Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:29 am
Articfox wrote:Iashi wrote:Compared to everything? Well, "everything" includes the world. Are you really saying that Earth is a "bad, bad place" compared to other planets?
Well its pretty bad off for a planet that harbours life and intelligent beings. Atleast the other planets have an excuse that there desolate wastelands wastelands not able to harbour life at all. I don't care what you say though...100 years, its gonna be bad. At the rate its going, and you know what. Once one thing is fixed its on to the next thing, and the next thing. We killed our own planet face it. Its too late to stop, Earth is like a train goign at full speed down a track with the bridge out up ahead. Its just a matter of time before it crashes and burns.Iashi wrote:The environment is not something external that humans interact with. Humans are a subset of the environment.
Doesn't mean they're not destroying it at an alarming rate.
Couldn't agree more. Well sort of...
Iashi, I'm not saying that there is no possible chance whatsoever of the world being in a stable condition or even better than today. Heck, I'm hoping that there'll be less pollution, less violence, less whatever. But you can't back up your claim that the world is so great. And I can't really back up my claim that the world is getting worse.
I like to base my facts on things that happen in and around my environment, the place I live. I can't say the whole world is like that, I'm just using it as an example.The river near my place, The George's River, was once a very clean and safe place to swim. Now, there are "No Swimming" signs everywhere, and plastic bags are more common than the jellyfish (and thats saying something). Why? Because of humanity's failure to look after the river. But it's not just that river that is the problem. Heck, I remember reading about a river that was so badly polluted, it turned orange.
But then, there are hundreds of organisations that work towards cleaning and helping the environment, so my claim can't be used to sum up all the rivers in the world.
I know that today, children are being eductated to protect the environment. More so, than any last generation. Or at least my parents, teachers, grandparents, etc, say so. And if it works out well, we mayt have ourselves a better place than today within 100 years time. I sure hope so.
The big thing to remember is that there is no real certainty or impossibility. Heck, theres even a 1-10000000000000 (or something like that) chance of walking through a wall when you bump through it. Nothing is impossible. Although the chances of it happening may be almost nill, theres still a slight chance. Just so, there is no real certainty either. You can argue this fact, but thats what I belive at least.
So, Articfox, it is not true to say that there is no way to save our planet, but we have trashed it up pretty bad. Ever since that industrial revolution (which was a great thing, don't get me wrong), we've had pollution steaming and pouring out like crazy. Only recently have the majority of people started realising how dangerous destroying the environmnet really is.
If the following paragraph was not the evidence to back up your approximately 100 years claim, then you didn't provide any evidence to back it up at all.
Fair enough, fair enough. My bad.
The environment is not something external that humans interact with. Humans are a subset of the environment.
Thats true. All creatures are a part of the environment. But it doesn't mean that they're all great and helpful. Rabbits in Australia are a massive pest. They can turn a grassy hill into a sandy dune for goodness sake! Does it mean that they're still a good thing. No. They are part of the environment, but in Australia, they are a pest. And face it, humanity is a pest to Nature. Does the earth need humans to survive? We're at the top of almost every food chain. But nothing depends on us to survive. We're nothing more than a highly evolved parasite. We leech off everything and quite often don't put anything back. If someting is a danger to us, we kill it off.
We are like the ultimate virus. Yes, I watched Matrix
But seriously, it's true. We take so much, give so little in return. The most we can credit ourselves to (in regards to the environment) is decomposing after we die.If the world is "steadily getting worse", then you should be able to prove that there is an actual decline.
Just one thing I randomly googled. I can't confirm it's accuracy, but thats just one example
I'm positive though, you could probably find some good examples, showing an increase. So we can both prove a decline and an increase.
*sigh*
This arguement is getting very repetitive. I understand your desire to have proof for everything, but sometimes, just chill out. You can't prove the existance of God, yet so many people belive in Him. Maybe he isn't real. Maybe he is just something people have dreamt up so that they have reassurance that someone is protecting them. But maybe he's real. Oh, now I'm getting into religious topics, so I'll stop here before something bad comes out of it.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:11 am
teh0mega wrote:Couldn't agree more. Well sort of...
