4 ms·

One of the reasons I think no human will ever be immortal is that we can't even make houses live for more than a couple of hundred years in the general case, an

One of the reasons I think no human will ever be immortal is that we can't even make houses live for more than a couple of hundred years in the general case, and houses are objects rather than dynamic systems.

cgsmith 7y ago
I dont think this is sound logic. If humans were immortal design considerations would change. Houses dont live for hundreds of years because the constraint dictates it.
- visarga 7y ago
  Human lifespan is also dictated by constraints - if we lived much longer the young would not have meaningful access to resources and evolution would slow down. People live long enough to see their children grown up and help with their grandchildren.
ravingraven 7y ago
I think it is the other way around, a dynamic system is better at lasting long than a static one. Human bodies are able to regenerate and repair themselves to a certain extend (no single cell in your body will live as long as you). In fact, one of the factors that diminishes our life is a malfunction of our regeneration processes: cancer. Human body machinery mostly outperforms man-made machinery i.e. there is nor reason to believe that a human heart can beat for ever if we find a way to allow it to regenerate for ever without faults. Human brains are able to perform medicine which is also a positive feedback loop for how long human bodies can last. In a nutshell, a dynamic system has a least the chance to reverse or repair damage done to it due to entropy, a static one has not.
- contingencies 7y ago
  Last sentence added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
- drjesusphd 7y ago
  > (no single cell in your body will live as long as you) Unless you're a woman who dies before menopause...
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Well, maybe: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/07/evidence-suggests-womens-ovaries-can-grow-new-eggs https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/07/evidence-sug...
QuinnWilton 7y ago
I'd make the argument that houses, and by extension structures and towns, form dynamic systems. Parts of a structure may decay over time, but any structure in active use is going to undergo a continuous process of repair and improvement, based on the needs of it's inhabitants. Sure, if a building falls into disuse it may die, but is that not true of people too?

cgsmith 7y ago

I dont think this is sound logic. If humans were immortal design considerations would change. Houses dont live for hundreds of years because the constraint dictates it.

visarga 7y ago
Human lifespan is also dictated by constraints - if we lived much longer the young would not have meaningful access to resources and evolution would slow down. People live long enough to see their children grown up and help with their grandchildren.

ravingraven 7y ago

I think it is the other way around, a dynamic system is better at lasting long than a static one. Human bodies are able to regenerate and repair themselves to a certain extend (no single cell in your body will live as long as you). In fact, one of the factors that diminishes our life is a malfunction of our regeneration processes: cancer. Human body machinery mostly outperforms man-made machinery i.e. there is nor reason to believe that a human heart can beat for ever if we find a way to allow it to regenerate for ever without faults. Human brains are able to perform medicine which is also a positive feedback loop for how long human bodies can last. In a nutshell, a dynamic system has a least the chance to reverse or repair damage done to it due to entropy, a static one has not.

contingencies 7y ago
Last sentence added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
drjesusphd 7y ago
> (no single cell in your body will live as long as you) Unless you're a woman who dies before menopause...
- icebraining 7y ago
  Well, maybe: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/07/evidence-suggests-womens-ovaries-can-grow-new-eggs https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/07/evidence-sug...

QuinnWilton 7y ago

I'd make the argument that houses, and by extension structures and towns, form dynamic systems. Parts of a structure may decay over time, but any structure in active use is going to undergo a continuous process of repair and improvement, based on the needs of it's inhabitants. Sure, if a building falls into disuse it may die, but is that not true of people too?