Why as a society are we doing so little to tackle this obvious problem which will eventually affect not only ourselves but everybody in this world who is dear to us?

Below are 2 links which state this problem in a fable.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

The second link is an audio of the entire story for those who would rather listen to the story then read it.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.mp3

I am just wondering what peoples thoughts are on tackling this problem which is an obvious elephant in the room scenario but most people seem to take it for granted and just accept their fate. With today’s modern medicine and with all future outcomes pointing out that fixing this problem is only a matter of time why is it then that it is such a low priory?

Below is a link to the Methuselah Mouse prize which rewards scientific research into life extension.

http://www.mprize.org/

and for those who are interested this link is a presentation by one of the men leading the fight Aubrey De Grey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ

Do most users of OLO taking dying for granted and just accept it as part of life? Or do you see it like I do that it is an unnecessary part of life that with time we will be able to over come and thus change the world in the most amazing way.

Easytimes

I fully accept dying as part of life's cycle.

1. I don't want to live forever - unless I am eternally young, fit and healthy.

But more seriously,

2. What a crowded planet we would become...; the cycle of life is just that and vital to adaptation and evolution of all species.

I find the idea of immortality selfish and ultimately static.

To coherently argue for or against the case of ‘curing’ death, we must first be explicit about what aspects of humanity/the human condition we hold in high value. Then we must examine whether, on a large time scale, the removal of death from the ‘life cycle’ would add or detract from these aspects.

I’ve started a list of aspects that people may find important. This list is just a start (and is biased toward the need for death): please expand this list to include things that you find important and your musings on how an infinite existence would impact upon these. Also, if you feel the need, challenge my views of what is integral to humanity: it is hard to be objective about these things and what I’ve written is influenced by my irrational ‘values’ as just as much as logic.

Evolution (or incremental improvement):
The lack of death, combined with limited space on Earth would require that each subsequent generation produce less offspring. This, in the medium-term, would eventually reach the stage where reproduction must stop.

With the cessation of the transference and combination of genes, the biological makeup of the human species would remain static.

This would not be a problem if we think that we have reached the pinnacle of evolution and have no further to develop. My personal opinion is that we have a long way to go: physically; but more so cognitively.

Technology:
The article that the poster refers to refers to technology as a passive process:

“Every once in a while, somebody gets a good idea. Others copy the idea, adding to it their own improvements.”
and
“Meanwhile, the wheel of invention kept turning.”

What the author neglects to mention is that the many achievements of humanity occur as a result of the knowledge that we have a limited time on this earth. The closer we get to a deadline, the quicker we work and the more creative we become. The removal of a deadline would likely result in the eventual stasis of technological advancement.

(post continued)

(from previous post)

Some would argue that the need for advancing technology is not central to the existence of humans. My own opinion is that our achievements act as a testament to the creativity and intellect of the human race: it gives an indication of how we are ‘special’ and different to other living organisms.

Further thoughts:
If we stopped reproducing we would have the cessation of evolution. If we keep reproducing (which is very likely… for obvious reasons) then we run into major problems with the balance of matter on the earth (and eventually the universe):

The law of “conservation of matter” (i.e. if something is created from matter, then that matter must come from somewhere) indicates that it would be incredibly unwise to allow any reproducing organism to have everlasting life. Followed to its logical conclusion, this would result in the consumption of all available material in favour of allowing the reproduction of said organism.

This would, on a large enough timescale, have all molecules being converted into humans. I don’t know the exact ramifications for this, but I’m imagining planets being slowly converted into giant writhing balls of tightly packed human forms, and space being populated with no other matter than people aimlessly drifting.

This could problem may be overcome if we take into account the theory that space is infinite, and hence, there will be an infinite number of habitable locations. However, without the technology to reach these locations, we just slowly consume that which is around us and slowly spread through the universe like a locust swarm.

This would negatively another aspect I see as important to human existence: quality of life.

Please expand and challenge!:
As I say, this is just a quick start to the list - please comment if you want to expand the list or challenge my views of what is central to the human experience.

EasyTimes
You are a dreamer but a good dreamer! I like this dream but it will take some time, at the moment we have no choice.
Fractelle
I do not believe you say the truth, that you really accept dying as part of life's cycle.
NO I DO NOT ACCEPT THE DEATH but I can not do anything to avoid it, I do not know any way to avoid the death.

EasyTimes
Send me 1000 years at begin as a little gift.
Humans have spent their life to create weapons to kill each other and they do very little to win the death.
Stop all stimulus packs, give the money to fight the death!
You know I am close to sixty ...!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis

Quite simply: Yes I do.

Maybe it depends on how much contact you have with death.

My father died when I was still quite young.

Since then I have lost two grandmothers and most recently an Aunt. Due to incurable illness my mother will also pass from this planet within the next year or so.

I also used to work in public housing and discovering the occasional dead tenant was a part of my work as an on-call officer.

Also I have studied the natural sciences at tertiary level and see death as part of life - just read up on eco-systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

I do not take any morbid delight in any of the above but I accept the reality of death.

I see death a very much a part of life. Without death our world would stagnate. My only wish is that I die peacefully in my sleep.

Cheers

I'm with Fractelle on this one.

Death is an inevitable part of the natural cycle of life - birth, death and renewal. It also has huge implications on family planning and exploitation of resources.

I don't look forward to dying, nor do I wish to meet my end sooner than later but I don't have much choice. Death itself is not the concern - more how I die. I am a wimp - no pain please if at all possible.

New here, but in my opinion we need death, for many reasons.
There just isn't room for an endless number of humans, so breeding controls or what?
I have seen death first-hand, and lost family too, so I know the pain involved, but without it there can be no growth, not on any level, personal, societal, cultural, and on and on.
JMO.

Dear Easy Times,

I too would not want to live forever.

However, like Fractelle, I would like to die in
my sleep.

What I don't understand though is - why is death,
very much a taboo subject in our society?

We tend to speak of it in hushed tones and use such
euphemisms as "passed away." As children we fear
the subject, as adults we avoid it, even, and
sometimes especially, when we are in the presence of
someone who is dying.

Perhaps the reason for this taboo might be that death,
almost alone of natural processes, remains beyond the
control of our advanced technology (or at least it
used to be). The finall point of the life course,
the annihilation of the self, the ultimate confrontation
with the unknown - mocks our claim to human mastery of
the world - therefore we exclude death from our
discussions and thoughts.

We've also effectively excluded the dying from the
ongoing life of the community. We have sanitized death
and removed it as far as possible from every day experience
by ensuring that most people die in nursing homes,
hospitals, and similar formal organizations that care for the
sick and aged.

Typically, therefore, the dying face their end in a bureaucratic
environment surrounded by other sick people and a professional
staff, rather than in the intimacy of their homes with their
loved ones. Often, in fact, there is a conspiracy of
professionals and relatives to hide the fact of death from
the dying person.

I recently spent some time with a dear friend who was dying,
(in hospital), she was at the final stage of her illness.
She had accepted her condition with a true peace of mind
because she had been able to frankly discuss her dying with
others.

