It's my experience of the past that has changed. — T Clark

I see what do you mean now :up:

I don't think the survival of our species depends in any way on "the human race ... globally united". In fact, I'd bet against it. — 180 Proof

Fair enough, but would you agree that since we emerged from the wilds, small groups of humans have merged into larger communities of humans and we are now at nation sized groups, with entities like the European economic union being formed and other such economic unions growing all over the planet. Based on that evidence alone, it seems to me that global union will happen at some point in the future.

when 'life extension' engineeriing really takes off, Malthusian population pressures will go critical and policies of strategic gigacide will need to be implemented. — 180 Proof

Had to visit wiki, to read about Thomas Robert Malthus. I had never heard of him:
Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks) to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.

Any threat of exponential population growth can be controlled through education/information campaigns which explain the problems to the current population. Malthus knew nothing about how fast information can be disseminated today, he also new nothing about the advances now being made on food production techniques such as vertical farming etc. I think life extension will cause people to have fewer children, not more. I had to look up gigacide as well but my guestimate was akin to what 'bing' came back with: Gigacide means a mass murder of a billion or more people.
Removing lives through mass murder has proven to be a very unwise action to take by those who have tried it in the past. You are looking through the mirror rather darkly.

The alternative, however, may be that 'radical life extension' will only be available to people who work and live permanently in space (e.g. orbital habitats, moon stations, planet colonies, deep space travel, etc) – AI-automated fleet of "worldships" populated by a total of a million? half-million? hundreds of thousands or less? "Post-human" immortals – leaving billions of mortals behind on a flooded, toxic, storm-ravaged, burning Earth. — 180 Proof

:smile: Reads like, If you were a future career advisor for the children of the future, you would push them to choose a career in space exploration and development. Are your thoughts about the future of the human race mainly dystopian?

'The species imperative' does not require most of the current populations of the species (or their descendents) to survive, only enough of us to carry our DNA and cultural artifacts forward through the coming millennia and epochs. AI-automation + space habitation + immortality engineering are what h. sapiens' "Post-human" future looks like to me ...

Extinction or apotheosis? — 180 Proof

But the universe is so vast! We could assign every one of our current global population of humans at under 8 billion, responsibility/stewardship/ownership of their own solar system, just within our own milkyway (ok, I know there is a slight tech hitch of access but ..... given another million years or so of science....) and that would be no more than a drop in the cosmic bucket of available solar systems.
From the standpoint of the size of the universe, each human being is incredibly rare and precious.
Again, given the size of the universe and the fact that our current science suggests there is no way, now or in the future that creatures such as us will ever access the vast majority of it, I can't understand why you would think that apotheosis is even in our line of sight. Our transhumanism would have to reach the functionality of a fabled character such as Thor, to bring such possibilities into our reality, and goodness knows what discovery we would need and tech we would require to become able to even access our local galactic group and become an intergalactic species. But the pursuit of such sounds fun to me. I wish I were born, when such a pursuit was happening.

Ok!

"Everybody wants to go to Heaven
But nobody wants to die"
~Albert King

Human (non-tribal) civilization is a 10-20,000 year old pyramid scheme where the global masses coralled into large, administrative political units form the base of the pyramid. The vertical development (height) has accelerated rapidly in the last three centuries and the interests of those at or near the summit are increasingly becoming divorced from the rest of us at or near the base. Those at the summit will reach sustainable "escape velocity" long before those who are below the summit are even fully aware that they have left us behind like a blasted rocket gantry built out of 10,000 years of human bones.

"Dystopian"? I suppose, but only from a certain point of view. The future, my friend, seems to me Posthuman, not human – extraterrestrial, not terrestrial – or our extinction. You're spinning self-flattering, cotton candy, cartoon daydreams, universeness, and you're welcome to them. :yum: :nerd:

There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka

I have no children of my own, therefore no grandchildren either. Thus, I have no skin the game of "the future". Only the best, singular works of excellence from the pasts of all extant human cultures do I have some small hope will be saved and preserved in as many digital media as can be engineered –

e.g. https://www.archmission.org/billion-year-archive

– for the potential enrichment (or amusement) of the Posthuman immortals who might survive us and struggle in their own incomprehensible ways to understand us much more deeply and thoroughly than we human mortals can understand ourselves, and, in this hermeneutic and critical fashion, glean insights – from one old (soon-to-be-extinct) metacognitive species to another ever-renewable metacognitive species – which may help them avoid destroying themselves inadvertantly.

Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end. — Freddy Zarathustra

The stars are for our immortals and intelligent machines but not for us mortals who might engineer them some decades or century soon. The prospect of 'radical life extension' (that I/we might have access to one day)^^ is attractive to me mostly so that I could live at least long enough to witness the global collapse of the human pyramid in the wake of its Posthuman summit finally separating from Earth as it rises and falls away endlessly into the Milky Way. :fire:

We have to keep in mind the fact that Thomas Mann saw death as an artistic expression. But in the correspondence maintained with Herman Hesse it looks like he increased the sense: without death we are meaningless. — javi2541997

I look at death as having been pushed into the past. To live, to be, to exist, is to be present in time. And at the present, the future is a massive force exerting substantial pressure over all that is at the present. Feeling the pressure which is the force of the future, is the source of excitement, anxiety, and stress. This is the passing of time, the exerting of pressure over all that is, forcing all that is, into the past, and this is known as the law of entropy.

To be at the present, to live, to exist, requires effort. We disguise the effort required to be at the present, by taking the persistence of mass for granted in the law of inertia. This law reverses our perspective, so that being at the present is taken for granted, instead of requiring effort. From this perspective, "force" is required to alter being at the present. That is a negation of the effort required to be at the present, produced by taking being at the present for granted. This makes dying, (being forced into the past) unnatural, as requiring an external force.

I want to put an example I was thinking about.
The main substance of flowers is to perish, right? Well, that's what it makes them so beautiful. Whenever a rose, nettle or sunflower flourish you enjoy it because it is beautiful and colourful. But trust me on the fact that we will end up getting tired of "perpetual" flowers in our garden for seeing them everyday in our lives.
I think this examples fits the concept of transitoriness so well. The aesthetic concept of a flourished flower is ephemeral. — javi2541997

Creativity, beauty, and all aesthetics, are a matter of the way that one exerts effort in being at the present. We can resist death, resist being pushed into the past, making oneself strong, solid as a rock, but we know that this is a futile effort. Instead, we as living beings, have learned that it is far more productive to exert our efforts towards making an appeal to others. This instinct has evolved so that now, being at the present is not a matter of long term perseverance, attempting to fight the futile battle of being solid as a rock and preventing oneself from being forced into the past, it is a matter of doing something productive for the sake of others, during one's brief time at the present. That's what we see in the beauty of the flower.

So effort is best placed, not in attempting to extend one's time at the present, indefinitely, as this is futile. Effort is best placed in doing something spectacular in a very brief moment of being at the present. So we sense the most beautiful things as occurring in the most brief periods of time, like the flowers, music, and all our moments of joy, which are but a flash in the pan, so to speak.

Yet that assumption might be like someone reading a book and believing that once a page is turned it no longer exists, or someone believing the pages that haven't been read yet do not exist until one turns the page It makes me wonder what is around me in the universe. — javi2541997

Yes, this is exactly the perspective one ought to take. To exist is to be at the present. The pages in the past no longer exist, yet we have learned from them. And the important thing to note is that the pages of the future have no existence until the prior page is turned. The living being, existing at the present, is not the one turning the pages though. The page turning is being forced upon us, and if we do not move to the next page, (which has no existence until the previous is turned), by creating a place for ourselves on that page, or even better, creating a spectacle for others, on that page, then we get forced into the past.

To be at the present, to live, to exist, requires effort. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

So effort is best placed, not in attempting to extend one's time at the present, indefinitely, as this is futile. Effort is best placed in doing something spectacular in a very brief moment of being at the present. So we sense the most beautiful things as occurring in the most brief periods of time, like the flowers, music, and all our moments of joy, which are but a flash in the pan, so to speak. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are authors who have written books or novels about fleeting of life or moments. One of the aspects I am agree with them the most is the fact that ephemeral is beautiful. I mean, if we consider a nettle as “pretty” is not due to their physical appearance but the brief of the moment where the flower grows up and then withers. This “transitoriness” is another perspective of how we see death. Instead of being a taboo topic, it can be understood in an artistic portrayal. It sounds so poetic, doesn’t it?

