DrmDoc

Clearly not, I didn't roll my eyes once while watching and listening to his commentary.

I agree, human behavior can range from one extreme to another; however, empathy is the quality by which I identify the better nature of humanity and what it means to be human. I don't think I can convey my position any clearer. To qualify as existent or even unknown to exist, an idea must be initially postulated. A thousand years ago, were the ideas of protons, neutrons, electrons, and planets in other solar systems postulated? Further, for an idea to be proven to exist after being postulated, that idea has to be investigated for evidence of its validity. If an idea was never postulated and subsequently proven by investigation, then it is non-existent to the consciousness of those postulators and investigators. What happens at the conclusion of human life in death has been postulated, investigated, and, as a result, is clearly known by material evidence in science. The postulates of what may lay beyond life in death isn't unknown, it's unproven and, therefore, non-existent to any objective and rational observer. Through humanity, evolution by natural selection created a species capable of perfectly adapting to its environment in all climates of its ecosystem. The key to that perfect adaptation resides in the evolution of a brain with the mental capacity to devise essential technologies to terraform our environment and satisfy the survival demands of every environmental permutation. Who was it that said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" If the system is broke, I think we know the culprits...those who think they know better. Before that happens, we should probably prepare Sarah Connors for a series of unwelcomed suitor at her door So you're not as maniacal as I thought...your masters of the universe, artificial life, and machine future commentary had me a little worried

Caffeine withdrawals for me was a bit of a bitch. Morning, noon, and night I had to have some type of tea beverage to get on until bladder issues became insufferable. I had to also avoid dietary substitutes leading to weight gain...you know your body wants something, so you eat until that something is satisfied or until you can't stuff anymore down your throat. So I gained a little weight but I'm working on it. Saw this DNews video today, thought you might be interested: This is The Best Way To Quit Smoking

No caffeine too! I think it's best to lessen your likely cravings for caffeine with some substitute other than your usual so that the burden of breaking one habit isn't complicated by the influence of another. Perhaps another caffeinated source other than your usual. I hope this helps and, again, good luck with your efforts.

I'm not familiar with his other works but I found this video enjoyable and very well done. Are you suggesting that the host is merely telling us what we want to hear?

Yes, I do understand what the worst entails. I've lived long enough to know and understand all the atrocities of life I might experience or that humanity might inflict. Suffering the worst of life rather than the loss of a loved one isn't difficult to understand. The sentiment is self-sacrifice. Again, no experience is worst to me than the loss of a loved one. Yes, life goes on; however, the loss I feel isn't one of sorrow or sadness. It's a loss of how their presence enriched my life and experience. More of a remembrance or questioning of how they might have uniquely contributed to every experience I've engaged since their passing. They were assets whose remembrance continues to enrich my life, though not as much as their presence might. Although you are "eternally grateful" for not having children, perhaps you do understand what it means to have children and what a parent would endure or sacrifice to spare their loss. Perhaps emptiness doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you; however, you have said that you "sometimes" feel the loss of a loved one. Although you've conquered the emotional loss, that "sometimes" feeling you've conveyed appears to acknowledge the absence of something they brought to your life. You may not know emptiness but, sometimes, you do feel a measure of loss. Again, that is your meaning; however, the very best and worst is the nature of being human as it is the nature of almost every other animal on this planet. For example, warring chimpanzees have been known to eat the young of their combatants. I understand your vilification of humanity because, as the dominant species, we should expect more of ourselves and some of us do. I am one who do, which is why you and I do not share the same meaning of being human, in my opinion. I disagree; lack of evidence means it's unproven. Until it is proven, it does not exist. (e.g., God) Of course, I disagree; humanity is one of several species perfectly adapted to thrive in the oxygen rich, life-death cycle ecosystem that is our planet. As evidence, I offer the proliferation of our species virtually everywhere on the surface of our world. Evolution is a process uniquely suited to the ecosystem of this planet. Our attempts to intervene that process is equivalent, in my view, to introducing a new and potentially harmful species into a delicately balanced ecosystem, which is why our governments have enacted various quarantine laws. As the introduction of our species to the Neanderthals ecosystem didn't bode well for them, DNA or artificially enhanced humans may pose a similar threat. One process is natural, the other is forced and rushed. I ask, what's the rush?