Wouldn't it be healthier if we could all discuss this
subject and have accepting attitudes towards death?

Thanks for all your replies.

Firstly death is not necessary we only look at it that way because we take it for granted. Never has there ever been a cure for death so we just accept it.

I think it is very selfish of all those who have posted here to say that they have no problem dying. Have you asked your wife/husband? What about your children? Friends? I am sure they would have a big problem with you dying. I have been devastated at the loss of loved ones and sadly I know it will happen again and I myself do not want to inflict the suffering I have gone through on others with my own passing. Also look at all the great people who have died over the years from Mozart to Newton and Darwin. Imagine what Newton or Darwin could have contributed to science if they were still alive today? or Mozart to music? Every time somebody dies whether they are famous or just everyday people the world as a whole loses and there is no way that you can say that death some how benefits us.

Population will not be a problem as we have seen in rich countries people are having fewer and fewer children and if the numbers are right the only way we can stop humans from going extinct in the long run is to find a cure for aging. (Women in the west are having less then 2 children each once the rest of the world industrializes there is no reason why this phenomenon won’t spread to the rest of the world. This will cause a slow decrease in population until eventually there is nobody left.)

There is no reason why the earth won’t be able to support a population of over 100 billion the only thing stopping us is energy. Once we harness the use of power from the sun in more efficient ways we will be able to create more intensive agriculture and thus produce enough food to easily feed everyone.

I don’t understand what people mean when they say there are too many people already. Look at how most people in the world live in cities. It’s quite obvious that people don’t mind living in cities so how can you make that argument?

Also I think that if say the average life span of a human was change from say 80 to 500 I am sure this would also cause people to put off having children and or getting married for a while. People have this ticking clock in their head which says that they have to achieve/do things by a certain age otherwise they will never be able to do it. With every body lives extended for hundreds of years this would put those concerns to rest.

Jaranet – Lets cross one bridge at a time. I am sure if any of the scenario you put forward ever look like happening we would be able to come up with a solution. Over the time frames you talk about the amount of technology change that would occur would more then likely be enough ot compensate.

If you think about it our life span is relative! If the average human lived for a 800 years I am fairly sure those on here who said they have no problem dying of old age in there 80’s or 90’s would be saying the same thing expect that they don’t have a problem with dying in there 800’s or 900’s.

One last thing anybody out there who supports death might as well say they support suicide. Its only a matter of time until death does become optional the only question is how much time? We can all change this by encouraging the government to increase funding to relative institutions

Easytimes! You have got to be kidding! Here is a susgestion. I watched a program today called" life after people, and I wound strongly recommend, to give it a close look.

Once humans pass on, the whole of nature comes back to its original splendor and you only need haft a brain to figure that out. Everyone here, knows exactly what I have said on the points you have high-lighted and the models and insights I have provided stand unchallenged in the realms of commonsense. Again! 3 billion is the target! and if we don't, and to be quite frank, we will all eat this planet alive, and that's a fact.

Religious humanity, (and that's a joke in its self), has been at the fore-front of the epidemic of humans that now we can see, that's its tearing at the social structure and turning it all up-side down because there are too many gods on the playing field and the adult children of the world are killing for it.

That's a better way to go you think?

I beg the differ my friend!

And you talk about sustainability! I doubt many even know the definition of the word! but for some strange reason, the word does not apply to humans,

WHY?

EV

EasyTimes I agree with you!
It is a different story if we can not avoid the death.
No I do not like to die and even I do not like to think that I will die!
I have so many dreams, so rich program for the rest of my life, which does not give me any chanche for death!
I think my first, little plan of my life will be ready at least after 937 years! This is only the begin!
Ssss! leave the death sleeping!
The instict for life is the strongest enstic and the driver of the evolution and human progress!
EasyTimes sent me the magic spell to win the death!
I COULD ACCEPT THE DEATH ONLY IF I HAD TO SAVE THE LIFES FROM MY CHILDREN !
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

EasyTimes – You must have a lot of faith in the scientific community if you really think they will be able to overcome the small hurdle of “the conservation of matter”: a fundamental law of this physical universe.

Whilst you prefer not to think about this topic through “big picture” lenses, the fact remains that allowing everlasting life for a reproducing organism is unwise and ultimately unsustainable in a universe of finite matter.

I also have to strongly contest your view of “let's cross one bridge at a time”. We should think carefully about our actions and what their consequences will be (especially since one of those bridges that we will be required to overcome is a fundamental law of physics).

Perhaps I don't need to talk in “big picture” terms. Let's take a shorter-term view: you mentioned that Earth could habitate 100 million people... what happens when we reach that figure? Do we ban reproduction? Do we take the joy of raising a family out of the experience of being human?

I think we just have to accept the fact that to experience one type of joy (raising children) we have to lose another (time with loved ones on this earth); that to allow way for the next generation of innovators and creative genius' we must, sadly, part with the old generation; and that to appreciate life, we must accept death.

*Sorry, 100 billion

jaranet
If you want to die DO IT! but do not try to convince us that we must die!
You wrote that we can not win the death because it will violate “the conservation of matter”: a fundamental law of this physical universe.
REALY?
Can you explain why we do not violate this law if we live 100 years but we violate it if we live 10.000 years or even more?
OK, we will be many and we will have a little bit problem with space and food BUT THERE ARE BILLIONS OF GALAXIES AND STARS AND PLANETS! Of cause we can control the births,for example one child for each billion of years!
If we do not die we will have the time to work on the transformation of humans to energy systems and reverse!
EasyTimes
I want one day to go a tour to the ...middle of the son, to test its heat and after direct to the ...black holes!
I do not like to be prisoner from the earth, I want to travel to the universe and I need plenty of time.
Life without adventure is very bowring.
But do you know anything about the VIAGRA for a 100.000.000.000.000 years old man?
Only an innocent question.
YES EasyTimes, IT IS A VERY GOOD IDEA!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Jaranet! is 100% correct.

Now just think about the waiting for the likes of hospital, dental , standing in cues and so on, a 100 billion! I wonder what it would be like then? by some peoples thinking, its all fine with no consequences.

Yeah right!

I saw a picture once with such a scenario and some of you may of seen it. Its where all the cites are in ruin, and the people are shoulder by shoulder and razing there hands towards god and asking why!

Humans are killing everything that life its self needs to live! and that's a fact. How would such a future economy work? There is 300 hundred million now that don't live like we do and there all look for a place to run to, and guess what continent they have their eyes on!

Thats right Australia! cause we still are in a sustainable head count.

Smaller and smarter!

That's the way of the future.

EV

The fountain of youth - now there's an original fantasy!

Next please.

While there doesn't seem too much support for this idea, I quite like it. I don't expect that death itself will be conquered, but life span extension, with a corresponding increase in quality of life to match of course, is certainly possible. We have been able to increase the lifespans of a few animals by some very simple methods (eg caloric restriction) that are not fully understood yet, I betting there are quite a few more.

A couple of these potential mechanisms that may arise may involve apoptosis signaling (programmed cell death) and cell damage repair, ironically these could come from research into a leading cause of death - cancer.

