And the implications for population growth may produce more of a dystopia than the one we have here to for as a species created. I wonder how we would feed an ever growing never dying population. I suppose folks would still die, but not of age related dis ease. Or maybe we could adopt a Logans Run ethic to keep the population in check.

Or we could just stop wanting to live beyond our regular individual life span and give all the next following generations their chance to live :wink:

Seriously though, if everyone living now, decided that they just had to live forever, regardless of what their individual reasons were, our world would not be able to sustain even a tenth of that population indefinitely. And we would not be able to procreate to bring in new generations. 1) Because of the problems with overpopulating a planet with people who never die. And 2) because there would not be enough resources available for everyone. You think we have wars now, just wait till everyone starts fighting over basic survival resources, like food, water and shelter.

Oh sure, we can all dream about living for forever, but what kind of quality life would we have??? I think that's a much better question to ponder. Because the only way something like that could actually work and be advantageous for all parties involved, people, plants, animals, and our planetary resources, would be to drastically cut down on the number of people who could even be allowed to live forever. And then just who would get to decide just who gets to live, and who gets to die?

So for my vote. I'd have to go with thanks, but no thanks.

...lots of possibilities on 'how' if everybody decided they wanted to live forever (although highly unlikely), we will sustain ourselves....something will have changed in just how we do that...people will perhaps have discovered they don't need this or that to do so. I sorta suspect it has to do with the inside changing, iykwim.

Immortal? We already are...

Or you could just use the quote function
I so agree. The theory of evolution has some nasty holes in it, which is why I don't believe in this theory.
The same as i don't believe in the numerous spiritual theories about creation.
Jumping to conclusions is a human pasttime.
You have come to a specific conclusion about me based on my usage of one word...you're awesome !
I have never said in SF there is no higher creative mind.
I know, you would have to search a lot of posts to verify this, but I'm not a fan of lying.
I can only conjecture that you have encountered others who claim there is no higher creative mind and they also have used the word 'species', so you simply placed me in the same category as them.
And what unbalanced facts are you referring to?
I have never said the universe happened by chance.
How do you come up with these conclusions about me?
Not a fan of the scientific method of observation huh?
This includes both scientific and spirituallly minded people who claim to know it all.
Ah no, that's just your conclusion, i assume, triggered by seeing the word "'species"
That would be both scientific and spirituallly minded people.
~still puzzled~ Which one? And what theory do you percieve i was presenting?

[quote=Alternate Carpark]Or you could just use the quote function

To dice all these little sayings up into little quote boxes is too much work...lol


I so agree. The theory of evolution has some nasty holes in it, which is why I don't believe in this theory.
The same as i don't believe in the numerous spiritual theories about creation.

Agreed.

Jumping to conclusions is a human pasttime.

Agreed as well..

You have come to a specific conclusion about me based on my usage of one word...you're awesome !
I have never said in SF there is no higher creative mind.
I know, you would have to search a lot of posts to verify this, but I'm not a fan of lying.

Like many of us here on the forum, we can be taken out of context or misunderstood based on our written word. It happens unfortunately.. The conclusion that I jumped too about your statement was not based on just one word, it was the whole of the content in which the word was used. Many times we lay something out in words and expect that others will fill in the gaps as we meant it to say; failing to realize that we have left blind spots or made a statement that seems to say something other than we actually meant to say. Thus, your statement to me seemed to put spiritual philosophy and theology in the same context as some imaginative science fiction idea that man will achieve immortality by becoming half cyborg one day..

And naturally, honest science and theology are rooted in much more common sense and facts than science fiction or the idea that an old man in a white robe constructed life in a literal six days out of his heavenly building block set..

Of course I know now that your statement was misunderstood by me because you have expounded upon your reasoning.


I can only conjecture that you have encountered others who claim there is no higher creative mind and they also have used the word 'species', so you simply placed me in the same category as them.

You are half correct; as said above, I based my assumption of your statement on the whole of the context.. not just on one single word. At first read, your words did seem to drip with the philosophy of the new spirituality that claims to be spiritual in thought, yet disregards any concept of a higher mind in the universe. It ignores sound fact and honest scientific evidence and espouses the theories of radical pseudo sciences and individuals on a crusade to stamp out all ideas of a higher being as their foundation of truth. I sometime just shake my head when I see such non-sense being perpetuated and once in a while I just feel the need to inject rational and actual fact into the chaos of crud that tries to pass itself of as the hard cold truth- Although those who follow this new breed of spirituality will never hear you or accept what you present them with, even if it is well documented.

But again, I have better insight into your words, so I did misfire on you....oops... :smile:

Not a fan of the scientific method of observation huh?

Oh, I am very much a fan of it.. for many years now. However I am not a fan of individuals who fudge with the facts and then pass off their own pet beliefs as an honest, scientific discovery. This is no better than religion passing off a myth as Divine Truth... I sometimes wonder why some people just can't accept the truth for what it is or found out to be. Why must they doctor the facts to fit their narrow way of thinking? It is beyond me..



And I might add at the end of all this, that yes.... man is a species.

Technology really has been really won.Now we can save the life of people which was not possible in past.Any how its good for the humanity.So we should spent in technology and try to learn technology more and more.