Absolutely worth every second of the 17 minutes and 31 second required to view in total! Awesome, as the kids might say.

To me they are. As I said, "I would endure the worst of life over the lost of those I loved." If you don't understand my sentiment, it's probable because you haven't suffered the loss or potential of a child. If that's selfish, then so be it. Do you still feel his loss? How valuable to you would it be to have him alive, well, and a witness to every major moment in your life? Perhaps that depends on the relationship you shared. As for me, the loss of my parents didn't lessen the valuable of my life either; however, it is a bit empty without them. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Far from your "Hitler, Stalin and other such characters" characterization of what it means to be human, I wrote,"I am always empathetic to the plight of my brethren, which is what being human means to me." Although Hitler and Stalin may be your view of humanity, it isn't mine. Yes, it is. Death is the conclusion of life. No evidence in science suggests otherwise. Of course you are entitled to your view; however, death is the only thing we know for certain that occurs at the end of life as a human being. I don't think transitioning from life to death is giving death any kind of meaning, it's just a statement of fact. If my comments appear exclusive of other species, it is because we were only discussing humanity...unless I'm mistaken. My meaning is that over the eons, the life-and-death cycle of natural selection has proven to be an effective tool for evolving species perfectly adapted to their environment. I see no reason why the process shouldn't be allowed to continue without immortality inspired DNA tinkering. So, just to clarify, an android existence? If so, that doesn't seem like life to me--just seems, I don't know, artificial?

Now I understand. In context with my further comments, I was clearly referencing a perpetual existence without lifelong relationship. No, I understood very well. As an immortal, your position is that there could be worst things in life than the loss of a loved one. My position is that there would be nothing worst to me than the lost of a loved one, which is why I asked if you had children. If I now understand correctly, family and friends are of no value to your existence. Interesting. So, not a fan of humanity? Occasionally, neither am I. However, I am always empathetic to the plight of my brethren, which is what being human means to me. I don't think that's something we should abandon. Primitive and disgusting, perhaps, but it is an empirical truth. Presently, the only thing beyond life is death. Death is a transition from life; therefore, a life without death is a life without transition or change; i.e., as I perceive, stagnation. I disagree; humanity's ability to adapt and thrive everywhere on this planet is a clear example of how natural selection has achieved a measure of perfection in producing our species. Is that pessimism I detect?

Do you have children? If not, perhaps that explains your position. In my opinion, it's not what we experience in isolation that makes life worth living, it what we experience with and through others who share our experience. Personally, I would endure the worst of life over the lost of those I loved. Wanting to be immortal without equally wanting immortal relationships with friends and family is the height of selfishness where only self persists and all others die. Why would anyone want to live forever knowing that they will outlive every person they would ever come to know and love? It would be like living among mayflies whose brief lives would be without consequence or importance, which would be an endlessly solitary and lonely existence. An immortal insensitive to pain of loss would likely cease being human and humane, which doesn't bode well for our planet. The people with whom we share history keep us connected to humanity and aware of our better nature. Therefore, relationships are essential even to an immortal being. It isn't some primitive cycle, it's the continuum that has led to you, me, and the whole of humanity as complex, evolved, and dominant lifeforms. Immortality isn't life, it's stagnation. I think natural selection has done well by us thus far, so why rush? It still has a billion or so years to tweak humanity to perfection--that is if we don't ruin it by skewing with our DNA.

The journal Science reports scientist have found the oldest known fossil of life in the rocks of Greenland. At 3.7 billion years these stromatolite fossils predate the previously known Australian stromatolite fossils by 300 million years. Other than zircon crystals at 4.1 billion years, according to the article, these fossils are the earliest evidence of complex planetary life. Enjoy!