While there will be challenges, society adapts and changes to suit and I think it will actually increase the speed of scientific discovery, not stagnate it. The average bench life of a scientist is about 15-20 years, before administrative duties and managing a laboratory and seeking grant funding for their programs takes them further and further away from their research. Imagine a scientist being able to complete or spend many more productive tears on their research without having to hand it over to a younger group, or even seeing it fall by the wayside and not being looked for years.

Also imagine having the time to have several careers and being able to have an actual long productive time in each. I believe scientific discovery would increase at an even faster pace. I also believe that space travel would become more feasible, the future would certainly be 'different'. An extension of maybe a couple of hundred years would be sufficient (at least for me). But then again, maybe the elephant in the room is dead, in that case it's going to start stinking at some point.

Bugsy! The benefits for space travel in that respect would be feasible, but for common human sustainably fore-cast, it is not. If another planet was found, I know they would manage it better than this one. But at present we need to clean up not expand.

Your thinking is good!

EV

The Elixir of Life is a promise divine,
Which says that living forever would be so sublime.
I wonder what, if we were to find,
That a life worth living,
Depends on your mind,
Would living forever still be sublime?

Jaranet, Easy times and others
Fair conclusions
Here are a few extra thoughts for you to mull over.
• It is a scientific reality that we evolved as a result of a struggle for survival.
• Viruses et al also have the same imperative…as our science has evolved so too must our pathogens…consider penicillin was once a wonder drug. Now we have super antibiotics and also Multi drug resistant pathogens.
• We still have the legacy of our origins in our DNA so long as we have that DNA we must remain vulnerable to pathogens and genetic errors in DNA replication due to the fallibility of the method.
• Scientists have determined that there is a ‘death/suicide gene’ one that causes our cells to stop dividing and eventually die to make room for newer more healthy ones. Without this we would become a cancerous blob and die anyway.
• Scientists have determined that the theoretical limit of human life is about 130 year however this is with optimal conditions.
Therefore given all this we are born with a use by date mechanism built in and lack the science/ability to affect any of pre- requisite changes.
Notwithstanding this to alter any or all of these parameters significantly would require fundamental change in life it’s self.
The question then is would we still be human being or something else?
A supplemental question is then what and what would our motives be for living then? Our two primary urges/motivation (survival and procreation) would irrelevant what would be in its place or would life be like parliament superficial, sterile and as useful as a fish hook enema?
Therefore I conclude that “life as it is” is all we have so lets make the best of it in terms currently understand.. enjoy being helpful to the goal of life (survival of the species) and hope for an acceptable quality of life until we die. Your turn rip into it.

Bugsy,
You are an open mind! Always we start with fantasy and finish with the reality.
Our fantasy is the gate to the future, science today and tommorow and always will have huge limits and big darkness.
As we will go further and deeper into world, in different sides and levels from it, micro and macro, we will find new laws, new rules new worlds.
We are at the very begin, of human history, of human evolution, I am sure that better days are coming, days of great glory and horor!
Scary, humans run to hide yourself into the caves!
I will continue the fight against the death!
EasyTimes ignore them! The science will change its conclusions, Humans will win the death.
When? We are here billions of years and we will be even more.
Analyzing my cells you will found not only the monkeys and crocks but even elements from volcanos, earthquokes from our galaxy or from other stars and galaxies.
We came from very far from the past and we are going even farther into the future.
THE QUESTION IS NOT IF WE WILL WIN THE DEATH BUT WHEN.
Of cause humans will not be similar with humans we know them now in our town!
In realy humans change very often and very fast.
Put the elephant onto my bike and I will take him to the future!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Easy Times, good to see back on board.
And as always, with a stimulating subject.

I agree, I think we’ll eventually overcome death.
Some like Kurweil think we’re very close.
There was an interesting piece about him in a recent Wired.
He says he is ‘sixty going on forty’.

Actually, even now , some organisms don’t have death built into their cycle.Can single cell organisms with asexual reproduction be said to experience death ?(Though of course, the down side is they are not likely to be any the wiser).

Some have said we need to keep the life-death cycle going to accommodate the ever increasing world population.And to seek to live a longer than natural life span is selfishness. It is less selfish than producing kids without the wherewithal to look after them and,then expect others to shuffle-off to make room for them.

PS: There are some interesting studies going on at the moment about ‘the self’.Some are theorizing that we actually have a more than one self –and one or other may dominate at different times.
Which if true would open up some new angles on immortality?

Horus,
I understand it’s a gene in all life. Single cell asexual ones too. Nothing lives for ever at some point in time the chemical messages in the gene switch off the repairing capacity. Why it is set off? Scientists aren't sure but the decay mechanism, break down at cellular level will ensure all life will die at some time.

Easy times
On the lighter side I am tickled by the possibility of my eventual reason for death being listed as "Mass existence failure by the elephant in the room".
Then suppose that document was found by some future archaeologist can you imagine the controversy it would cause in those circles?

*Or do you see it like I do that it is an unnecessary part of life that with time we will be able to over come and thus change the world in the most amazing way.*

Your question Easy Times, is really a philosophical one. I personally
think that the world would be a worse place, not a better place,
if your wish came true.

You are implying that only humans matter and that only you and
your beloved matter. You mention 100 billion people. Where
they live is not the issue, its their global footprint that matters.

What about other species? Don't they have a right to some of
this planet too? Why do only humans matter? So 100 billion
is purely a pipe-dream, for we have shown as a species that we
simply cannot live sustainably at 6 billion, let alone any more.

My prediction is that as we head for ever larger numbers of people,
as evolution theory predicts, eventually the whole thing will
become ever more unsustainable, mother nature will sort it out
and the planet could well be left with cockroaches and ants
as inhabitants, for they are fairly tolerant of radiation etc.

Humans have a track record of inventing new things, but not one
of employing them wisely and sustainably.

I have long ago accepted the cycle of birth, life and death.
Fear of death is what drives people to not accept it, but the
way I see it, if I die tomorrow, I won't know I'm dead, so it
won't really matter.

Love and grief, if you think about it for long enough, are once
again based on self interest. Yes they can be extremely painfull,
but they are also part of the cycle of life.

Once you accept that cycle, you look at things differently.
You enjoy every day more, enjoy and appreciate your loved
ones more, but also accept that it all can change tomorrow.
So enjoy today for what it is, another special day.

examinator
"Nothing lives for ever at some point in time the chemical messages in the gene switch off the repairing capacity"
OK, but you speak for the current human abilities, for todays's sciences.
We will win the dead when we control the gene switches and we put double and trible switches, you know...
We can not use today's tools to solve future's, advanced problems.
If we can imagine that we can win the death then we must imagine first that we can create the tools,which control the switches of genes and even from some other things which we ignore at the moment!
examinator
Some times I can not understand you, I am not familiar with sciences I am a (second class)poet!
you use very much your logical part from your brain, free little bit your fantasy, it is nice!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Evo2 – No I am not kidding you make it sound like people are some sort of pest and the world would be better off with out us. Are you kidding?