"Dystopian"? I suppose, but only from a certain point of view. — 180 Proof

Yes, and with all due respect, I would suggest that certain point of view, is yours.
Your comparator choice of a pyramid scheme to describe human history from the ancients to the modern day is ok by me, although it trivialises the main events a little too much for my taste.
The bloody road caused by those at the top of your pyramid scheme is unlike the damage caused by any actual pyramid scheme I have read about. I prefer your

built out of 10,000 years of human bones. — 180 Proof

The future, my friend, seems to me Posthuman, not human – extraterrestrial, not terrestrial – or our extinction. — 180 Proof

I am trying to interpret you use of 'posthuman,' extraterrestial and 'or our extinction.'
So you suggest our future is one of extinction, due to extraterrestials or our own actions and the Earth will then belong to extraterrestials? Is my interpretation correct? OR are you suggesting a future where transhumanism produces that which in no way can be compared with what we now consider human?

You're spinning self-flattering, cotton candy, cartoon daydreams, universeness, and you're welcome to them. — 180 Proof

A harsh accusation mr proof and a cynical, incorrect summation of my intent and motivation.
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one.

I have no children of my own, therefore no grandchildren either. Thus, I have no skin the game of "the future". — 180 Proof

Same for me but I have nieces, nephews etc, don't you? and is that not skin enough in the 'game'?
I also don't think you have to be blood related to every human whose future you care about.
You do have a responsibility to care for the future of your species imo.

I have no children of my own, therefore no grandchildren either. Thus, I have no skin the game of "the future". Only the best, singular works of excellence from the pasts of all extant human cultures do I have some small hope will be saved and preserved in as many digital media as can be engineered for the potential enrichment (or amusement) of the Posthuman immortals who might survive us and struggle in their own incomprehensible ways to understand us much more deeply and thoroughly than we human mortals can understand ourselves, and, in this hermeneutic and critical fashion, glean insights – from one old (soon-to-be-extinct) metacognitive species to another ever-renewable metacognitive species – which may help them avoid destroying themselves inadvertantly. — 180 Proof

Your view of the future for humans, as we understand them/us now becomes clearer to me.
I would label you 'a bit of a doomster,' and someone who has let his exasperation and frustration with his own species, dilute and perhaps even dismiss the imo, fantastic and incredible achievements of that species. That fact that you are compelled to call for the protection and preservation of certain 'singular works of excellence,' suggests some cracks in your disdain of your own species.

The stars are for our immortals and intelligent machines but not for us mortals who might engineer them some decades or century soon. The prospect of 'radical life extension' (that I/we might have access to one day)^^ is attractive to me mostly so that I could live at least long enough to witness the global collapse of the human pyramid in the wake of its Posthuman summit finally separating from Earth as it rises and falls endlessly into the Milky Way. — 180 Proof

Yep, definitely a doomster :smile: and you would take some personal satisfaction in witnessing your own species firmly on its path to its own destruction. Is it all about hoping the timing of events works out perfectly for you?
Live long enough to confirm that most of the humans alive today will cause their own destruction but a small number will survive to eventually create a very robust future transhuman/posthuman community, that will be so superior to us that they will be worthy of inheriting the Earth and the right to become spacefarers.
You wear your 'we are doomed' conclusion, big and bright and with contented conviction Mr Proof.
But you have no Proof that its valid. Us in the "spinning self-flattering, cotton candy, cartoon daydreams" group may frustrate your wishes.

This instinct has evolved so that now, being at the present is not a matter of long term perseverance, attempting to fight the futile battle of being solid as a rock and preventing oneself from being forced into the past, it is a matter of doing something productive for the sake of others, during one's brief time at the present. That's what we see in the beauty of the flower. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an excellent paragraph! :clap: :flower:

To exist is to be at the present. The pages in the past no longer exist, yet we have learned from them. And the important thing to note is that the pages of the future have no existence until the prior page is turned. The living being, existing at the present, is not the one turning the pages though. The page turning is being forced upon us, and if we do not move to the next page, (which has no existence until the previous is turned), by creating a place for ourselves on that page, or even better, creating a spectacle for others, on that page, then we get forced into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well said, as usual MU.

