kind of freak accident, but we have to assume I won't (It is after all a 'freak' accident).

Now, look at the rate technology (medical and otherwise) has been advancing over the past few centuries (or millenia). It is getting to the point that new technologies are coming too frequently for us to institute them completely before they are obsolete. Thats now in 2006. Now, before we get into the wacky shit, it would be reasonable to expect that medical prowess will raise the average human life expectancy in the developed world at least a decade. So that gives me until the 2080s.

Can you seriously consider people 80 years from now dying of old age? For two reasons, I cannot. Firstly, 'the singularity', as it is called is due to occur with a few decades, if that (if indeed it does happen). 'The singularity' is a point in technological advancement when we create a superior mind/intellect/creativity (AI) to our own. Logically, whatever time it took us to create a superior intellect, the superior intellect will be able to do the same in a shorter time, and the intellect it creates in a shorter time again, and so on. This should result in an ineffably intelligent mind, capable of any possible deduction.

Now the implications of such a thing are hard to fathom. Some fear enslavement, and others death, at the hand of this artificial-god. Personally I would not expect such behaviour from a machine devoid of a human morality behind it's actions. Theoretically it should be supremely task oriented. Anyhow, if it does occur (and if it can, it will), and it doesn't result in some kind of a disaster, it will result in every concievable technological advancement at our fingertips. If cheating death is possible (and it should be), then we will know how when we reach the singularity (or shortly thereafter).

Secondly, even without the singularity, I would expect 'transhumanism' to be well within our capabilities within 50 years, let alone 80. Once I can translocate my conciousnes into an artificial manifestation, ageing no longer becomes a problem, and all I have to be concerned about is freak accidents (which unfortunately become more and more likely for each century that passes without them striking me).

So, if end up kicking the bucket thanks to some BS natural death some time after 2050, I will be very seriously disappointed in human progress, and very seriously pissed at the implications of this deficiency (namely, my imminent death).

Theres my rant on why I anticipate, nay expect, immortality. Do you buy it? If not, why not? When do you expect to die otherwise?

Nope.

Wet-ware wears out, that's just the way it is. Unless they can figure out whatever genetic coding that occurs that makes us age, not to mention natural wear and tear, we're doomed to die just by virtue of being organic.

If a singularity occurs, then I suspect the intelligence would be bright enough to realize that "curing" death is a bad idea in nearly every conceivable way, including:

1. Political and social stagnation.
2. Over population.

If we end up able to transfer our minds to a digital or whatever is next interface, then there's the immortality...to a point. No matter what, quality will decline over time as technology progresses and your consciousness is transferred over and over.

I would say the last one is most likely, if we figure out a way for those interfaces to work.

Personally, I see no appeal in living forever.

Yeah. I expect to die. It's the circle of life or something. Go watch full metal alchemist. It explains it all.

And tomorrow, you could wake up dead. You never know.

Of course I expect to die, sometimes I'm actually looking forward to it. I assume that if no accident happens and I don't catch any lethal illnesses, I'll live to be about 75. That'll be quite enough for me, thank you.

I expect to die. You might even say I look forward to it, in a way, being the Christian that I am. I ask only a basic life in which I have a chance at improving things around me.

I wouldn't say no to something more, but just a decent existence is all I need.

~ Romandeos.

Nope.

Wet-ware wears out, that's just the way it is. Unless they can figure out whatever genetic coding that occurs that makes us age, not to mention natural wear and tear, we're doomed to die just by virtue of being organic. Right, personally I do not expect to dodge death in this body. Maybe, if things go better than planned, I will.

If a singularity occurs, then I suspect the intelligence would be bright enough to realize that "curing" death is a bad idea in nearly every conceivable way, including:

1. Political and social stagnation.
2. Over population.
Good point. I could argue that those problems have solutions such an intelligence could devise alongside creating immortality, or that the intellect was task-based, and not consequence-based in function. However, in the end, the singularity in itself is absolutely full of loose ends like this. There is simply no way of telling how it will play out, if it indeed does play out at all.
If we end up able to transfer our minds to a digital or whatever is next interface, then there's the immortality...to a point. No matter what, quality will decline over time as technology progresses and your consciousness is transferred over and over.

I would say the last one is most likely, if we figure out a way for those interfaces to work.The quaility shouldn't decline in digital transfers, and decay of hardware is much more easily fixed artificially than it is organically.

Personally, I see no appeal in living forever. So you like non-existence, or you have phenomenal faith in unverifiable fairytales? Either way, I cannot relate to such a position.

Everything that lives, dies. That's the way of it. Regardless of technological improvements, death will occur at some point. Be it 5.21674 pico-seconds from now or 8,234,198 centuries (of course, if you've remained on the Earth, you'd've been cooked by the expanding sun about 8,230,000 centuries earlier).

Death is a guarantee. Rejoice in it. It's the only true guarantee you'll ever have.

Yeah. I expect to die. It's the circle of life or something. Go watch full metal alchemist. It explains it all.
Fuck the circle of life, and fuck FMA. I will not resign myself to non-existence because of catchy-disney-philosophy or wonderfully animated-yet-insightful japanese entertainment material.

Of course I do. I always had a hunch i'd die relatively young so i'm sticking to my guns.

of course I expect to die. it's necessary, natural, and good.

Fuck the circle of life, and fuck FMA. I will not resign myself to non-existence because of catchy-disney-philosophy or wonderfully animated-yet-insightful japanese entertainment material.

I hate to burst your bubble, but chances are you've got less than 60 years left. you could very easily get run down on the road in the next week. seriously, accept it - not even small children have trouble with this reality.

Everything that lives, dies. That's the way of it. Regardless of technological improvements, death will occur at some point. Be it 5.21674 pico-seconds from now or 8,234,198 centuries (of course, if you've remained on the Earth, you'd've been cooked by the expanding sun about 8,230,000 centuries earlier).

Death is a guarantee. Rejoice in it. It's the only true guarantee you'll ever have.
See, I actually see it as a challenge. Even if death is inevitable, the least I can do is approach it like I do space invaders and go for the high score. Why live 100 years when you can live 100 million? This is compounded by my atheism, and consequent steadfast belief in a great shiny nothing when I die. Nonexistence sucks.

If at the end of it all, the universe does end up imploding in on itself, the least I can demand is to watch the bastard do it's best.

I hate to burst your bubble, but chances are you've got less than 60 years left. you could very easily get run down on the road in the next week. seriously, accept it - not even small children have trouble with this reality.
I can accept an unnatural death. It sucks, but too bad. I am just saying, natural death is something I genuinely do not expect to deal with in the coming few decades.

Nonexistence sucks.

and you know this, how? hating the idea of death makes about as much sense as hating the idea of breathing.

I certainly hope so

And tomorrow, you could wake up dead. You never know.

Of course I expect to die, sometimes I'm actually looking forward to it. I assume that if no accident happens and I don't catch any lethal illnesses, I'll live to be about 75. That'll be quite enough for me, thank you.
How can you look forward to nothing? Even if you believe in something, you can never actually know. Doesn't that make you uneasy? Hesitant, at least?

and you know this, how? hating the idea of death makes about as much sense as hating the idea of breathing.
Not really. Breathing is something you can experience. Death is something no one has experienced (in that you are incapable of 'experiencing' anything per se whilst dead).

