How would you like your DNA modified?

[Thorham]

Do you have children?

No, and I'm eternally grateful for that.

 

In my opinion, it's not what we experience in isolation that makes life worth living

 

Who says that having no children leads to a life of isolation?

 

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.

 

You completely misunderstand. I said that I'd rather endure loss than lead a horrible life, not that I'd rather see my loved ones die. These are two completely different things.

 

I don't want immortality for those who don't want it. It's their life, and therefore their choice. Wanting others to be immortal just to avoid pain is selfish.

 

Why would anyone want to live forever knowing that they will outlive every person they would ever come to know and love?

Because I don't value my existence based on the people I know.

 

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.

 

No, it wouldn't, unless one is exceedingly unenlightened.

 

An immortal insensitive to pain of loss would likely cease being human and humane, which doesn't bode well for our planet.

Who says you'd be insensitive to pain? I don't want to exist without that. As for being humane, LOLOL. Humane? Yeah, I can see how humane we are on this world right now. Being human and humane is certainly something that needs to be left behind for something better.

 

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.

No, it's exceedingly primitive and disgusting, and something that needs to be left behind. Staying like this is what'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.

 

Natural selection doesn't produce perfection. It's based on organisms being able to adequately survive and reproduce. There's no need for perfection, so it likely won't evolve. And, really, wait millions of years? For what? By that time we could be some kind of masters of the universe or something like that. In a million years humans will be extinct.

[DrmDoc]

No, and I'm eternally grateful for that.

Now I understand.

 

Who says that having no children leads to a life of isolation?

In context with my further comments, I was clearly referencing a perpetual existence without lifelong relationship.

 

You completely misunderstand. I said that I'd rather endure loss than lead a horrible life, not that I'd rather see my loved ones die. These are two completely different things.

 

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.

 

Because I don't value my existence based on the people I know.

If I now understand correctly, family and friends are of no value to your existence. Interesting.

 

Who says you'd be insensitive to pain? I don't want to exist without that. As for being humane, LOLOL. Humane? Yeah, I can see how humane we are on this world right now. Being human and humane is certainly something that needs to be left behind for something better.

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.

 

No, it's exceedingly primitive and disgusting, and something that needs to be left behind. Staying like this is what's stagnation.

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.

 

Natural selection doesn't produce perfection. It's based on organisms being able to adequately survive and reproduce. There's no need for perfection, so it likely won't evolve. And, really, wait millions of years? For what? By that time we could be some kind of masters of the universe or something like that.

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.

 

In a million years humans will be extinct.

Is that pessimism I detect?

Edited September 1, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Thorham]

Now I understand.

I'm sure you do.

 

In context with my further comments, I was clearly referencing a perpetual existence without lifelong relationship.

Are life long relationships necessary?

 

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.

Not as an immortal, but as someone who exists today I say that there are far worse things, like millions of people dying in atrocious wars such as WW2.

 

We live in a world where people are being raped, murdered, used as slaves, tortured, etc, and I'm supposed to think that loosing someone is the worst thing imaginable? That's absolutely terrible, and deeply selfish, because you place your own emotional well being above everything else.

 

If I now understand correctly, family and friends are of no value to your existence. Interesting.

 

No, you don't understand correctly. When my father died 21 years ago, did that somehow make my own life less valuable? Of course not.

 

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.

Well, Hitler, Stalin and other such characters were human (not monsters, but human), so that means absolutely nothing.

 

Presently, the only thing beyond life is death.

No, it's unknown.

 

Death is a transition from life; therefore, a life without death is a life without transition or change; i.e., as I perceive, stagnation.

 

That's not the way I see it, and I'll never, ever agree with this kind of viewpoint. You've just never seen anything else, and therefore you don't know any better. You're just trying to give some kind of meaning to it.

 

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.

Eh, most of the species that exist today have done the same thing. There are species far, far older than us, and they're thriving. It has absolutely nothing to do with perfection what so ever. You're just glorifying the human species, which I find quite mad, really.

