I understand and generally agree with the idea that death is the deadline that creates meaning in our lives, in that by having a finite amount of a desirable resource, it becomes valuable. It also levels the playing field a little - you know that no matter how awful a person is, their consciousness will eventually be annihilated.
I think it depends if you're talking about the more conceptual kind of immortality - where bullets bounce off you etc - or medical immortality where disease and the ageing process become controlled, but decapitation will still kill you.
Living until the end of the universe, voluntarily or not, is a different prospect to living until you decide to step under a bus. I would rather live a long time knowing that my existence wasn't enforced.
I think that if there were enough things to do, people to meet, engaging occupations to hold, you could last a while, although you would have to be pretty well adjusted. Without sand always running out of your hourglass planning for the future could be a lot more leisurely. You would have a lot more time to learn and to think. Although if it's medical immortality we're talking about, there would be the possibility that it would be a treatment not affordable by everyone, so lots of people you liked might die anyway. Living and learning for hundreds of years might push you to step under a bus, too, although I've always wanted to live for a long time just to see how history unfolds.
Even if nobody was dying (except in accidents), the little deaths all of us experience normally would still be present. Friends could still drift apart, you move jobs and houses, old places you returned to would be knocked down and replaced with ugly buildings, time would still change the world and the people in it. The birth rate would probably go down, too.
Kev: I can't imagine even amazingly good company keeping me going forever. I can imagine it for an incredibly long time, perhaps with new people every now and then, but forever ... can you? [Please, Kev, this is a genuine question, not a challenge.] Peter: I agree with all your musings. I think perhaps the best situation would be your 'medical immortality' where you stay at your peak until you decide to die. That way you could have a few thousand years of good times, and when you ran out of new things to try, you could end it voluntarily and peacefully.
There isn't a real divine broadcaster, there isn't a real God; religion is a work of the human imagination. It is a work of art, like a great opera, like a great fiction system. So all this revelation that we've been receiving, all this talk that we've been doing, is us talking to ourselves. But that does not reduce its meaning or value, it's good talk, it's powerful talk, it's meaningful talk, it's us telling ourselves stories, offering ourselves narrative to try and explain the mystery of our own existence.
7 comments:
Please, please, I want to hear your thoughts on this one!
This is me reminding myself to put down my thoughts on this on when I have a spare minute.
It would be interesting to track the progression of life.
I wouldn't mind living eternally in a spaceship and exploring the far reaching depths of the galaxy.
That's the most appealing eternity I can think of too Galvin. But would it get boring too? Eternity is a long time. After 5 billion galaxies...
Ok. This is going to be untidy, but whatever.
I understand and generally agree with the idea that death is the deadline that creates meaning in our lives, in that by having a finite amount of a desirable resource, it becomes valuable. It also levels the playing field a little - you know that no matter how awful a person is, their consciousness will eventually be annihilated.
I think it depends if you're talking about the more conceptual kind of immortality - where bullets bounce off you etc - or medical immortality where disease and the ageing process become controlled, but decapitation will still kill you.
Living until the end of the universe, voluntarily or not, is a different prospect to living until you decide to step under a bus. I would rather live a long time knowing that my existence wasn't enforced.
I think that if there were enough things to do, people to meet, engaging occupations to hold, you could last a while, although you would have to be pretty well adjusted. Without sand always running out of your hourglass planning for the future could be a lot more leisurely. You would have a lot more time to learn and to think. Although if it's medical immortality we're talking about, there would be the possibility that it would be a treatment not affordable by everyone, so lots of people you liked might die anyway. Living and learning for hundreds of years might push you to step under a bus, too, although I've always wanted to live for a long time just to see how history unfolds.
Even if nobody was dying (except in accidents), the little deaths all of us experience normally would still be present. Friends could still drift apart, you move jobs and houses, old places you returned to would be knocked down and replaced with ugly buildings, time would still change the world and the people in it. The birth rate would probably go down, too.
Basically, I'm undecided on this one.
> _ < the company would have to be reallly good and also undying
Kev: I can't imagine even amazingly good company keeping me going forever. I can imagine it for an incredibly long time, perhaps with new people every now and then, but forever ... can you?
[Please, Kev, this is a genuine question, not a challenge.]
Peter: I agree with all your musings. I think perhaps the best situation would be your 'medical immortality' where you stay at your peak until you decide to die. That way you could have a few thousand years of good times, and when you ran out of new things to try, you could end it voluntarily and peacefully.
Post a Comment