Asymeonakis – Thanks for your good words. Over coming death via way of “natural causes” is only a matter of time but time is the big issue. At the current rate we are increasing human life expectancy by about 3 months for every year that passes but what we need to do is get it up to a year or more then a year so even if we don’t find some amazing immortality drug ( I doubt we will) we will be increasing life expectancy exponentially so that most people never reach the area or average human life expectancy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcLKbJs3xk&feature=channel_page

That link is a presentation as to where we are headed with science over the next few decades. I am sure you as well as most others here will find it very interesting.

Jaranet – Are you saying that if we have the option to live for as long as we want we should all say no? If we are not dead by say 120 should it be passed into law that people of this age should be killed off so as not to over populate the universe which you seem so terrified of? Can you imagine telling your gran that? “Common gran its time to go we already have the noose hanging from a tree in the back garden! Chop Chop the footy starts soon so lets hurry it up a bit” You cant be fairdinkum!

We have a long way to go before over populating the universe or should I say known universe as far as we know Jaranet the universe could be infinite!

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html

This article states an estimate of the size of the known universe, for humans to even get close to this “the conservation of matter” what you are talking about we are all going to have to get very busy in the bedroom for many millions of millenniums

If we reach 100bil pop which I think if it ever happened would be many centuries away I see no reason as to why we cant live on mars or other star systems which are close by. Besides with in a few hundred years I would expect technology to enable the population of earth to reach over a trillion.

Bugsy - I agree not only science but also the arts and every other form of human endeavour would benefit from increasing of the human life.

The main problem with age is that when cells divide they lose a strand at either end (Its either the cells or the DNA) There comes a time usually around 80 or 90 that the cells or DNA cant divide any more and thus the effects of old age really start to kick in and its all down hill from there.

Examinator – I agree with what you say and the fundamental problems you put forward that’s why I am a champion of transhumanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism (I might start another thread about peoples thoughts on Transhumanism) Transhumanism is the obvious next step in evolution and makes us masters of our own destiny and leaving nature and evolution in the past.

What are our motives for living today examinator? So that we can have kids who can have kids who can have kids.. What you are asking is a philosophical question and is like asking is there any point living at all? I personally could think of a plethora of things to keep myself busy for a few thousand years! After that I don’t know but I will have plenty of time to think about it.

Horus – You are of the same line of thinking as I am.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

This is a link to Kurzweil website with links to lots of very interesting articles.

“It is less selfish than producing kids without the wherewithal to look after them and,then expect others to shuffle-off to make room for them.” I 100% agree! Why should we shuffle off to make room for others after all we where here first! I am not going to drop off the perch so somebody else can pop out another baby. We can work it so there is enough room for everyone.

Would you have any links regarding the stuff you are talking about Horus with regards to self etc! I take a big interest in the study consciousness and the like.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/254

This is an interview with David Chalmers who studies consciousness at ANU! Very eye opening and interesting interview.

Yabby – its dogma like yours which the original article I posted is trying to over come. You accept status quo as the norm! That’s fine but lets make very long lives status quo!

We can easily make 100bil sustainable! I personally doubt we will see 100bil people on this earth ever but if we did we could sustain it. To sustain it, it all comes back to energy and there is a big bright thing in the sky we call the sun which will provide us with enough energy for at least the next few billion years to do this. We could use this energy to convert salt water into fresh and use it to irrigate mass greenhouses which would use recycled sewage as its fertilizer. Seeing that they are in green houses it would not only enable yield increases in cereal crops by 100’s of percent but also enable 2 crops per year now seeing that in a green house seasons don’t really matter.

If we ever ran low on basic building materials like iron to produce steel for our structures we could harvest asteroids in the asteroid belt which have a lot of iron in them. I could go on but that should be done in a different thread.

*Yabby – its dogma like yours which the original article I posted is trying to over come. You accept status quo as the norm!*

No dogma lol, I simply accept nature and I accept that other species
should be considered too, not just humans. Without biodiversity,
you won't have humanity. That is basic biology.

* We can easily make 100bil sustainable!*

Ah dreams, people are full of them. I am a realist. Show me 6 billion
people living sustainbly first, before you get carried away.

Nope, its not just about energy. You wipe your butt, you use
trees to do it. So they wipe out Orang Utans and their environment,
so that you can wipe your butt. Why should they not have a life
on this planet too? Why are you just focussed on humans?

So my point is simple. Before you get carried away with other
planets, unlimited energy and 100 billion or 1 trillion, show
me that 6 billion can actually live sustainably.

Perhaps your bedroom activities should focus on the pleasures,
not the babies. As it is, we have enough of them starving, which
we still cannot feed.

Dreams are all very well, but some sense of reality is not a bad
idea either.

Yabby! You are spot on! The clarity you speak, is like the nose on my face.

Your post is absolutely brilliant!

Easytimes! A pest! I noticed some pests on this planet, every-where I look in fact. How would you describe it? The sea we take for granted, is a dumping ground, rain forests for which our medicines comes from is being cut just to fill your dreams! and i can go on,on,on.

If we all live in a balance, tell? what can go wrong.

You are way off the map, but nice try.

But hey! Good to see you back.

EVO

I gotta ask this one question

the "Elephant in the Room"

I assume that is a Dead Elephant?

Geeze... whats on the aganda next week... hair care tips for Rapunzel?

The notion of eternal life is never going to happen

the idea we could live longer is a process of which may be achieved but will still be defined on a scale of diminishing returns

Speaking personally, I full expect to expire in a massive heart attack (its in my genes - unless I get whacked by a truck etc before..)

I will be unprepared and disorganised for the event but it will happen and I think that is a good way to go, far better than worrying about alternative hows and whens or slowly being reduced to a vegetative state, dying braincell by braincell but the heart beating on regardless or counting down the days of a 6 month timeline from a doctor.

Col mate you have a lot to learn about how science is progressing.

Yabby Evo2 are of the same pedigree. Would the 2 of you please explain what you mean by “Sustainable” such ambiguous words are very unhelpful. Sustainable could mean any manner of things.

What are these babies you speak of that we can not feed? If you are talking about Africa you are mistaken my friend. The reason for the starvation in Africa is political not due to lack of available resources. The EU actually pays farmers not to produce so as to keep prices at a certain level.

It seems some people don’t understand why I call this post “The elephant in the room”? Death by “natural causes” is the biggest killer of people in Australia today. Thousands would have died today due to “natural causes” and what are we doing about it? Practically nothing! Yet ironically a bit over 200 die in a bush fire and we have a day of national morning and hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at the problem! Although it is very sad those people dying in the bushfire we as community need to get our priorities right and frankly hundreds of millions spent on medical research to help fight the grim reaper would save many more lives then the same amount spent on bushfires.

But alas when have you ever known humans to use common sense or to see the big picture? Its right there in front of you! Its so obvious! It’s the elephant in the room which is always ignored! Who knows tomorrow 3 people might die in a car crash and millions will be spent investigating and making the road/car safer. Yet thousands more will die of natural causes and what will be done about that? Nothing!

Easytimes! You are more closer than you think! I enjoy your posts emencely and the fact that you are haft right, concludes that sustainabiltity is for the small majority that is for those who can think. Balance is the key! Then your thoughts are valid.