 

Countless species have proven themselves, why we still have to be careful not to wipe ourselves of the face of the earth. Not to mention natural disasters. We could go the way of the dinosaurs, while the rest of the world just keeps going.

 

We need mental development and we need to leave these bio bodies behind. That's adaption. Not waiting for evolution to produce slightly more advanced human species over the course of millions of years.

 

Is that pessimism I detect?

 

Not in the slightest. The human species will hopefully have gone extinct because we've made ourselves into something new. It would be oh so wrong if in a million years we're still stuck with these primitive flesh bodies. The horror.

 

To be freed from the burdens of organic flesh bodies would be a blessing indeed.

[DrmDoc]

Are life long relationships necessary?

To me they are.

 

Not as an immortal, but as someone who exists today I say that there are far worse things, like millions of people dying in atrocious wars such as WW2.

 

We live in a world where people are being raped, murdered, used as slaves, tortured, etc, and I'm supposed to think that loosing someone is the worst thing imaginable? That's absolutely terrible, and deeply selfish, because you place your own emotional well being above everything else.

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.

 

No, you don't understand correctly. When my father died 21 years ago, did that somehow make my own life less valuable? Of course not.

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.

 

Well, Hitler, Stalin and other such characters were human (not monsters, but human), so that means absolutely nothing.

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.

No, it's unknown.

Yes, it is. Death is the conclusion of life. No evidence in science suggests otherwise.

 

That's not the way I see it, and I'll never, ever agree with this kind of viewpoint. You've just never seen anything else, and therefore you don't know any better. You're just trying to give some kind of meaning to it.

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.

 

Eh, most of the species that exist today have done the same thing. There are species far, far older than us, and they're thriving. It has absolutely nothing to do with perfection what so ever. You're just glorifying the human species, which I find quite mad, really.

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.

 

Not in the slightest. The human species will hopefully have gone extinct because we've made ourselves into something new. It would be oh so wrong if in a million years we're still stuck with these primitive flesh bodies. The horror.

 

To be freed from the burdens of organic flesh bodies would be a blessing indeed.

So, just to clarify, an android existence? If so, that doesn't seem like life to me--just seems, I don't know, artificial?

Edited September 1, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Thorham]

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.

No, I don't understand that sentiment, and I don't think you understand what the worst of life actually entails. People can deal with loss, but living the rest of your life in the most horrible of conditions is simply continuous suffering.

 

Do you still feel his loss?

Sometimes, but I've dealt with it. Life goes on, and lingering in perpetual sorrow just wastes ones life.

 

How valuable to you would it be to have him alive, well, and a witness to every major moment in your life?

Quite valuable, but it wasn't to be. And as sad as it is, at least it wasn't the other way around. Parents shouldn't have to bury their children. It's just not right.

 

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.

Lucky for me I don't know emptyness.

 

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.

The point is that to be human doesn't mean much if it ranges from the very best to the very worst and everything in between.

 

Yes, it is. Death is the conclusion of life. No evidence in science suggests otherwise.

Lack of evidence means it's unknown, not that it doesn't exist.

 

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.

Probably nothing is perfectly adapted to the environment, simply because nothing has to be. Adaquacy is enough, and that's why you'll find no perfect organisms in this world.

 

I see no reason why the process shouldn't be allowed to continue without immortality inspired DNA tinkering.

The process is exceedingly slow, and not guaranteed to yield real improvements. Why wait a million years for small improvements if we can ultimately do it so much faster and bettter? It's basically intelligence vs random mutations. I'm betting on the intelligence.

 

So, just to clarify, an android existence? If so, that doesn't seem like life to me--just seems, I don't know, artificial?

Of course it's artificial, but what's life? A bunch of chemicals evolved from a primordial soup. How is that better?

[DrmDoc]

No, I don't understand that sentiment, and I don't think you understand what the worst of life actually entails. People can deal with loss, but living the rest of your life in the most horrible of conditions is simply continuous suffering.