At 85 turning a heavy page can irritate an arthritic finger . . . but worth the effort.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

85! and still got pep, there are many colours of vibrant in a good human heart!

So you suggest our future is one of extinction, due to extraterrestials or our own actions and the Earth will then belong to extraterrestials? Is my interpretation correct? — universeness

Not even remotely close to what I've said and I can't say what I mean any clearer than I already have in these posts to which you have responded (but apparently have not read carefully):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751826

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751923

OR are you suggesting a future where transhumanism produces that which in no way can be compared with what we now consider human.

Yes, insofar as engineering radical life extension (i.e. immorbidity), as I call it, is "transhumanist". This will only be available, I suspect (for the Malthusian implications I've mentioned), to a very minute fraction of the global population – mostly financial and technoscientific elites and their families – who will then (have to) migrate to orbital habitats, Moon & Mars colonies, etc and progressively adapt themselves through further modes of engineering to living permanently (or existing post-biologically) in space. This is what I mean by "extra-terrestrial" (i.e. not on Earth).

Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. — javi2541997

At the risk of eschewing other things involved in this consideration, I'd say that in some ways, animals do have a sense of time passage. Just observe the animals in the wild. The pups would wait for the mother to come back, but once it's taken too long and no mom in sight, they would wander off, against the instruction. Same with the mother -- looking for a lost pup and when to give up relies on time. It isn't that the mother didn't find the pup, it is that time tells the mother to give up.

But yes, I see his point. Animals do not think of aging and when end is near. Or do they? There was a video of a mother cat who was seriously bitten by a dog. Sensing the end is near, the cat prepared the hiding spot for the kittens, and collected them in that hiding spot. Then she waited nearby to die.

Good examples but all of them are animal's acts which come from the wild or survival. The cat collected the kittens in a hiding spot because her animal instinct pursued the aim of survive at all costs.
We reached another important difference between animals and humans. The will of survive. An animal is not able to kill himself because his instinct prevent him to do such act. Nevertheless, humans have a big problem with suicide.

It is off topic and I am aware that suicide has many causes and it depends on each individual. But I am sure that self-realization of passing the time/life is determinant.

:up:

H. Sapiens differ from other mammalian species in degree not in kind just as adult humans differ from infant humans in degree rather than in kind. We don't know to what extent either nonhuman animals or human infants think, only that to whatever extent they do (including not at all), they do so, respectively, in ways we adult humans do not recognize (yet) as thinking. Anthropomorphic bias notwithstanding, I have observed e.g. dogs and cats – perhaps from human socialization – which very much tracked time throughout their daily lives as well as sometimes grieved lost companions, human and otherwise, and even in their own way had acknowledged their own dying by attempting to comfort their human companions.

"Time" is an abstraction of measuring changes but change itself is concrete requiring no representation. All complex organism perceive and adapt to change, whether or not they "talk about time", just as they all survive by making predictions about their environments even if they can't "use future tense".

Consider this article on animal grief:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/animal-grief/

I do not disagree with the fact that animals are aware when the death is near to them. It is a natural instinct and they tend to be prepared for the "last days" of their existence. A dog, cat, elephant, horse, etc... is aware when it becomes old? Yes, absolutely.

I have read the article on animal grief and it says an interesting thing: In September of 2010 off San Juan Island, Washington, people watched as a killer whale pushing a dead newborn for six hours. If this whale understood death purely rationally, she should just leave it. But humans don’t simply leave dead babies either. For us there is a concept of death, but also a feeling of grief. Our bonds are strong. We don’t want to let go. Their bonds, too, are strong. Perhaps they, too, don’t want to let go.
I am completely agree. Who doubts on this principle? Of course animals tend to grief. The same way we do.

