Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

What is science's answer to death?

thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:53:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Freeze the body while you grow stem cells, then pump them in and induce a regenerative response. As long as the brain isn't too damaged, you should be able to revive the person over the course of several months.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why should we prevent death? Death is one of the most important environmental and biological processes, and society would collapse is people suddenly became immortal, as well as other philosophical implications.

Cheating death seems to be an absurd exercise.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 4:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 6:53:58 PM, apb4y wrote:
Freeze the body while you grow stem cells, then pump them in and induce a regenerative response. As long as the brain isn't too damaged, you should be able to revive the person over the course of several months.

This is an interesting process but I'm sure that is just the process of cryopreservation.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 4:29:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why should we prevent death? Death is one of the most important environmental and biological processes, and society would collapse is people suddenly became immortal, as well as other philosophical implications.

Cheating death seems to be an absurd exercise.

There is indeed implications for society if people were to become immortal such as dictators having a never ending reign and overpopulation.

The best reason to prevent death for oneself is for eternal preservation.

There is no real reason to want to die.

Pascal's wager. You're dead anyway by natural process but by one of these methods of keeping you in stasis is a chance of life.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 10:13:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 4:29:56 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Why should we prevent death? Death is one of the most important environmental and biological processes, and society would collapse is people suddenly became immortal, as well as other philosophical implications.

Cheating death seems to be an absurd exercise.

There is indeed implications for society if people were to become immortal such as dictators having a never ending reign and overpopulation.

The best reason to prevent death for oneself is for eternal preservation.

There is no real reason to want to die.

Pascal's wager. You're dead anyway by natural process but by one of these methods of keeping you in stasis is a chance of life.

Actually, humanity relies on death to thrive.

If people became immortal, then we're just asking for greater over population. There is limited space and a limited number of resources on earth. Humans. Becoming immortal would destroy that. We're already overusing a lot of resources to the point that we're not going to be in a great position in a couple hundred years. That's assuming people continue dying.

If people don't continue dying then the problem gets exponentially worse. Practically speaking death works for the greater good.

Not to mention, can you imagine what being immortal would be like? What about Wowbagger the infinitely prolonged? He got so bored with the universe that he had to entertain himself by insulting everyone in the universe in alphabetical order. (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference). But like seriously though, being immortal would kind of suck. I hope I live a full life and die at some point once I'm satisfied with what I've done with my life.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 11:37:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 10:13:51 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/12/2014 4:29:56 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Why should we prevent death? Death is one of the most important environmental and biological processes, and society would collapse is people suddenly became immortal, as well as other philosophical implications.

Cheating death seems to be an absurd exercise.

There is indeed implications for society if people were to become immortal such as dictators having a never ending reign and overpopulation.

The best reason to prevent death for oneself is for eternal preservation.

There is no real reason to want to die.

Pascal's wager. You're dead anyway by natural process but by one of these methods of keeping you in stasis is a chance of life.

Actually, humanity relies on death to thrive.

If people became immortal, then we're just asking for greater over population. There is limited space and a limited number of resources on earth. Humans. Becoming immortal would destroy that. We're already overusing a lot of resources to the point that we're not going to be in a great position in a couple hundred years. That's assuming people continue dying.

If people don't continue dying then the problem gets exponentially worse. Practically speaking death works for the greater good.

Not to mention, can you imagine what being immortal would be like? What about Wowbagger the infinitely prolonged? He got so bored with the universe that he had to entertain himself by insulting everyone in the universe in alphabetical order. (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference). But like seriously though, being immortal would kind of suck. I hope I live a full life and die at some point once I'm satisfied with what I've done with my life.

Personally I would much prefer to be bored and immortal then non existent which is conclusion of death.

Recourses are overstretched and the situation is worryingly unsustainable but there are solutions for many of these problems. Vitro meat can help solve food shortages and land shortages.

The chance of immortality is a personal choice but it's one that should be considered.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:33:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:37:30 AM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:13:51 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/12/2014 4:29:56 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Why should we prevent death? Death is one of the most important environmental and biological processes, and society would collapse is people suddenly became immortal, as well as other philosophical implications.

Cheating death seems to be an absurd exercise.

There is indeed implications for society if people were to become immortal such as dictators having a never ending reign and overpopulation.

The best reason to prevent death for oneself is for eternal preservation.

There is no real reason to want to die.

Pascal's wager. You're dead anyway by natural process but by one of these methods of keeping you in stasis is a chance of life.

Actually, humanity relies on death to thrive.