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.

 

Sometimes, but I've dealt with it. Life goes on, and lingering in perpetual sorrow just wastes ones life.

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.

 

Quite valuable, but it wasn't to be. And as sad as it is, at least it wasn't the other way around. Parents shouldn't have to bury their children. It's just not right.

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.

 

Lucky for me I don't know emptiness.

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.

 

The point is that to be human doesn't mean much if it ranges from the very best to the very worst and everything in between.

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.

 

Lack of evidence means it's unknown, not that it doesn't exist.

I disagree; lack of evidence means it's unproven. Until it is proven, it does not exist. (e.g., God)

 

Probably nothing is perfectly adapted to the environment, simply because nothing has to be. Adaquacy is enough, and that's why you'll find no perfect organisms in this world.

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.

 

The process is exceedingly slow, and not guaranteed to yield real improvements. Why wait a million years for small improvements if we can ultimately do it so much faster and bettter? It's basically intelligence vs random mutations. I'm betting on the intelligence.

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.

 

Of course it's artificial, but what's life? A bunch of chemicals evolved from a primordial soup. How is that better?

One process is natural, the other is forced and rushed. I ask, what's the rush?

[Thorham]

Again, that is your meaning

No, it's not my meaning, it's simply how things are. Because humans range from good to evil, saying to be human is to help people is meaningless, because it also means to exploit them.

 

I disagree; lack of evidence means it's unproven. Until it is proven, it does not exist. (e.g., God)

That's just plain untrue. A thousand years ago we had no evidence for protons, neutrons and electrons, yet they still existed back then. A thousand years ago there was no evidence for planets in other solar systems, yet there they are.

 

Things that exist, exist whether we know that they exist or not.

 

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.

While we can do that because of technology, biologically seen we're unfit for living in cold places. We'd just freeze to death. There exist no perfect organisms in this world, period.

 

Evolution is a process uniquely suited to the ecosystem of this planet.

Evolution is all there has ever been in this world, so we don't know any better.

 

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.

Yeah, that's exactly what evolution does, and we need to escape it through technology. Tinkering with DNA isn't going to get us very far anyway, so for me, machines are the future.

 

One process is natural, the other is forced and rushed. I ask, what's the rush?

 

What is natural supposed to mean? That it's good? Have you seen some of the horrible things nature produces? We can do better than that, even if we're not doing better now. What I want is to exceed biological nature through technology, and one day we will... hopefully without causing mindless destruction, of course.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Thorham

[DrmDoc]

No, it's not my meaning, it's simply how things are. Because humans range from good to evil, saying to be human is to help people is meaningless, because it also means to exploit them.

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.

 

That's just plain untrue. A thousand years ago we had no evidence for protons, neutrons and electrons, yet they still existed back then. A thousand years ago there was no evidence for planets in other solar systems, yet there they are.

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.

 

While we can do that because of technology, biologically seen we're unfit for living in cold places. We'd just freeze to death. There exist no perfect organisms in this world, period..

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.

 

Evolution is all there has ever been in this world, so we don't know any better.

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.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what evolution does, and we need to escape it through technology. Tinkering with DNA isn't going to get us very far anyway, so for me, machines are the future.

Before that happens, we should probably prepare Sarah Connors for a series of unwelcomed suitor at her door

 

What is natural supposed to mean? That it's good? Have you seen some of the horrible things nature produces? We can do better than that, even if we're not doing better now. What I want is to exceed biological nature through technology, and one day we will... hopefully without causing mindless destruction, of course.

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

Edited September 2, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Thorham]

Since this isn't going anywhere, I have just one final thing to say.

 

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

Yeah, don't worry about it. I don't see how organisms and machines can't properly coexist in principle.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Thorham

[JeroJuujarvi]

Good progress to achieve immortality in future

[JeroJuujarvi]

On 8/28/2016 at 1:48 PM, fredreload said:

 

Great! You could design your own baby like you want. And you can learn how to teach them.