Where our development may lead, no one can accurately predict. The only thing we may know for certain is what we were and what we are. Other than the rules of engagement, what we were socially and what we are have changed very little, in my opinion. Humanity will likely remain as driven to excess and violence by its divisive self-interests as it has been throughout history. So, the mortality of your friends and loved ones would matter very little to you through the eons if you were immortal? It really doesn't matter that they share your immortality? That seems particularly callous, selfish, and unsympathetic, which would be very human for an immortal supposedly evolved beyond the negative. "Says who?" During the whole of human history, has that ever stopped being a problem? Even knowing we are idiots, has that ever clearly stopped idiocy among humanity? Indeed, it's foolish to speculate about what may be without considering the past and contemporary nature of humanity--a nature persistently damaging to our planet's resources (e.g., global warming). Yes, it does matter and its a big deal. This planet evolved a ecosystem particularly based on the cycle of life and death, which is why we presently have the resources we currently enjoy. Vault burials and embalming are acutely recent in our planet's history. Considering how we now benefit from the death of plants and animals millions of years ago, what we take from this world without returning in death will likely require several millennia to reveal its effects. Indeed, there is more to life that just "new things"; however, change, which you associated with something new, is the very nature of life. Immortality would be unchanging, which assures nothing new and that's not the nature of life--in my opinion.

Being immortal doesn't necessarily mean we would cease being human in our thoughts, abilities, and desires. As an immortal, we would naturally want others to share that quality rather than continually suffer the heartbreak of outliving our friends and loved ones. Therefore, considering your question, I was thinking in plural rather than singular terms. You asked "What's the value of death?" In plural terms, a planet full of immortals with many being born daily would soon strip this planet of all the resources that make life worth living. As you have said, we're "doing a good job of not managing things already." The other value of death, as it is now, is as I've said in that death feeds life, which is likely the way it has been since our primordial beginning. I'm certain that even the thrill of "change" and something "new" would quickly lose their luster and appeal after several millennia. Like a fellow poster here once wrote, "there's only so many position in the Karma Sutra"

In a practical sense, conservation of limited resources and its contribution to resource renewal...life thrives on death. However, endless mornings, endless nights, the repetition, exhaustion and experience of every sensation of life ad nauseam, clearly the inherently mind numbing monotony eternal life offers is nothing more than living death, which is far less attractive to me than actual death.

Yes, of course I do...after a fashion. What value has life without death?

For you crazies who want to live forever, here's what it's like for a person purported to be 145 years old: Longest living human says he's ready for death. (This was posted to the Break DNA thread in error)

I tried smoking a couple of times but never got hooked. I hear it's an awful habit to break. Good luck mate!

...while shaking my cane at everybody

Ha! I meant in-person...you kids and your apps, get off my lawn!

The goddamn internets and the twitters, that's wot! You young whipper-snappers should put those contraptions down, look up and talk face-to-face every once in a while. Seriously though, technology, instant news and communication have made us an increasingly informed global community where we were once a citizenry frequently misled and divided by the ideology and propaganda of our political leadership. Many of us now get to see and hear for ourselves what is really happening in the world without government interpretation and filters. Our increasing global consciousness is what has changed in the last 70 years and it is what will change our world during the next 70, in my opinion.

Called hypnagogia, your experience is common and usually occurs as we transition into sleep or from sleep to wakefulness. This experience can involve both sound and visual imagery that incorporates sensory elements of our sleep or resting environment. Elements such as a clock alarm, door knocks, and hearing someone calling are examples of sleep environment influences that frequently become part of what an individual at rest perceives amid hypnagogic experiences.

Informative, thanks for the link.

Really? Good lord, why? Even in an afterlife, why? Just sounds like hell to me.

Immortality? Do you really want to live forever?

How about a 4th choice...not at all. Why would you agree to have your DNA modified? What are the circumstances that might make the modifications you've listed necessary?