Living forever

[Die Hard]

I think technological immortality is such a pipe-dream that I will not even bother addressing the ramifications of it...but "we have always taken from the 3rd world"? The same old BS line. If I eat 12 t-bone steaks a day I still have taken nothing from someone in Africa or certain parts Asia, the 99% of the world that could feed itself easily *if* it weren't for constant societal upheaval and/or awful governance. The argument about how the 1st world "steals" from 3rd world is always something along the lines of "Well, all the grain that fed out those cattle could have gone to making loaves of bread for 3rd world children..." Which is all well and good, except the 3rd world children do not have anything to give the 1st world farmer for his time and effort. If they did he would *happily* sell his grain to them, everyone's money being equally green.

You can stow your bruised sense of honor because that's not what I meant. I mean when the 1st world actually needs a natural resource that we're not self sufficient of we will take it from someone. We prefer to pay for it, but not much of course; be it copper or diamonds or rubber or coffee or ... oil. We will corrupt governments, overthrow governments, support terrorists/rebels, keep civil wars going in perpetuation if it keeps the price down, we will even invade other nations if need be (of course we will drape it in some honorable intent like "spreading democracy" or some such). History is rife with examples of this, going back as far as the Roman Empire and beyond.

If food become a scarce commodity in the 1st world we will take it from someone.

[Die Hard]

I'm pretty sure everyone is.

There's a difference between being afraid of dying and being afraid of death. Big difference.

[mechanic]

I am not afraid of either.

Moot is your typical, bog-standard, modern intelectual. Knows alot of information, but has no hardship to curb his selfish desires. If you want to live forever you probably take life for granted. Wanting to live today is all that matters.

[moot]

Anything to add on topic, miss Cleo?

[Guppy35]

I'm speaking as one who has lost two of his kids, so I know that clouds my thinking on things.  On the bad days, one of the phrases that always comes to mind is "one day closer."

I have to believe I'll see them again, or I'd probably go off the cliff.  Living forever would provide no comfort.  I don't want to die before my time, but I have no interest in extending it just for the sake of more time in this life.

[moot]

Hey Dan, I don't mean to pour salt in the wound. But basically you're saying you would be all for it, as far as you're concerned, if they were still here?  You don't really see any reason to be for or against it outside of that concern?

[mechanic]

 Who the hell is miss cleo? I think you are heartless for even writing that last post, twisting someone's words to suit your ridiculous cause.
 What else would you suggest changing about the past to sweeten imortality? How about our parents, grand parents, great-grandparents. Should we bring back every generation just so living forever is appealing to everyone?

 The circle of life is about give and take. You cannot expect to just take indefinitely. For a start, if you were impervious to age you could clearly still be shot or set on fire or hit by a car. What you are suggesting is not only selfish but also full of loopholes for death to catch you out. Or life to make living unbearable.

 It's funny, I have been writing a book about all this. I would share some of it with you, moot, only I fear I would never get anything in return from your type.

[BnZs]

Moot, understand I'm not hostile, I'm doubtful, there is a difference.

Mech: Wanting to live longer isn't "greedy" per se. If I live 'till I'm 100 I've taken nothing from you. If I die tomorrow nothing has been given to you. A man's death is a great waste of a mind that thought and a heart that felt if there is no resolution to it.

[mechanic]

If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life. I would say a man's mind is a great waste of life and death is all the resolution a lifeform should need. Consider the insect that hatches, matures, breeds then dies in the space of a day. That is perfection in life and evolution. Thinking that the longer we live the more life we have is false.

When I die I am going to ask to be fed to a tiger shark or something. That's selfish of me, but i would rather become part of something great and powerfull, near perfection of evolution, rather than worm food. That's the 'give' for the 'take' of being born. The take of living, of killing to eat. To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.

[moot]

Who the hell is miss cleo? I think you are heartless for even writing that last post, twisting someone's words to suit your ridiculous cause.

