4 ms·

>It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainl

>It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainly be insistent on linear time - and steadily marching towards its expiration date. Why do you think humans will stage undergo the aging process at that time? With that level of technology, the idea that humans won't have cured the disease we call "aging" seems absurd. >Even evolution itself will be weird. Humans over millions of years will probably scarcely resemble ourselves today, yet you'll regularly have 'old' species humans regularly reintegrating with 'new' ones? Humans haven't been evolving due to natural selection for thousands of years. Any changes in humans in the future will be due to genetic engineering.

somenameforme 3y ago
Every single thing in this universe dies, even stars. Every single thing we're made of dies, and breaks down. I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything. And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. Natural selection basically comes down to the truism that traits which are productive for fertility tend to become more dominant in the following generations. Natural selection doesn't require you to be out in the wild fighting against the elements, it's no different than what's happening socially at an extreme level today. Certain groups have certain characteristics driving them to have large families. Others lack those characteristics. Whatever these characteristics may be, they're going to be far more dominant in the generations that follow ours. It's evolution.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything There are multiple species in the wild right now that disprove this. Biology doesn't require aging. >And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. You seem to not understand exactly what natural selection is and its role in adapting an organism to its environment.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    You're making a couple of extremely common misconceptions here. Look more into 'biological immortality' and you'll find the examples range from plainly false, to controversial and almost certainly false. For instance lobsters are one of the most typically cited (largely because the other stuff is microscopic), but it's about as true the old 'humans only use 10% of our brains' stuff: "Lobsters grow by moulting which requires considerable energy, and the larger the shell the more energy is required.[28] Eventually, the lobster will die from exhaustion during a moult. Older lobsters are also known to stop moulting, which means that the shell will eventually become damaged, infected, or fall apart and they die.[29] The European lobster has an average life span of 31 years for males and 54 years for females." [1] As for evolution, we all learn about Darwin's finches, and so people think of it in terms of things like a bird gradually evolving a more adaptive beak for what's available on an island. But natural selection and evolution is not about evolving your body to fit your environment, unless that would provide a benefit to fertility. If there was endless food on the Galapagos islands for said finches, then said beak would provide 0 fertility benefit and would not, in any way, be evolutionarily selected for. The reason we, as a species, exist today is because higher intelligence enabled higher successful fertility rates. It's not because intelligence is inherently better. So, for instance, if it turns out that lower intelligence, in modern times, is more productive for fertility when we as a species will gradually become less intelligent. All evolution cares about is fertility, and whatever it takes to achieve it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Lobsters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Lobster...
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      There are other species that are effectively immortal. And those are natural things: with artificial treatments, it's certain that biological immortality could be achieved. Stars can be immortal too, if you make changes in them to replace their fuel, for instance. Why do detractors always think that biological immortality shouldn't require some kind of external treatments occasionally, and then argue from that assumption? Most people don't expect their car to work forever without new fuel, maintenance, repairs, etc.

somenameforme 3y ago

Every single thing in this universe dies, even stars. Every single thing we're made of dies, and breaks down. I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything. And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. Natural selection basically comes down to the truism that traits which are productive for fertility tend to become more dominant in the following generations. Natural selection doesn't require you to be out in the wild fighting against the elements, it's no different than what's happening socially at an extreme level today. Certain groups have certain characteristics driving them to have large families. Others lack those characteristics. Whatever these characteristics may be, they're going to be far more dominant in the generations that follow ours. It's evolution.

shiroiuma 3y ago
>I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything There are multiple species in the wild right now that disprove this. Biology doesn't require aging. >And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. You seem to not understand exactly what natural selection is and its role in adapting an organism to its environment.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  You're making a couple of extremely common misconceptions here. Look more into 'biological immortality' and you'll find the examples range from plainly false, to controversial and almost certainly false. For instance lobsters are one of the most typically cited (largely because the other stuff is microscopic), but it's about as true the old 'humans only use 10% of our brains' stuff: "Lobsters grow by moulting which requires considerable energy, and the larger the shell the more energy is required.[28] Eventually, the lobster will die from exhaustion during a moult. Older lobsters are also known to stop moulting, which means that the shell will eventually become damaged, infected, or fall apart and they die.[29] The European lobster has an average life span of 31 years for males and 54 years for females." [1] As for evolution, we all learn about Darwin's finches, and so people think of it in terms of things like a bird gradually evolving a more adaptive beak for what's available on an island. But natural selection and evolution is not about evolving your body to fit your environment, unless that would provide a benefit to fertility. If there was endless food on the Galapagos islands for said finches, then said beak would provide 0 fertility benefit and would not, in any way, be evolutionarily selected for. The reason we, as a species, exist today is because higher intelligence enabled higher successful fertility rates. It's not because intelligence is inherently better. So, for instance, if it turns out that lower intelligence, in modern times, is more productive for fertility when we as a species will gradually become less intelligent. All evolution cares about is fertility, and whatever it takes to achieve it. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Lobsters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Lobster...
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    There are other species that are effectively immortal. And those are natural things: with artificial treatments, it's certain that biological immortality could be achieved. Stars can be immortal too, if you make changes in them to replace their fuel, for instance. Why do detractors always think that biological immortality shouldn't require some kind of external treatments occasionally, and then argue from that assumption? Most people don't expect their car to work forever without new fuel, maintenance, repairs, etc.