"Will man ever live to be 200?"

Originally posted by sonhouse
Woody also said 'I don't want to obtain immortality through my works, I want to obtain immortality by not dying'🙂

Back to the subject at hand, it seems inevitable we will be tripling our lifespans eventually but I imagine not in century 21. Maybe century 23 or 24. There are only a billion things that screws up getting past 100. The latest is longer tel ...[text shortened]... And there we were thinking lengthen those suckers and we double our lifespan right there.......

Mother Nature is essentially done with us after we have reproduced and raised children to the point that they can do the same. There is some value in having grandparents and other contributors, eg childless sibs helping out, but obviously little biological value in having great grandparents and so, little selection advantage in variations that favor it. This would have to change.

Originally posted by JS357
Mother Nature is essentially done with us after we have reproduced and raised children to the point that they can do the same. There is some value in having grandparents and other contributors, eg childless sibs helping out, but obviously little biological value in having great grandparents and so, little selection advantage in variations that favor it. This would have to change.

Why?

Why wait for natural selection when you can have unnatural selection, and strait up bio-chemical messing?



I figure based on current progress we will be able to build a complete replacement body ready for
a "full body transplant" in the next ~20 years.

At which point all you have to do for biological immortality is figure out how to keep the brain working
indefinitely.

Which also looks to be figurable-out in my lifetime.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why?

Why wait for natural selection when you can have unnatural selection, and strait up bio-chemical messing?



I figure based on current progress we will be able to build a complete replacement body ready for
a "full body transplant" in the next ~20 years.

At which point all you have to do for biological immortality is figure out how to keep the brain working
indefinitely.

Which also looks to be figurable-out in my lifetime.

I carefully said, this would have to change. Perhaps we could engineer ir socially and/or genetically.

Originally posted by JS357
I carefully said, this would have to change. Perhaps we could engineer ir socially and/or genetically.

Ah, I took it to mean that some selection effect would have to appear that would
select for longer life spans.

I apologise if that was not your intended meaning.

-Removed-

Grampy Bobby's behaviour is revealing and I think what it reveals is relevant. 😉

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
googlefudge, it will continue to remain your personal choice as to whether you decide to be with God in heaven enjoying happiness forevermore or alternatively stand face to face before Him [at the Great White Throne Judgment at the conclusion of the Millennium] attempting to lodge an ineffective and hopeless appeal supported by a long list of good deeds you accomplished out of the purest motives possible while you were still alive on planet earth.

Do you believe that someone can somehow choose to believe something that they, in fact, simply do not believe?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, that's kinda my point, too.

If you don't believe the consequences exist, then is it really a dire threat? I mean, one to get all worked up about? If Woody Allen came up to you and said he was going to "Knock your block off", would you quake in fear, or shrug him off with a laugh?

It's this reaction, coupled with the other side, a ridiculous ov ...[text shortened]... le motivator. But let's reserve the word "fear" for something you're actually afraid of.

Surely a spirituality discussion and debate forum is the right place to debate and discuss the ghastliness of a proposed ideology ~ in this case vengeful agonizing punishment lasting forever for a lack of belief ~ and that subscribing to the belief is not a prerequisite for calling it out for being nonsensical and ghastly?

-Removed-

His cringe worthy 'banter' aside, I suppose the fact that he isn't citing his pastor's mouse is to be welcomed. 😵

-Removed-

It sounds more convincing if you say Είμαι σίγουρος ότι θέλει να σκέφτεται ότι είναι ο πάστορας της δικής ποντίκι του.

Originally posted by FMF
Surely a spirituality discussion and debate forum is the right place to debate and discuss the ghastliness of a proposed ideology ~ in this case vengeful agonizing punishment lasting forever for a lack of belief ~ and that subscribing to the belief is not a prerequisite for calling it out for being nonsensical and ghastly?

Yes, but calling it "fear" is just more than a little melodramatic, don't you think?

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, that's not even close to being a valid analogy.

Of course it is.

Christians are merely warning you of the folly of proceeding as you have all this time. Not believing the warning is one thing. Getting all up in our face for doing so, or going to the extreme of calling our warning a "fear" tactic, especially when you're not exactly trembling in your boots over it, is another. It's your behavior that is threatening your well-being, not our warning. We're just warning of the bridge being out up the road as you drive 90 mph towards it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, but calling it "fear" is just more than a little melodramatic, don't you think?

"Fear" is indisputably what the 'torturer God' ideology seeks to create. There is no harm in using the word. Indeed, untold numbers of Christians feel this "fear". The fact that critics of the ideology don't, doesn't mean the word is not appropriate.