Iashi, I'm not saying that there is no possible chance whatsoever of the world being in a stable condition or even better than today. Heck, I'm hoping that there'll be less pollution, less violence, less whatever. But you can't back up your claim that the world is so great.
Then it's a pretty good thing that I never made such a claim, isn't it?
teh0mega wrote:I like to base my facts on things that happen in and around my environment, the place I live. I can't say the whole world is like that, I'm just using it as an example.The river near my place, The George's River, was once a very clean and safe place to swim. Now, there are "No Swimming" signs everywhere, and plastic bags are more common than the jellyfish (and thats saying something). Why? Because of humanity's failure to look after the river. But it's not just that river that is the problem. Heck, I remember reading about a river that was so badly polluted, it turned orange.
But then, there are hundreds of organisations that work towards cleaning and helping the environment, so my claim can't be used to sum up all the rivers in the world.
As you yourself state this is not an effective method of determining global trends.
teh0mega wrote:Does it mean that they're still a good thing. No. They are part of the environment, but in Australia, they are a pest. And face it, humanity is a pest to Nature. Does the earth need humans to survive? We're at the top of almost every food chain. But nothing depends on us to survive. We're nothing more than a highly evolved parasite. We leech off everything and quite often don't put anything back. If someting is a danger to us, we kill it off.
I never said that merely being a subset of the environment produced an inherent benefit. You're refuting a claim that I never made.
teh0mega wrote:We are like the ultimate virus. Yes, I watched Matrix
What contribution does any other species make to the "environment" which humans do not make?
teh0mega wrote:
Just one thing I randomly googled. I can't confirm it's accuracy, but thats just one example
A decline in the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems does not prove a decline in global biodiversity. It is, however, true that global biodiversity is actually decreasing. What is more important, however, is the proof that this is a negative occurance.
teh0mega wrote:This arguement is getting very repetitive. I understand your desire to have proof for everything, but sometimes, just chill out.
I have no desire for proof. My desire is to force you into the admission that you made a claim that you could not back up.
teh0mega wrote:You can't prove the existance of God, yet so many people belive in Him. Maybe he isn't real. Maybe he is just something people have dreamt up so that they have reassurance that someone is protecting them. But maybe he's real.
As such, it is unwise to claim the existence or nonexistence of an entity.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:51 am
Iashi, one thing I have to commend you on is that you sure have a good way of finding ways to twist my own words against me. Not that its always a bad thing. But anyway...
Ture, I did say that. But how do you think estimates are made? Calculating, analyzing and sorting through all the data in the world about a certain subject is damn near impossible, even if you had a large group of highly trained professionals working on it. Most estimates are made by taking a certain number of subjects, not all of them, and just making an educated guess. It's done all over the world. It's not that effective, but any data you find will have used it in some way. So it would be rather hard to back up any claims that you or anyone else can make with any solid evidence when it comes to the global environment.
So whilst me using my river, my environement, the environment around mine, and the environements I read and hear about as an example, may not be all too accurate, it is a fair assumption. It is fair for me to say that in a lot of places, the environment has honestly gone to the dogs. And only in the last few years have people started trying to fix it up. A few countries in Europe are like this and (surprise surprise) their life expectany is very high, and their pollution is quite low (regarding levels of dangerous chemicals and substances in water and the air and the ground, smoke pollution, and general rubbish around the streets, rivers, etc).
But whilt we have big superpowers in the world which manage to produce mass pollution, and whilst we have little nations that manage to make a lot of pollution, it is hard to say that these kinds of problems are doing good to the environment.
Most other species are highly important in the food chain. You need sunlight to make grass grow, first order consumers to eat the grass, second order consumers to eat the first order consumers and so on. But you already knew that Humans on the other hand, eat just about anything, and if anything, we take away the food sources of other animals.
If we remove flies from the world, spiders, birds, other insects and eventually, creatures higher up in the food chains. Removing the top of the food chain will only result in the removed animal's food source increasing.
