About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron,

When you say, "... I think I should lend support to an ideal that Mr. Stolyarov supports and that I am surprised more Objectivists do not support."

Support how. If by support, you only mean anything that helps an individual live a longer healthier life (penicillin) is good, who doesn't support that? If you mean, sacrificing something from your own life so "mankind" "someday" may be able to live longer and healthier, only a collectivist could support that. I have seen nothing to assure me, from they way these arguments are being presented, it is not the second kind of "support" that is meant.

In a truly free society, what would stop anyone from pursuing the technological advances required to prolong and improve life from a biological stand point? As an "ideal," as you call it, whose "ideal" is it? It is not my ideal, because it is, for one thing, totally unrealistic. Only a fool pursues what he knows he cannot achieve.

I have family members who have lived well beyond 100, and most live well into their nineties, but it is safe to say, ages beyond 120 are very unlikely. Will men someday live longer than that? Probably. Will it be anytime soon? Very unlikely. I suspect the increase in longevity will proceed very slowly.

If there is someone who is certain they can prolong their own life by some means, they ought to pursue it. But to pursue it for "mankind" is stupid, as well being the typical "humanist" twadle Mr. Stoyarov has evidently fallen for. If I find a way to make men live longer, unless I can market it for a bundle, I'll keep my mouth shut about it. With the present crop of humans occupying this planet, the sooner they die the better. The next crop may be an improvement; it certainly cannot be any worse.

Regi 


Post 41

Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, if you were a woman, I'd marry ya.

Disturbing, isn't it?

(Edit: I had a great picture up for that one, but it stopped being cooperative so I got rid of it...lol....it was funny though.)

(Edited by Jeremy on 7/24, 4:43pm)


Post 42

Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 5:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy,

Regi, if you were a woman, I'd marry ya.

Disturbing, isn't it?

 
If you had neglected the phrase, "if you were a woman," it might be. As it stands, it is hardly disturbing. I don't confuse you with Linz or Chris.

I'd love to see the picture, though. Try again or email it to me at regi@usabig.com or give me a link to where I can see it and I'll put it up.

Regi




Post 43

Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Byron: "Nobody has adequately addressed Mr. Stolyarov's challenge to name one cause of death that is inherently impossible to prevent"

That's not really the issue here. The issue is whether or not the existence of morality depends on the possibility of death - and I believe it does. Even in Mr. Stolyarov's examples, death is a possibility, because George must seek regular treatment to avoid death. That gives him a choice, to live or to die. This choice forms the basis for his morality. If George could not choose death, then he couldn't choose life. Morality would be irrelevant. However, this situation is not possible.

I actually do think death is inevitable, but I'll comment more about that on the Infinity thread.

Phil



Post 44

Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 8:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hehe.  Naw, don't worry about it Regi.  It involved some superb cut and pasting on my part I must say, and my favorite depiction of "your" head (the monkey wearing glasses) atop the body of a pleasantly-clad vixen, but when I say "got rid of" I mean totally deleted.  LoL....Naw, you should get back to reaffirming life, refuting the "humanist's" magic-talk, and ignore my prattle.  I wish I could! 

Have fun!



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 2:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I actually do think death is inevitable, but I'll comment more about that on the Infinity thread.

Phil

Philip, the term 'Immortality' has several different definitions.

 

(1)  Indestructibility.  This is the sense that Rand used the term.  I agreed that indestructibility is impossible and I also agree with Rand's proposed basis for morality. 

 

(2)  Indefinite (infinite) life-span.  This is the sense that I am using the term.  I claim that this is possible if an entity made continuous efforts to stay alive and applied extra ingenuity to decrease the risk of death a little each year.  This does not contradict 1.  Just because an entity is not indestructible, does not mean that death is inevitable.  Suppose the risk of death was decreasing a bit each year.  Adding up an infinite number of such risk factors (representing the risk each year for an infinite number of years) can actually still be a finite total risk.  So the risk of death would never rise above a fixed percentage even after infinite time.  This sounds counter intuitive but it s a proven mathematical fact.  Example:

 

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + .... 1/infinity  = ?

 

The result of this infinite series of fractions can never exceed 2. 

 

So an entity that was continuously applying ingenuity to reduce risk a little more each year would never have more than say a 10% chance of death over an infinite time frame (for example).

 

What I've said here is entirely relevant to this thread.  I just wanted to point that the logical consequences of the Randian moral imperative (affirmation of life) is that rational entities (humans) should make the effort to deploy scientific ingenuity to strive to achieve immortality (in the second sense of the term) and this fact has not generally been realized by Objectivists.

 
For those who are interested in the scientific and philosophical aspects of life extension, there's going to be new book coming out very soon called "The Scientific Conquest of Death".  Note:  I am one of the authors! :)  Here's a link telling you all about it:

The Scientific Conquest of Death:  Book Info


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.