Think of all the Red Sox fans who would have died this October.
Think of all the undying Cubs fans!
Just once, Lord, before I die…
Yeah, entropy is a bitch, aint it?
Anyhow, I totally agree that Immortality is impossible. I don’t think hoping for 1000 years is going too far though. I would be happy with a healthy 126 though. (shooting to see the year 2100)
D_Odds, I will conceed that population mommentum is a serious threat, and there will be initial problems. I also think that it will drastically decrease after it reaches its vertex. I doubt the doom and gloom will be all what you project, but I am sure there will be a few more problems than I have considered myself.
Immortality in human form, perhaps. It’s in the structure of DNA to degrade over time, and hence, animal life on this planet can’t go much beyond a century or so (with some exceptions, including 10,000 year old shrimp in frozen stasis… but suspended animation is not the same). But… if we can somehow transfer that which makes us “us” into an artificial creation designed to last for centuries or millenia… (shades of 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Then there’s the Depak Chopra assertion of the thinker of the thought. If we remove ourselves from our bodies, are we still the same entity?
The answer would clearly be yes.
I know we’re being metaphorical here, but those things aren’t alive.
What does that even mean?
[quoteIt’s called entropy–the steady deterioration of a society, system, or organism towards a state of decay and disorder.[/quote]
That’s not what entropy is, or at best it’s an interpretation. Entropy is about thermodynamic systems, not societies.
(Setting aside any presumption of religion)
Everyone here seems to have forgotten that death is an evolved behavior.
Single celled organisms do not die, per se. They can be killed, as can any organism, hypothetically. But only under very odd circumstances do currently existing eubacteria such as E. coli ever die. For the most part, these organisms have mechanisms that force through some method of DNA replication followed by cell division even under the most dire circumstances, such as massive DNA damage caused by irradiation. There is not a mechanism for cell death - they will never commit suicide, so to speak, by virtue of their age. Age has no meaning for a single celled organism.
The process of aging has been evolved, and it appears in practically every multicellular organism - certainly all which practice some form of sexual reporoduction. Attempting to find a reason or justification for a process that was evolved is, well, impossible. But the benefit is clear. Species which reproduce sexually must have a means of preventing old organisms from breeding with new organisms. Evolution acts on each and every member of all species, and young organisms will have evolved in myriad ways that older organisms will have not, some for the better and always some for the worse. The older organisms cannot continue to breed indefinately, as they’ll retard the process significantly, giving a competeitive advantage to another species. Evolution has to continue, not by some mystical virtue of being evolution, but because if your children have not, someone else’s children will have, and your children will lose access to limited resources.
Death is not a mistake, error, or imperfection. It was not designed, but clearly it serves a purpose. It’s remarkably efficient as a vector of evolution and change - if this isn’t clear, remember that EVERYTHING dies. Every animal and plant has taken this path, and those which haven’t are extinct. It’s terribly inconvenient, though.
t
You beat me to it, I was planning on using that analogy. I agree 100%.
It seems to me that while immortality may not be immediately possible, it will be and it will go hand in hand with our desire to leave the earth and explore beyond our solar system. In order to make these journeys it will be essential to extend lifespans to the maximum levels possible.
By expanding beyond our native planet we will also be using up resources from elsewhere therefore immortality will not necessarily be the resource eating monster resulting in exposnetial growth of the species that has been postulated here.
I also think that immortality in it’s truest definition i.e. never dying cannot be achieved while we retain physicallity, even if we could live forever in principle there would always be the possiblity of accidents or massive catastrophes that could kill even our posthuman decendents.
One other idea of Arthur Clarke is that conciousness could somehow be stored in the fabric of spacetime itself, an idea that is not as daft as it seems at first, although it is currently far beyond our abilities.
Hmmm…I think I’ll worry about dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths supplanting humans far in the future.
In answer to your comment. The process to prevent aging will teach us a lot about DNA and how to manipulate it. Eventually the process of evolution will be controlled by Man himself, rendering natural evolution for our species irrelevant and unnecessary.
Blast! It should be, “I don’t think I’ll worry about dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths until far into the future.”
And by then they’ll have manipulated our DNA to such an extent that we can’t post until we use the damn ‘preview’ button! :smack:
No, not at all, I fully realize this. Unfortunately I think we are done with evolution and ready to shape our own genetic structure. Evolution is blind and without purpose, and will be replaced. Simple as that really.
Welcome twhitt! nice first post.
that’s what we want, but we’re not quite there yet. though i agree it is inevitable. we do not have a habit of casting aside knowledge for a perceived good.
Too true, but it is highly probably we will reach that point eventually. Might not be in my lifetime (life expectancy 76), but if longevity research comes through, it might be possible that I will be alive on that day. I am crossing my fingers, but definately not holding my breath.