Not very ardent, how about some dynamic optimism?
>
> It is sometimes
>hard to remember that FOREVER includes 10exp10exp1000 years from now.
>Do I want to be alive in 10exp10exp1000 years?
I do.
>Seriously, I is hard to be serious about colossal time-frames. The very
>nature of matter will be altered. Even if I survive
>1,000 years -- my current ardent hope -- I am likely to be transformed
>beyond recognition from my present self (although hopefully, this will
>be "survival").
Will you recognize your self?
Personally I do not think even that matters much as long as I'm alive.
>
> I think it is taxing the credibility of scientific assessment of
>the nature of transformation of matter (and the increasing probability of
>destruction with the increasing passage of time, even if the probability
>is diminishing --
If the probability is diminishing it is diminishing.
You only die if you do a thing kills you, probable or not.
>
>I think that anyone who is passionately concerned about
>survival in 10exp10exp1000 years is downright goofy.
I want to live and I'm goofy?
What would I be if I wanted to die?
>
> The most urgent problem is to survive the next 1,000 years. The
>greatest step in this direction will be the elimination of aging and
>the creation of true suspended animation.
...the greatest step, are you sure?
First age is not our enemy, disfunction is.
I would rather be a millenia of age with full capability
than a challenged person with 18 years of age.
Second I would rather be doing things other than being really still,
at least for a long time.
>The achievement of these
>goals are of passionately critical importance. A focus of "Immortality",
>by contrast, represents air-headed distraction from practical issues
>-- as if living 200 years is as much a fantasy as living "forever".
>
I think there is an infinite difference between them.
>
> It is also of no small practical importance that the people who could
>do the most to destroy the chance of scientific life-extension & suspended
>animation -- ie, religionists -- are VASTLY more infuriated about claims
>that science can achieve immortality than that science can extend life.
Let us stop calling it immortality.
They are jealous of us using the meme.
Call it indefinite longevity,
or better yet help me think of an extremely technical term
in an obscure language.
If they do not know what we are talking about
they may not argue as much about it.
Either that
or we should learn to express our concerns with their words
so they see we want the same thing they do,
though we do not want to make God provide it for us.
I think Gods job is hard enough.
Why make him do the work?
>
>We should stick to the medical model and leave the concern with religion
>& death to the airheads
I would rather not need learn or concern my self with death.
Religion is metaphysics and law.
Metaphysics is a necessity of physics.
Law is programing I need to carry out goals.
>
>( avoid waving red flags in front of bulls).
Wave a flag remotely as a distraction
and the rest of the arena is yours.