Alix Nenuphar

rw:

Certainly not. I find you rude, intellectually sloppy, egotistical, and frequently rather dull. However, one or two of your ideas are interesting and worth exploring. I am confused by why do you not appear to wish to disuss them.

rainbow walking

alix: Certainly not. I find you rude, intellectually sloppy, egotistical, and frequently rather dull. However, one or two of your ideas are interesting and worth exploring. I am confused by why do you not appear to wish to disuss them.

rw: Alright Alix...I surrender...what would you like to discuss? Why I'm making a universal statement about all religion across the board? I certainly didn't mean to convey that all religions are fashioned in the same way as christianity, although I may have left that impression. I meant to convey that all religions are based on there being something wrong with man and offer their prospective remedies as the solution. I realize that all religions don't equate man's mortality with a moral deficiency and didn't intend to send that message...only that all religions either imply or explicitly declare something to be wrong with man that needs fixing.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

And how do you deal with faiths such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Toaism, which hold that man is capable of essentially infinite improvement? The multitude of faiths pose a complex, and frequently contradictory set of answers to the questions of why the current world - which no one admits is ideal - exists.

If the various semitic faiths teach the 'worthlessness' of man, then indeed psychological difficulties might ensue. But how can we demonstrate that religion is the key factor? How can we isolate other social or environmental variables to explain this lack of interest in extending man's mortality?

Normal

It's not good and it's not bad. Like I said I have no presuppositions about my body being in that particular state.

Cost is "easily recouped" by charging exorbitant amounts of money to the few people who would line up for the procedures. Just fixing eye-sight is a prohibitive cost to a lot of people, and you want to significantly expand the life span of humans.

Also, I'm clearly not calling to stop all science, just the avenues of science that would deliver particularly little gain aside from alleviating a few people's fear of death (you do presuppose it as wrong). I think the money would be better spent on people who are actually suffering, ie. from cancer, aids.

No one in their right mind is going to offer a secure 250 year payment plan, unless of course the technology was proven to work. Even if it was, it would result in explosive population growth (we still don't have a place to put all these people), and I doubt people are going to want to work for all those 500 years of their life, especially if they can save up enough to comfortably retire by about 100.

Do you know Einstien didn't contribute any major discover to science after General Relativity, and that was when he was 36? Your presupposition that more "progress" will be made with longer life spans is groundless.

Yes, and that means it's selfish. You are only thinking about the current "selfs" and not the future "selfs".

Well, it would help if you would stop being so selfish about your existence.

Actually, the only proven motivator/facilitator for growth and diversity is evolution. Science, more then anything, attempts to control nature, with limits it's "growth" to what we can understand.

rainbow walking

alix: And how do you deal with faiths such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Toaism, which hold that man is capable of essentially infinite improvement?

rw: Buddhism is based on renunciation of desires.

What’s wrong with desire?

Jainism is basically similar: Emancipation via renunciation

Same question applies.

Taoism is based on state of mind.

What’s wrong with the state of man’s mind as it now is? How can religion address a state of mind that is caught up in a state of affairs that pressures his existence constantly.

I am not arguing that man is perfect and in no need of improvement. I am arguing that religion has failed to provide the way. I have found no religion that doesn’t focus on man as though there is something fundamentally wrong with him…something intrinsic to his nature.


alix: The multitude of faiths pose a complex, and frequently contradictory set of answers to the questions of why the current world - which no one admits is ideal - exists.

rw: Another reason why they should all be challenged. Can they all be right? If so, why does man still languish?

alix: If the various semitic faiths teach the 'worthlessness' of man, then indeed psychological difficulties might ensue. But how can we demonstrate that religion is the key factor?

rw: If such an institution rises head and shoulders above every other attribute of man’s social existence, as the primary causative agent facilitating violence and aggression, what other conclusion can be drawn? Is it the case that man is corrupt…or has religion been imminently successful in teaching this down through the ages such that it has become assimilated into man’s psyche and he can fathom no other explanation?

alix: How can we isolate other social or environmental variables to explain this lack of interest in extending man's mortality?

rw: Lack of community focus. All facets of man’s current social structure contribute to the distraction from his primary enemy. Death resides among us like an unfriendly neighbor…leave it alone and maybe it’ll leave you alone. But religion is the main culprit.

rainbow walking

normal: It's not good and it's not bad. Like I said I have no presuppositions about my body being in that particular state.

rw: Okay, maybe you don’t see it that way in relation to yourself. Now, what about your loved ones? Would you still claim indifference or apathy towards death if one of your family members were on their death bed? Would you have the attitude that their death is amoral and necessary to make room for future non-descript persons to live?



normal: Cost is "easily recouped" by charging exorbitant amounts of money to the few people who would line up for the procedures. Just fixing eye-sight is a prohibitive cost to a lot of people, and you want to significantly expand the life span of humans.

rw: All these objections over cost are nothing but speculation. Extending life spans may incur nothing more than a few injections of a serum designed to enhance certain genetic codes and arrest aging. I see no reason to wildly speculate some kind of drawn out inordinately expensive medical procedure.