If people became immortal, then we're just asking for greater over population. There is limited space and a limited number of resources on earth. Humans. Becoming immortal would destroy that. We're already overusing a lot of resources to the point that we're not going to be in a great position in a couple hundred years. That's assuming people continue dying.

If people don't continue dying then the problem gets exponentially worse. Practically speaking death works for the greater good.

Not to mention, can you imagine what being immortal would be like? What about Wowbagger the infinitely prolonged? He got so bored with the universe that he had to entertain himself by insulting everyone in the universe in alphabetical order. (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference). But like seriously though, being immortal would kind of suck. I hope I live a full life and die at some point once I'm satisfied with what I've done with my life.

Personally I would much prefer to be bored and immortal then non existent which is conclusion of death.

Lol, you said no religious posts, but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs. Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?

Recourses are overstretched and the situation is worryingly unsustainable but there are solutions for many of these problems. Vitro meat can help solve food shortages and land shortages.

Lol not for eternity.

The chance of immortality is a personal choice but it's one that should be considered.

Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Immortality wouldn't cause overpopulation. (More on this when I get home to write some comprehensive stuff on this topic.

Doing something such as curing aging would still see most people not live past 2,000 years old. Also being able to live forever isn't bad. You can always choose to die but it would also be nice to choose to live.

Sciences answer to death is preservation techniques. Those are an absolute last resort. Calorie restriction is the only technique proven to extend lifespan so that's a good step.

We need to think of the pursuit to immortality as bridges. Bridge is being as healthy as possible right now to make it to bridge 2 which is some coming scientific advances that will help you make it to bridge 3. I'll do a more comprehensive post on this later when I get home. This is just to touch on these subjects.

The pursuit of immortality is actually extremely defendant on Moore's law holding up and there has been a ton of evidence that it is at or near it's end.

I promise you guys I've researched this thoroughly and will go further with this after I'm home and settled down. I need access to all my notes and reading material.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:19:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Delaying death is a possibility and is already being done but eradicating death will be impossible for science IMO. Even supposing it were achievable it would lead to a population explosion that would be catastrophic if measures aren't put in place or technologies like matter transmutation aren't available.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:41:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think death is a natural process which should not be tampered with. Cryonic preservation can keep you from decaying, but that's not what I had in mind of immortality. Overpopulation as well as political problems could happen.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 3:19:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't like the cryopreservation idea, as it is simply a way of having an intermittent life, not a way of living forever.

I would say that with the development of nanotechnology, nanomachines could gradually replace old cells and with new ones, with enough delicacy so that the process does not damage us. This should be combined with biotechnology techniques that can create literally copies of the existing cells, as it is no use to replace ie a neuron with a new one, since it should be replaced with an exact copy to prevent loss of information (ie memory). The same applies to the immune cells that ensure immunity to diseases that we have already suffered.

Regarding immortality being a problem, well, if immortality techniques were created right NOW, then I agree that would be a serious problem, but if it is discovered at a reasonable time, say 100 years, maybe we would have other technologies at that time, such as star-travel or terraforming, that can solve the space and resource limitations of our planet.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

"Lol not for eternity."

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 2:19:38 PM, Iredia wrote:
Delaying death is a possibility and is already being done but eradicating death will be impossible for science IMO. Even supposing it were achievable it would lead to a population explosion that would be catastrophic if measures aren't put in place or technologies like matter transmutation aren't available.

The cure to death isn't a matter of if but when. Technically all scientists need to do is to find a method of replenishing aging skin and aging cells along with stable Gene manipulation.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:25:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 2:41:41 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think death is a natural process which should not be tampered with. Cryonic preservation can keep you from decaying, but that's not what I had in mind of immortality. Overpopulation as well as political problems could happen.

Death is a natural process but cryopreservation is one way of putting your mind and body on hold until nanotechnology or a stable cell replenishing method comes along to bring you back to a normal state.

This is only a way of delaying death until technology progresses to a point where you body can be brought back from a long sleep.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:30:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 3:19:53 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't like the cryopreservation idea, as it is simply a way of having an intermittent life, not a way of living forever.

I would say that with the development of nanotechnology, nanomachines could gradually replace old cells and with new ones, with enough delicacy so that the process does not damage us. This should be combined with biotechnology techniques that can create literally copies of the existing cells, as it is no use to replace ie a neuron with a new one, since it should be replaced with an exact copy to prevent loss of information (ie memory). The same applies to the immune cells that ensure immunity to diseases that we have already suffered.

Regarding immortality being a problem, well, if immortality techniques were created right NOW, then I agree that would be a serious problem, but if it is discovered at a reasonable time, say 100 years, maybe we would have other technologies at that time, such as star-travel or terraforming, that can solve the space and resource limitations of our planet.

The futuristic answer to overpopulation by reason of immortality on the masses is by escaping the earth. Overpopulation will happen.

Here's a video I watched years ago. This really opened my eyes mathematically to the problem of overpopulation it's effect yet to come.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 11:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:20:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

In the OP you said no religious posts. The only way to disagree with your idea about what happens after death is to make a religious post. Thus my conclusion and the question.

"Lol not for eternity."

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

You're talking about immortality. If you have plans on not lasting an eternity you're not talking about immortality. Besides, nothing can actually last an eternity. Thermodynamics bro.

"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.

Either that or all die, but there aren't really accessible planets to go that support human life. I mean, they exist, but we'd need the technology to go there first which kind of trumps the immortality thing.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 11:22:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 1:20:03 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

In the OP you said no religious posts. The only way to disagree with your idea about what happens after death is to make a religious post. Thus my conclusion and the question.
Very well pointed out. I was requesting not demanding. The forum is about what science can do about death not what happens after death.
I have already made a questionnaire about that.

http://www.debate.org...

"Lol not for eternity."
An ending that cannot be defined is eternal and there is no conceived time of death and one's own existence.

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

You're talking about immortality. If you have plans on not lasting an eternity you're not talking about immortality. Besides, nothing can actually last an eternity. Thermodynamics bro.

Immortality is eternal life or the ability to live forever. That is precisely what I was talking about.

I think you will find Time is eternal.

"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.

Either that or all die, but there aren't really accessible planets to go that support human life. I mean, they exist, but we'd need the technology to go there first which kind of trumps the immortality thing.

I am happy with the principle of Hooke's law in predicting future technology and human advancement.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:17:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 11:22:15 AM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:20:03 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

In the OP you said no religious posts. The only way to disagree with your idea about what happens after death is to make a religious post. Thus my conclusion and the question.
Very well pointed out. I was requesting not demanding. The forum is about what science can do about death not what happens after death.

Read below.

"Lol not for eternity."
An ending that cannot be defined is eternal and there is no conceived time of death and one's own existence.

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

You're talking about immortality. If you have plans on not lasting an eternity you're not talking about immortality. Besides, nothing can actually last an eternity. Thermodynamics bro.

Immortality is eternal life or the ability to live forever. That is precisely what I was talking about.

I think you will find Time is eternal.

Have you heard of entropy? You would need to stabilize entropy in the universe to be able to achieve eternal life, which means you'd need to literally keep everything from gaining entropy, but you can't make something lose entropy either, so you'd have to find a way to keep it constant with no fluctuations. If you can't do something about entropy, you will die at some point.

That's why the only answer to eternal life is to give up on a scientific answer and become religious because stabilizing the entropy of the entire universe is impossible. Or just give up on being immortal. It doesn't matter if time lasts forever, because a universe that supports life will not last forever.

"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.

Either that or all die, but there aren't really accessible planets to go that support human life. I mean, they exist, but we'd need the technology to go there first which kind of trumps the immortality thing.

I am happy with the principle of Hooke's law in predicting future technology and human advancement.

There are limits to technology. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are clear limits.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 4:41:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:17:18 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:22:15 AM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:20:03 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

In the OP you said no religious posts. The only way to disagree with your idea about what happens after death is to make a religious post. Thus my conclusion and the question.
Very well pointed out. I was requesting not demanding. The forum is about what science can do about death not what happens after death.

Read below.

"Lol not for eternity."
An ending that cannot be defined is eternal and there is no conceived time of death and one's own existence.

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

You're talking about immortality. If you have plans on not lasting an eternity you're not talking about immortality. Besides, nothing can actually last an eternity. Thermodynamics bro.

Immortality is eternal life or the ability to live forever. That is precisely what I was talking about.

I think you will find Time is eternal.

Have you heard of entropy? You would need to stabilize entropy in the universe to be able to achieve eternal life, which means you'd need to literally keep everything from gaining entropy, but you can't make something lose entropy either, so you'd have to find a way to keep it constant with no fluctuations. If you can't do something about entropy, you will die at some point.

For one to understand society one needs a basic idea of how humanities culture and history has developed and evolved. The principle of Uniformitarianism which is the key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science which is the idea of a gradualist concept. correct me if I'm wrong but entropy is based on randomness and disorder which to me sounds very close to chaos theory.


