Comments on: Who Wants To Live Forever?

By: Greg Fahy

Tue, 28 May 2013 22:08:21 +0000

The blog and comments on it show unreasonable bias in using Rupert Murdoch and Fox News as the epitome of a problem or as being comparable to Hitler or Stalin, of whom they are the opposite. A better analogy would be to compare Obama to Hitler or Stalin, since he was indoctrinated by a communist his whole life and is moving us in that direction. Get the point? Unbridled bias is not becomming or constructive.

]]>

By: Paul Werbos

Wed, 22 May 2013 19:13:22 +0000

I was excited when I could see a systems-based approach to extend ordinary lifetime by 2–10 times. Within a few days of when I saw that… and started thinking excited thoughts… Senator Mark Wanrner came to speak in my building. (First time a senator ever came here.) He said, roughly — we are all close to falling apart due to budget conflicts, and it’s all YOUR fauit for extending human lifetimes another ten years… I disagree about whose fault it is, but the effects are clear, as is some folks’ willingness to turn a blessing into a curse. So no more on that one.
As for the folks who want to download themselves… live for a hundred years more, and if you are lucky, you might download yourself into a mouse… http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-and-how-could-humans-build-things.html

]]>

By: Ivan Lovric

Wed, 22 May 2013 17:16:13 +0000

It is likely that birth control or impact of humans on their environment will become less important in the next future. Of course if there are more people on the earth who live longer, it seems obvious that there will be less room for every people, but this assertion completely depends on the way we consider recursive universes. Assuming that we currently are in a simulation, the way we handle our existential issues will decide the upper level administrators to continue the simulation process as is or modify all or part of our current world. It is really easy to extend the size of the earth or add some more petrol or infinite energy for whoever controls the whole simulation process, and modifying our history so that we may trust that it has always been like that is not also an issue at the upper level. So the real question is if we become immortal because we find a technical way to make it possible, how far is it compliant with a continuation of the simulation we currently live in?

]]>

By: PirateRo

Wed, 22 May 2013 12:49:21 +0000

Well, the thing is that you cannot have something change and then expect the rest of the world to remain the same. This is article is very much in the same regard as those insipid and poorly written science-fiction films where there are robots (finally!) but they are only used for boxing (really?).

See, the thing is that as these technologies come online, things in the culture will change. There is no question about it, either. Things will change. Ethics will revise in the new light, religions will vanish. You can try to cling to the past but with the grand future calling, that will not last long. And with immortality comes the merger with technology. Individuals with the power of entire civilizations at their disposal. What might they accomplish? There will be even less room or desire for the personalities you describe, Stalin, Hitler, Faux News, Murdoch. These ancient evils will be dead and buried and people will dance on those graves.

]]>