I think that Vam's point about the cycle of birth/death allowing a somewhat manageable population for the human race is a good one. Although after a night of contemplation on this I think that there is more for us and we as a race are headed there. What struck me about this question is this. If we can and do spontaneously heal, will we die? Why should we? I look around and people my age and can see the difference in physical signs of aging, I have somehow managed to slow those down for myself and I suspect the change in medical model. I don't think we will need an external agent to slow or stop the death process if this is the case. Then I had to ask myself, what are the implications for this? If we can retain our vitality, we surpass the physical need for death. I have always considered death to be a decision of the soul, and a conscious decision like D's very rare. But I also know that when we reach the point that we realize all others as self, we are no longer bound to the karmic cause and effect laws, so this time, we have surpassed the need for death at the end of this life to fulfill soul purpose. D many have given us clues to the need of spirit for death - why is "after life" more desirable than current life? So I will ask you, deripsni, what is your viewpoint to this?
To me, this question is pure speculation and like asking how our lives would improve if we didn't need to sleep. For me, there is more than physical rest to sleep, my creative mind, soul and spirit take flight. My conscious mind also participates by being given clues that present possibilities not before recognized. Without this nightly process, I would need to have integrated all that I do in sleep into my waking life. This may be possible and where we are headed if we ever are able to let go of the big sleep. On Aug 7, 6:10 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > The experiences of several OBE's has written my epitaph as a human, > although the remnants of such still survive. I have a strong desire to > be "there", and extending human life "forever" is the farthest thing > from my mind. If they come up with some miraculous drug or whatever > that can bring about endless life, I will politely decline. > > On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Many of the recent threads - evolution, non-medical healing, are we in > > control, Feynman's mysteries, etc. - seem to dance around on the > > wavecrest of scientific discoveries. It strikes me that, given the > > major scientific advances in recent decades and the increasing speed > > of scientific progress, in the foreseeable future - 100 years maybe - > > humans may be able to elect to live without aging. We might well be > > able to maintain our bodies at age 30 or 40 or whatever as long as we > > like. In other words, we might be able to choose to live forever. > > If we accept that as a possibility, I wonder what sort of > > philosophical issues it raises. How might our view of life and death > > be changed, if at all? How would our economies adapt? Would people > > still marry for life? Would it change communities? Would our > > objectives - happy life, great wealth, friendships, learning, travel > > etc. - change, and if so how? And how would we settle such issues? > > Anyone care to pursue this thread? Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