That's why the only answer to eternal life is to give up on a scientific answer and become religious because stabilizing the entropy of the entire universe is impossible. Or just give up on being immortal. It doesn't matter if time lasts forever, because a universe that supports life will not last forever. :
"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.

Either that or all die, but there aren't really accessible planets to go that support human life. I mean, they exist, but we'd need the technology to go there first which kind of trumps the immortality thing.

I am happy with the principle of Hooke's law in predicting future technology and human advancement.

There are limits to technology. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are clear limits.

Moore's law would suggest that Technology would just increase but it's all hypothetical on whether technological advancement is limited but I imagine there must be a maximum point as the technological advancement is rate is best on the first rule which is supply and demand and once the second rule is conception and imagination. If one cannot imagine where the technological advancement can go from a certain point then technological advancement must stop because there are no more milestones to reach.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 4:46:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:13:45 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
Please no religious posts.

This is a discussion on what science can do about death. Whether that be preventing death or delaying .

Two solutions could be Cryonic preservation or Plastination.

Plastination

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cryonic preservation

http://www.alcor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 8:22:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 4:41:12 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:17:18 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/14/2014 11:22:15 AM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 10/14/2014 1:20:03 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/13/2014 4:18:35 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
"Lol, you said no religious postsI said "please no religious posts"."

I can"t stop someone if they did post a religious explanation for what happened when you die.

"but you're presenting a view that directly contradicts religious beliefs."

There is no proof for anything else but nonexistence after death. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Are people just not allowed to disagree with you on this topic?"

Anyone can disagree with me. I welcome it.

In the OP you said no religious posts. The only way to disagree with your idea about what happens after death is to make a religious post. Thus my conclusion and the question.
Very well pointed out. I was requesting not demanding. The forum is about what science can do about death not what happens after death.

Read below.

"Lol not for eternity."
An ending that cannot be defined is eternal and there is no conceived time of death and one's own existence.

Who said it would solve the situation for eternity? Vitro meat would help towards the issue of food shortage and land shortage. Vitro meat once realised would solve food shortage for eternity but certainly not land.

You're talking about immortality. If you have plans on not lasting an eternity you're not talking about immortality. Besides, nothing can actually last an eternity. Thermodynamics bro.

Immortality is eternal life or the ability to live forever. That is precisely what I was talking about.

I think you will find Time is eternal.

Have you heard of entropy? You would need to stabilize entropy in the universe to be able to achieve eternal life, which means you'd need to literally keep everything from gaining entropy, but you can't make something lose entropy either, so you'd have to find a way to keep it constant with no fluctuations. If you can't do something about entropy, you will die at some point.

For one to understand society one needs a basic idea of how humanities culture and history has developed and evolved. The principle of Uniformitarianism which is the key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science which is the idea of a gradualist concept. correct me if I'm wrong but entropy is based on randomness and disorder which to me sounds very close to chaos theory.

You're right and wrong. Entropy has to due with randomness, but it's not anything like chaos theory. Entropy is the state of randomness, and it's an observed scientific principle that in a closed system entropy either stays the same or increases. The universe is the ultimate closed system. In other words, the universe is gradually getting more disorderly (hence dying stars, dying people - because entropy is what causes us to age in the first place - and other things that break down). Literally anything that breaks down has increased in entropy.

There has never been an observed instance where entropy decreases in any closed system, and as a whole the universe is headed toward greater entropy. That's why time may be eternal, but a universe that supports life isn't.

That's why the only answer to eternal life is to give up on a scientific answer and become religious because stabilizing the entropy of the entire universe is impossible. Or just give up on being immortal. It doesn't matter if time lasts forever, because a universe that supports life will not last forever. :
"Well by you yeah, but if there was a universal cure to death then we'd be screwed. Overpopulation is already a problem."

Yes it is but overpopulation won"t be a problem forever. Humanity will have to leave earth at some point.

Either that or all die, but there aren't really accessible planets to go that support human life. I mean, they exist, but we'd need the technology to go there first which kind of trumps the immortality thing.

I am happy with the principle of Hooke's law in predicting future technology and human advancement.

There are limits to technology. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are clear limits.

Moore's law would suggest that Technology would just increase but it's all hypothetical on whether technological advancement is limited but I imagine there must be a maximum point as the technological advancement is rate is best on the first rule which is supply and demand and once the second rule is conception and imagination. If one cannot imagine where the technological advancement can go from a certain point then technological advancement must stop because there are no more milestones to reach.

Well also there's laws of physics and thermodynamics and stuff like that which we can't just abridge, but yeah technology is limited.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...