In most cases, this could be bad. No Lions, and the other creatures in it's environment will not have any reason to evolve to become faster, stealthier, etc.
However, since humans eat just about anything edible, removing us altogether will not really cause much damage. In fact, it'd mean that the animals would have more places to live and reproduce, without fear of having some wacko species introduced, or without fearing extinction from overzealous hunters.
I believe that answers your question
It is merely an example. Reducing Biodiversity is never really a good thing.
And as you may have deducted, it is visible that I have not really researched what I'm arguing about. I just can't be bothered, honestly. And if will truely make you happy and give you everlasting nirvana, then I will admit that I have made not one, but various claims that are not backed up by solid, hard and undisputable evidence. But as such, I must also say that finding such evidence is not as easy as it may seem.
As you yourself state this is not an effective method of determining global trends.
Ture, I did say that. But how do you think estimates are made? Calculating, analyzing and sorting through all the data in the world about a certain subject is damn near impossible, even if you had a large group of highly trained professionals working on it. Most estimates are made by taking a certain number of subjects, not all of them, and just making an educated guess. It's done all over the world. It's not that effective, but any data you find will have used it in some way. So it would be rather hard to back up any claims that you or anyone else can make with any solid evidence when it comes to the global environment.
So whilst me using my river, my environement, the environment around mine, and the environements I read and hear about as an example, may not be all too accurate, it is a fair assumption. It is fair for me to say that in a lot of places, the environment has honestly gone to the dogs. And only in the last few years have people started trying to fix it up. A few countries in Europe are like this and (surprise surprise) their life expectany is very high, and their pollution is quite low (regarding levels of dangerous chemicals and substances in water and the air and the ground, smoke pollution, and general rubbish around the streets, rivers, etc).
But whilt we have big superpowers in the world which manage to produce mass pollution, and whilst we have little nations that manage to make a lot of pollution, it is hard to say that these kinds of problems are doing good to the environment.
What contribution does any other species make to the "environment" which humans do not make?
Most other species are highly important in the food chain. You need sunlight to make grass grow, first order consumers to eat the grass, second order consumers to eat the first order consumers and so on. But you already knew that
Humans on the other hand, eat just about anything, and if anything, we take away the food sources of other animals.If we remove flies from the world, spiders, birds, other insects and eventually, creatures higher up in the food chains. Removing the top of the food chain will only result in the removed animal's food source increasing.
In most cases, this could be bad. No Lions, and the other creatures in it's environment will not have any reason to evolve to become faster, stealthier, etc.
However, since humans eat just about anything edible, removing us altogether will not really cause much damage. In fact, it'd mean that the animals would have more places to live and reproduce, without fear of having some wacko species introduced, or without fearing extinction from overzealous hunters.
I believe that answers your question
A decline in the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems does not prove a decline in global biodiversity. It is, however, true that global biodiversity is actually decreasing. What is more important, however, is the proof that this is a negative occurance.
It is merely an example. Reducing Biodiversity is never really a good thing.
I have no desire for proof. My desire is to force you into the admission that you made a claim that you could not back up.
And as you may have deducted, it is visible that I have not really researched what I'm arguing about. I just can't be bothered, honestly. And if will truely make you happy and give you everlasting nirvana, then I will admit that I have made not one, but various claims that are not backed up by solid, hard and undisputable evidence. But as such, I must also say that finding such evidence is not as easy as it may seem.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:55 am
teh0mega wrote:Most other species are highly important in the food chain. You need sunlight to make grass grow, first order consumers to eat the grass, second order consumers to eat the first order consumers and so on. But you already knew that
If we remove flies from the world, spiders, birds, other insects and eventually, creatures higher up in the food chains. Removing the top of the food chain will only result in the removed animal's food source increasing.
Humans are consumed by bacteria, which is no different from being consumed by a more visible species.
teh0mega wrote:In most cases, this could be bad. No Lions, and the other creatures in it's environment will not have any reason to evolve to become faster, stealthier, etc.
