Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SecularFuture · 06-04-2003, 07:19 AM

LeetJeebus

Quote:

"My personal viewpoint is that we as a species should accept the fact that we define ourselves as temporal beings and are not wired properly to deal with immortality."

You make a good point. However, I'm still, somewhat, optimistic about the possibility that we may be able to rewire ourselves in the future.

Quote:

"How many people can honestly say that they have not looked over their life and felt a bit of regret? Now multiply that feeling over a millennium and you have the condition known as ennui."

Ugg... Another good point. But still.... Maybe we will be able to find a way to overcome our illogical emotions.

Quote:

"I can't even stay balanced after 20 years of life."

Have you ever seen 60 Minutes on CBS? Half of the people who work for that program are in their 80s. 30+ years ago they were not as good as they are today. Each year they find ways to improve their craft.

Imagine if we, as an entire society, did this. Imagine the possibilities if everyone was given enough time to evolve to the genius level.

LeetJeebus · 06-09-2003, 01:32 PM

The idea that an entire species can, if given enough time, individually progress (evolve is not the right word to use here) to genius levels of intelligence is unfounded. What basis is there for believing that a person has no upper limit to intelligence? Even accounting for the fact that afflictions such as Alzheimer's could (theoretically) be cured, and assuming that there was no degradation in information over time, you are still only increasing the amount of information at their disposal at best. At worst, you are increasing the complexity of said available information only. Is this enough of a trade-off for causing our species to either a) continue to maintain a birth-rate somewhere near to what a healthy species maintains and overpopulate the available living space, even if we spread to the rest of the Sol system, or b) neutralize the birth rate, reducing it to nearly nothing, and stagnate as a species, thus becoming incapable of adapting to gradual changes properly (such as increased radiation, changes in environment, changes to the atmosphere, etc.), instead relying on artificial alterations that always have an effect other than that intended by the creators? (Woot! Longest run-on I've ever written!) I don't.

johngalt · 06-09-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

- Would living forever be boring?

Not to me

Quote:

- Could people today become the first round of Immortalists, if they chose to do so? (is the technology available?)

I think so

Quote:

- Should the idea of living forever be considered?

Definitely

Quote:

- Do you believe that there are problems with Immortalism?

Probably religious problems and other crap like that

Quote:

- Does Immortalism go against your religion?

Well, since i am an atheist, no.

Quote:

- Would the technology to make Immortalism possible ever be affordable for the average person?

I think so, although it might take years

Quote:

- Would you mind living on another planet? (I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be enough room on this planet for everyone if no one died)

I think it would be cool

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 01:32 PM	#42
LeetJeebus Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 6	The idea that an entire species can, if given enough time, individually progress (evolve is not the right word to use here) to genius levels of intelligence is unfounded. What basis is there for believing that a person has no upper limit to intelligence? Even accounting for the fact that afflictions such as Alzheimer's could (theoretically) be cured, and assuming that there was no degradation in information over time, you are still only increasing the amount of information at their disposal at best. At worst, you are increasing the complexity of said available information only. Is this enough of a trade-off for causing our species to either a) continue to maintain a birth-rate somewhere near to what a healthy species maintains and overpopulate the available living space, even if we spread to the rest of the Sol system, or b) neutralize the birth rate, reducing it to nearly nothing, and stagnate as a species, thus becoming incapable of adapting to gradual changes properly (such as increased radiation, changes in environment, changes to the atmosphere, etc.), instead relying on artificial alterations that always have an effect other than that intended by the creators? (Woot! Longest run-on I've ever written!) I don't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.