Molly that is the best reason I have heard,, very logical ans concise On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:23 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Molly - I'm sorry. I don't understand. Just why is it you don't watch > beauty pageants? Actually I think they are sort of interesting. Jim > > On Aug 28, 11:08 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Which is why I don't watch beauty pageants because I should not watch > > beauty pageants because if I was supposed to watch beauty pageants > > then I would watch beauty pageants but I do not watch beauty pageants > > which is why I would not watch beauty pageants. > > > Thank you Molly Allan > > > Thanks, Jim. > > > > On Aug 28, 10:45 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Molly - Here's another view on living forever - I just came across it. > > > Jim > > > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > > > > (On September 17, 1994, Alabama's Heather Whitestone was selected as > > > Miss America 1995.) > > > Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? > > > Answer: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, > > > because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live > > > forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live > > > forever," > > > --Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest. > > > > > On Aug 10, 9:31 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 aforeveryoung > > > > > > 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 tolivewithout 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 > toliveforever. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