If a species doesn't need to become faster or stealthier, than not becoming faster or stealthier isn't a bad thing.
teh0mega wrote:However, since humans eat just about anything edible, removing us altogether will not really cause much damage. In fact, it'd mean that the animals would have more places to live and reproduce, without fear of having some wacko species introduced, or without fearing extinction from overzealous hunters.
Extinction occured before humans. Was it negative?
teh0mega wrote:And as you may have deducted, it is visible that I have not really researched what I'm arguing about. I just can't be bothered, honestly. And if will truely make you happy and give you everlasting nirvana, then I will admit that I have made not one, but various claims that are not backed up by solid, hard and undisputable evidence. But as such, I must also say that finding such evidence is not as easy as it may seem.
It is not that you made a claim or that most claims require hard research to support. What you did was impulsively make a very major and very statistically-based claim.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:08 am
Humans are consumed by bacteria, which is no different from being consumed by a more visible species.
The moment I pressed the sumbit button, I knew that that statement made me sound stupid, as did the extinction one. But then, at the same time, bacteria are strange things. They will eat absolutely anything. Humans... well we eat a lot of things too. Bleh.
Extinction occured before humans. Was it negative?
Yes, but the extinction was in the name of progress. Progress for the species as a whole. Prehistoric Creatures were wiped out (or at least a lot of them) becauseof the giant asteroid/meteor/whatever it's called. Or at least thats what is widely believed. Exinction also occured because a species can tend to almost evolve to a maximum. Then something happens, some food source dies, or something like that. The majority of them die. The creature is forced to interbreed. The result is an animal version of a hillbilly.
Either that, or their food sources had evolved to become smarter and more able to avoid being eaten, whilst the predator just couldn't keep up. That's my belief at least. I have no evidence to back it up, only what I was taught sort of just being stuck together. I could be wrong.
The only thing about humans is we unnessesarily (sp? It's late here, and I'm tired)kill off a species purely because it annoys us, or because we like the look of it's fur around our necks or on our torsos. Is it abolutely nessasary for us to kill White Tigers. Wow, their fur looks nice! But are they our natural species?
Humanity could very well survive as a herbivore species. But we eat meat as well (dont get me wrong, I eat meat wholeheartedly). We could just run around naked or even wear simple clothes. But instead, we fell the impulse to wear fancy garments, and make oursleves look like... I don't even know what. Theres nothing to compare to.
Humans are a unique species. We have something which very little, if any, animals have. We have the power of reasoning. With it we can do unbeliveable things. You have to simply look out the window to see the marvels of our civilization. But go to any 3rd world country, and you'll see what else the human mind and reasoning can do.
"Why worry about them, if I'm perfectly fine the way I am?"
"I make millions of dollars a day. I use $100 bills as toilet paper. But I can't donate $10 to the local charity!"
We as a race once lived in competition with other creatures. It was a survival of the fittest and the smartest. Today, we live in the era of online supermarkets and internet banking. Within twenty minutes, you can do your shopping online, and have more food lying around in your home than prehistoric man could ever have hoped to have at one time. Or at least, thats what it's like for us who live in America, Australia, Japan, countries in Europe, and other western or developed countries.
But what about if you live in a very poor country? Where your survival depends on how many pairs of Nike Sports Shoes you can make.
As long as humanity works like this, there is no way we can hope to hold together. And if we can't hold together, the environment may as well go caput.
If a species doesn't need to become faster or stealthier, than not becoming faster or stealthier isn't a bad thing.
I guess that evolution for the sake of evolution is not always a good thing. But what if another predator was to be introduced? It can and has happened various times. True, the 'prey' will need to adapt to better avoid it's predator, but if it has evolved to be fast and stealthy already, the new predators will not be so much as a problem. Or even this scenario: what if a new competitor is introduced? They will fight for the food. The better evolved will naturally win. If you are faster, stronger, smarter, then you will win against the dumb, slow and weak.
It is not that you made a claim or that most claims require hard research to support. What you did was impulsively make a very major and very statistically-based claim.