Drone development only applies to the space front-tear, not for the basic run of the mill! This is our/your only base, and my only concerns are with a large proportion of humans, we may not reach our target.

EVO

Easy Times, you are seemingly not silly, so would know the definition
of sustainability, so I don't need to underline it for you. Unless
of course you have a point to make, which I suspect. So make your
point.

*The reason for the starvation in Africa is political not due to lack of available resources*

Ah but politics is a human problem. If humans are clearly too
stupid to solve a polical problem, what this highlights is the
difference in our thinking. You dream on about human potential,
I as a skeptic, will remind you of the law of unintended consequences
and how these things play into your dreams. Reality does not go
away, when you close your eyes and wish it would. So I see humans
for what they are.

*Thousands would have died today due to “natural causes” and what are we doing about it? Practically nothing! *

Rubbish. Cancer, heart attacks, various diseases, all natural
causes. We spend a fortune on trying to understand and cure them.

But the fact remains, only so many can live sustainably on this
planet at once, IMHO other species have a right to some of this
planet too, not just humans.

If you have had 70 years to do your thing and still not achieved
it, perhaps you just might be a genetic dud, so let some other
dna combination have a go.

For after all, it is little more then good luck, that you are here
and aware in the first place. If your mum and dad had had a cup of
tea or whatever before making you, chances are pretty high that
some other of the billions of sperms would have won the race to
the egg and you would not be here.

So count your good fortune and enjoy every day!

LOL! Yabby! my mouth is shut! 19th century thinking will be the end of everything. Easytimes. You need to slow down a bit and use post revision before your tongue gets rapped around your ankles and you have nasty fall.

I welcome all raw thoughts, because without them, we just all go round in circles.

Gezz! Now Ive lost my train of thought!

Back to you Yabby.

EVO

Yabby,"So I see humans for what they are"
If realy you see the humans what they are then you know what they was.
You know the big steps on sciences and technologies on lasts years, you know the law of gravity but we send humans onto the moon, you know the high risks from the fires but its discuvery was a huge step forward, you know the overpopulation but you know the tablets and other ways, you know the evolution but you know the progress on genetic engineering, our ability to speed up the evolution process in laboratories, already we started to clean the human DNA from the bad, the crazy genes, WE ARE ONLY AT THE VERY BEGIN.
Yabby, as there are political, economic and religious conservatives and neoconservatives there are environmental conservatives and neoconservatives too. You and other like you are environmental new-conservatives.
You know Galilaio story, no one can stop the development, the improvment of sciences and technologies, no one can stop the improvment and use of genetic engeenering and other technologies to fight against the death.
I understand your worries but trust more human beings, we are more mature and more responsible than you think.
OK! It is imposible to avoid at some stage the creation of frankenstains, or dragons but do not forget that humans will be their creators and humans will destroy them.
EasyTimes, I am with you
EVIVA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOZY REVOLUTION!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Not only are we getting smarter, we are getting selfish as well. So! no-one wants to die? Well, I for one will move aside when my life force is completed.

That's not being, that I wouldn't like to live forever, but I feel when I go, a new born will take my place and what I have achieved in my life, shall be past on to them.

Only when humans are at a sustainable level of course.

Note! This is not our planet to do with as we like.

If we kill this planet, your living forever is moot.

EVO

*You and other like you are environmental new-conservatives.*

Not at all. I simply have a basic understanding of biology and
evolutionary psychology, with a bit of neuroscience thrown in.

What I also see is the reality that most people act in their
own short term self interest and rationalise it all away, with
every excuse under the sun.

There is an economic theory called "The Tragedy of the Commons"

Once you get your mind around it, you realise what will happen.
Humans will stuff the planet, each acting in their own interest.

Humans are bright enough to invent new and interesting things,
but also too stupid to leave the place as a sustainable
home for future generations. Don't kid yourself, we are
indeed walking, talking apes, with a slightly larger brain
then our cousins.

So best you enjoy every day for what it is. Many are so busy rushing
and achieving, they forget the value of every day as special.

As to the future of this planet, it existed for billions of years
with bacteria, viruses and insects dominating. Mammals have been
a bit of an after thought. Those species can survive, where
mammals don't stand a chance.

No doubt it will go back to that kind of state at some point in
the future.

EVO.
1. Climate change is dangerous for our future but it is not the only one which threaten the life from our planet. In the past, many times the most animals desapperead of cause high or low temperature, of cause earthquokes or volcanos, or from other reasons. We can keep the life in our planet only if we improve the sciences and technology and prepare the live species and first of all the humans for different, hard conditions.
2. The evolution is a good way for improvenments on live species unter normal natural conditions but is is not good enouph for natural disasters, or huge changes in our planet.
It is the sciences and technology wich could help us to stay alive under bad condisions.
3. More we are prepared to live in hard and different condisions more chances we have to stay alive, It is not smart enouph to leave our future in the evolution when we have the abilities to make the neccesary improvemnents on humans in the laboratory.
Any genetic improvement on human beings not only increase our ability to stay alive under hard, different conditions but also it increase our ability to support other live species on our planet.
4. We like it or not, the humans will play the top, the main role for the future of our planet and for the future of the live species on our planet. Instead to worry and block the developemnent of the sciences and technologies it is better to give them top priority, maximum support and freedom of moves for maximum results.
5. Humans are strong enouph to learn and use the natural laws according to their goals and their desires. Until now, we left the victory on the death to the gods, slowly, slowly we realise that we can win the death on this planet and withougt the support from the god. I am sure we will win the death but I do not know when.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

A.Symeonakis.

Your motives seems to be fair but as you may know, absolute power corrupts. This means man has the power to pick and choose who lives and who dies. Does a poor man from africa have the same options as the ones who invented the technologies?

1. Not if, but when the next global disaster happens, making humans stronger or and out live the event, it makes more sense to colonize one of our neighboring planets and then apply your theory.
2. Evolution is a natural path and should not be tampered with and for the very reason that if our technologies fail, the blue prints for all life including our ape cousins are still here, then not all is lost.
I don't mind talking futuristics, but the fact remains, while we wait for that time to come, overpopulation and reckless management of the environment, we may at our currant rate, never see that day.

So wouldn't be wise to keep the natural system going just case.

EVO

Antonios, your vehemence astounds me.

My position falls between Fractelle's and Bugsy's.
An extension of another five decades would be nice, but on the very strict proviso that good health extends for a significant portion of that, particularly mental acuity.

Consider the extensions we've made to lives. Often the brain doesn't last the distance but the body does, albeit in a diminished manner.
That's worse than death. Better dead than with nothing but a few marbles in the attic who drains resources, and more importantly the emotions of family members.

Eternity would be hell on earth. There's no doubt.

Everything of worth is defined by its opposite, this is the essence of relativity.

Darkness exists because of light.

Up exists because of down.

Beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, because ugliness lurks there too.

We take joy in things, because we can experience sadness.

And finally... life is significant, only because of death.

Everything grows stale with enough time. Consider this - what if you ate the same food every meal?