normal: Also, I'm clearly not calling to stop all science, just the avenues of science that would deliver particularly little gain aside from alleviating a few people's fear of death (you do presuppose it as wrong). I think the money would be better spent on people who are actually suffering, ie. from cancer, aids.

rw: Why is it whenever someone mentions death everyone automatically jumps to the conclusion that person is doing so out of a fear of death? What’s wrong with loving ones existence enough to fight for its continuation? Why is it almost always the theist who equates any mention of extended life span with a fear of death. They never seem to consider maybe everyone doesn’t feel the way they do about life.



normal: No one in their right mind is going to offer a secure 250 year payment plan, unless of course the technology was proven to work.

rw: Exactly, which means none of these benefits will accrue for awhile, and during that waiting period science will not stop. But once a procedure has been proven, society will follow…just like it followed the advent of the automobile.

normal: Even if it was, it would result in explosive population growth (we still don't have a place to put all these people), and I doubt people are going to want to work for all those 500 years of their life, especially if they can save up enough to comfortably retire by about 100.

rw: When we were competing with Russia to put a man on the moon it took all of ten years to accomplish that feat. Why? Because it was a national effort. We already have methods of controlling population growth that can be incorporated until man reaches the stars. Even if we never extend our life spans another day, population growth is a problem. That isn’t a viable argument unless I weren’t advocating additional advances to compensate.




normal: Do you know Einstien didn't contribute any major discover to science after General Relativity, and that was when he was 36? Your presupposition that more "progress" will be made with longer life spans is groundless.

rw: Why is it groundless? Just because Einstein wasn’t able to trump the monumental development of his theory that means this will always be the case with every scientist? That is a straw man.



normal: Yes, and that means it's selfish. You are only thinking about the current "selfs" and not the future "selfs".

rw: I see, and theists are, of course, thinking about all future selfs. That’s why they convert to theism…the promise of eternal life, heaven, peace of mind on earth, better behavior. As if that isn’t selfish. Give me a break with this selfish crap. I’m always amazed at this pious attitude of believers and how they sling around that “selfish” term like they have some morally superior position by virtue of being a theist. How quickly they forget all the promises made to lure them into the fold…and if that don’t work, well there’s always hell. Becoming a Christian is the single most selfish act any individual can ever undertake. Consider such a person who does so, and if their family members refuse, they are now living with people who they believe will rot in hell, and they are forced to accept that these people they once loved, will deserve to rot in hell unless they join them. Is it any wonder Jesus said he came to bring a sword that would divide households? So don’t get up on your high horse with me pal.



Observe: Well, it would help if you would stop being so selfish about your existence.



normal: Actually, the only proven motivator/facilitator for growth and diversity is evolution. Science, more then anything, attempts to control nature, with limits it's "growth" to what we can understand.

rw: Now what’s wrong with manipulating nature? Would you prefer to manipulate people instead? Nothing about manipulating nature limits anything in your understanding or ability to understand. It has nothing to do with your particulr understanding whatsoever. You do live on earth…yes? I assume you eat processed food, and wear processed clothing and live in a house made of fabricated materials and drive a car and use a computer. All this is science manipulating nature and matter. Yet now, all of a sudden, this is a bad thing because it somehow forces your understanding of something you’ve yet to name. Do you understand science? How much of it do you understand? Is anyone forcing you to limit your knowledge or understanding of science?

Normal

It would be a loss to me, I would be sad that they died. I've lost loved ones, but the only thing that would make me consider one of their deaths "wrong" is if it was prematurely ended, outside of natural death.

Nothing but well-founded speculation. The speculations you assume (a few injections for 300 years?) are far more outragous.

You presuppose it as wrong, which is why I assume you feared it. How come people who don't "fear" death are assumed to be theists? My view about life comes from a naturalistic interpretation of the world, which gives me no reason to believe death is "wrong".

Exactly, even now population growth is a problem. So we develop competing advances? That would only cost more money (and more resources we could be using to, say, prevent suffering instead of fear).

He wasn't only not able to trump it, he was quite quickly replaced, in terms of number of discoveries, by physicists he was teaching. It's a well documented fact the formative years for our method of thinking is developed at an early age. Young people have new ideas, and are more likely to make new discoveries. Your claim of more progress with 200+ year olds is groundless.

I enjoyed that rant about Christians, and how you assume I'm a theist, and your attack of beliefs you assume I have. Does it amaze you that someone can presuppose finite life and still not be afraid of dying?

