You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Transhumanism & The Torture of Immortality
"The immutable belief that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations by the means of science and technology is no different than trying to transcend from the flawed physical material to the mechanical and eternal."
No different? I'd say that one, religion, is just a wish, and the other 'transhumanism' is an endeavor.
They are both wishes. They are both endeavors.
Under Mao, the Chinese learned that a picture of a plum is not the same thing as an actual plum. Indefinite life-span (with good health) is the plum I seek.
I explain in the article how seeking material immortality is no different than seeking immaterial immortality.
Indefinite life-span is torture and definitely a not good measure of health.
I guess we are misunderstanding each other. When I say 'indefinite life-span' I mean that one will be in a youthful state. (that's the goal) And that one will be able to punch his ticket (die) at a time of his own choosing.
I've read somewhere that even when biological immortality is possible (10 to 20 years from now.) that one will statistically die in an accident within 800 years.
But when the technology does come, and I think it will, I earnestly hope that those who want it, will not be stopped from achieving a much longer and much healthier life-span.
Cheers.
Even if that happens then being "alive" really will have no point. If you could just switch off without pain (assuming the technology exists) then really all the experiences you could live as a human being with the appropriate receptors will be limited.
Remember. We already trippled our lifespan and most of us are miserable and depressed as fuck.
Technically, we can already just "switch off".
Euthanasia is becoming legal in more and more places, and improvised forms can also be done without pain (given basic knowledge of biology and access to the proper components).
Though our society is in no way close to accepting that some people might be allowed to kill themselves.
Mainly because, given we can't see the future, we can't evaluate if someone is in a temporary state of suicidal ideas or if they'll be miserable wrecks forever is they aren't allowed to end their life.
Why would the possible experiences we could live be limited if we could just switch off ?
We might just enter into "contracts" with significant others making it so they dedicate X or Y years with the other, and none of them are allowed to end their life during that time, or the decision must be mutual.
And keep the extreme prejudice against taking one's own life alive in said contractual life periods, where a person has pretty much sworn they'll stay alive for said period.
I personally think I'd have a blast as an immortal. I'd have time to learn all the skills, be they artistic or scientific.
Explore the world (and possibly the universe).
Write/read a ton of books...
There's LOTS to do.
Of course, it depends on if we're still under the same "work to live, and don't you dare stray or we ostracize you" society we have today, or more of a "machines that synthesize food or build basic shelter/amenities are a dime a dozen and the universe is open to us" society.
We've got to work on a lot of stuff before being immortal is something that'll actually be worth it, once the hype has gone down (say, after the first 30 years).