Subject:
|
Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 18:08:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2206 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Actually, the whole immortality thing is something I have thought about a
> > fair bit. I hadn't considered the 'recognized as human' angle before, but
> > it's IMHO irrelevant to the main thrust - I wouldn't want to be immortal.
>
> You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to
> highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this
> character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of
> trading it away for what *I*, in my value system, consider scant payment...
> the acknowledgement of others. He already had the right to own property. Who
> cares what other people think? Not me. It was a bad trade.
I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into
consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me
making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now -
at least until I see it).
> I repeat, given the choice, I'd choose immortality. I could always change my
> mind later and kill myself if I got bored. No one is ever actually "immortal"
> no matter how old, just "immortal so far" because even immortality isn't
> defense against someone getting your ICBM coordinates exactly right.
A reasonable assumption, so I'll grant it - under those conditions, I'd pick
immortality too. But my tendancy to look for the catch would inspire me to
ask (assuming I got offered immortality) if I would be able to opt out at some
later date. (the Swift angle again)
> You're welcome not to choose it, of course, just as you should be able to make
> whatever other choices you wish about your own body...
> But here's a key point. Don't get in my way if I want to make that choice
> because you happen to think that it's morally wrong. The only person who has
> the right to make decisions about how long I live (subject to being able to
> provide for myself, I'm not talking about being a ward of the state here...)
> is me.
>
> Not saying you personally would do that but do want to stress the point.
Agreed, personal choice is high on my list of Important Things.
> > > Yes it's a rag but I can't fault their analysis. We are THIS close to
> > > unwinding the entire genetic sequence around aging in cells.
> >
> > I'm not so sure that's a good thing - we already have a surplus population
> > problem.
>
> Among the poor countries. My thesis is, of course, (and this is a .debate item
> too, maybe we BETTER go over there) is that once your country becomes
> sufficiently advanced from a freedom and economic standpoint, population
> increase rates go down. I think the US and western europe are already at
> negative growth, discounting immigration.
Yes, they're at negative growth right now, but if dying of old age ceases to
be a problem, that will change FAST. 1.2 kids per family is significantly
more than the current (non-age related) death rate.
> > IMHO, technology that extends life expectancy is a good thing, but
> > only when it doesn't increase (our population) significantly past our
> > capacity to expand.
>
> Agree. So we best get all our eggs out of this poor overcrowded basket, and
> start exploiting the rest of the universe.
Yup. We're about due for another bout of explosive expansion. (which reminds
of the 'humanity is a virus' discourse from Matrix - neat idea. Flawed, but
neat)
> Net Net though is that IMHO this is a great movie, worthy of your custom and
> worthy of some reflection when you get out of it. It may be Robin's best work
> so far, and he's done some good stuff. Very little Asimov stuff has ever made
> film (Fantastic Voyage is the only thing that comes readily to mind, and
> didn't he adapt the movie script to a novel rather than the other way round?
> I forget) and I was very pleased at how well this movie hewed to the spirit
> of the Robot Stories. Too bad it didn't happen while Isaac was alive.
Every intention of seeing it. I like Asimov.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 7 Replies:
 | | Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother)
|
| (...) Just a side note: don't see the movie--it's awful. Well, not awful, exactly, but pretty darned uneven with not a single moment giving us any sense of what Robin Williams' character really has at stake. The short story is a much better (...) (27 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Bicentennial Man (don't bother)
|
| (...) c /Azimov/Asimov/ (getting the master's name right takes you up a notch on my "credence-o-meter" when discussing his work :-) ) I confess to a bit of shock at your perception. What a radically different perception than mine! As I said, I found (...) (27 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| (...) Well, I'm not Larry(1), but I use the web interface, so I can answer this. When you post a message, there are 4 fields you can enter data in. From the top right: Newsgroups: Followup-To (optional): Subject: (and 1 untitled box, which is the (...) (27 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