Not really. Breathing is something you can experience. Death is something no one has experienced (in that you are incapable of 'experiencing' anything per se whilst dead).

I'd take issue with that statement, but there's no point or means of debating it on an internet forum. poke around espiritismo or something like that and you'd have to be completely pigheaded to maintain a disbelief in the supernatural. either way, even the strictest atheist buddhism posits that non-existance is a *desirable* goal.

I could be dead tomorrow. So it goes.

I could live for decades yet. But I will die, whether out of old age or boredom. I don't fear nor welcome death, merely regard it as something to investigate deeper and understand when I get there.

In the meantime, I live by the day.

How can you look forward to nothing? Even if you believe in something, you can never actually know. Doesn't that make you uneasy? Hesitant, at least?

I am in fact looking forward to nothing. No further exoeriences, no worries, no pain, no joy, no nothing. And I won't even care, because I will no longer exist.
If that's not something to look forward to, I don't know what is :D

How can you look forward to nothing? Even if you believe in something, you can never actually know. Doesn't that make you uneasy? Hesitant, at least?

as shakespeare put it:

Fear no more the heat o' the sun,
Nor the furious winter's rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages;
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.

Fear no more the frown o' the great;
Thou art past the tyrant's stroke:
Care no more to clothe and eat;
To thee the reed is as the oak:
The sceptre, learning, physic, must
All follow this, and come to dust.

Fear no more the lightning-flash,
Nor the all-dreaded thunder-stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finished joy and moan;
All lovers young, all lovers must
Consign to thee, and come to dust.

No exorciser harm thee!
Nor no witchcraft charm thee!
Ghost unlaid forbear thee!
Nothing ill come near thee!
Quiet consummation have;
And renownéd be thy grave!

Ok, here comes the pedantry.
of course I expect to die. it's necessary, Necessary how? Necessary to what end? Why is that particular end absolute in it's importance natural, Natural simply encompasses everything that is real. Humans are natural, and so is everything they do (being a product of nature). Humans living forever due to technological advancement is just as natural as a spider catching flies with a spider web. and good. Good is a relative and subjective value judgement with a meaning both infinite in capability and flexible in application. Your 'good' can be my 'bad'. As such, I would deem any value judgements on such an advancement (negative or positive) as irrelevant in comparison to my desire to take advantage thereof.

I seriously do not expect to die, ever (or at least for a dozen centuries or so). Genuinely.

That's just deluded. You will die. Your denial of it is inconsequential.

I'd take issue with that statement, but there's no point or means of debating it on an internet forum. poke around espiritismo or something like that and you'd have to be completely pigheaded to maintain a disbelief in the supernatural. either way, even the strictest atheist buddhism posits that non-existance is a *desirable* goal.
Ok, well I don't agree. I feel my suspension of belief of all things (supernatural and not) until faced with verifiable and repeatable evidence is not pigheaded, but rather rational. I personally do not find non-existence as desiarble. Mainly because I am not an atheist buddhist, and I believe that absolute nothingness can neither be desirable, or undesirable. It is just nothing. The worst fate in existence is better than no fate at all. In my opinion. ;)

That's just deluded. You will die. Your denial of it is inconsequential.
Oh hi Fass. Now, if I remember correctly, you do actually know the difference between an arguement and an assertation. Am I wrong?

Ok, well I don't agree. I feel my suspension of belief of all things (supernatural and not) until faced with verifiable and repeatable evidence is not pigheaded, but rather rational. I personally do not find non-existence as desiarble. Mainly because I am not an atheist buddhist, and I believe that absolute nothingness can neither be desirable, or undesirable. It is just nothing. The worst fate in existence is better than no fate at all. In my opinion. ;)

Well, if it can't be undesirable, how can it be so bad?

I am in fact looking forward to nothing. No further exoeriences, no worries, no pain, no joy, no nothing. And I won't even care, because I will no longer exist.
If that's not something to look forward to, I don't know what is :D
Ok, I get what you are saying. However, whatever you are hoping to attain or recieve in nonexistence you will not. If you are looking forward to relief, you will not get it. You will get nothing. You won't even be able to 'get'. Apart from the inability to source anything from non-existence, there is also the inability to appreciate or even resent this fact. So even looking forward to something you will never be vindicated in attaining is ultimately pointless.

Oh hi Fass. Now, if I remember correctly, you do actually know the difference between an arguement and an assertation. Am I wrong?

There is no argument to be made here. Your immature denial (and that's just what it is, something due to the immaturity of someone who is probably in his late teens or up to mid twenties who has not reached the level of maturity and life experience to really have the mental strength to cope with death - his own death) of the basic fact of life, that it ends and that you will in no way be special, is just a self-delusion. You're scared of dying and want it not to apply to you.

It will. There is no changing that. Your silly hopes to the contrary are futile.

I very much doubt we will be able to achieve imortality in 80 to 100 years. Maybe it will take as much as 500 years, or never. No one can truly predict it. We may develop technologies we have no clue about yet. If you were to ask about genetics to a physician in the XVIII century he would have no clue about what you were talking about.

I really would like to achieve imortality, but I very much doubt I´ll be able to. Aging is not a single process, but dozens. Every minute your body live, its struglling to keep its shape, its size, its functions, its methabolism, from the natural laws that find it "unnatural" for so much mass and energy to be assembled in such a small place.

I can see myself living more than 100 years, with health. It would be great to live up to 200 or 300. But I really dont think we will be able to achieve imortality.

Even our best hopes, nanotechnology, is still just an idea. And I dont see nanotechnology improving enough in the next 60 years.

Well, if it can't be undesirable, how can it be so bad?
It is not bad. It is not anything. It is intrinsically nothing (oxymoron?). Absolutely nothing. I can't even put it into a time frame (like eternal) because it 'is not'. Time cannot apply to that which 'is not'. Do you get how scary an absolute like that is? In every concievable way it 'is not'. Completely unreversable. You either exist, or you don't. The philosophical immensity of the concept of entropy actually intimidates me. It is hard to wrap your mind around.

I think, that as technology advances, it will become possible to artificially prolong life beyond what would be considered natural. As to whether this is desirable or not is debatable. I, personally, wouldn't want to live forever.

There is no argument to be made here. Your immature denial (and that's just what it is, something due to the immaturity of someone who is probably in his late teens or up to mid twenties who has not reached the level of maturity and life experience to really have the mental strength to cope with death - his own death) of the basic fact of life, that it ends and that you will in no way be special, is just a self-delusion. You're scared of dying and want it not to apply to you.

It will. There is no changing that. Your silly hopes to the contrary are futile. No no, it is not my fear of death that spawns my denial of it. Whilst I definitely do fear death, I also understand it is ultimately something that cannot be evaded. All I am saying is that I genuinely expect that the age old cap on lifetime (i.e. natural lifespan) will be something we will likely over come in the coming decades. It is almost certain that I will die from some pointless incident at some stage. I just do not expect this to happen until some time after my natural lifetime would have ended.

