Transhumanism and Biological Immortality

[oberg]

Latest post of the previous page:

An expanding universe does not necessarily mean a universe with infinite matter. It means a universe in which a finite amount of matter which is moving away from itself at an increasing speed. The further away something is from us in the universe the faster it is, apparently, moving away from us. As for 'living forever' I'm with Einstein when he states that time is not absolute and is relative to the person experiencing it. Spend a hour with a pretty girl and it seems like a minute. Place your hand on a hot stove and it seems like an hour - that's relativity. To paraphrase the great man.

The earth is not a closed system as it absorbs energy from our sun. An open system, by definition, may not be finite in nature as it takes input from other systems. If all its input systems are finite, then it ultimately becomes finite. Closed systems are finite. The earth is not a closed system, so the resources available to the earth are not finite, assuming that the universe is not finite. If the universe if finite, though, the actually quantity may be more than we can ever think of using, even if we are immortal (or at least living as long as want).

Our universe may be a closed system...nobody knows yet. It certainly looks like it is leading to the great shredding. What happens after every particle is reduced to nothingness. Does this lack of something lead to another big bang? I have often wondered, as have the physicists who support this theory, what it would be like to sit on those last systems where they can see nothing else in the universe as it all too far away? Will they think about immortality too?

Living forever, or being immortal, would also suggest a transcendence of the great shredding. Perhaps that is much more than the orginial poster intended.

Therefore I would not like to wish any more life on a person than they wish to endure!

If we feel we are just enduring our lives, perhaps we should make changes that increase our well-being. Life is all we, as a race, have. As an individual, we have one single shot as experiencing all we can and passing that on to our progeny, in the hope that it improves their chances of survival.

[Cathy]

The point I was trying to make is that sometimes it is better to accept death than to keep on denying that it is going to happen.

I'm not sure who you think is denying death as inevitable.

Doctors. The medical profession. And the rest of us, who know that everyone else is going to die, but somehow behave as if we are not one of them.

This is nothing new; Charles Dickens observed it a lot. People implying that those who die do so because of lack of moral fibre, and if only they had looked after themselves a little better, it need not have happened.

[Cathy]

I too am curious about why any one would NOT want to live as long as possible?

That one is easy. It relates to quality of life. People whose lives are a daily challenge, and who struggle to maintain some kind of grasp, will not want more than three score plus ten - four score years. One lifetime is more than enough.

[Alan H]

I'm not sure who you think is denying death as inevitable.

This is nothing new; Charles Dickens observed it a lot. People implying that those who die do so because of lack of moral fibre, and if only they had looked after themselves a little better, it need not have happened.

Doctors. The medical profession. And the rest of us, who know that everyone else is going to die, but somehow behave as if we are not one of them.

[Cathy]

Perhaps I am being too oblique. A school friend of mine developed cancer in her early 40s, and was told that she needed an operation. Her doctors said that if she did not have the operation her life would be shortened by 40 years.

I talked to her about this, because she was very unsure; there was a significant risk of increased pain, because of where the cancer was. I suggested that another option might be to spend the time she had left with her daughter, perhaps on an extended holiday somewhere. I also suggested that she ask the doctors what the chances were of the operation giving her back the 40 years. I don't know what she discussed with her doctors, or what she asked. I do know she had the operation, ended up in increased pain, unable to leave her home, and died within six months.

I think the doctors knew she would die anyway, and that she would have been better off without this operation. I don't know why they could not admit it, and move her to palliative care far sooner than they did; it would have been far gentler for her.

[Alan H]

That comes across as an unusual case. Most doctors would openly discuss the options with the patient and make them aware of the risk-benefits for any procedure allowing the patient to come to an informed choice about whether to proceed, fully aware of the likely and possible outcomes. Of course, it is nigh on impossible to translate known mean risks to specific cases and the doctor should make patients aware of this.

Has anyone been watching the programme on Great Ormond Street Hospital recently. Heartbreaking decisions having to be made by parents, but helped through the process by caring and compassionate doctors. (And did anyone spot the Texas cancer quack getting a mention last week, offering false hope to parents at the end of their tether?)

[Helio Centric]

As someone once said - "I intend to live forever. So far, so good."

[Alan H]

An interesting article by Chris Larner in today's Guardian: Assisted dying should be a right for all

My trip to Dignitas with my ex-wife confirmed my belief that UK law must change – and inspired my play An Instinct for Kindness

[Woody Duck]

I wads interested to read in Dawkins The Selfish Gene, that it is possibly a natural aspiration foe genes to live for ever. He mentions that we grow old and die merely because beyond our reproductive stage in life deleterious genes then emerge. The reason they emerge is because there has been no evolutionary requirement for these genes to be elliminated by natural selection. It seems to me that transhumanism is merely a more formal representation of what we have been attempting to attain through modern medicine. It is amazing that my child born in 2002 is in a generation whose normal life span will be 100. In their generation, will they be able to predict thT their children will reach 120? And then what about their children? I think if we deny the good surrounding this we have to deny the good modern medicine does right now which few people would.

I'm not convinced that living forever should be an aspiration but I don't think we can deny what we as a species are inadvertently attempting to attain. I can't envisage living to 150 but only because I am thinking in terms of what I know and see regarding living beyond 100. I once met a man who was 95 and he truly had the health of some 50 year olds. It was a natural thing for people to commend it rather than fear it.

I personally have an issue with cryogenics. Waking up inside someone roses veneration has no appeal to me. I am not a transhumanist bdut only because i do not wish to define my all around trying to live forever. I had quite enough of thT when i was brought up in the church.

[Compassionist]

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality and http://www.sciencealert.com/a-frozen-ta ... r-30-years

May be we can become technologically immortal?