I realized something, that religous people tend to not care about the concept of immortality, or desire it, but non-religous do. Share your opinion.
Printable View
I realized something, that religous people tend to not care about the concept of immortality, or desire it, but non-religous do. Share your opinion.
Not sure how you mean that - isn't the whole basis of religion that believers are immortal? Isn't that in the final analysis its whole drawing power, and the reason so many people are willing to turn their backs on science and reason and embrace religion instead, or compartmentalize?
Again - a stab at clarification - as I understand his other posts - it is about striving for immortality by doing science.
And that religious people have no motivation to further research in that direction - because they believe they already have it.
Which - in my understanding - is a bad thing, in the OPīs sense.
Religious people holding back longevity and immortality research - or am I wrong here?
That might be what he meant, but he said this:
So maybe if he meant it the way you say he could reword the OP and get it on track. My point being that obviously religious people care very deeply about immortality, but because they believe they already have it taken care of, they aren't interested in scientific ideas about it (or increasing longevity).
A very important question:
If said person became immortal, would we still age? Because the older you are, the more likely you are to suffer from some neurodegenerative disease (like Alzheimer's), along many other health issues.
Non-religious immortality and religious immortality seem to be very different concepts, because the later one ignores the physical body (and ironically enough, still assumes that we will be entities capable of experiencing reality).
This makes sense to me. I also think that some hardcore religious people can see research into longevity as a way of playing god so that might also turn them away from it. It seems to me that a lot of Christians, in particular, blame good things on God, bad things on the devil, and they themselves are supposed to just float somewhere in between without any agency of their own. Which is weird because they're supposed to believe in free will, right?
I almost feel like a lot of religious people want to die, because this life is quite an ordeal for them. They would rather take their death-reward for subscribing to the religion. I think that's another reason why religious people might be more inclined towards disinterest or outright opposing longevity research. Longer life means longer time away from 'paradise'.
I really wish you made the poll:
Yes (religious)
Yes (non-religious)
No (religious)
No (non-religious)
I think that would have given more meaningful results. I'm one of the people that said no to immortality (assuming that means never dying or decaying). All things in this world are temporary and if I was truly immortal, it would kind of suck being the one thing that isn't temporary. When there are no people left, when this planet dies, might be a bit of a hellish experience. I could see how living for a couple thousand years might be interesting though.
Well, if greater longevity or immortality were achieved technologically then you wouldn't be the only one - that would only apply to magical immortality - and even then you probably wouldn't be completely alone - there would be a cadre of vampires or what-have-yous to enjoy eternity with. That's not to say your friends and family would necessarily be among them.
If we're talking techno-immortality then maybe it would only be the rich who can achieve it? Or those who get on the really good health care plan? :lol:
Of course if immortality is achieved by downloading our consciousness into mechanical bodies or hard drives of some sort, then we wouldn't have to worry about biological defects of the kind Zoth brought up - doubtless there would be redundant backups constantly being updated in realtime and stored in the Cloud or somewhere in case your hard drive gets corrupted (just playing around with ideas here - obviously this concept doesn't really work, as a copy of you isn't actually you).
There's the problem of resources - we cant have enough energy to sustain 8 billion brains at the same time forever. There's got to be sacrifices - and now we enter the murky areas of morality and consequences.
I'm not religious but I don't like the concept of immortality.
I prefer the concepts of cycles and rebirth, with the new washing out the old, and everything having its time and then yielding its energies to the next generation of things in the cycle. The journey from birth to death and the epic tale between I feel is the defining and key experience of being human. I do not think you have lived a full life until you've stood at the doors of death. And then the story has its final chapter, and you get your final retirement.
In a way I find the concept of immortality to be a bit of a red herring to tell the truth. Immortality, in the sense we're talking about, is better called something like permanence of consciousness. But I tend to think that consciousness is somewhat illusory and, more importantly, overvalued. After you're done being human you'll start being trees and flowers, and that doesn't sound so bad to me. You will be recycled into the next generation of life and even though your memories will be gone, the bits and pieces of biology that had constituted your body will go on living in other beings. It's hard to express it like I want to.
I understand how you feel - its like we are a part of something bigger than us.
Exactly, religious people don't care about immortality in life because they believe they will be immortal in the after life, in heaven.Quote:
Not sure how you mean that - isn't the whole basis of religion that believers are immortal? Isn't that in the final analysis its whole drawing power, and the reason so many people are willing to turn their backs on science and reason and embrace religion instead, or compartmentalize?