Before this goes any further, and before you continue to refute every one of my arguements with one or two sentences, would you care to give me your views? And I wish for them to backed up with the same amount of evidence that you expect from me. I am also just naturally curious to see what your views are. Because so far in this whole thread you have not done any more than demand some form of evidence from most statements made.
Most statisitics are based on a small representation, and so cannot possibly be accurate.So I understand why you are bugging me for making a statistically-based claim. Which is fair enough. But I simply googled some random phrase about environment deterioration and simply showed a graph I found. I did no serious research. Please do not judge me on that graph.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:09 pm
teh0mega wrote:Yes, but the extinction was in the name of progress. Progress for the species as a whole. Prehistoric Creatures were wiped out (or at least a lot of them) becauseof the giant asteroid/meteor/whatever it's called. Or at least thats what is widely believed. Exinction also occured because a species can tend to almost evolve to a maximum. Then something happens, some food source dies, or something like that. The majority of them die. The creature is forced to interbreed. The result is an animal version of a hillbilly.
Either that, or their food sources had evolved to become smarter and more able to avoid being eaten, whilst the predator just couldn't keep up. That's my belief at least. I have no evidence to back it up, only what I was taught sort of just being stuck together. I could be wrong.
Evolution doesn't have progress, species don't become "better" through evolution.
teh0mega wrote:The only thing about humans is we unnessesarily (sp? It's late here, and I'm tired)kill off a species purely because it annoys us, or because we like the look of it's fur around our necks or on our torsos. Is it abolutely nessasary for us to kill White Tigers. Wow, their fur looks nice! But are they our natural species?
Humans aren't the only species that kill uneccessarily (as in, not for consumption). Cats, for example, do aswell.
teh0mega wrote:Humanity could very well survive as a herbivore species. But we eat meat as well (dont get me wrong, I eat meat wholeheartedly). We could just run around naked or even wear simple clothes. But instead, we fell the impulse to wear fancy garments, and make oursleves look like... I don't even know what. Theres nothing to compare to.
On what basis do other species "deserve" to live more than humans?
teh0mega wrote:Humans are a unique species. We have something which very little, if any, animals have. We have the power of reasoning. With it we can do unbeliveable things. You have to simply look out the window to see the marvels of our civilization. But go to any 3rd world country, and you'll see what else the human mind and reasoning can do.
"Why worry about them, if I'm perfectly fine the way I am?"
"I make millions of dollars a day. I use $100 bills as toilet paper. But I can't donate $10 to the local charity!"
Are you saying that this is immoral. Why is it immoral? Because you say so?
teh0mega wrote:We as a race once lived in competition with other creatures. It was a survival of the fittest and the smartest. Today, we live in the era of online supermarkets and internet banking. Within twenty minutes, you can do your shopping online, and have more food lying around in your home than prehistoric man could ever have hoped to have at one time. Or at least, thats what it's like for us who live in America, Australia, Japan, countries in Europe, and other western or developed countries.
But what about if you live in a very poor country? Where your survival depends on how many pairs of Nike Sports Shoes you can make.
As long as humanity works like this, there is no way we can hope to hold together. And if we can't hold together, the environment may as well go caput.
Humans are far more integrated today then they were as isolated tribes.
teh0mega wrote:I guess that evolution for the sake of evolution is not always a good thing. But what if another predator was to be introduced? It can and has happened various times. True, the 'prey' will need to adapt to better avoid it's predator, but if it has evolved to be fast and stealthy already, the new predators will not be so much as a problem. Or even this scenario: what if a new competitor is introduced? They will fight for the food. The better evolved will naturally win. If you are faster, stronger, smarter, then you will win against the dumb, slow and weak.
Your premise is wrong. You assume that the prey has some sort of greater "right" to live than the preditor or competitor.
teh0mega wrote:Before this goes any further, and before you continue to refute every one of my arguements with one or two sentences, would you care to give me your views? And I wish for them to backed up with the same amount of evidence that you expect from me. I am also just naturally curious to see what your views are. Because so far in this whole thread you have not done any more than demand some form of evidence from most statements made.
