From: David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 08:30:56 MST
Erik Aronesty wrote:
> I would like to bring up the distinction between "emortality and
> immortality". I got this from the book "Fountain of Youth", which I
> highly reccomend to anyone interested in this area. Emortality is
> "living forever barring some unforseen accident or occurance".
> Immortality is "living forever". Emortalisty is feasable within our
> lifetime. Immortality is, well, a goal that you will never reach,
> but that you can always strive for.
That came up during the chat, but we lacked the terminology to make
this important distinction. Just wondering, why emortal rather than
amortal? Does the author explain the etymology of the neologism?
> If we focused on this issue, and made the technology open and
> available, and accidental or violent deaths do not increase, it will
> be possible for healthy individuals who are alive in 2035 and can
> afford to own a home to live to 1000 years.
That's the same reasoning I used to answer the new poll at>>
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=voteResults;idvote=57
though I think the drop dead date is closer to 2050, 2035 is certainly
possible. The poll was tough to answer because there is this point
of instability at the drop dead date like a sphere perched on a ridge
where the slightest perturbation could send it down either side, in
this case into permanent death or emortality. In other words, most
people who die before 2050 will live less than 100 years, while those
who die after 2050 will live on average 1000+ years.
> At that time, all war will be called "terrorism", and there will be
> one unified government which is generally perceived as benign by most
> people. True transhumanism will be available only to the military
> and to outlaws.
James Halperin's books, The Truth Machine and The First Immortal,
are set in the same future with a world govt scenario. Definitely
worth reading.
> Space will be colonized, as was America, by transhumanist outlaws.
Hmm, perhaps.
>> What are the costs and benefits?
>
> It's more fun than sitting around and waiting for the sun to swallow
> the Earth.
True, but the question is how much would you pay now for a chance
at living longer? It is a lottery, and there are structured ways
of thinking about the decision (I suggest).
>
>> What are the best ways to approach it?
>
> Imagine you've been giveb a job. You have to tranquelize a wounded
> grizzly bear, put it in a restraint, and take it in for treatment.
> How would I approach that task?
I would hire a professional.
>> Which groups are headed in the right direction?
>
> Gaean/bio-transhumanists at transhumanism.org and betterhumans.com.
What do you think of James Hughes's "democratic transhumanism"?
We could have a good debate here...
> The Center for Cognitive Liberty. Landmark Education.
I was impressed by Wrye Sententia's presentation at Transvision this year.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/who.html
I'm still skeptical of Landmark but I'll keep an open mind.
> Then again, if you had to choose an operating system to run you life,
> where "crashing" is death, which would you choose: Linux or
> Microsoft?
I use both and both have crashed on me more times than I care to remember.
I tend to use Windows for desktop and linux for server apps. Which is
closer to running a life?
Lucifer
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 20 2003 - 08:31:08 MST