You are right, StephL. I believe, and I hope I'm not offending anyone, that immortality in life using science is the only way to become Immortal, because I don't believe in the after life, and if more people have the same perspective as I do, there would be more research in that field.Quote:
Again - a stab at clarification - as I understand his other posts - it is about striving for immortality by doing science.
And that religious people have no motivation to further research in that direction - because they believe they already have it.
Which - in my understanding - is a bad thing, in the OPīs sense.
Religious people holding back longevity and immortality research - or am I wrong here?
Let me clear something out. I mean Immortality in life. That's why religious people don't care about it, because they have it in the after life(or at least that's what they believe).Quote:
That might be what he meant, but he said this:
Quote Originally Posted by LouaiB View Post
religous people tend to not care about the concept of immortality, or desire it
So maybe if he meant it the way you say he could reword the OP and get it on track. My point being that obviously religious people care very deeply about immortality, but because they believe they already have it taken care of, they aren't interested in scientific ideas about it (or increasing longevity).
Yes, without the aging process, because that is the concept, stoping the aging process for you to never get old and die.Quote:
A very important question:
If said person became immortal, would we still age? Because the older you are, the more likely you are to suffer from some neurodegenerative disease (like Alzheimer's), along many other health issues.
Non-religious immortality and religious immortality seem to be very different concepts, because the later one ignores the physical body (and ironically enough, still assumes that we will be entities capable of experiencing reality).
Yes, that is exactly the case, religious people even desire death if they are unhappy with their lives, so of course the concept of immortality in life doesn't appeal to them at all.Quote:
I almost feel like a lot of religious people want to die, because this life is quite an ordeal for them. They would rather take their death-reward for subscribing to the religion. I think that's another reason why religious people might be more inclined towards disinterest or outright opposing longevity research. Longer life means longer time away from 'paradise'.
Yes, technological immortality.Quote:
Well, if greater longevity or immortality were achieved technologically then you wouldn't be the only one - that would only apply to magical immortality
Well, it wouldn't be so hard when we achieve it(if we do). When humans become more advanced, obstacles become much easier. I'm sure people had similar doubts when,for example, flu shots where invented, because distribution and quantity was a big deal, and look how easy and simple it is now.Quote:
There's the problem of resources - we cant have enough energy to sustain 8 billion brains at the same time forever. There's got to be sacrifices - and now we enter the murky areas of morality and consequences.
Conscious is what makes you, you're personality, your self. Losing it will mean losing everything you have. Man I hate dying.Quote:
I'm not religious but I don't like the concept of immortality.
I prefer the concepts of cycles and rebirth, with the new washing out the old, and everything having its time and then yielding its energies to the next generation of things in the cycle. The journey from birth to death and the epic tale between I feel is the defining and key experience of being human. I do not think you have lived a full life until you've stood at the doors of death. And then the story has its final chapter, and you get your final retirement.
In a way I find the concept of immortality to be a bit of a red herring to tell the truth. Immortality, in the sense we're talking about, is better called something like permanence of consciousness. But I tend to think that consciousness is somewhat illusory and, more importantly, overvalued. After you're done being human you'll start being trees and flowers, and that doesn't sound so bad to me. You will be recycled into the next generation of life and even though your memories will be gone, the bits and pieces of biology that had constituted your body will go on living in other beings. It's hard to express it like I want to.
Big post.
Anyways, I think we arent supposed to be immortal - almost everything goes against us humans.
But if you want to be immortal, you need unlimited energy. And here's the biggie -
Conversion of energy means you get energy to sustain you.
But efficiency means the amount of energy that is created after conversion, and Efficiency can NEVER be 100%, which means if you are immortal, in the end, you will exhaust all the resources of the universe, the universe collapses, you die. Which essentially means you are mortal.
Well, I guess so, unless we find energy that renews quickly. Maybe longevity would be achieved by chemical compositions that would be renewed and always available. Look at what Harvord did to for the aging process of muscles and loss of energy with aging. They used chemical compositions to slow those aging processes.
Cool. But renewing too takes energy, just as conversion does. And if the efficiency problem is solved, we wouldn't need to worry, as matter is always converted, never destroyed.
Yes, exactly. I sure hope we reach this technology before I die:P.
Yes, done in Harvord:D
This is so awesom!!!:panic:
"At Harvard, they bred genetically manipulated mice that lacked an enzyme called telomerase that stops telomeres getting shorter. Without the enzyme, the mice aged prematurely and suffered ailments, including a poor sense of smell, smaller brain size, infertility and damaged intestines and spleens. But when DePinho gave the mice injections to reactivate the enzyme, it repaired the damaged tissues and reversed the signs of ageing."
cool stuff, thank you for sharing! :D
My comment is the same as it was in that other thread.