But this is not related with the measurement of time. That's only a pure human concept. A dog is not aware if it is four or eight years old or when it is the "birthday" because these concepts where created by humans. For example: I doubt that my dog is aware that we are in 2022. I respect her intelligence but I don't think if my dog is truly aware about the "passing of the years"
That's why I am agree with Thomas Mann in the sense that the "self-realization" of time passing by is a distinctive between humans and animals.

I am agree with Thomas Mann in the sense that the "self-realization" of time — javi2541997

I cannot make sense of what Thomas Mann means by "the self-realization of time" in the first instance and how in the second instance that is uniquely human. Sounds like (Proustian) misunderstood / faux Bergsonism to me ...

The concept of time has always been a subject of philosophical debate. We are discussing about Thomas Mann's notion but you also quoted others authors as Proust or Bergson. I also remember from Kant a good quote to point out: Time travel is impossible because time is only empirically real and does not exist independently among things in themselves.

I understand that there can be a lot of perspectives to understand Kant’s metaphysics but I believe Kantian thoughts on time influenced on Mann's. Time only exists in human knowledge because we literally created to put an "order" to our circumstances and significance. That's why we are the only species of the earth who have self-realization of "transitoriness".

Thanks for that quote from Kant, it's new to me. Like with Mann, I can't make sense of Kant's transcendental aesthetic (e.g. that "time" and "space" are only "ideal" or imposed by the human mind on "things in themselves") either – my stumbling block has always been "things in themselves", for which Schopenhauer takes him to task and Hegel dismisses outright. Too many, to my thinking, unwarranted dualities in Kant's system, all of which are dependent on this impossibly load bearing fiat of "things in themselves". Kant's system is as anarchronistic as the Newtonian physics it was meant to transcendentally justify.

Anyway, I've already acknowledged "time" as a human artifact but that transitoriness – change, impermanence, ephemerality, loss/advent – is not exclusively human or dependent on "the human mind". For instance, Einstein's relativistic time-dilation thoroughly discounts Kantian "time", and so on. I stand by my remark that Mann "confuses time with change" and his anthropocentric notion of "transitoriness as distinctly human" is the result. The phrase "self-realization of time" still remains as opaque as before ...

I stand by my remark that Mann "confuses time with change" and his anthropocentric notion of "transitoriness as distinctly human" is the result — 180 Proof

I think we should remark the context of why Mann used the concept of "transitoriness". This debate started when he wrote some letters to another amazing writer: Herman Hesse. Sadly, we don't know why they were discussing about past, present, future, death, etc... (my guess is they were just discussing as good philosophers do) because we only have some extracts of the correspondence.
I am not sure if we have to consider that Mann is "wrong" because those words about time only come from a basic conversation. I guess he tried to explain that a great "concern" of humans is the pass of time. Maybe he was thinking in a literature view, not philosophical or metaphysical.
Mann was also an acquaintance of Einstein. It could be possible the big influence on Mann about the concept of Einstein about the relativistic time-dilation.

The phrase "self-realization of time" still remains as opague as before ... — 180 Proof

It is metaphysical and I understand that is opened to a lot of interpretations. It remembers me when we debated some months ago about "whether the things exist or not" or "what does real mean?" Etc...
Beyond of debating about the concept I still remark that homo sapiens sapiens has some "self realization" of abstract things: past, present of future. Emptiness and fullness. Born and death, etc...
Despite those are opague concepts we still debate about because we have "self-realization" that they are around us.

Yes, insofar as engineering radical life extension (i.e. immorbidity), as I call it, is "transhumanist". This will only be available, I suspect (for the Malthusian implications I've mentioned), to a very minute fraction of the global population – mostly financial and technoscientific elites and their families – who will then (have to) migrate to orbital habitats, Moon & Mars colonies, etc and progressively adapt themselves through further modes of engineering to living permanently (or existing post-biologically) in space. This us what I mean by "extra-terrestrial" (i.e. not on Earth). — 180 Proof

Yeah, I was moving towards this understanding of you typings when I typed:

Your view of the future for humans, as we understand them/us now becomes clearer to me.
I would label you 'a bit of a doomster,' and someone who has let his exasperation and frustration with his own species, dilute and perhaps even dismiss the imo, fantastic and incredible achievements of that species. That fact that you are compelled to call for the protection and preservation of certain 'singular works of excellence,' suggests some cracks in your disdain of your own species. — universeness

So perhaps we would both benefit from paying a little more attention to what the other types, before responding or editing.