I am not asserting that I do not expect to die ever, but rather that my life shall be a fair bit longer than originally anticipated if things continue to play out how they seem to be playing out.

I think, that as technology advances, it will become possible to artificially prolong life beyond what would be considered natural. As to whether this is desirable or not is debatable. I, personally, wouldn't want to live forever.
why not? I personally would *like* to live forever, despite this being somewhat impossible.

It is not bad. It is not anything. It is intrinsically nothing (oxymoron?). Absolutely nothing. I can't even put it into a time frame (like eternal) because it 'is not'. Time cannot apply to that which 'is not'. Do you get how scary an absolute like that is? In every concievable way it 'is not'. Completely unreversable. You either exist, or you don't. The philosophical immensity of the concept of entropy actually intimidates me. It is hard to wrap your mind around.

I didn't worry about it before I was born. I don't expect I lose much sleep over it when I am dead.

I think I will die in March 2065 at the age of 78 by cancer.

No no, it is not my fear of death that spawns my denial of it. Whilst I definitely do fear death, I also understand it is ultimately something that cannot be evaded. All I am saying is that I genuinely expect that the age old cap on lifetime (i.e. natural lifespan) will be something we will likely over come in the coming decades. It is almost certain that I will die from some pointless incident at some stage. I just do not expect this to happen until some time after my natural lifetime would have ended.

I am not asserting that I do not expect to die ever, but rather that my life shall be a fair bit longer than originally anticipated if things continue to play out how they seem to be playing out.

Prepare to be severely disappointed.

I didn't worry about it before I was born. I don't expect I lose much sleep over it when I am dead.
Heh, nice. ;)

I seriously do not expect to die, ever (or at least for a dozen centuries or so). Genuinely.

...

Now, look at the rate technology (medical and otherwise) has been advancing over the past few centuries (or millenia).

Ouch. You sound like you're from the 60's. We'll all be living on the moon in 1999, a supercomputer will kill a couple of astronauts in 2001. They thought automated highways were going to be a reality by the 60's in the 40's too.

There are no "new" technologies. Sure, people may point to mobile phones, faster computer chips, drugs for diseases. The fact is, technology's just gotten smaller. Computer chips and the components on them have become tinier, enabling more of them to be thrown in a box, instead of one or two taking up a room. Mobile phones were around in the 1940's for the Second World War, but they were suitcases with handsets.

Everything we use now that can be termed "technological" is based on the same technology as was around fifty years ago. New "technologies" won't come into force in the space of five years, or even fifty years. There's currently around six and a half billion people on the planet and it's growing, and you can't make even half a billion switch to something revolutionary. People are stupid, people are insecure: people don't like change. What people use is based on what can be made cheaply and what's most economical for their own lives, not what's good for them, the environment, or the future.

Drugs for diseases? Sure, more keep popping up. But whilst you may get cured for the common cold in the future, this won't prevent your cells dying, and your body running out of steam to produce new ones, which is the cause of death of old age. There is one was cells can live forever without dying and producing new ones though. It's called cancer. Drugs work by chemical reactions, dying of old age is programmed in your DNA. You can't change your DNA, and there won't be a "new technology" around to help you.

So, no, you'll die.

Prepare to be severely disappointed.
Again with the assertations. I gave two reasons for my belief that death could be a very very long way off. The singularity, and transhumanism. Do you really think that either of the two is that crazy of an advancement for human civilisation to make in 8 decades? 8 decades ago electricity was a new idea, flight was something involving oversised paper planes, people were dying of the flu, and WMDs were sticks of dynamite.

It is not bad. It is not anything. It is intrinsically nothing (oxymoron?). Absolutely nothing. I can't even put it into a time frame (like eternal) because it 'is not'. Time cannot apply to that which 'is not'. Do you get how scary an absolute like that is? In every concievable way it 'is not'. Completely unreversable. You either exist, or you don't. The philosophical immensity of the concept of entropy actually intimidates me. It is hard to wrap your mind around.

I know. I spent a lot of time contemplating it, believe me. And I find it a calming thought not to exist. To always have the option not to exist.

Ouch. You sound like you're from the 60's. We'll all be living on the moon in 1999, a supercomputer will kill a couple of astronauts in 2001. They thought automated highways were going to be a reality by the 60's in the 40's too.

There are no "new" technologies. Sure, people may point to mobile phones, faster computer chips, drugs for diseases. The fact is, technology's just gotten smaller. Computer chips and the components on them have become tinier, enabling more of them to be thrown in a box, instead of one or two taking up a room. Mobile phones were around in the 1940's for the Second World War, but they were suitcases with handsets.

Everything we use now that can be termed "technological" is based on the same technology as was around fifty years ago. New "technologies" won't come into force in the space of five years, or even fifty years. There's currently around six and a half billion people on the planet and it's growing, and you can't make even half a billion switch to something revolutionary. People are stupid, people are insecure: people don't like change. What people use is based on what can be made cheaply and what's most economical for their own lives, not what's good for them, the environment, or the future.

Drugs for diseases? Sure, more keep popping up. But whilst you may get cured for the common cold in the future, this won't prevent your cells dying, and your body running out of steam to produce new ones, which is the cause of death of old age. There is one was cells can live forever without dying and producing new ones though. It's called cancer. Drugs work by chemical reactions, dying of old age is programmed in your DNA. You can't change your DNA, and there won't be a "new technology" around to help you.

So, no, you'll die. I really don't expect the 'elixir of life' to be hidden in combatting every one of the endless forms of decay on our natural bodies, but rather the synthesis of the mortal encasement I have. What if you were 99% artificial? What if you were 100%? Is it possible? If not, why not? We already have artificial organs and limbs. How crazy is an artificial brain too?

So, if end up kicking the bucket thanks to some BS natural death some time after 2050, I will be very seriously disappointed in human progress, and very seriously pissed at the implications of this deficiency (namely, my imminent death).

no you won't, the reason being, you'll be dead :p

I know. I spent a lot of time contemplating it, believe me. And I find it a calming thought not to exist. To always have the option not to exist.
Calming? Geez, thats quite displaced from my own stance. Personally I find the option of nonexistence simultaneously motivating and disconcerting (in that no matter how bad things are, at least they indeed 'are').

(21 views, 20 posts. Good stuff!)

Aging isn't just a biological process. The word I'd choose is a "career" -- the soul adjusts to the world as it finds it, uses the mortal body it is in. Young people with chronic diseases, or forced to make adult decisions, act far beyond their physical years; physically mature people who are sheltered from difficult decisions, or who delude themselves about their own importance act like spoilt children.

If you knew that you were going to live for five hundred years, wouldn't you want more than ten years of childhood?

Oh, and another thing ... the 'freak accident' factor. Perhaps technology could compensate (a little guardian angle on your shoulder, cautioning you about criticising that skinhead's hair or taking the first turn in Russian Roulette.) But do you really want to live a life without risk? A life without any impetus to experience new things, without urgency? A future with infinite capacity for new things is a life of waiting.