If you dream of physical immortality for the human race then you need to ask how the hell do you deal with children? Given the immortality of your life you could literally have millions or billions of children. The earth can't sustain an immortal species, unless you're planning to infect the rest of the universe and risk war with natives who don't like you. Or you can sterilize the immortal human race, in which case no new humans are born. That's a far worse tragedy then your death.
You spout 'religion' 'religion' as being the thing that has stopped you from achieving immortality and then make silly claims that science will miraculously save you, if only those religious fools would open their eyes.
I don't know what science you're looking it, but it's a fairy tale.
If you want science to give you answers then open your eyes and look at the whole of nature, after all, science is the observation of reality. Everything dies. Nature found balance by creating a system that creates new lifeforms instead. "Religion" "religion". The basis of all religions were first hand spiritual experiences. Spirituality was also the first natural science, as it was the conscious understanding that all form passes. Being angry at religion will never change that.
Whatever immortality science can grant you, it won't be human, it wont be biological and it won't allow for new life. And if science does prove that consciousness can be transferred from one form to another, then it's proof consciousness was never limited to the brain to begin with.
But who doesn't believe in religoun, knows that things existed not for a reason, and the laws of nature can't limit us, since maintaining the biological body is very well possible, and there is no soul that, when leaving the body, will cause death of the biological body. Plus, when given immortality, I'm sure most of the population will gladly sacrefice having children to live forever, even religious people, who will realize that their belief was just a way to deal with death.
I hope I'm not offending you, or any religious person. I'm just speaking my point of view.
Excellent points, especially the last paragraph -- that one sentence may perhaps be the root of this entire conversation.
I believe that, if physical immortality were to be achieved -- especially on a mass scale -- many, if not all, "rules" of society and existence as we know them would change dramatically. After all, everything we do in our lives now, like it or not, is based on the singular goal of moving our DNA forward one more generation.... if that goal becomes irrelevant, then everything would be very different. How, I don't know (though it will be fun to think about), and whether our lives would be better or worse without an innate need for things like procreation seems a truly debatable thing.
well, when one has the oportunity to be immortal, then the last thing that would matter is the changes in scociety. And procreation is an instinct that could be dealt with. Immortality guys! Would you say no to it for those reasons!? We would not need to end our lives, and lose our self. I would rather face any problem, even if very dificult, for me to not face the ultimate problem, death. Trust me, any problem would be dealt with, and even if it doesn't turn out well, it's better than nothing.
You are not putting your eyes on the prize. Everything we do is to make our lives prosper, but immortality is the ultimate prosparity.
It's like I come to you and tell you that I will give you a million dollars if you give me a hundred, and you deny because you don't want to pay a hundred. Come on, you know I'm right. No body wants to die and face eternal unconsciousness!
^^ Well said, both times!
Perhaps immortality is the culmination, the perfection, of our natural instinct to survive? That would make it our purpose, in a very natural way. Wouldn't it?
And yeah, I wonder how many people, if offered immortality, would turn it down.
Overpopulation isn't a problem. You tell people if they become immortal they can't have any more children until we expand out into space. They are immortal so shouldn't have an issue with waiting a few hundred years before having children right? In fact, I don't think you even need to tell people that, they will do it on their own. If you are immortal and you can have children at any time during your life, why would you have children when you are 20-30? People rush children now because they feel like they are running out of time, without that time pressure, everyone is more than happy to wait. In fact even with that time pressure a lot of people are putting off children.
There will probably be some religious people who wouldn't want to take part in immortality, but eventually they will die out because they are not immortal like everyone else. That should help reduce population as well. Though really we just need to wait until we can expand into space. We have the technology today that we could travel to other solar systems. The only problem is that it takes a really long time, however time isn't an issue to people who are immortal. So we are definitely going to travel to other planets and stuff.
As for using all the energy in the universe, that might be true but not for trillions of years. With trillions of years, that is more than enough time to solve all the problems regarding that issue. By then it may be possible to travel to other dimensions, or create new universes. Look at how much advancements are made in the last 10 years, with a trillion years it is mind boggling what people might come up with. Either way, why would you die at 80, instead of living a few trillion years and using all the energy, then dying? Stopping at 80 seems a bit silly because of something happening a trillion years in the future. Might as well give it a few million, or a billion years first to see how it is going before you decide.