I do not have views. Having views would create a bias, which often leads to impulsively making erroneous claims.
teh0mega wrote:Most statisitics are based on a small representation, and so cannot possibly be accurate.So I understand why you are bugging me for making a statistically-based claim. Which is fair enough. But I simply googled some random phrase about environment deterioration and simply showed a graph I found. I did no serious research. Please do not judge me on that graph.
I'm not judging you on the graph, but on the claim. You made a claim so broad that it could not possibly stand scrutiny.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:41 pm
Well, at the current state of the world, and its obvious decline. Iashi would you please give me a educated guess of what the world mite, be like in 100 years in your ponit of view. So I can get some sort of clarification from your point of view.
I'll give my guess, so you can't say I didn't:
Earth in 100 years, the glorious future...
By that time, morals should be history as they seem to be declining at a scary rate nowadays. Goverments would have most likely turned against religeon because they probably view most problems from that source anyway, resulting in a big uproar. And once people start revolting like that, you can't stop them with the cops, the whole world will be just like one big Afghanistan. Little wars will pop up all over, strucutre would be something only dreamt about. And its no time before some psycho terrorist group gets there hands on some nuclear bombs and blows us all to bits. Oh yes, and thers that issue with the enviorment. By then it should be pretty desomated by then, but without structure it mite make a slight come back, but I don't know since there will probably be some much disorder that the wars will probably burn them all up. This is just an estimation not what will happen but I think it will. Even though the bible does say goverment will overthrow religeon so thats already looking like its gonna happen anyways.
I'll give my guess, so you can't say I didn't:
Earth in 100 years, the glorious future...
By that time, morals should be history as they seem to be declining at a scary rate nowadays. Goverments would have most likely turned against religeon because they probably view most problems from that source anyway, resulting in a big uproar. And once people start revolting like that, you can't stop them with the cops, the whole world will be just like one big Afghanistan. Little wars will pop up all over, strucutre would be something only dreamt about. And its no time before some psycho terrorist group gets there hands on some nuclear bombs and blows us all to bits. Oh yes, and thers that issue with the enviorment. By then it should be pretty desomated by then, but without structure it mite make a slight come back, but I don't know since there will probably be some much disorder that the wars will probably burn them all up. This is just an estimation not what will happen but I think it will. Even though the bible does say goverment will overthrow religeon so thats already looking like its gonna happen anyways.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:54 pm
Obvious decline? That's begging the question. What exactly is "declining" and compared to exactly what?
If humans are alive, there will be morals, but they might not be ones you like. Which government are you refering to? If it's the US government, it sure doesn't look that way.
Isn't it already like that?
By that time, morals should be history as they seem to be declining at a scary rate nowadays. Goverments would have most likely turned against religeon because they probably view most problems from that source anyway, resulting in a big uproar.
If humans are alive, there will be morals, but they might not be ones you like. Which government are you refering to? If it's the US government, it sure doesn't look that way.
Little wars will pop up all over, strucutre would be something only dreamt about.
Isn't it already like that?
Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:01 pm
Articfox wrote:Well, at the current state of the world, and its obvious decline. Iashi would you please give me a educated guess of what the world mite, be like in 100 years in your ponit of view. So I can get some sort of clarification from your point of view.
It's absurd to even attempt to make a prediction 100 years in the future. Who in 1904 foresaw space travel, atomic energy, microtransistors or fiber-optic communication? While any single person may have predicted any one of these things, did anybody foresee all of them?
Articfox wrote:By that time, morals should be history as they seem to be declining at a scary rate nowadays.
Morals are subjective, they cannot decline. Simply because everyone else's subjective moral codes are increasingly different from your own subjective moral code does not mean that they are declining.
Articfox wrote:Goverments would have most likely turned against religeon because they probably view most problems from that source anyway, resulting in a big uproar.
Are you saying that governments will turn against religion contrary to their own people's wishes (i.e. China, Soviet Union), or that they will turn against religion with the support of their people (i.e. France).
Articfox wrote:And once people start revolting like that, you can't stop them with the cops, the whole world will be just like one big Afghanistan. Little wars will pop up all over, strucutre would be something only dreamt about. And its no time before some psycho terrorist group gets there hands on some nuclear bombs and blows us all to bits.
