Scientists take a step closer to an elixir of youth with "IMMORTAL CELLS", page 5

reply to post by _Phoenix_

---

There's also a good chance that those who live through their mistakes, won't learn anything anyhow, and instead simply get stuck in their ways. Old people are notorious for thinking in the past, being stubborn, being grouchy, and being stuck in their ways. We can speculate, but would a more youthful body affect the persona in such a way as to prevent this - or would it just perpetuate further?

Also, immortality is highly sub-optimal for evolution. Evolution works best when selection is an active force - which means removing unadaptable elements and favoring those elements which are adaptable to new environments, circumstances, even economics and politics. We make a lot of the same mistakes our forefathers did, but we also arguably live in far better conditions and with far greater social equality in a progressive society simply because it was the rebellious young who had new ideas on how the world should be run replaced the old generations and old ways of thinking. Imagine if Ponce De Leon did find a fountain of youth, and we were never able to weed out (or at least, reduce severely) the old attitudes towards African Americans harbored by slave owners, and indeed - nearly everyone in the country at the time who would still be living today. Can such deep rooted beliefs, such as that African Americans are sub-human, indeed ever be reveresed across a whole generation - regardless of how much time has passed? I don't know. I do know, however, that by and large it was the young who fought for and brough social change - not the old.

It is a great tragedy to loose the knowledge, wisdom, and experience of our elders when they pass. Every death is like the burning of a library who's contents can never be recovered. But this, in part, is also a necessary force for change, social revolution, and progress. Even if we stumble upon the same mistakes time and time again, we are still at least moving (more or less) forward.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Lasheic]

[edit on 23-11-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Raman

---

Do you think you're funny?

That's just downright offensive.

reply to post by Lasheic

---

Thanks for your comment. You bring up good points there.

But about evolution, at the state we are at now, as technology, inventions and medicine continues to evolve we will also evolve with it, so our human minds will find many ways to evolve way before we would evolve naturally. Longer lifespans is just one part of it.

Actually it would be natural, because the human mind is natural.

Strange right?

I know people might think this concept is crazy, or not right. But in my opinion it WILL happen no matter what peoples opinions are, because the human mind loves to invent, to change, to create etc. It's just a matter of time.

Some people can't imagine living for hundreds of years in this world, but they forget, the world continues to change, it wont be the same world.

Tell a person a couple of hundred years ago about what we have today and they will think your crazy.




[edit on 23-11-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by _Phoenix_

---

Evolution doesn't just apply to biology. I was only using biology as a springboard to bring up some the basic tenants of the principal. It also applies to politics, economics, social interactions and attitudes, industry... just about any facet of life that is subject to change and reactions to that change can be said to undergo an evolutionary process. Science, for example, is a wonderful non-biological example of this. Reality is your selector that your hypothesis is tested against. When you publish a paper, your peers and editors will try to brutally eviscerate your hypothesis against what we know about reality in debate and by recreating your results. If it passes this test, it helps us to better understand our universe. If it doesn't, the hypothesis needs to be modified so that it does fit reality. If it cannot, then your hypothesis is bunk and is ignored in the academic circles. Perhaps to be raised again later as our understanding of reality improves, and then tested again.

It's a natural and logical process.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to _

---

Evolution doesn't just apply to biology. I was only using biology as a springboard to bring up some the basic tenants of the principal. It also applies to politics, economics, social interactions and attitudes, industry... just about any facet of life that is subject to change and reactions to that change can be said to undergo an evolutionary process. Science, for example, is a wonderful non-biological example of this. Reality is your selector that your hypothesis is tested against. When you publish a paper, your peers and editors will try to brutally eviscerate your hypothesis against what we know about reality in debate and by recreating your results. If it passes this test, it helps us to better understand our universe. If it doesn't, the hypothesis needs to be modified so that it does fit reality. If it cannot, then your hypothesis is bunk and is ignored in the academic circles. Perhaps to be raised again later as our understanding of reality improves, and then tested again.

It's a natural and logical process.

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck

reply to post by UmbraSumus

---

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Quite a few scientists are reasonable, tempered, and open to change their minds when presented with sufficient evidence. However, scientists are only human, and the same human failings which permeate all arenas of thought are also found in science. Some will never support your hypothesis, regardless of how well it fits the evidence.

People tend to think that evolution opponents are usually fundamentalist religion practitioners - but there are (albeit far fewer by comparison, naturally) even some openly atheistic scientists who reject Evolution. No amount of evidence will change their minds that evolution is fundamentally wrong, and at best a back-burner influence on diversity. I recall reading an article which was recently published providing what the author felt as new evidence of Lamarkism being the driving factor behind diversity. (I think read it in New Scientist, which is not peer-reviewed btw).

Again, this goes back to what I was saying earlier. The death of the older generation who have a tendency held onto the principles, values, beliefs, politics, etc, of their times opens up the doors for new ideas, new concepts, new values, new philosophies... - some of which may improve our society, some may be a determent. Our world is a dynamic system, not a static one, and the only way to remain adaptive and competitive in a dynamic system is to adapt to the circumstances and the times, or else find a way to adapt the circumstances themselves. This is vital to all life, including humanity, and could potentially put our society at risk if immortality is offered wholesale to the world.

As I said earlier, though, immortality may be possible on the consciousness level though a merger with technology - but at this point it's very hard to speculate what might transpire in such situations. What happens to the mind when you are no longer chained to a physical body? Would you lose your individuality in an endless ocean of immortal thought and infinite perspectives? Without your corporeal anchor to establish yourself as a unique individual, or the ability to change your physical image at will, would you eventually merge into this turbulent ocean of thought and either lose all that you currently know as yourself - or would a new form of collective consciousness arise greater than the sum of it's separate components? It seems like science fiction, but we're already starting to see the very early sparks of this process beginning since the inception and proliferation of the internet. This is completely new territory for humanity, and nobody knows what the outcome will eventual outcome will mean for us. It is fun to speculate though, and entertaining when crafted right - such as series like Ghost in the Shell.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Lasheic]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Manawydan

---

Science doesn't need to be motivated to research this kinda stuff. Science is there to build knowledge, what you said could only be said of how we choose to use that knowledge.

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 2 days ago with 73 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: