Physical Immortality - Do you believe in it?

Immo2008,

I'm interested in the continued existence of the species - but recognize that the individual must make way for evolution to occur. I think death is what makes individual existence poignant - against the potential immortality of the species.

If individual immortality were achieved the individaul and species would remain static forevermore, and it would soon be a living death sentance, don't you agree?

iconoclast.

Thanks for your answer, iconoclast.
I can't agree with you. With such attitude there is no sense to live at all :sarcastic:
I think that 99% of human problems are because of aging and death. If people will find the decision of this problem - all around will change to the good side for sure.

Immo2008,

what about over-population. or if we stopped dying would we also stop breeding? never again to hear the laughter of a child...:saddened:

Anyhow, are there any real world prospects of immortality - or is this a Holy Grail thing?

iconoclast.

I'm interested in physical immortality

Since an absolute nothing can not exist, imortality is assured in some form of nature or another.

would it not be as useful to be a wave of light-or any other form of nature-as a human?

Immortality? We have a long way to go between our current life spans and immortality. Bristlecone pines live 5000 years, which is the closest any organism on earth gets to immortality -- maybe we can start by emulating tortoises instead.

Before pontificating about immortality as a possibility, shouldn't we entertain the loss of physiologic reserve in most of our organ systems that naturally happens with age? What kind of cost / technology do you think it would take to prevent that ad infinitum?

(Transhumanism, para 4, pg 5)



"It is important to note that different forms of eugenics exist. By understanding these different forms (Eugenics, 2005), one can understand why transhumanism has not been condemned and left to the winds of obscurity. The first, natural eugenics, can be explained in terms of Darwinian theory. The strong survive and the weak parish. As a result, stronger animals reproduce creating strong offspring hence natural genetics. The second, perhaps most controversial, is conventional eugenics. One need only look at the Nazi's vile attempt for racial purity and euthanasia (Beauchamp, 467) or American sterilization activities in Lynchburg, Virginia (Beauchamp, 462) to observe different degrees of conventional eugenics. The third form, modern eugenics, is where transhumanism falls into category. Unlike conventional eugenics, modern eugenics uses genetic engineering to modify the human organism. It is also a more politically correct form of eugenics compared to the conventional approach.

Transhumanistic ideals would want us to believe they adhere to the first and third forms of eugenics. The first form, natural eugenics, is already occurring, and the third has not yet had the ability to show itself as a good or bad form, so infact they do adhere to the first and third forms, distanced from the convention approach to eugenics. Transhumanism can be given the benefit of the doubt, but drawing from historical similarities, Hitler was given the benefit of the doubt as well. " (Transhumanism, para 3, pg 37)

At the time, I was actually quite taken with the movement. But I think this matter has too much weight to be taken in an un-bias way. There are actually transhumanism chapters at many college campuses. A good friend of mine who is studying to be a genetic counselor was a very ardent member. But the key word is "was." It is interesting to note that these chapters are almost exclusively filled with either new members or very one sided veteran members becuase as time goes on and you really consider the implications of a long life, you tend to opt out.

Technologies (as time) are not staying at the same place.
Overpopulation problem will be resolved by populating other planets I think. Yes - this seems like a folk but look - 99% of 19th century dreams are now working...
Concerning the ways of reaching immortality - there are several routes. As for me I consider nanotech the most perspective.

Immo2008,

So you would consider the merging of man and machine a means of immortality? That's a very good observation. Is there some form of immortality forfeited when we replace fractions of man wth machine components?

The philosophic question is immortality of the soul. As to the body, Mark Twain said that after a while a man has seen enough.

But there may also be philosophical implications of the extension of corporeal life. But right on with Mark Twain... sometimes, man has just seen enough. That reminds me of an old adage that said, "death is one disease that no one wishes to cure."

Seemingly, all of true existences must be composed of matter, including the electron, energy, and the soul-be they, perhaps, the tiniest form of it, so tiny that they most likely will never be detected by humans.

This seems seemingly so because all of existence must interact within its self and other elements thereof, or otherwise everything would be absolutely still, and thus, absolutely frozen and effectively nonexistent, if not actually so.

Accordingly, all first questions involving issues of human concern must focus on the natural what, where, when, how, why, and function of the different elements of the issue, which will always take the study beyond the established thought thereof.

I'm not quite sure about how your thoughts relate to the topic, "do you believe in physical immortality."

I don't understand how the materialistic compositions of "existences" factor in here. But even then, I don't know how your assertions concede the nature of the topic.

You have my personal and sincere apology for any confusion any thing I post may cause.

