From: BJKlein (bjk@imminst.org)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 15:55:22 MDT
Robert Said:
>So by preserving the meme that one "will" die, you don't have
>to break the entire christianity/death/salvation meme-set.
Robert, just curious, but by preserve the 'death' meme, are you suggesting
an afterlife awaits us after death? Or, is death simply oblivion? Or, am I
missing some other option you have in mind?
Thanks for clarifying this for me. I hope I'm not asking a question that's
been asked a hundred times before.
Bruce J. Klein
http://www.imminst.org
==========================
>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Alex Future Bokov asked about how to
>spread the memes without blowing "belief" fuses...
>
> > It's not particularly good memetics to use the L-word (life extension) in
> > front of faculty members.
>
>Well, citing an article in Science will have a pretty good impact
>on any serious faculty member [1]. As will pointing out the number
>of companies now working on aging [2]. And a serious attack
>on the conditions associated with aging (such as Aubrey has
>developed [3]) will tend to silence the objections of those
>more educated in medicine. Its not a question of "if" but "when".
>
> > Let alone make fun of Christianity... especially in
> > Texas of all places. They don't believe me.
>
>One way to spin this is to point out that we aren't talking about
>"immortality" (that is what tends to blow the "belief" fuses I
>think). Much better to point out that we are talking about extending
>healthful life (gerotologists call this making the longevity
>curve "rectangular"). As Damien pointed out in the Spike and Robert
>Freitas pointed out at a recent Alcor conference [4] (and was obvious
>to me back at Extro3 so many years ago...) you cannot beat the hazard
>function (at least not as humans are currently instantiated). Probably
>the best you can do is something like 2000-7000 years unless you
>really push on the hazard function by reengineering the human body
>with nanotechnology and even then it is still very very difficult
>to trump the hazard function.
>
>(So by preserving the meme that one "will" die, you don't have
>to break the entire christianity/death/salvation meme-set.
>One simply replaces the concept of a death that may be prolonged
>and painful with the image of a much longer life -- where one gets
>to enjoy ones great-great-great grandchildren and a probable end
>which might be painful but will probably be quick, e.g. car accident
>or something similar).
>
>Now the thousands of years concept may be a stretch. I once did a
>calculation on the best estimates I could find of loss of brain
>neurons and the numbers I got were much less (hundreds of years if I recall).
>So unless we get stem cell replacement of neurons on a regular basis all
>bets may be off much sooner (so long as one doesn't mention "uploading").
>
> > Anybody have suggestions on how I could communicate the need for nuance,
> > diplomacy, and picking one's battles to these well-meaning but slightly
> naive
> > youngsters? Some example, some object lesson that would resonate with
> people
> > who overestimate the degree to which the 'normal' world gets the big
> picture?
>
>A very, very long time ago, I took a course as part of my "enlightenment"
>process -- one of the things that stuck in my mind was the statement:
> "Never destroy someone's belief system unless you are committed to
> replacing it".
>(Or something to that effect.) The emphasis is on your personal commitment
>to *replacing* the belief system -- a very very hard thing to do -- one
>must essentially reprogram a human mind which probably has years of
>experience.
>
>It is a very powerful concept. People construct their lives around their
>beliefs. Why? Because their beliefs have allowed them to survive until the
>current day. Destroy someones beliefs and you might as well have cast them
>adrift in a Class 5 hurricane [5]. So it is relatively important to present
>ideas in a way that is compatible with pre-existing belief systems. As new
>ideas become more commonplace (consider for example the impact the Matrix
>series will have on society) then the older ideas will be discarded
>(witness gay bishops being elected by the Anglican church for example).
>
>[I'm not stating that the Matrix led to the election of a gay bishop --
>they are separate vectors -- I'm simply commenting on how beliefs can
>and will change over time -- but it is very difficult to "force" the
>process.]
>
>
>Robert
>
>1. Martin, G. M., LaMarco, K, Strauss, E., Kelnder, K. L.
> "Research on Aging: The End of the Beginnning"
> Science 299(5611):1339-1341 (29 February 2003).
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5611/1339
>2. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Aging/AntiAgingCompanies.html
>3. http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/IBGcase.htm
>4. http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DeathIsAnOutrage.htm
>5. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 16:03:38 MDT