Wouldn't your love for that food die?

And, after a thousand years and you've tried every food a thousand times, what then? After every experience is jaded, nothing is new, you can't experience the joy of having children and watching them grow up... what then?

Life would be no different, and the notion that humanity would become a hollow husk horrifies me. I'd rather see the world destroyed by a comet, than preside over the death of death.

Sustainability's important. Regardless of technology the laws of conservation are immutable - as mentioned, people consist of resources.
Even if we could recycle 100% of our waste, organic or otherwise, (which will never happen reality isn't like that) there's still the question of what bodies are made of.

We'd need to stop reproducing.

As for the future, someone asked, what if Einstein and Newton were still alive today?

... What if they'd never been born, because the system didn't allow it?

New minds for new times. To refuse to make way for them is the worst kind of selfishness.

"New minds for new times. To refuse to make way for them is the worst kind of selfishness."

Exactly.

How self important are humans that they believe their lives are worth more than the planet which sustains them.

Maybe we shouldn't bother researching cures to disease at all. After all, they are natural and make more room for new people all the time.

Give me a break.

Bugsy

No one has suggested not finding cures for disease - you are sounding very petulant.

What you are supporting is nothing more than the human as virus - smothering the planet to the exclusion of all other life forms.

Ageing is a disease. It is a consequence of evolutionary trade-off of oxidative respiration, not a sacred balancer that must be preserved for the good of the planet.

People who are likely to have longer and healthier lives and maybe even a longer reproductive life (more than the 20-25 years or so they have now) I believe are more likely to have children based on choice, rather than a biological imperative. 'New people' won't be prevented from being born, as death by any number of other means will be still around. But it will give people time to make choices and ensure family security. It will change the nature of our society entirely.

Fractelle, you seem to have such a low opinion of your own species that you would describe them as a 'virus'. Surely changing the nature of our society would be a good thing for you then?

Longer lifespans would mean longer-term thinking, wouldn't it? After all, aren't you more likely to plan for a future that you are going to live in?

Easytimes “Col mate you have a lot to learn about how science is progressing.”

I might but it would be more helpful for us all if you actually addressed that comment to the area of my posting which you consider remiss.

One of the bits which science has not yet resolved is cell duplication and the breakdown of true duplicates, versus degrading duplicates and since we are mostly a collection of duplicating and renewed cells, most of a limited life, I figure until “faithful” and "flawless" duplication of cells is achieved, you are merely extending our endurance of our progressively decrepitating husks.

Anyone arguing the sustainability issue is inexorably entwined with human population numbers is absolutely right and has my vote.

At 6.76 billion (est as current) (and not the 9 billion which I heard dingbat Bob Brown, gay senator from Tassie say this morning on the radio … well when was accuracy ever an issue for the greens?), we are well above “sustainable” numbers.

Bugsy “Ageing is a disease.”

No it is not… it is part of the natural process of renewal…. A disease is something which disrupts the natural process. To be honest, the search for things which extend life beyond the limits of its potential natural duration would be a disease just as surely as cancer.

But Col, that is precisely what ageing is: a disruption of the natural processes of renewal at a cellular level.

The problem with much of the human population/sutainability problem (ie exponential growth) is due to 'Red Queen Syndrome'. In Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass' the Red Queen's race is running as fast as you can to stay in the same spot.

Where people generally have large families (as a norm of society), are areas that generally have high mortality rates (especially infant). These people are breeding for replacement, not unrestricted population growth.

To illustrate, we can ask- why do we have the 'baby bonus' if our population is breeding exponentially? Well, globally yes, but locally it isn't, indeed in many 'Western' countries the birth rate has declined below replacement rates. Why is this so? Well, one idea is that when presented with a low infant mortality rate, a half decent lifespan and a higher quality of life with chances at decent education, people tend to choose to have less babies. In fact education correlates very well with reducing infant mortality and also declining birth rates.

Now given this, is it not reasonable to think that people will choose to have less babies? How many would you have if you knew you were likely to live to two hundred years old and had a window of opportunity of 50 years or more to have them? Would you have them while you were poor, or when you felt were financially stable?

After the discovery of anti-ageing treatments, if you thought the planet was in mortal danger, would you accept them or refuse for the good of the planet? Would you trust your children to make the same decision after you were gone?

The fact is, there are cells in our body that are essentially immortal(germ line cells). When we find out why they aren't subject to ageing processes, we may actually find those life-extension treatments (and potentially have almost complete control over our reproductive ages). If you think that is a cancer on the planet, then that's your religion, not mine.

TurnRightThenLeft
-And finally... life is significant, only because of death.
What do you mean? -
I thought the life is significant because we have the opportunity to create, to dream, to love, to hope, to enjoy the sunset, the forest the mountains etc not of cause the death which terorise the life, bring cries, sadness and finaly destroy the life.
The is an usesless and soon or later we will win it.
-What if they'd never been born, because the system didn't allow it?-
It better to ask the chinese authorities, they know better of cause the birth control. I supposed you are against the aborsion.
Fractelle "they believe their lives are worth more than the planet" The risks for the life on the earth do not come only from humans but from many other reasons. While the humans are dangerous for the life on the earth simultaneously IN LONG TERMS, THEY ARE THE ONLY HOPE TO SAVE THE LIFE FROM THE EARTH.
If you study the history of life on the earth you will find millions of species which desappeared. A strong human, a smart human, a human who won the death could support and save not only his life but also the lifes from other species on the earth.
The Universe is very hard and the risks from the sky is big and often.
When we have the power to win the death, to increase our abilities to stay alive,( under bad condisions) WE DO IT.
Fractele our planet have enouph sources for many billions people, if we have problems this is because our goals are not the human needs but the profit.
While to die is very easy, some times, it is extremely dificult to stay alive, ask dinosaurous to tell you their story.
It is mankind's duty to prepare for bad, difficult times, it is our duty to stay alive in a hard environment.
The win the death it is a good starting point.
Let'us start the genetic modification on human beings, expeling to the hell, all the bad genes from our body.
Antonis Symeonakis
Adelaide

*A strong human, a smart human, a human who won the death could support and save not only his life but also the lifes from other species on the earth.*

Antonios, we have already "won the death" as you call it. That
is exactly why you evolved to enjoy sex and love your children
so much. Your dna continues from generation to generation.

As to more humans saving the lives of other species, do not
kid yourself lol. As we can see on this thread, people prefer
to create even more of their own, which is predicted by
evolution theory. One species will increase in numbers, at
the cost of other species. Eventualy the whole thing becomes
unsustainable, the whole lot crash in a thud. That is basic
biology.

I make my point again. If you could not achieve what you wanted
to achieve in 80 years or whatever, best to try some other
dna combination. Only so many can live on this planet sustainably
at any one time. Its either that, or we are back to a world
spinning with cockroaches and ants onboard.

I hope that when I due am due to fall off the proverbial perch,
I'll at least have the time to sit back and reflect with a big
grin, at all those memories and amusing times. I make sure that
I enjoy the journey, never mind the destination

Nice words yabby! very nice.