I have already said that immortality is assured all things in one form of nature or another, but forever changing; and that I personally would as soon be any other form of nature as a human.

This was intended to suggest that thinking about immortality of any thing in its present form would result in meaningless conclusions.

This seemed true to me because immortality must take into consideration the aging process of all things.

With human (as well as all other things most likely), the results of that consideration would necessarily be to stop the process. and, of course, for numerous obvious reasons that simply would not work in an immortal situation.

The soul was brought into the topic, and my reply that you replied to, was intended to show that the soul was constituted of matter just as much as the person it resided within.

And I further suggested extremely deeper thought on the elements of the topic as whole.

to me, all of this seems relevant and material to the topic of human immorality.

physical not incorporeal aspects of immortality. But that the soul is constituted in matter may be a little farfetched for the context of the topic as well.

if you consider all that i say worthless, it is ok with me.

i have no desire to chage anyone's thinking, or even how they live their life.

i only posted here because i see what humans do with their non-immortal life here on earth as much more of an important topic for philosophers.

i will not try again.

Good for you Andrew. It's the only way to really live - anything else is just passing through.

It makes sense to question how we might live forever as we're not just going to think it into reality, but why are so many people so negative about the possibility or even the desire for physical immortality? And why do so many assume that people who are going to live forever are not intelligent enough to realize that overpopulation might be a problem and actually do something about it - like take responsibility for modifying their behaviour around procreation.

This doesn't automatically mean that there won't be any more children, just that we'll figure out a way to handle the issue. Just as the longer we're here the better we'll be at figuring out the other problems too. Do you seriously think we shouldn't seek to live just because we don't have all the answers to all the problems that might ever come along?

It's this negativity and the apparent desire of many people to not only resist an idea, but to deny the possibility to anyone else, that holds back just about every advance. They don't believe it's possible, worthwhile or beneficial, therefore nobody else should. Everybody should die just like they want to seems to be the attitude.

Nobody has actually proved that we have to die, only that we do. What we do to ourselves, the toxins we subject ourselves to, particularly the toxic thoughts and beliefs we allow ourselves to give credence to, tends to lead to a deterioration which shows up as disease, aging and death.

I can't imagine why anyone who has a joyful life right now wouldn't want it to last forever. Do you really want all the people you love to die? You might believe it's not possible to live forever, but that's more or less the attitude most people have had to every idea that seems to contradict predominant social, religious or scientific beliefs. Scientific theories and religious beliefs are just that until proven otherwise, just as everyone - as Leonard Orr, the father of rebirthing, has said - is physically immortal until they prove otherwise.

What's exciting right now is how much interest the subject of physical immortality is beginning to provoke - how many scientists and progressive thinkers are considering the issue of indefinite life extension, not just from an academic point of view either. Many of them want it for themselves, which I guess is what's stimulated them to start taking the issue seriously. It also seems to be true that a fair number of the Baby Boomer generation isn't prepared to go quietly into that dark night either and are pushing for a different attitude towards aging from the scientific and medical community.

I think the most advantageous thing any of us who are physically immortal can do is surround ourselves with other people who feel the same way and are actively pursuing an unlimited life rather than passively accepting the culture of death. We need to come together to build life in this world apparently devoted to promoting death.

The point is, until we recognize that every person is uniquely valuable, and act as if every individual is more important than any belief, race, gender, nationality or any other difference or desire, rather than just pay lip-service to the idea, death will continue to be treated as an acceptable trade-off for maintaining the status quo, for pursuing the imposition of a belief, or for securing a desired commodity or piece of real estate.

If you really have a desire to live without death, get in touch with James Strole, Bernadeane and Charles Brown of People Unlimited. They're the only people I know who have been living and speaking physical immortality for over 40 years. You can check them out at People Unlimited promote unlimited life

Not only do they actively promote unlimited living, they provide news updates and references to the subject from people as diverse as Howard Stern, President Clinton and Ray Kurtzweil. More importantly they provide a focus for people who have the desire to live forever - a community of people who are creating an environment together that promotes such a living - and a continuous inspiration for people to break out of the straight jacket of a death oriented consciousness.

Doug

Thank you Doug for the interesting post. The site you've mentioned is very interesting. I was looking for such information. From my side I can point to the new physical immortality community which was opened this summer: www.IMMORTEK.com
So - more and more people are interested in this topic...

Thanks Immo, Really interesting information there. Particularly the "Death is Outrageous" excerpts. Now all we have to do is get people to see how outrageous it is - if not plain stupid - to promote death as essential to the appreciation of life, necessary for the survival of the species, or preferable to living.