3 ms·
It's not an article worth reading. Of course "immortality" doesn't actually mean living for an infinite amount of years. The real goal is to live as long as a p
by nawitus 17y ago
It's not an article worth reading. Of course "immortality" doesn't actually mean living for an infinite amount of years. The real goal is to live as long as a person desires. Of course it has the usual points that it's difficult (nobody is saying it's not).
The article also includes some non-physicalist ideas that simulated brains can't feel emotion or feelings won't be "real" etc.
In essence it raises no new arguments or points of interest.
- jacquesm 17y agoThank you for your concise review. The word 'bored' is not in the article so I don't know where you got that.
- nawitus 17y agoSorry about that, I thought your point about living indoors was that it would be boring. Well, I edited it out anyway.
- prawn 17y agoI think they're referencing the part about avoiding risk. i.e., "immortalists" are not as concerned about accidental death, but having the chance to (otherwise) live and die on their terms, when they have accomplished what they wish to. That said (in support of the grandparent comment), I did think it was an interesting point to at least raise in your piece for those that might not have previously considered it.
- jacquesm 17y agoLiving and dying with dignity is already possible in some parts of the world, I'm happy to be living in one of them. It's only decent to be able to say that enough is enough. The case of Terri Schiavo shows that some parts of the world still have a long way to go in this. The 'pro life' movement is probably going to transform into a 'do not delete' movement in the future :)