As I accurately suggested, your vision of the future for our species is extinction for most, dystopian for most that are left on the Earth and an elite small group of survivors who live extraterrestially.
You must have found the following film quite in line with your depressing predictions:

There are authors who have written books or novels about fleeting of life or moments. One of the aspects I am agree with them the most is the fact that ephemeral is beautiful. I mean, if we consider a nettle as “pretty” is not due to their physical appearance but the brief of the moment where the flower grows up and then withers. This “transitoriness” is another perspective of how we see death. Instead of being a taboo topic, it can be understood in an artistic portrayal. It sounds so poetic, doesn’t it? — javi2541997

It does sound poetic, but true. The most beautiful things are the most ephemeral. I think that it fills us with awe to see so much complexity packed into a very short period of time. This is what music gives us, and the overlapping of temporal themes is very important. A large part of beauty seems to be associated with this temporal layering, 'occurring at the same time'. We can say that a single flower is beautiful because of its own arrangement of parts, but it doesn't even compare with a garden, or field of flowers, because the single flower always has to exist within its background, or context. That's why the unique sunset is so beautiful, because it encompasses the entire field of view. The natural and the artificial arrangement, each has its own type of beauty. But no matter how you look at it, beauty consists of a synchronicity of elements.

I think you need to be careful though to distinguish between living and dying. The transitoriness which you refer to is a property of living. It is not a property of death, because having been forced into the past (death) is permanent. Dying is the process whereby the permanent overcomes the transitory.

If living (being at the present) requires effort, then dying is an incapacity in relation to this effort. These two perspectives, looking at life as living, and looking at life as dying, are fundamentally different, like the difference between believing in free will, and fatalism. Fatalism has been demonstrated to be an attitude which incapacitates.

So the proper perspective is, to ask the question of what can I do in my act of living, rather than what can I do in my act of dying. This is because the latter, to die, is to negate one's capacity to act, and such an act would be suicide, which contradicts "what can I do", as it provides only one option, death.

At 85 turning a heavy page can irritate an arthritic finger . . . but worth the effort. — jgill

I think I'll be happy if I can still manage the keyboard at 85.

That's why the unique sunset is so beautiful, because it encompasses the entire field of view. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

I think you need to be careful though to distinguish between living and dying. The transitoriness which you refer to is a property of living. It is not a property of death, because having been forced into the past (death) is permanent. Dying is the process whereby the permanent overcomes the transitory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting thought. It is true I wasn't clear about the distinction between living and dying. I only want to add to your argument that I see "transitoriness" as a horizontal line where the "staring point" is born and the end could be death.
(If we consider death as the pure emptiness. I mean, there will be nothing afterwards)

There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

Interesting indeed. I think the main motivation for ending death through technology and medicine stems from fear of death, fear of the uknown and powerless state of non-being, fear of being forgotten and thus retrospective meaningless to your life after no one alive ever knew you even existed in the first place. In otherwords having no legacy.

As creatures that fear having no control, and fear our own mortality, the inherent stress of watching a clock tick and knowing with every motion of that hand, we approach our funeral makes death the "ultimate enemy number one".

But I think this is a negative view of death. As death has a lot of pros. It is the mercy at the end of suffering - of a painful decline in health and ability. If one were to ask a terminally ill patient if they are depressed about their imminent death, I'd imagine often you'd be surprised to hear they patiently await and welcome it because they will be free of their incurable illness. They also may feel especially grateful for their ordinary daily moments and derive great meaning from what we may see as trivial/ mundane.

Also death allows us to have children. For without it we would soon overwhelm the planet and its resources and be very hungry and cramped immortals indeed. We would be forced to be celestial nomads - bad news for alien life if such exist as we would have to take their resources and space for our immortality driven colonialism.

Without death our financial system, inheritance, economics would all be impaired as if no one died then none of their relatives could ever claim their assets as normally occurs when they pass away and exchange of wealth would have to be through spontaneous random gifting.

Banking credit would be based on an infinite length of time working/having an income which would make the mortgage you take out based on earning potentials and risk reach the trillions.

Interesting indeed. I think the main motivation for ending death through technology and medicine stems from fear of death, fear of the uknown and powerless state of non-being, fear of being forgotten and thus retrospective meaningless to your life after no one alive ever knew you even existed in the first place. In otherwords having no legacy. — Benj96

Your probably right about the reasons. I'm 70 and many of my family and friends are that old or older. I'm surprised by how many of them feel as I do. I don't think any of us are particularly afraid of dying.

I'm surprised by how many of them feel as I do. I don't think any of us are particularly afraid of dying. — T Clark

I'm happy to hear it. It's a very positive and peaceful position to hold. Dying is as effortless, as passive and natural as birth was. One did not suffer before they were born and I suspect the same is the case in death. I don't think it needs to be feared more than it need be simply accepted as part of the privilege that is life itself.

You've completely misread what I've written.as your posting of that video clip shows. Best to leave this conversatuon there rather than to go on talking past one another. For the record, in reply to your assessment of me as a "doomster", I reflect that while I am a pessimist about the near-future survival of the human species, I'm optimistic about the future development of human-made intelligences and that they/it will survive us.

(NB: Perhaps this is a solution to the Fermi Paradox: biological intelligence are survived by their engineered nonbiological intelligences which have no interests in, or needs to, communicate with other "alien" biological intelligences like us; thus, the cosmic silence (so far.) "Doomster?" No, realistic – speculatively extrapolating from Earth's fossil record of 99% species extinction rate, etc. Biomorphs are inherently mortal and extinction-prone; we either develop nonbiological descendants or we become fossils in oblivion.)

I don't think I have misread what you typed at all, but you seem to want to insist I have, which is fine.
I don't think your future doomster projections for the vast majority of human biomorphs, is as strongly evidenced as you claim.
The fossil evidence on Earth, accumulating, to a finding that 99% of all species on Earth are extinct, could be thought of as a similar stat to the projection that, out of 8 planets in the solar system only 1 has life at all and I would warrant that 90%+ of all planets in the universe contain no life. Humans are perhaps, just lucky or are just able to survive more that 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet. I think we will continue to survive and the future for the humans alive today will not be any more dystopian that it has been in the past. The human experience will continue to improve.
But my projection has no strong evidence either and is just my optimism, which I obviously prefer to your pessimism.

The difference between our views is that you are optimistic – panglossian and utopian – about the future of human life and I'm optimistic – singularitarian and post-terrestrial – about the future of human intelligence.

Fair enough, a good place to leave it. I disagree with you that I am panglossian or utopian and I still think your are pessimistic and a doomster, but thanks for the exchange. :smile:

The difference between our views is that you are optimistic – panglossian and utopian – about the future of human life and I'm optimistic – singularitarian and post-terrestrial – about the future of human intelligence.
18h — 180 Proof

I see what you mean 180 proof. You're optimistic that our human intelligence will be our legacy in whatever we create to expand towards the vast distances beyond earth - perhaps an artifical human intelligence - a computer or humanoid robot that can easily have its parts manufactured and replaced and thus permit it to be an intelligence that can travel beyond what our organic human bodies can endure considering we have a finite lifespan. That is optimistic indeed.

Humans are perhaps, just lucky or are just able to survive more that 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet. I think we will continue to survive and the future for the humans alive today will not be any more dystopian that it has been in the past. The human experience will continue to improve. — universeness

Similarly I appreciate universeness's optimism regarding humans. If we can stabilise the earths climate and ecosystem there's no reason to believe our organic humanness will not thrive and continue to evolve toward a better more advanced future not just for us but for the whole of mother earth- regardless of whatever we birth through technology going forth to spread human intelligence beyond the earth through their artifical/metallic inorganic endurance.

I don't think you are actually at odds with one another. You both see a future beyond what we have now. 180 proof simply says human intelligence can go intergalactic and universeness's says that human intelligence will continue to drive the future of earth.

Neither to me are incompatible.