yes, and you have to wonder what it would do to our perspective of past, present and future. We may end up like Billy Pilgrim in a Vonnegut novel.
On Aug 10, 12:03 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly - very good - excellent point. I think it would be a quantum > leap from frantically trying to do everything, achieve whatever, > before we died to focusing instead on the here and now. The passage of > time would loose much or all of its importance, I suspect. Thanks for > pointing this out. Jim > > On Aug 10, 8:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A quantum leap into something better would in all probability take > > place if we ourselves were extending our lives ad infinitum by a > > change in viewpoint...a different perspective of time and space and > > life in general. Not sure that would come with a forever young > > pill... > > > On Aug 8, 4:35 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Good question, Jim. Endless life extension without aging? > > > > Assume the issues of bad social effects and distributive justice > > > raised in other responses were solved. Is endless continuation of life > > > even then appealing? > > > > What would be the purpose of, say, even 25% longer life? To know more > > > great grandchildren? To climb another corporate ladder? Gain another > > > PhD? > > > > It seems to me whatever temporal good one seeks, all such goods are > > > finite. Consequently, continuation of this life in a healthy 30- > > > something body is more of the same, and would eventually become as > > > boring as h-ll. Consider life beyond mere life extension: a quantum > > > leap to something better! > > > > On Aug 6, 1:01 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