EVO

But that's just it Yabby, we only have a window of a little over 20 years to pass on our DNA to the next generation (not 80), long before we have any real hope of achieving much at all. The biological imperative to breed is so strong.

I agree with much of what you have to say, but I come to entirely different conclusions. You are right, nature is not in equilibrium, it only appears that way because our lives are so short. We are the only species on the planet that can choose what to do.

The way I see it, is that the only way you are going to get people to choose to do things differently, is to give them a choice that's worth taking.

The status quo is getting us nowhere as it is, because as far as I can see, humans are breeding exponentially without any help. Nothing will change that in the near future under the current way of things. I believe lifespan extension with corresponding quality of life would ease the breeding impetus and greatly increase the quality of life for many. It would also help to divert a lot of resources currently taken up by the aged and infirm.

In short, it's a game changer. The current rules would not apply, and I would like to try that.

Antonios, I'm vehemently pro-choice.
In fact, I'd say I'm among those who've argued against runner's constant shallow anti-abortion diatribes more than anyone else. I can back that up with numerous links.

My point was about relativity - everything is defined by it's opposite. Life can't exist without death, no more than black can exist without white.
If we can't die, then we can't really live. We should all have the chance to life a full life (I don't mean that in an anti-abortion sense, I mean that in the sense we should all have the right to have children, or to not have them, as they case may be) which is anything up to around a century.
In the future it may be a bit longer, which is all well and good.
But eternity, or thousands upon thousands of years? I don't think so.

We wouldn't know life was valuable if we had no experience of what death is, any more than a colour blind person could experience 'blue.'

Extensions to life, provided health goes along with it, could provide potential, but we do need to focus on sustainability. Bugsy makes some good points about procreation and the correlation between fertility rates and quality of life, but I'm not so sure that they'd still work when applied on this scale. I think many people might have a few rounds of kids if given the opportunity, hell, there'd probably be more cases of people starting families anew with different partners.

I don't like defining people as a virus more than anyone else, and I don't adhere to the anti-people arguments either, but when we aren't a sustainable life form then we do indeed exhibit characteristics of a virus.

I don't mean it in an insulting way, I just think that while a human life is precious unlike a virus, if we don't rein in our wastefulness and destruction to other lifeforms and ecosystems then we are behaving in the manner of a virus by killing our host.

Bugsy

You are very easy to bait. My comment about viruses was meant to provoke and in you came.

Humans living indefinitely would, as TRTL has eloquently expressed, have many relationships following that primal urge to have children. Ergo, the planet would become overpopulated. Or would we devolve to leaving babies on hillsides?

The other scenario would be enforced sterility - end of evolution as we know it - a race of jaded 'done everything' beings. I can see a death cult evolving from this stagnant scenario.

As for populating other planets - once again the word 'virus' arises. Just as Australia never was 'terra nullius': the universe may well not be ours to exploit either. We believe that Mars may be terraformed, but other beings may not agree. We simply to not have enough knowledge at this stage. Future generations (who would never be under Bugsy's scenario) will learn more about this amazing universe than we do now and have the vitality that new combinations of genes provide.

Whichever way I look at this idea I find it dispiriting and not a little decadent.

Nothing wrong with living longer healthier lives and that is just what we have been doing for the past 100 years (with notable exceptions of oppressed people). Both of my grandmothers lived into their late 90's. I am only interested in such longevity if I have all my faculties like they both did till the very end. I know that one of my grandmothers chose her death with dignity, grace and style - a fitting punctuation to her wonderful life.

Fractelle,
I get the feeling that your comment about viruses was meant for more than mere provocation as you seem to have stuck with it. I guess the comment of leaving babies on hillsides is more of the same.

Ultimately I think that the science fiction that you read is a bit different (and a bit more depressing) to the stuff I read. The difference being I sometimes read scientific papers on longevity research as well.
I think it's quite possible to extend lifespan, and therefore someone will do it.

The great thing is that humans can choose what to do. At the moment you have no choice but to die when you get old. You would choose to remain that way. I would not, nor would many others I'm sure. Choosing not to die from old age has nothing to do with a lack of dignity, grace or style, no matter what you write about your dead grandmother (thanks for sharing btw).

And if I ever felt 'jaded' and done everything I wanted to do I could choose to not live anymore. I knew a 24 year old who did just that. We have already been doing that for thousands of years, it pisses the fundies off no end.

We are ONLY AT THE VERY BEGIN, humans will increase their knownledges, abilities, performance. We will create colonies on other planets and later on other solar systems.
Today our trip to an other planet is easier and faster than was the trip from Europe to Australia, some centuries before.
The genetic engineering is a very good and hopefull discuvery, equaly our trips to the space are very good too.
Do not worry humans are not so bad as they seem or we think, they did many mistakes, we will continue to do mistakes but we improve our abilities to corect our mistakes, to restore the damages we create.
It is not posible to avoid some damages non repairable, non reversable, this the cost we pay for our improvment, for our development for a better, more safety, more secure future.
We will not follow dinosaurous path, we will improve our abilities to protect our lifes, to protect our planet, to protect the species from our planet, to stay alive!
We learned to live with the risks, the probability to die from a car accident is million times bigger than from an accident in a laboratory. We learn to ignore the real, big every day risks and worry for accidents in laboratories during changes on our genes.
Do not worry we can not become more stupid than we are now but we have big hopes, we expect to become better, smarter, stronger.
Humans separated their self from the other animals because learned to create tools, divices, machines much better from what we can find on the earth, now we found something even better, to improve rapidly our abilities, our performances, our characteristics.
Now from kings on the earth we are going to become creators of new species, of new kind of humans, something we could find only in the myths from the gods.
Do not worry we will destroy any frankestain or dragon who could jump from our laboratories.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Bugsy

Stop taking everything so personally. I never claimed YOU were jaded.

I did however outline 3 theoretical scenarios that may be occur should humans achieve immortality. None of which you appear to have understood.

ASymeonakis

The world is not a magic pudding - it does have limited resource. Science can help us make best use of these resources but it cannot make something out of nothing.

My final word on the topic:

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/40000/2000/800/42809/42809.strip.print.gif

I did not take anything personally Fractelle, I understand you were not calling me jaded, I was not speaking for myself but as one who may be in one of your scenarios. The only thing I do take personally is the statement that you don't think I have understood any of your scenarios. I understand them alright, I just don't agree with them. Anyone can take existing trends and project them into the future. But that's no predictor of it and it is definitely no predictor of human behaviour. Ask any economist.

My last word on the subject:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-Dylan Thomas

That's one of my all-time favourites Bugsy, thanks for reminding me. When I first read it, I thought it was about death. It was one of those "moments of revelation" that make teenage years worth enduring, when I realized that he was actually talking about life.

I'm particularly fascinated by Antonios' approach to the relationship between us and our planet as revealed on this thread.

>>humans will increase their knownledges, abilities, performance. We will create colonies on other planets and later on other solar systems<<

If you measure such attitudes on a pessimism/optimism scale, with Eeyore as zero and Polyanna at ten, this outlook scores eleven.

We, as the human race, stand absolutely no chance whatsoever of accumulating the necessary will-to-achieve that such a vision needs, in order for it to become reality.