Immortality is the life of a rock: infinitely slow.

Oh, no, it's another thing: amongst the diversity of life, is there one creature born who is immortal? No. (Ameobae don't count: they are not born.) If immortality was a viable strategy, there would be immortal creatures. Any potentially immortal creature has been dispatched by the adapting species's. Imagine the egotistical and eternally conservative politics an immortal creature would have.

Uh, uh. I'm going to live to 114, then die. Thankyou.

Calming? Geez, thats quite displaced from my own stance. Personally I find the option of nonexistence simultaneously motivating and disconcerting (in that no matter how bad things are, at least they indeed 'are').

See, to me it's more a 'no matter how bad things are, one day they just won't exist any more.'

I believe "I" may go on, certainly, but my physical body will certainly perish.

Being immortal sounds dull. I mean sure it'd be cool for the first century or two, but after a while what is there left to do? To see and to explore?

I can accept an unnatural death. It sucks, but too bad. I am just saying, natural death is something I genuinely do not expect to deal with in the coming few decades.

You don't [I]deal with[I] death. You're dead.

Of course I'll die. Even if technology or genetics somehow pulls a miracle longevity cure off during my lifetime (and that's a pretty big if), I doubt it will immediately become available to regular people like myself. More likely, the resulting political and social chaos over who has control of the ability to extend life will kill off more people than it will save.

Yes, medicine has progressed so far that our natural life spans have increased. But to say that immortality is on the cards? Not for 500+ more years.

Why on earth would anyone want to live forever I have no idea - I personally wouldn't mind a couple of hundred years to learn everything and read every book (that interests me) in existance, but that is just a fantasy.

Even if it were likely that in this lifetime i'd have the oppurtunity to live forever (i'm not saying that's going to happen) I would seriously get really, really, REALLY bored. As would anyone.

From reading your posts the only reason you're playing up to this delusion that you will live far longer than your expected life span (i'm not saying you won't live past 75, you might - expected life spans ARE only an average afterall) is just simply because you're scared of what may, or may not be there afterwards.

Hell, I'd stop worrying and just get on with the life you got now - that'd be much more fun than thinking about the great nothingness that you'll be going to in about 80 years =)

I'd quite like to reach 100. Just because it's a nice number. But i'm not going to get hung up about it.

...

If a singularity occurs, then I suspect the intelligence would be bright enough to realize that "curing" death is a bad idea in nearly every conceivable way, including:

1. Political and social stagnation.
2. Over population.
When you're good, you're brilliant. :)
If we end up able to transfer our minds to a digital or whatever is next interface, then there's the immortality...to a point. No matter what, quality will decline over time as technology progresses and your consciousness is transferred over and over.
...Like being a 1950's mechanical calculator linked to the 2000's internet. "None of you noobs do numbers like me! I am 1337!"

No, Mr. Goldfinger, I expect me to talk.

I wake up every morning expecting to die, it's part of my OCD.

I probably won't live long, being at high risk for a bunch of crap that kills people, I had a doctor once that said she would be surprised if I hit 40. :(

Yes, medicine has progressed so far that our natural life spans have increased.

Cue the buzzer sound. Natural life spans haven't changed a bit. Some Greek philosophers lived until their nineties. Life expectancy has changed. Take a look at statistics, you'll see that life expectancy generally shoots up when things happen along the lines of penicillin coming around, sewers being built, etc. We're not going to change natural life expectancy ever, unless someone finds a cheap way to alter every bit of DNA in your body.

Again with the assertations. I gave two reasons for my belief that death could be a very very long way off. The singularity, and transhumanism. Do you really think that either of the two is that crazy of an advancement for human civilisation to make in 8 decades? 8 decades ago electricity was a new idea, flight was something involving oversised paper planes, people were dying of the flu, and WMDs were sticks of dynamite.

You seem to have no grasp of physiology and medical science. As I said, do prepare to be quite disappointed indeed.

See, I actually see it as a challenge. Even if death is inevitable, the least I can do is approach it like I do space invaders and go for the high score. Why live 100 years when you can live 100 million?

Fine, go for the 100 million.

But, at 100 million plus X, you will die.

This is compounded by my atheism, and consequent steadfast belief in a great shiny nothing when I die. Nonexistence sucks.

I, on the other hand, believe in an afterlife. You cannot prove me wrong and I cannot prove you wrong. So, it is useless for either to try. Though, I find my prospects more palatable. If I'm wrong - meh, I'll never know it.

If at the end of it all, the universe does end up imploding in on itself, the least I can demand is to watch the bastard do it's best.

Death will not stop me from watching it. I will see it. I just probably won't be in a mortal husk.

However, whatever you are hoping to attain or recieve in nonexistence you will not. If you are looking forward to relief, you will not get it. You will get nothing. You won't even be able to 'get'.

Your proof is what, exactly?

How is your assertion of nothingness more valid than another's assertion of non-nothingness?

As you seem to ask of us, prove your claim.

No, Mr. Goldfinger, I expect me to talk.

LOL, you win the thread.

And, in other news, I wasn't bothered by non-existent before I was born. I personally see no attraction in living forever, I often have the feeling that I wouldn't mind dying right now.

LOL, you win the thread.

At least somebody got it. ;)

Eh, I figure it will happen, but I'm banking on technological and medical advances to make it less likely. I'm hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst.

What I'd really like is reincarnation, either spiritual or artificial (as in being reincarnated in a computer or something like that). That would be a lot more fun than just being myself forever or just being dead, and makes a lot more sense.

I expect to die, but I would enjoy a choice of when to do so.

Ah, I know what this 'singularity' will be. It'll be some kind of Deathclock.

</Futurama>

I hope that this is the first generation to live forever. Everyone is so negative, and tbh when people say they want to die at some point, I dont think they know what theyre looking for, because death is forever, its not like going to sleep (although deep sleep is the closest state to death) because you dont wake up, ever, its for infinity, now think about that, its really really terrible, its something we cant even grasp.

Second, wetware does indeed wear out, BUT, we can already grow organs from our own stem cells-implication, we can at least live long enough for the singularity (and Im sure we can easily program in an algorithm which makes it imperative for the machine to find a cure for death, in the event we dont-also overpopulation can be avoided by not having babies and it can be enforced lethally). Second the mega brain can figure out how to transfer minds into networks (even if we dont, which solves the population problem). And yes, the network will detriorate but by that stage we will have figured out a way to sustain it. In fact living in a network may alter our minds entirely, we may operate as something akin to the borg, except we would have our individuality. And through collective problem solving in addition to the mega brain which we could interface with as well no doubt, we could progress to the level of gods, we would figure out how to exist beyond the universe for what may as well be eternity. I may be completely different in g64 years but at least I will be around. (Please please please, let this happen, it should really happen, please).

I certainly do. I wouldn't be suprised if its within five years too.

No (I do expect to have a surprised look on my face if I do, however).

Yes. I always thought I'd die young or something.

Two options:

I will die.

I will be raptured.

I expect I will die, but I don't know that I will, because I don't know when Jesus is returning.

"I know not when my Lord will come
At night or noon-day fair
Nor if I'll walk the vale with Him
Or 'meet Him in the air'."

"The vale" being a reference to death: "The valley of the shadow of death"

This is compounded by my atheism, and consequent steadfast belief in a great shiny nothing when I die. Nonexistence sucks.

You don't really know that nonexistence sucks, do you? I'm atheist myself and I've come to terms with the possibility of my own death. Of course, spending a year in Iraq kinda forces that on you.

Anyway, you've discovered why many people are religious. They're so terrified of nonexistence (which you are, as much as you may deny it) that they'll believe a fantastical story about a place in the clouds for them when they die. The only difference between them and you is that you're imagining there'll be some sort of robot body for you to inhabit rather than some happy sky place. Both beliefs are equally unrealistic (ok, maybe the robot body is more realistic than a happy sky place, but that's not saying much) and equally created by this terror of nonexistence.

we all die and there's no real reason to worry.

Being afraid of death shouldnt make you hope for a way out of it, but make you enjoy the few moments of life one can get.

80 years is nothing. It goes on so fast, I doubt anyone would be bored by living 500 years.

So you like non-existence, or you have phenomenal faith in unverifiable fairytales? Either way, I cannot relate to such a position.

I don't care for the idea of non-existence, but if that's the natural end I can do nothing but accept it.

I do have faith in my unverifiable fairy-tales. I like living this life. I like living like I've got a purpose and choose not to see the world as bleakly as you do. Frankly, I like being happy-go-lucky as I tend to be. That's how I want to face death, too: happy, and looking forward to whatever waits. I could be down about it, or I could just enjoy what I've got.

Living life terrified of the end, without belief in anything greater than myself, holds no appeal. I may be deluding myself, but I recognize it, accept it, and move on. I like being happy, and my beliefs make me happy. That's the only justification I need for them.

When you're good, you're brilliant. :)
Like being a 1950's mechanical calculator linked to the 2000's internet. "None of you noobs do numbers like me! I am 1337!"

Thank you!

I hope that this is the first generation to live forever. Everyone is so negative, and tbh when people say they want to die at some point, I dont think they know what theyre looking for, because death is forever, its not like going to sleep (although deep sleep is the closest state to death) because you dont wake up, ever, its for infinity, now think about that, its really really terrible, its something we cant even grasp.

Second, wetware does indeed wear out, BUT, we can already grow organs from our own stem cells-implication, we can at least live long enough for the singularity (and Im sure we can easily program in an algorithm which makes it imperative for the machine to find a cure for death, in the event we dont-also overpopulation can be avoided by not having babies and it can be enforced lethally). Second the mega brain can figure out how to transfer minds into networks (even if we dont, which solves the population problem). And yes, the network will detriorate but by that stage we will have figured out a way to sustain it. In fact living in a network may alter our minds entirely, we may operate as something akin to the borg, except we would have our individuality. And through collective problem solving in addition to the mega brain which we could interface with as well no doubt, we could progress to the level of gods, we would figure out how to exist beyond the universe for what may as well be eternity. I may be completely different in g64 years but at least I will be around. (Please please please, let this happen, it should really happen, please).

That sounds just as bleak as anything else. No thanks!

(21 views, 20 posts. Good stuff!)

Aging isn't just a biological process. The word I'd choose is a "career" -- the soul adjusts to the world as it finds it, uses the mortal body it is in. Young people with chronic diseases, or forced to make adult decisions, act far beyond their physical years; physically mature people who are sheltered from difficult decisions, or who delude themselves about their own importance act like spoilt children.

If you knew that you were going to live for five hundred years, wouldn't you want more than ten years of childhood?

Oh, and another thing ... the 'freak accident' factor. Perhaps technology could compensate (a little guardian angle on your shoulder, cautioning you about criticising that skinhead's hair or taking the first turn in Russian Roulette.) But do you really want to live a life without risk? A life without any impetus to experience new things, without urgency? A future with infinite capacity for new things is a life of waiting.

Immortality is the life of a rock: infinitely slow.

Oh, no, it's another thing: amongst the diversity of life, is there one creature born who is immortal? No. (Ameobae don't count: they are not born.) If immortality was a viable strategy, there would be immortal creatures. Any potentially immortal creature has been dispatched by the adapting species's. Imagine the egotistical and eternally conservative politics an immortal creature would have.

Uh, uh. I'm going to live to 114, then die. Thankyou.

thats deep. you must not be as young as i thought you were.


i was thinking along those "career" lines when wondering what the fuck tolkiens elves did all day considering that they were each at least a thousand years old. "nothing much" was the conclusion i came to.


im hoping to live to be 100 but am prepared to go any time.

Living life terrified of the end, without belief in anything greater than myself, holds no appeal. I may be deluding myself, but I recognize it, accept it, and move on. I like being happy, and my beliefs make me happy. That's the only justification I need for them.

I don't think it's a delusion, personally. I've seen and read hundreds of accounts, and know of thousands more, from people worldwide that they have had experiences that confirm the continuation of life after death and encounters with spiritual beings. It's not the same kind of existence as we have now, but it does happen in one form or another. Of that I am sure; if all these people are reporting these things, and there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe it.

If anything, it provides far more hope and comfort than the useless nihilism the other options offer...and that is enough to sway me.

i expect to die a horribly painful death at the hands of shrapnel or a gunshot or something like that. Thank god for the military. Giving shit heads like me a job.

I don't personally know what life after death holds, but I certainly don't believe that death equates to non-existence. After all, there are millions [if not billions] of humans who have lived before this time, and I do not think that they simply stopped existing because they died. How or what they are now, I can't say, but it isn't as if something swiped their existence from the face of the universe, because whether in life or death, they leave evidence of their existence.

Besides that, if I were to live forever, I would get tired of it. Death makes a good liberation of sorts, but I'll be patient until then.

I expect to die, my body to rot, and my mind to fade forever.

I hold out little hope for an afterlife or for some technological restoration, but I suppose neither is out of the question.

I think there is something called the hayflick limit. The maximum before all your organs pack in is about 120.

Yes, I expect to die at some stage. Hopefully I will have led a happy & fulfilling life. Frankly, the prospect of eternal life is not something I would look forward to.

Woody Allen
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."

Im going to be assassinated at age 40, 3 days before my 41st birthday.

-edit- a shot to the head will do the trick ;)

As undead, I cannot die.

Fuck the circle of life, and fuck FMA. I will not resign myself to non-existence because of catchy-disney-philosophy or wonderfully animated-yet-insightful japanese entertainment material.

Death happens regardless of how hard you try to stop it. You need to get out of your angry denial. Once your mind ceases to exist you won't care.

Actually, with the progress of medicine an individual immune system efficiency has been lowered. Add increased population, pollution, contamination, crime rates following unemployment, or in extreme circumstances riots following famines resulting from overly intense harvesting, add climate change, progressing desertification and mass migration, add all the possible aberrations that follow those, including warfare for depleting resources or living space (that is arable territories). Finally add the possibility of implementation of two major tactics of population control - birth control and euthanasia. Who wants an old fart like yourself to stick around for so long at the expense of the entire society? Of course, if you're wealthy as you're saying, you might buy yourself a second youth or something like that, but you're just as if not more likely to end up dead sooner.

After all, what's the big deal? You come to this world, live away your life, and then you go. Thank you, next!

Theres my rant on why I anticipate, nay expect, immortality. Do you buy it? If not, why not? When do you expect to die otherwise?

I have a family history of high blood pressure on one side of the family and heart disease on the other.

If I change my habits relatively soon (and I have BAD habits :D ), I expect I could push 80 in relatively good health.

Regardless, if I actually make it to 100, regardless of what shape I'm in, I'm going skydiving with no chute! My last few minutes on this Earth will be FUN, damnit!

I ask only a basic life in which I have a chance at improving things around me.

I wouldn't say no to something more, but just a decent existence is all I need.

Well said!

Of course I'll die. Even if technology or genetics somehow pulls a miracle longevity cure off during my lifetime (and that's a pretty big if), I doubt it will immediately become available to regular people like myself. More likely, the resulting political and social chaos over who has control of the ability to extend life will kill off more people than it will save.

Bingo.

I hope that this is the first generation to live forever....

...I may be completely different in g64 years but at least I will be around. (Please please please, let this happen, it should really happen, please).

I lol'ed :)

I don't care for the idea of non-existence, but if that's the natural end I can do nothing but accept it.

I do have faith in my unverifiable fairy-tales. I like living this life. I like living like I've got a purpose and choose not to see the world as bleakly as you do. Frankly, I like being happy-go-lucky as I tend to be. That's how I want to face death, too: happy, and looking forward to whatever waits. I could be down about it, or I could just enjoy what I've got.

Living life terrified of the end, without belief in anything greater than myself, holds no appeal. I may be deluding myself, but I recognize it, accept it, and move on. I like being happy, and my beliefs make me happy. That's the only justification I need for them.

Sums me up pretty well... :)

i expect to die a horribly painful death at the hands of shrapnel or a gunshot or something like that. Thank god for the military. Giving shit heads like me a job.

Almost siggable! :p

---

I think this quote sums up my thoughts...

Peter Pan: "...to die would be a great adventure!"
Captain Hook: "Death is the only adventure..."




...bring it on. :cool:

may i recommend some reading material

nonfiction: The Last Mortal Generation by Damien Broderick
fiction: Diaspora by Greg Egan (in fact, anything by Greg Egan)

No, I don't expect to die. I will live on forever. I will spend my time laughing and appreciating the sitcom Friends.

No, I don't expect to die. I will live on forever. I will spend my time laughing and appreciating the sitcom Friends.

your going to hell :confused:

and I'm going to live forever, no ifs no buts…I had better start putting money into my pension :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit

Somewhat indicates that the hayflick limit is solvable. But I am not going to discuss that.

Extending life is a laudable goal.

Two things are directly related to cell life span, in my mind, and that is the hayflick limit, and also the rate at which cells divide. I am unsure how to research that however. What causes cells to reproduce? Can it be retarted?

While lack of risk and danger drives up the average lifespan, but not the practical limit, there is environmental force pushing for longer lives. I'll get to that in a minute.

Ultimately, evolution doesnt push against lifespan, because extended life span happens after the reproductive years, and good genetics for long life are of little benefit. The only genetics that benefit all stages of life are the ones that promote general good health.

Now back to that environmental force.

People are maturing later in life, and the requirements of our society are pushing pregnancy further towards middle age. Childhood is being lengthened, or at least, true adult hood is being pressed back by educational requirements. It is not uncommon for people to have their first children in their thirties, while a little more than 100 years ago, they would start having them in the teens/late teens. Childhood is a relatively recent invention.

In this case, at the very least, we should have some sort of evidence of people remaining physically and possibly mentally young until reaching the common age for reproduction. Ask your grandparents for a non scientific opinion.

I dont think this will affect the hayflick limit. What I think will happen is that society will grow increasingly complicated, requiring a longer maturing stage(education especially), and we will see people stay increasingly youthful into old age, with a shorter and more rapid decline near the end.

Effect dismay, refute, explain.

Friends gets boring after you´ve seen each episode more than 10 times. :D

I expect that at some point later today I shall mindlessly leap into the driver's seat of my family's minivan and go cruising onto Highway 285 at the fastest speed I can get it up to and smash into an oncoming semi, hoping I will somehow escape with no injuries and with minimal damage to the minivan. I will of course be mistaken and die.

Or maybe I just dreamed that last night. I don't know.

If a singularity occurs, then I suspect the intelligence would be bright enough to realize that "curing" death is a bad idea in nearly every conceivable way, including:

1. Political and social stagnation.
2. Over population.

Overpopulation is an overestimated threat.

Consider that in the 1950's, the Earth was estimated to be able to house 50-200 billion people.

Now consider improvements in food production.

Now consider space colonies.

Now consider birth control.

Now consider that even if you're completely unaging and superhuman, you can still have (and in the course of an eternal life WILL HAVE) a lethal accident.

We'll get over it.

Overpopulation is an overestimated threat.

Consider that in the 1950's, the Earth was estimated to be able to house 50-200 billion people.

Now consider improvements in food production.

Now consider space colonies.

Now consider birth control.

Now consider that even if you're completely unaging and superhuman, you can still have (and in the course of an eternal life WILL HAVE) a lethal accident.

We'll get over it.

Even with those things, over-population would become a real danger if everyone stopped dying. Seriously. Possibly at that time we'll have space colonies, but that technology is just as far away, and might even come after the singularity, not before.

Birth control is in use now, do you honestly think that the ability to live forever will trump the drive to have children? We don't have the ability to describe immortality even now, not accurately. Our genes wouldn't listen to our minds, they'd still want reproduction. Immortals will still have children, you won't be able to stop them.

Trying to keep people from having children will just cause more fighting. Maybe in the end you'd have a world population of like 500 million, because everyone else died in the fighting to control the technology and, afterwards, when the government(s) try to start controlling child birth.

The whole idea is just horrible.

I mean, what IF you do trump over population? How do you trump social, political, and physical stagnation?

If no one dies, natural selection can't occur. We don't have cures for all the hereditary diseases in the world right now, can we honestly say we will then? What new sorts of hereditary problems pop up over the course of thousands of years? Things we can't cure? What about viruses that evolve with us and become immune to increasingly sophisticated medicines as they do now?

What about political gridlock? In the current US system, you could have senators in seats for centuries, because their constituents would just NEVER die. No political progress would occur. Older folks in the US have almost all the voting power because there's a large generation gap, and there're still more of them than us.

Social progress? Imagine inflation! What about jobs? Could you hold a job for 1000 years and still progress? What if a ceo, being alive for 1000 years, vetoes all attempts to progress his company?

Living forever sounds nice and all, but when you look at the wicked complications living forever entails, I want no part of it.

My God, think of the bureaucracy involved in handling, say, 10 billion citizens in the United States!