All I was saying is that evolution is a better (and more proven) tool for diversity and growth then any solution we have been able to come up with. In fact, if you'd take a look at human history, some of our "advances" cause the extinction of species that otherwise may of flourished. Manipulating nature should be restricted to what would be beneficial, and I fail to see how supplanting evolution would be helpful at all.

rainbow walking

normal: It would be a loss to me, I would be sad that they died. I've lost loved ones, but the only thing that would make me consider one of their deaths "wrong" is if it was prematurely ended, outside of natural death.

rw: And if their natural death could have been delayed for 50 years? You can advance all these objections you want to but in a world where science finds a way to extend life to 500 years for anyone who wants it, those who elect to die at 70 or 80 are going to be few and far between.



normal: Nothing but well-founded speculation. The speculations you assume (a few injections for 300 years?) are far more outragous.

rw: I see nothing supporting this claim of outrageous so you are basically now just being argumentative. This will be my last response to you.



normal: You presuppose it as wrong, which is why I assume you feared it. How come people who don't "fear" death are assumed to be theists? My view about life comes from a naturalistic interpretation of the world, which gives me no reason to believe death is "wrong".

rw: Whatever…bet you’ll run your ass to the doc first time you get an inkling there might be something life-threatening wrong with you though. Bet you’ll go through the treatments and procedures if there did happen to be something medically wrong with you, too. Not that I would wish this on anyone…but you get my drift.



normal: Exactly, even now population growth is a problem. So we develop competing advances? That would only cost more money (and more resources we could be using to, say, prevent suffering instead of fear).

rw: Incomprehensible. Population growth sounds like your “fear”. Don’t want to share this world with more people or something? No, you just want to play this “fear” card, like a bloody theist for some unknown reason that is sounding more and more like a person just being argumentative. Nothing I’ve said thusfar forces YOU to live one day longer than you have to. Your “fear” of population growth hasn’t stopped one single geneticist from his research…and won’t, so get over it.



normal: He wasn't only not able to trump it, he was quite quickly replaced, in terms of number of discoveries, by physicists he was teaching. It's a well documented fact the formative years for our method of thinking is developed at an early age. Young people have new ideas, and are more likely to make new discoveries. Your claim of more progress with 200+ year olds is groundless.

rw: Then bring me a link to this well-documented formative fact…which is pure BS. In a world where people live 500 years, everything changes, so none of these alleged objections you’ve raised, other than personal incredulity, would even apply. This is just more evidence of the groundless and mindless resistance science faces everyday. And your claim that General Relativity was quite quickly replaced is the most outrageous statement you’ve made thusfar.



normal: I enjoyed that rant about Christians, and how you assume I'm a theist, and your attack of beliefs you assume I have. Does it amaze you that someone can presuppose finite life and still not be afraid of dying?

rw: We’ll see how much bravado you exhibit when the time comes.



normal: All I was saying is that evolution is a better (and more proven) tool for diversity and growth then any solution we have been able to come up with.


rw: What? Ah, so we should have let nature run its course with smallpox since evolution is such a proven tool…riiiight. We just missed a good opportunity with SARS, too, drat. Listen dude, I don’t know who you are, but nature and evolution are always trying to find ways to kill us. The advances we’ve made thusfar to extend human life spans were not evolutionary…they were revolutionary, meaning, we are beating evolution and nature at their own game.

normal: In fact, if you'd take a look at human history, some of our "advances" cause the extinction of species that otherwise may of flourished.


rw: A very real possibility is that 10,000 years in the future a couple of 70 year old college students will be sifting through the remnants of a collapsed building on the site of what is believed to be an old thriving city on what was once the continent of America and discover what appears to be a computing device. They will likely take their artifact back to the lab and using some very complicated techniques pull the information off the hard drive and find this discussion. Taking this discussion to their 837 year old professor they may anticipate a good grade for proving that humans in the 21st era did indeed only live for roughly 70 or 80 years but were beginning to consider the possibility that this was not written in stone.

normal: Manipulating nature should be restricted to what would be beneficial, and I fail to see how supplanting evolution would be helpful at all.

rw: Obviously.

Normal

Straw man, I never called for science to stop trying to cure disease.

Those treatments are to aliviate suffering and disease. Death is not considered a disease, and at best can only be considered subjectively wrong.

No, population growth isn't my "fear", it is a reality, a reality we are struggling to deal with today. You seem to have a remarkably poor knowledge of what the major problems are in the world today. Death is not one of them; poverty, pollution, over-crowded cities, unemployment, insufficent resources. But no, forget all that, you want to live to be 500 no matter what the cost to other lives. Call me a "bloody theist" all you want, the only one being selfish here is you.

More wild speculations. "Everything changes" huh?

And yeah, you're right, the formative fact is bs. In fact, psychology is BS, whatever you think is true must be true I guess.

I find it mildly amusing that you think this is "mindless resistance". I have a number of reasons why it is not in the world's best interest for science to pursue this particular path; here, I'll copy and paste them for you: poverty, pollution, over-crowded cities, unemployment, insufficent resources. If my arguments are truly mindless, at least they have a heart.

BTW: Gr wasn't replaced, but it was advanced more quickly by Einstien's successors. He didn't even solve some of the differential equations he set up. Also, I never claimed the theory itself was replaced, I was talking about the number of discoveries in relation to the date of the publication of the theory itself. It helps to read the context of the sentence.

Straw man, I never called for science to stop trying to cure disease.