<As I see it, immortalists can be divided into two groups: those who
want to live on through there current minds and/or bodies, and those
who don`t care how the "I" fits into the picture as long as the
descendants are "better" than the current version of "I".>
I don't think we should be so *binary* in that judgment. The extent to
which we are willing to change or evolve is much more of a continuum
or spectrum. Partly because none of us can agree as to when we've
passed beyond the threshold of humanity. I am interested in changing
and growing and evolving a great deal. Yet I feel that I'm unwilling to give
up some basics of my humanity. That might be conservative to some, but
radical to the majority. I suppose it comes down to an individual judgment
of what is really "I" at the core. I'm willing to give up this body, for
example, but not yet willing to give up the human form. But I'd like it to be
enhanced of course. Where does that place me in the extropian values
spectrum? I guess I have similar reservations about my mind. (Don't take
that sentence out of context.) I'd like it to be better informed, faster, even
"sub-contracted" with daemon sub-routines, but all this in pursuit of my
current identity, values, and goals structure. I guess I have a serious
Aesthetic Appreciation for some aspects of humanity and my own life.
Presently, I would want that to continue forever. I thought the very point
of immortality was continuity of the self. Continuity of life processes is
just a variant of the life cycle. I don't just want better descendants, I
want a better self. Maintaining a self absolutely requires some limits to
how far you are willing to let yourself change, or evolve. I think those
limits are probably different for each of us.
Hey, does anyone here think the boomers have the drive and selfishness
to push for massive investment in age-delaying technology in their own
lifetimes? Or are they all going to go zen and "age with grace--die
content." Which do you prefer they do?
Timber