Our starting-point is actually nowhere near what Polyanna Antonios believes.

>>Today our trip to an other planet is easier and faster than was the trip from Europe to Australia, some centuries before.<<

Which planet, Antonios? How easy is it for us to get there, and how quick is the journey?

The distances involved, the time it takes, our ability to prolong life sufficiently to survive the journey... run the numbers, Antonios. They don't add up.

I have no problem with dreaming such dreams. But any idea that the human race will ever experience any other environment than good ol' mother earth is pointless and wasteful.

Future generations will have some very tough decisions to make in terms of the trade-offs necessary for life to continue. But anyone who relies upon interplanetary travel to solve the problem is simply wasting resources.

And there will inevitably come a time, probably not too far into the future, when wasting resources will become a criminal offence. And shortly after that, it will become a capital offence, on the basis that the punishment solves two problems at once.

In the meantime, we have Dylan Thomas' words to remind us on how to conduct ourselves during our minuscule lifespan here.

Have a great day.

Gotcha. Can't win, don't try.
-Bart Simpson

*If you measure such attitudes on a pessimism/optimism scale, with Eeyore as zero and Polyanna at ten, this outlook scores eleven*

Antonios actually reminded me of one of the local kids at school,
many years ago now.

The teacher asked kids what they intended to become and one particular
kid said he planned to be an astronaut. So the teacher picked
him up by his pants and shirt, flew him around the room in a circle
and suggested that this was the closest he would ever come to
becoming an astronaut :)

With hindsight it turns out that the teacher was correct and I guess
the moral of the story is that dreaming is great, but it pays to
have plan B ready.

If we do ever happen to be able to travel to other habitable
planets, well great, but for now lets just get things on this
planet right, in case Antonio's dreams are as accurate as the
schoolkid.

Yabby, Pericles
Colonization of the Moon
The Lunar outpost will be an inhabited facility on the surface of the Moon which NASA currently plans to construct over the five years between 2019 and 2024. The United States Congress has directed that the U.S. portion, "shall be designated the Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_(NASA)

Colonization of Mars
Mars is considered by most scientists, including Stephen Hawking,as the ideal planet for future colonization and renewal of life.
A trip to Mars requires approximately nine months in space. Modified transfer trajectories that cut the travel time down to seven or six months.
Mars appears to have significant quantities of all the elements necessary to support Terran-based life.
Mars already has communications satellites,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars#Getting_there

Space colonization

the goal isn't just scientific exploration ... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time ... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive ... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it. ... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids ... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond. – Michael D. Griffin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

Space Settlements
spreading life throughout the solar system

"Humanity has the power to fill outer space with life. Today our solar system is filled with plasma, gas, dust, rock, and radiation -- but very little life; just a thin film around the third rock from the Sun. We can change that. In the 1970's Princeton physicist Gerard O'Neill with the help of NASA Ames Research Center and Stanford University showed that we can build giant orbiting spaceships and live in them.
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/

Space Settlement Nexus
The people of Earth have both the knowledge and resources to colonize space."
That was the stated conclusion of this NASA-sponsored study — in 1975! There are two things you need to know about space settlement:
We can do it, starting now.
A future with space settlements is vastly better than one without them.

A Better Future
There are many reasons to move into space: growth, wealth, energy, survival, spiritual development, knowledge, diversity, to solve serious Earthly problems, to fulfill a sense of destiny and responsibility, and even to have fun. All of these boil down to a simple fact: A future with space settlement is vastly better than one without it.
The largest asteroid, Ceres, has enough material to build orbital space settlements with a total living area well over a hundred times the land area of the Earth.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/

Genetic Engineering and Space Exploration
And despite all the caveats I listed, I think we will venture to the stars — for knowledge, for glory, but above all, because we thirst to know what is behind the next bend in the path. Compared to the oceans that we and our inheritors will navigate, our efforts until now are like the launching of paper boats in a bird fountain.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/andreadis20070429/

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Ah Antonios, the people working in space research will love you lol.

All that money and job security pouring their way, if you have
any say!

I'll tell you what. You show me a planet where its a pleasant
20-30 degrees, where there is all the oxygen that I need and want to
breathe, where I can go swimming in the lakes and rivers,
grow my own food, admire the marvels of many other species
and the beauty of nature, then I am interested.

Meantime if you don't, its high time we paid just a little
attention to the one planet that we have, which is a lovely
place to live, provided that we humans don't stuff it up
completely. As the population rises, chances of us stuffing
it up completely, continue to grow. That is the reality right
now.

Bless your cotton socks, Antonios. It must be a buzz having that much optimism.

But please note, being an optimist has its downside too. Life really does not, in fact, correspond in any way to your dream, but is as it always has been - nasty, brutish and short. And the disappointment to discover this, as all sane people eventually do, can occasionally cause severe psychological damage.

A friend of mine pointed out to me, many years ago, that the only completely, totally happy people on this planet are those who have no idea what is going on.

There's no way I'm going to burst your bubble with facts, Antonios, because you have wishful thinking on your side. But time, unfortunately, is not.

Think of it as a strightforward choice. Make life on earth bearable and sustainable. Or put the same effort into colonizing space. Both will take an enormous effort, financially and politically.

The first is in our control. The second has so many possibilities for failure - not of will, but of achievement - that human nature will simply not permit it a guernsey.

(And while we're thinking about it, do you seriously believe that the quality of life in "giant orbiting spaceships" is worth striving for?)

You will never be able to prove me wrong, nor will I ever be able to prove you wrong. And of course, there's absolutely no problem with dreaming, if it makes you happy.

Just don't build your life on dreams, when there's so much delight to be had in real life.

Pericles
1. Our abilities to travel to the space are bigger from the abilities of people to travel to new world before 4-5 centuries, Today the technology and science are moving very fast and tomorrow even faster, WE ARE AT THE VERY BEGIN.
I believe that we will find a way to convert in friendly environments, other planets.
2. For me the main reason (BUT NOT THE ONLY)to create colonies in the space is because this is the only way to stay alive. You know the dinosaurus, they dessapeared many million years before, since then many other kind of aimals dessapeared, for example the hairy elephants desappeared some thousands years before, not of cause the evolusion they desappeared at from one moment to an other.
We had very hot or very cold climate, we had volcanos and erthquoks, we had asteroides and other things to drop from the sky on the earth. All these risks continue to exist plus human activities which play and will continue to play an important role for the future of our planet.
The question is not if the life in the space will be so good as here but in long term if we we have any other choice.
For me it is very important if we plan our steps, our future not only for 1-2 generations but for the next hundrenrs and thousands of years.
We have some kind of brain and we must use it to avoid catastrofic disasters and of cause to improve out condisions.
Human civilization is not at its top, at its end, in really we are at the very begin,if we had to have gods, these gods should come from humans! go to sleep for some thousands of years and return back to see your grand children, mama mia, they are real gods, not like jesus and other face gods.
I forget where there the books with the proficies that your grand children one day will become gods but I am sure about it.
Look at human wings on the sky.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide