a moment

[Darque]

...And you truly believe that you will, by the powers of science live forever? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup

[Guest Cantousent]

Fair enough, Darque. I'll take you at your word rather than think you're just being facetious.

 

I hope you do live forever.

[Darque]

Though to be honest I would settle for a few thousand years... "

[WITHTEETH]

If the moment came, for what would you render back the balance of your moments? 

[Guest Cantousent]

I think your post was well written, but we must credit the ancient Greeks with your quote.

 

What I like about your approach is you look at it in terms of moments lived rather than rendering the balance. You didn't answer my initial question, but, then again, neither did I.

[Calax]

do we really want to be honest to god immortal? Wheres' the fun in not having an end?

[Nartwak]

Even with advances in technology I don't believe anyone can live forever. Given enough time at some point a fatal accident, a murder, or whatnot will end your life.

[Child of Flame]

I AM IMMORTAL! I HAVE INSIDE ME BLOOD AND THINGS (YEAH!)

[Guest Cantousent]

The idea that any of us will live forever in the bodies we now inhabit is simply not feasible. I respect Darque's view that she will live forever. Truly, she has made a compelling case that someday, and perhaps in time to preserve her eternal life, science will advance sufficiently that no human will ever die again.

 

Still, while I respect her views, and those of metadigital, I cannot help but wonder at the very idea. It's a great intellectual exercise to insist that humans can achieve true immortality. It's even funny to keep insisting that any one of us can reasonably expect to live forever. Nevertheless, it's really just another game of mental gymnastics. For instance, if science will eventually solve every conceivable problem, why is there no time travel? If time travel is possible, why has it not already been created, in the future? Why not create a mass time transit, take everyone in this time forward to a universe with infinite resources? If we give free reign to speculation, why hasn't some other, enlightened species from another planet come forward with the cure to every ill. After all, speculation tells us that we cannot be alone in the universe. Since there must have been other sentient species before our world came into existence, why did they not solve these problems and share the answers? Consider, if a species discovered the answer to every problem, then why not share it with all other living things? If we can create infinite resources, why not share those resources? Suns that never "die." Flesh that never sags. As much food as any person in any place will every need to consume.

 

I take for granted that everyone in this thread has given a fair and honest opinion as to our immortality. ...And I recognize that it is difficult, being so truly convinced of one's own immortality, that it is difficult to answer a question based on mortality, even for the sake of argument.

 

It is odd that none of us are willing to answer one anothers questions. Is it because we cannot, even for the sake of discussion, consider any question as framed? We must insist on changing the parameters?

 

For example, Darque finds the very thought of mortality ridiculous. On the other hand, I find metadigital's premise of a finite amount of good quite alien. After all, in my experience, all people die. I have never considered that the reason for any of those deaths was simply running out of the "good acts" allotted for a human life. Since the idea is so far out of my experience, much the same as human death is outside of Darque's experience, I have a difficult time answering metadigital's question.

 

...But, for the sake of his argument, I will try. I believe there is a limit of good deeds, but not because of some innate reservoir of

[Calax]

dude... commisar? i'm totally plagerizing that for one of my essays....

 

 

But really what would there be to do after living for a really really long time and not being able to die?

[LoneWolf16]

Were there a limit on "goodness" I suspect that I won't live past my thirties. What with all the door holding, advice giving, hugging, and giving (especially with money...basically, if it'll put a smile on your face, and i've got the cash with me, it's yours).

 

Modest, eh?

 

So should I stop doing stuff like that if I want to live longer?

 

Just seeing a big, sincere smile from somebody due to my efforts is worth knocking off a couple dozen moments.

[Rosbjerg]

It is odd that none of us are willing to answer one anothers questions.  Is it because we cannot, even for the sake of discussion, consider any question as framed?  We must insist on changing the parameters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it is because we insist .. but because it is what we do, incorporate others views into our own, but in doing so change them to fit into what we believe is "true" .. So it's simply a matter of perspective, we can't understand exactly each others frame of mind, because we are limited to our own ..

 

So, if I had a limited amount of good deeds, I hope that I would spend them wisely.  I hope that I would find some satisfaction in each deed.  I hope that I would die a happy man when my deeds ran dry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would be the ultimate test (from a religious viewpoint) wouldn't it .. being punished, in a way, for goodness - would you still be virtous? one of the oldest moral questions ..