Do you understand that the roots of the Afghanistan conflict are more based in colonialism than in religion?
Articfox wrote:Oh yes, and thers that issue with the enviorment. By then it should be pretty desomated by then, but without structure it mite make a slight come back, but I don't know since there will probably be some much disorder that the wars will probably burn them all up.
Since "the environment" isn't inherently flammable, I would suppose you are talking about trees, right?
Articfox wrote:This is just an estimation not what will happen but I think it will. Even though the bible does say goverment will overthrow religeon so thats already looking like its gonna happen anyways.
Which is completely speculative.
Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Of course, if people in the rich countries can live to be 1000 years old (bearing in mind that is just the predicted average age, not a limit placed on it, because you probably will get killed by crossing the road, or something) then people could spend a mandatory 100 years in the 3rd world building stuff and whatknot, or cleaning up the environment and so on - All things that not many people really want to do. But if 500 million (as an estimate) people spend a period of 100 years contributing to the well-being of the rest of the planet, i imagine that there would be some improvements.
And you marry people who wouldnt live for a thousand years and thus have many, many spouses.
And you marry people who wouldnt live for a thousand years and thus have many, many spouses.
Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:25 am
Personally, and mind you, I am already in my 40's, I don't want to live to 1000. It is already hard enough to live at the age of 47. Aches, pains, wrinkles, more suseptible to disease due to age, less stamina. Snicker now, but remember this when you are my age. Not that I am giving in, mind you, just that I have realized that I am not invincible.
I remember my grandma at age 97 asking me and God why she was still alive. That she had served her purpose in life--why was she still here? Obviously, she was ready at age 97--eyesight failing, all friends and her children had already died before her. Alone in the world.
I would rather die at a young age relatively quickly than suffer through years and years of bad illness, but that is just me. A good 70 or 80 is worth an excruciating 1000 anytime.
I remember my grandma at age 97 asking me and God why she was still alive. That she had served her purpose in life--why was she still here? Obviously, she was ready at age 97--eyesight failing, all friends and her children had already died before her. Alone in the world.
I would rather die at a young age relatively quickly than suffer through years and years of bad illness, but that is just me. A good 70 or 80 is worth an excruciating 1000 anytime.
Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:09 am
Morningstar wrote:Personally, and mind you, I am already in my 40's, I don't want to live to 1000. It is already hard enough to live at the age of 47. Aches, pains, wrinkles, more suseptible to disease due to age, less stamina. Snicker now, but remember this when you are my age. Not that I am giving in, mind you, just that I have realized that I am not invincible.
I remember my grandma at age 97 asking me and God why she was still alive. That she had served her purpose in life--why was she still here? Obviously, she was ready at age 97--eyesight failing, all friends and her children had already died before her. Alone in the world.
I would rather die at a young age relatively quickly than suffer through years and years of bad illness, but that is just me. A good 70 or 80 is worth an excruciating 1000 anytime.
The point about this technology as that it would stop degeneration. You (one) looks like an old person because of cellular degeneration - The science that will allow people to live for a thousand years will prevent this from happening. There wouldnt be such fuss over it if the claim was "yes, now you too can slowly become a decript husk of a person, unable to move or speak" for example.
So there would be no pains, aches, spontaneous hair loss (and i think i speak for us all when i say we feel your pain morningstar
) you'd live for the time probably looking like a... well i dont know, women would have to reach the menopause for overpopulation to be avoided, so probably 30s-40s.
Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:27 am
I dont think I wanna die yet give me 100-200 more years I can be happy
wonder what neo'd be like den heh
wonder what neo'd be like den heh
Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:12 pm
Haha! Lol, I can't wait! I GET TO SEE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCE!!
Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:40 pm
Erm.. is it just me or has this topis gone very off-topic in some parts?
Ahem, anyway I was thinking that people becoming so old could result in awful overpopulation... then again that won't be my problem
Ahem, anyway
I was thinking that people becoming so old could result in awful overpopulation... then again that won't be my problem