Absolutely. We have in this dialog the assumption that all faculties - including memory - are intact with the "big ageing". So yeah, I want to see stuff too. If it gets sh*te you can always decide to opt out, but if health and mental facility are preserved I want the choice, to be in control of my "end". No question or hesitation at all!
Don't worry time stops when you pass on. Just as it began when you first started to notice its' passage.
iirc (from a visit to Blenheim Palace long ago) - Winston Churchill was asked, very late in life, what he might do with the imminent prospect of Eternity. He answered something like 'I'd spend the first million years learning to paint'. He was no mean amateur watercolour-ist as it was.
I think I'd like to define and use such an unearthly /unexpected lifespan in similar ways. To actually know you have ... very, very much time available -well, all sorts of minor diversions might be studied in fine detail!
If you live forever, there are many things to ponder but you can take your time.
"You have to keep busy or you'll go mad." Superman beats Vandal Savage! - YouTube
That's quite a plate full. I have to wonder if it's sustainable, even if the body remains virtually at 30 years of age? How do you know the soul wouldnt simply tire of it all, say, at year 1253? Body/Brain is fine - soul has had it.
What if at year 752 humankind's collective ego declared it illegal to allow anyone to die; whatever came along they had to fix? Having no way out of here - as it is, or what it might become - might be a pretty disturbing predicament!
Jan if mortality isn't written into our genes then why does no human live past 120-125 years before dying of old age. Our disappearing from the scene to make room for the young is the most essential role we play in the ongoing success of the human race.
IME,The first thing would be to learn (comprehensively) how to live happily so one didn't have the feeling of needing to cope with it.
The mind is the forerunner of everything we do. It would be wise for each to spend a few decades out of 300 to learn how one's own works.
The whole point of the first stage of life is to make some important decisions and the time span available to do this is more than adequate. Prolonging earth life expectancy to absurdity is counterproductive.
Well we die because of irreparable defects. It wasn't too long ago that the average life span was 45. Probably people in that time thought it preposterous to even think about living to 64 ;-)
I can't think of a fundamental reason why 120 would be a hard limit. Fix the defects and you don't die. Yet.
And your last sentence is not based on any logic. You could say that we already live much too long, we old geezers keep up progress that is so much wanted by younger generations. We should live to say 20 years after we sired progeny to assist them and educate them, then make room. 55 tops. Who needs 80+ people sitting in a wheel chair all day and draining our resources?
Jan
Last edited:
Make preparation and then travel to new solar system
Hubblecast 52: The Death of Stars on Vimeo
Singularity on Vimeo
Hubblecast 52: The Death of Stars on Vimeo
Singularity on Vimeo
The "defects" that universally harvest humans in the 13th decade of life are designed into the system by evolution. If it were adaptive to the species for us to live 200 or 500 years then with the 7 billion trials of the experiment that are now in process some would make it that far...probability works like that. Even when average lifespans were 50 years there was a tiny tail of the distribution who made it well into the centenarian class. We've extended the average lifespan (ignoring the last year or two) by decades but the brick wall of the 13th decade does not move at all. Bristlecone pines live thousands of years, some tortoises several hundred years, most mammals live much shorter lifespans than humans. If it were advantageous to the species for life to be longer it would happen at least occasionally. We must always remember that this 60-80kg organism that is us is nothing more than a fancy life support and delivery system for the sperm or eggs it contains. From the perspective of the species once delivered we are useful only as long as we contribute to the delivery systems of the next generation or two. Our DNA exists to keep itself going forward and evolving, we're just the tools by which that process is carried out!
The increase of lifespan in the last few centuries is not due to evolution - evolution is much, much slower than that. The increased lifespan is solely due to better living conditions and better medical technology.
I still don't see a hard limit to 120 or so years. The fact that very few humans get to that point is no proof at all. If it was, you could have said, in the 16th century: it is clear that there is a hard limit at 55 because only very few get to that point.
Unless you have arguments I haven't heard yet?
Edit: long life span is not necessary something that evolution favors. If the genes that cause long lifespan do not help you to have more reproductive success (and it is unlikely they would), there is no evolutionary effect, and these long-life genes would not propagate through the species.
Jan
I still don't see a hard limit to 120 or so years. The fact that very few humans get to that point is no proof at all. If it was, you could have said, in the 16th century: it is clear that there is a hard limit at 55 because only very few get to that point.
Unless you have arguments I haven't heard yet?
Edit: long life span is not necessary something that evolution favors. If the genes that cause long lifespan do not help you to have more reproductive success (and it is unlikely they would), there is no evolutionary effect, and these long-life genes would not propagate through the species.
Jan
Last edited: