Human beings want to live dignified lives;
Human beings have to earn their livelihood and perform their assigned duties. The degree of physical labour they have to perform depends on the economic condition of their land. The citizens of those countries, which are socio-economically developed, have to perform less physical labour; instead their intellectual labour has increased. This is the natural law.
“While living a life charged with action, one should pray to live for one hundred years, only to continue performing noble deeds.”
0 · April 25
This is one of those 'antigravity' questions. The problem is that if gravity were switched off we've no idea where we would end up, and if there had never been gravity, we couldn't exist anyway. Each of us has an unbroken lineage all the way back to the first RNA molecule. If those ancestors had not died, we could not be alive. If we lived for ever, we would effectively be killing our descendants. Having said that, 30,000 days really isn't enough. Have the older ones among you found, as you have aged, how the random walk of history grows in relation to the revolutionary thrust you believed in when young? That's not to say there should not be revolution, but it should be incited from a position of understanding consequences, most of which will be unintended. It's no coincidence that science fiction is by and large more about time than space. Things are getting better as now we have access to more information about the past than ever before, but what we lack is time to make sense of it.
0 · April 24
Mark I agree, our group focused completely on the definition of existence and the complications and consequences. I don't think any of us came with a solid answer, I think all of us left even more uncertainty! It was a brilliant question for such an evening because of the lack of definition and context! Looking forward to the next one
1 · March 14
This was my first event in this group. I thought it was good! The presentation was interesting, as was the group discussion I was involved in.
Regarding the subject matter, the focus was more on whether it's possible to live forever rather than whether we would want to live forever (which is the question posed by the title of the event). Personally, I find the prospect of existing into the infinite future rather disturbing. But on the other hand I find the prospect of non-existence disturbing, possibly more so. So... I don't really know whether I'd want to live forever! To answer that question, I'd need to know the true explanation of existence. If it is the explanation offered by naturalism, then I think I'd say no. Eighty years of an objectively meaningless existence is perhaps bearable, but an eternity of it would surely be horrendous!
Anyway, thanks for setting this up! :)
2 · March 14
Really enjoyed the evening; the speaker and table conversation were very interesting.
Filip - The group is great, and I like the flexibility, though maybe a little more Q&A time could've been squeezed in. It would've been nice to get a bit more engagement with him. But it's only a minor point. Keep up the good work!
1 · March 14
" Immortality" would be fine provided one had a healthy and fairly youthful body. But "immortal"doesn't mean"eternal". If a train train cuts me in half,I don't want to be everlasting. So"immortal" really means "not dying of disease or ageing, just of violence or accident. Hence a life of no fixed term."
0 · March 12
I would like to say that even doubling the current life span will lead to many changes.
For example, people will be able to have a family with kids and grandkids and then will have enough time to go on starting over another family and/or having a long career in one area and another one (or more) in a completely different area.
These are just 2 examples which IMHO will lead to many changes and will require social adjustments.
Living for long time than we used to will require changing our mind set.
0 · February 12
Asking for immortality makes the discussion extreme. Why not focus instead on enabling people to keep on living as long as they wish, with maximum health and vitality?
To those that say that the earth doesn't have the resources to enable this, we should consider the arguments such as in the book "Abundance" - the sun is the source of ample energy for all our needs, once we develop the technology to capture it. The scientific advances that yield significant life extension are likely to be paralleled by advances that yield significantly better energy capture and the creation of ample new materials.
3 · February 11
The conflict is that, organically, we are geared towards survival and survival means a constant battle against death. Yet rationally we know that immortality is not only ludicrous but also highly dysfunctional as we are already stripping this planet of life at our rate of expansion. It appears that the balance favours the former. In other words we are more driven by our organic needs than our rational ones, otherwise we would have the good sense to curb our expansion and understand that the economic ideal of growth is a suicidal path. Or as David Attenborough put it;
0 · February 11
...yes, assuming we are all spared till then - ...! anyone else read Ursula Le Guin's The Farthest Shore on the subject?
0 · February 11