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:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2000 14:25:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
978 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:13:29 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> Point taken. You're absolutely right. Savor the moment, it comes so
> RARELY in discourse with me...
Ah.... *bask*
> However, I think for this discussion we are using Immortality
> (incorrectly, under the strict definition you point out) to stand in for
> "immunity to most common causes of death" that is, "practical"
> immortality as I said in the first or close to the first append, not
> immunity from the effects of flying your spaceship directly into the
> sun.
I relaised latyer that we were talking about Asimov's robot, which
movie now apparently has made it into release. I wonder if it'll go
staright-to-video here or not get here at all.
>
> Further, if you'd been reading the thread carefully instead of just
> looking for nitpick opportunities you'd already know that. Either that
> or you're just trying to twit me back for the dubya/4 sins thing. :-)
Well, I hadn't been reading the thread, since it was in .fun before
the post I responded to and I haven't caught up there yet. I get
behind easily.
>
> So the question returns to, would you choose to live practically
> forever, subject to certain bad hair day incidents like having the
> empire state building land directly on your head point first and so
> forth, if you could also choose to wilfully decide to end it, or would
> you instead choose our lot now, immune to some things but not all,
> killable in ordinary car/plane accidents (Andrew would not have been
> done in by the crash that killed Diana, nor the one that killed JFK Jr),
> and subject to an internal clock winding down and making the end of your
> days rather miserable.
Probably. Would I choose that if it also meant that I would be mocked
and taken apart regularly by vandals, making all of my days rather
miserable?
> To me the choice, stated that way, is obvious. I'll repeat, I would not,
> repeat NOT, want to be actually immortal. Andrew threw practical
> immortality away for the wrong reasons. And that, to me, was what made
I think that his humanity became an obsession to him long before the
end of the robot-rights struggles. That is why he chose to trade
immortality for humanity, IMHO.
Plus I think he had basically seen it all over those 200 years.
What the movie makes of this... I'll see it, but I don't know if I'll
like it.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