Moot is your typical, bog-standard, modern intelectual. Knows alot of information, but has no hardship to curb his selfish desires.

  You're so full of it.. Why don't you just start a new thread to argue this?  Not only is it off topic and inaccurate, but it doesn't even make sense.

If you want to live forever you probably take life for granted. Wanting to live today is all that matters.

Except for the last day.  Then what matters?  How is raising quality of life, health, and increasing lifespan taking life for granted and counter to living every day to its fullest?  And I don't care about your book.  Go start a separate thread for it, or pitch it to some newage spiritual porn peddler.

If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life.

Show your math.

I would say a man's mind is a great waste of life and death is all the resolution a lifeform should need.

Because you say so?  Where's the argument?  What's this "resolution" and "need" that you're talking about?

Consider the insect that hatches, matures, breeds then dies in the space of a day. That is perfection in life and evolution.

Criteria?

Thinking that the longer we live the more life we have is false.

How's that?

When I die I am going to ask to be fed to a tiger shark or something. That's selfish of me, but i would rather become part of something great and powerfull, near perfection of evolution, rather than worm food.

Right, and everyone should live by this personal (nevermind nonsensical) obsession of yours.  Because you say so.

That's the 'give' for the 'take' of being born. The take of living, of killing to eat. To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.

Show the math for this tally.

[BnZs]

If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life.

There is no "shares" of life. If I were a genetic freak who lived to be 1,000 years old, it would no more take away some part of *your*life or anyone else's life than a redwood tree does by living for several thousand years. If you think I'm eating part of *your* food or breathing some of *your* air, well then I'm already doing it.

To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.

Well...see the avatar. I think I could "live" with being evil and eternal, so to speak. I'd also consider doing the undead thing, *if* I didn't have to dress like gay prostitute/Rennfaire attendee while drinking the blood of the living to extend my own life (Even for immortality some prices are too high....)

[mechanic]

To live is to consume life.

[moot]

Anthropomorphic psychobabble.

[mechanic]

Fish consumption

Fish consumption has undergone major changes in the past four decades. World apparent per capita fish consumption has been increasing steadily, from an average of 9.9 kg in the 1960s to 11.5 kg in the 1970s, 12.5 kg in the 1980s, 14.4 kg in the 1990s and reaching 16.4 kg in 2005. However, this increase has not been uniform across regions. In the last three decades, per capita fish supply has remained almost static in SSA. In contrast, it has risen dramatically in East Asia (mainly in China) and in the Near East/North Africa region. China has accounted for most of the world growth; its estimated share of world fish production increased from 21 percent in 1994 to 35 percent in 2005, when Chinese per capita fish supply was about 26.1 kg. If China is excluded, per capita fish supply is about 14.0 kg, slightly higher than the average values of the mid-1990s, and lower than the maximum levels registered in the 1980s (14.6 kg). Preliminary estimates for 2006 indicate a slight increase in global per capita fish supply to about 16.7 kg.

The global increase in fish consumption tallies with trends in food consumption in general. Per capita food consumption has been rising in the last few decades. Nutritional standards have shown positive long-term trends, with worldwide increases in the average global calorie supply per person and in the quantity of proteins per person. However, many countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies, and major inequalities exist in access to food, mainly owing to very weak economic growth and rapid population expansion (Box 4). The majority of undernourished people in the world live in Asia and the Pacific, with the highest prevalence of undernourishment found in SSA.

Just...fish. Were those fish not once alive and now dead? This is the most simple of things to understand moot, I dont see why you think writing long words covers your lack of comprehension.

[BnZs]

Fish consumption


Just...fish. Were those fish not once alive and now dead? This is the most simple of things to understand moot, I dont see why you think writing long words covers your lack of comprehension.

You've just shown that we need to control population growth better/and or develop better technology for producing food, not that extending human life is an evil quest.

If extending life is evil because longer lived humans would use more resources over their lifetime, then the medical advances that have *already* greatly extended human life and reduced infant mortality must also be evil.