People would still die. They just wouldnt die of old age. Also, boredom and security promote risk taking. You'd see REALLY extreme sports.

Even with those things, over-population would become a real danger if everyone stopped dying. Seriously. Possibly at that time we'll have space colonies, but that technology is just as far away, and might even come after the singularity, not before.

Consider the fact that right now humanity populates 10% of the land surface of the globe (including agricultural land). Most of it is jungles, forests, and crap.

This means, under my math, that we can increase our population TENFOLD before even having to worry about the sea surface.

Our genes wouldn't listen to our minds, they'd still want reproduction.

Look how rapidly child birth is falling off already in all the advanced nations.

What about viruses that evolve with us and become immune to increasingly sophisticated medicines as they do now?

Then we will not have immortality.

In the current US system, you could have senators in seats for centuries, because their constituents would just NEVER die.

Why is this a problem? If the majority of people WANT to have Hillary Clinton as Senator for the next few millenia, let 'em!

What if a ceo, being alive for 1000 years, vetoes all attempts to progress his company?

And by this time, new stuff would be invented - new products, new market practices - and the company would be driven out of business. Good luck.

Consider the fact that right now humanity populates 10% of the land surface of the globe (including agricultural land). Most of it is jungles, forests, and crap.



This means, under my math, that we can increase our population TENFOLD before even having to worry about the sea surface.



Look how rapidly child birth is falling off already in all the advanced nations.



Then we will not have immortality.



Why is this a problem? If the majority of people WANT to have Hillary Clinton as Senator for the next few millenia, let 'em!



And by this time, new stuff would be invented - new products, new market practices - and the company would be driven out of business. Good luck.

1. How much of the surface, currently, is used to feed the world's population? By the numbers, you'd have to have a ten-fold increase in food production, would you not?
a. A further complication is the destruction of the natural environment. If the human population completely covers the surface of the earth, what about plants and animals?
b. Over-crowding occurs as is, how will you compensate for such a large increase in population? What about jobs for all these people? Living space? Materials?
c. You're basing this assumption on science for the 1950s. Granted, I may be writing this from my flying car on the moon, but not all of their science was so hot.

2. Stabilizing or falling off, sure, but not entirely.
a. In the US, we've got a nearly perfect balance of death/birth. If 99% of those people stop dying, then the population just keeps increasing, no matter how low the birth-rate is.
b. Keep in mind, birth-rates are generally calculated according to the death-rate of a country. No death? Birth rates would sky-rocket.
c. It seems like this would cause further problems anyway, as people are stupid and irresponsible. "Hurrr, I can have as many kids as I want! We've got forever to figure out why this is a bad idea! HURRR!" (this is not a jab at you, btw)

3. You'll never truly conquer disease, so I guess I don't have to keep going.

4. But I will. It causes stagnation to have the same people in power forever.
a. And that's just the thing! Majority is meaningless when the same people can keep voting forever because the voting pool never changes.
b. Which would be compounded by your birthrate argument. No one new is born? No power changes are possible!
c. Which leads to the utter destruction of a minority population. No one can get anything done because there's no change in power structure. Political parties will meld, and we'll end up with a hegemony because there's just no way to change anything.

5. You're right, that business would go under. The point is, people in one place of power forever is just a bad idea. It's why monarchies failed, because it's essentially the same thing.

I don't think that I am going to die (or at least cease to exist), due to my religious/philosophical views. My philosophy is that anything that is impossible to comrehend must simply not be true. I can't comprehend myself not existing, so therefore it must not be possible, and I can't comprehend an eternity in heaven or hell or some variation of the two, therefore it must not be possible. I can't comprehend being reincarnated, so it must not be possible. The only real alternative to these is just not dying (or becoming a ghost), both of which I can easily imagine. And modern/soon to be modern medicine could probably help with that.

Allanea, things really arent that simple.

Do you think earth can suport 60 billion people? Of course not. Jungles, forests and shit? Come on, do you think a planet can become a everlasting city, like Coriscant in Star Wars? Never. Things doesnt work like that. We need the forests, the jungles and the other crap.

What about unemployment? The technology is becoming beter every day. We need less and less people to do the same jobs. Decrease the need for jobs, increase the population by tenfold, and in a capitalistic system, that really wouldnt work.

Why it wouldnt work in a capitalistic system? Because power would concentrate more and more in the hands of a few, and only those would have enough money to buy the imortality technology. The ones who diidnt would get jealous, would say its unfare, would say god meant everyone to live forever, would demand it from the Gov, the gov wouldnt give it, people would get pissed off, and troubles would arise.

People who had the technology would become increasingly rich and powerfull, and famous. Someday someone would assassin one, they would get pissed off, and more troubles would arise.

Until people started killing each other and all went to shit.

i expect my physical form to loose functionality sometime within the next very few decades. some discontinuity of experiential perception may accompany this occurance. the latter is by no means certain.

my hope and faith is in two things, one being diversity being the nature of reality, the other, having been born with dreams/memories of having previously lived and functioned as an adult on a tangable material world very much not this earth.

i do not reguard either as a guarantee, unfortunately, that i can take for granted a continuation of experiential perception beyond the servicable life of the organic form i currently occupy. only a sense of having existed well and thoroughly multiple 'lives' before its birth, and the feeling of a sense that there may yet be other beyond this one.

2080 is too far away for someone born 1948 to reasonably expect to see. 2025 maybe, but really there's no guarantee even of that.

petrolium products will no longer be economicly viable as fuels by 2080, and perhapse as early as 2025. i'd love to be arround and still clear headed enough to appreaciate the fallout when THAT occurs.

something that COULD resault in those of us who survive its consiquences being MUCH better off then we are now.

that and several other 'shakeups' i see not TOO far down the road, just far enough to be a bit dicey as to whether or not i'll be able to witness them myself.

well i have lived to see the america i grew up in blowing the hell out of the pretentions it filled everyone's head with while i was doing so.

the consiquences of THAT probably won't by widely and fully understood untill we are well into the thick of them.

but it's only a matter of time untill a country its people have allowed to get away with bullying the rest of the world fouls its own nest, and this is something we HAVE begun to see happen.

fortunately all of the people all of the time haven't been entirely fooled. even though conscousless economic interests keep trying.

but i don't expect to die of politics or resource depletion, though either could just as easily happen to any of us, but of the usual falling appart and degradation of bodily functions, genericly and colloqualy refered to as "old age".

=^^=
.../\...

I don't think that I am going to die (or at least cease to exist), due to my religious/philosophical views. My philosophy is that anything that is impossible to comrehend must simply not be true. I can't comprehend myself not existing, so therefore it must not be possible, and I can't comprehend an eternity in heaven or hell or some variation of the two, therefore it must not be possible. I can't comprehend being reincarnated, so it must not be possible. The only real alternative to these is just not dying (or becoming a ghost), both of which I can easily imagine. And modern/soon to be modern medicine could probably help with that.

Dude, just because you believe in Santa doesnt mean he exist.

Ok, now, lets everyone start to believe in what we want, and not in reality, and we can change the world.

Wrong. The hippies proved that.

Allanea, things really arent that simple.

Do you think earth can suport 60 billion people? Of course not. Jungles, forests and shit? Come on, do you think a planet can become a everlasting city, like Coriscant in Star Wars? Never. Things doesnt work like that. We need the forests, the jungles and the other crap.


We need it at our current technological level.

Now imagine all the smart people, like Stephen Hawking, would never die.

They'd just go on making inventions and stuff for millenia - and in the same time more and more smart people would be born. Just that in itself would explode techological progress.


What about unemployment? The technology is becoming beter every day. We need less and less people to do the same jobs. Decrease the need for jobs, increase the population by tenfold, and in a capitalistic system, that really wouldnt work.


This argument was proffered at every level of technoological developement, and it failed every single time.

Beacause as capitalism evolves, it creates more and more needs.

People lost jobs in farming as the tractor came along, and found jobs in General Motors factories.

Then people lost jobs in the automotive industry as robots cam along, and found jobs as codemonkies for Microsoft and in the service industry.

Additionally... WHY work?

Imagine you work for, say, two hundred years. You'd eventually save up enough money to invest it in some company (thus contributing to technological progress) and live off the dividends. Even if you're the suckiest minimum-wage worker, you could do it.



and only those would have enough money to buy the imortality technology

And then other companies would make their own versions, then someone would make generic, then someone would pirate it, and then someone would cue themselves into scale and volume pricing, and as more and more immorality cure is pumped out, the LESS it costs per pill.

Dude, just because you believe in Santa doesnt mean he exist.

Ok, now, lets everyone start to believe in what we want, and not in reality, and we can change the world.

Wrong. The hippies proved that.

you may both be wrong for reasons neither of you have considered. we don't KNOW that we can't make something, something nontangable anyway, come into existence by believing in it. probability does however, tend to be conserved in the tangable universe in which those of us here live our daily lives. our priorities having more to do with what we experience in our daily lives, by way of the incentives they togather in reality creeate for politics and industry.

i'd like to address the point someone mentioned about our living on "only 10% of our earth's surface". what that commenter didn't seem to realize, two things particularly, is that for one, even if that is an accurate estimate of how much of the LAND we physicaly occupy, our existence is derived and completely dependent, already, on ALL of it. even the most UNoccupied portions. the other is the tiney little detail that somewhere between 60 to 70% perhapse more, i haven't looked up the actual figure lately, it slipps my mind, of our planet's surface, happens to be very deep, very treacherously stormy, very saline, mid oceanic water. and while tecnological means could be developed, much of which to some degree may already exist, to physicly OCCUPY the ocean surface or beneath it, once again there is an economics of nature itself that enters the picture of any such degree of tecnological dependency.

and it takes more, a LOT more then square or cubic yards or meters of SPACE to SUSTAIN LIFE.

air to breathe for example. sometimes i wonder just how small a percentage of people now living realize where the breathable oxygen in our earths atmospher really comes from, and how dependent every oxygen breathing organism is on its continuing to be produced! and that's just air. not to mention food, water, shelter, et all.

so the demise of mortality would NOT mean all of us living happily ever after. not even close. unless of course, we were willing to somehow tie birthrate to deathrate, both near zero of course, and with actualy a MUCH [i]SMALLER[i/] number of humans, by several orders of magnitude, then occupy our planet's surface NOW.

personaly i wouldn't MIND tangibly, physicly living forever (or at least a LOT longer then i am currently likely to, but it will take more , a LOT more, then just 'curing death' to make this, for more then a handfull of us, even possible.

=^^=
.../\...

How I feel about death: Ain't shit you can do about it.

The thought of non-existence terrifies me, but then again, it's not like I'm going to know the difference.

I envy religious people, because even if they are wrong, they still have that comfort throughout your life. And if you are wrong, it's not like you're going to know it anyway.

Extension of life? I don't see the point. Because if non-existence is truley what happens then you won't know if you lived for a day or a million years. If there is an afterlife, I'm sure you're going to be getting on to bigger and better.

Make your peace with death and then forget about it. There's really no point in worrying, because afterlife or no, you aren't going to care after it's over.

I believe my ideal end-of-life is 75, when the congenital heart defect kicks in and kills me. Fuck, I'll even get a DNR and an order not to have the paramedics tamper with my heart. I'd want to go right then before my health gives out on me, have the old heart take me down right away.

Dude, just because you believe in Santa doesnt mean he exist.

Ok, now, lets everyone start to believe in what we want, and not in reality, and we can change the world.

Wrong. The hippies proved that.

Just because somebody believes in Santa doesn't mean he exists. But if the concept of Santa is completely impossible to understand, nobody would believe in him, without some form of explanation. I don't believe that I'll die, because having myself not exist is impossible for me to wrap my mind around. So, I don't believe that I'll just suddenly cease to exist. Mind you, that doesn't mean my physical body won't stop functioning, and that doesn't mean that I'll just turn into a ghost or live forever. There are an infinite number of possibilities that I didn't mention before, because I don't know about them. Any one of them could be true. I might not know about them, but their concepts aren't impossible to imagine. So I'm of the firm belief that I, in a conventional sense, won't die.

I seriously do not expect to die, ever (or at least for a dozen centuries or so). I'm with you!

Not on the "singularity" speculation, but your main point of not dying of age. I can't see how anyone can just accept death by aging! To me it's THE biggest ripoff--even if you do everything you can to live healthy, you die. No. I will not just accept that!

Personally I see old age's ill effects (including death) being defeated. Not in a one shot megadiscovery, but after a series of life-extension discoveries. Eventually all the pieces will be discovered, and put together they should spell the end of death (from aging). There are already significant discoveries being made in this area! For instance:
Resveratrol's anti-aging properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Life_extension_and_anti-aging)
The Sir2 Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir2) (The human equivalent is SIRT1, but Wiki seems to have all the info under Sir2, which apparently was studied first...)
I have looked at hours' worth of non-Wiki info on Resveratrol, but for this post I went with the URL I can always remember.

As for rich people trying to keep the anti-aging stuff to themselves, that's not going to work. But it won't take a war to get it to the general populace. Drugs are made in backalley labs all the time! Currently those drugs are usually (if not always) ones like meth and coke, but if there's a good demand for anti-aging drugs someone will surely start cooking 'em up--patents and the feds be damned.

When it comes to never, EVER dying...well some natural disaster will probably eventually hit. Or the cliche'd "hit by a bus" scenario. But I'm not going to just concede to the idea; accepting death by age strikes me as bottomlessly defeatist. Hopefully someday in the far, far future, I'll be able to look out from some other planet with a telescope (or whatever they have then) and point at where Earth was before the Sun engulfed it.

Some have mentioned that it could get boring. To that I say, it's often boring right now, but I don't want to die now because of it! I can't see wanting to die just due to boredom in 1000 years, either. There's sooo much stuff out there left to discover (and literally libraries-full of already-discovered stuff still waiting for me to learn about) that I can't imagine *really* wanting to literally die because of boredom.