What's so great about Tuesday?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
ucim wrote:Pain hurts just as much whether death is in your future or not.
Sure, but as I suggested earlier, if you respawn, and you can't be killed then why not have play gunfights where you really die. Or cut off peoples heads and hide around the corner and watch them sputter as they respawn. Want to get to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Jump and respawn at the bottom. The point here is that pain is transient, and you never remember it the way it was, you only remember that it hurt.

PeteP asked me to explain to him how death defines your life. Death marks everything you do. You work first so you can eat and not starve to death, You have a place to live to shelter you against the elements that can kill you. You save in life so you can face your death with dignity. And pay doctors and quacks looking for cures that don't exist, and go broke trying to hold death off to the last possible moment. Even more amusing is that his question, given the point of this particular topic, is loaded with irony. :lol:

Tyndmyr wrote:Nonsense. My joy does not retroactively cease to be joyful because I do not later die.
morriswalters wrote:it reduces the joy of achievement and the despair of failure.
Respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I'm aware all the emotions would still exist. But what is joy when life goes on forever?


I would still prefer not to experience the pain of jumping off the grand canyon, death aside. Shit, I don't even like the discomfort of broken A/C. I don't think I'll be embracing crunching my body up intentionally. Nor do I think that this is a reasonable outcome of defeating death, even if you do manage to come up with such an unlikely magical cure.

And you mostly save so that you/your children will live well later. Sure, we wish to avoid death. Absolutely. However, that's hardly the only motivation for human actions. Failure and acheivement will exist regardless of death. And joy is still joy when life goes on forever. It's the same thing. Why would it be different?

Yes, you might change as you grow older. That happens even now. Whatever. That doesn't detract from joy.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:08 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:I don't think it's hard to replace death with pain in those examples and get pretty much the same end result in terms of human action and motivation.
But that isn't the condition as it exists now. And if you were immortal but could die, it stands to reason that death would goad them even more than it does us now. However the scenario is life without the possibility of ending. That wish is itself brought about by the fear of death.
Tyndmyr wrote:I would still prefer not to experience the pain of jumping off the grand canyon, death aside.
Why would it matter? It would be a brief bright point, instead of hours of uncomfortable walking or horseback riding, dry and thirsty in the heat of the day. Impact and then respawn. Good as gold. Of course you can't fall up. :lol:
Tyndmyr wrote: Nor do I think that this is a reasonable outcome of defeating death, even if you do manage to come up with such an unlikely magical cure.
Just to be clear this is the scenario the op dreamed up, not me. I just added a base jump without the chute. And guys jump and take the risk of ending up in just that way. Would base jumping and extreme sports still exist if there was no risk of dying?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Yes. A number of thrilling sports exist despite varying risks of dying. I mean, if we're rating stuff by risk of death, then swimming and fishing should be extreme sports, not the current list.

Extreme seems mostly to be a function of novelty, speed, etc.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Cradarc » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:16 am UTC

Ucim,
My point was that your reasoning for death = oblivion and eternity = more pain than pleasure hinges on assumptions which I think you are making rather unsoundly.
In my reasoning, I assumed nothing about what happens after death, I also assumed nothing about what happens in the infinity. I only assumed that if given immortality, I will have a longer amount of time for me to exist in a state I have knowledge of (ie. living on earth).

Basically your entire argument relies on your current knowledge of the universe's future (and metaphysics) being correct. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think that is a rather narrow-minded way to approach a philosophical problem.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby ucim » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:25 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:I only assumed that if given immortality, I will have a longer amount of time for me to exist in a state I have knowledge of (ie. living on earth).
Well, to think of infinity as "longer" is so missing the point it's "not even wrong". But in addition to that, you are also assuming that this "state that you have knowledge of" is representative of the whole "longer time" you're talking about. For small finite extensions it's a reasonable assumption. For very long finite extensions (say, beyond a thousand or two years) it's somewhat less so, and it's a good idea to consider the points I and others brought up. For forever, the most reasonable assumption is that your knowledge of this "state" you refer to evaporates totally in the limit.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Yakk » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:56 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Basically your entire argument relies on your current knowledge of the universe's future (and metaphysics) being correct. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think that is a rather narrow-minded way to approach a philosophical problem.

What? Assuming that the result of centuries of pain staking trial and error experiments and testing and work by some of the smartest people on the planet, using the techniques that have collectively saved billions of lives and lifted us up from ignorance, might just might have some actual predictive power is narrow-minded, while assuming that a few dozen years of your personal experience are a reasonable way to extrapolate to infinity is not narrow-minded?

What?

Look, I get it. Infinity is bigger than you think. But your problem doesn't seem to be infinity, but rather numbers bigger than 10. Even over a period of time 10 times greater than you have lived on this earth, the experience of humans has changed significantly, let alone 1000, 1 million, 1 billion, 1e100, or 1e1e100, or G_64. All of which are small next to infinity.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Basically your entire argument relies on your current knowledge of the universe's future (and metaphysics) being correct. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think that is a rather narrow-minded way to approach a philosophical problem.


Every reasonable approach priotizes that which is known over that which is unknown. We are not guaranteed to be correct on everything, obviously, but generally I'll take the thing tested by time and experimentation over the thing that is not. Guaranteed? No. But FAR more probable.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Cradarc » Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:32 am UTC

Yakk,
The assumption is that during the time, you would have conscious control over your fate. That is, you can make decisions which affect the future. I'm not assuming the future is all hunky dory, but rather that one would have the ability to produce pleasure and avoid pain. Now there's always a good chance that at some time, you will lose this control. But our knowledge of that moment is no more than our knowledge of death.

Tyndmyr,
Let's assume it's been experimentally shown that eternity in death is completely devoid of pain.
Every moment you're alive puts you at more risk of pain than if you are dead. That doesn't stop humans from struggling to stay alive despite overwhelming hardship. To me, this means potential pleasure/happiness greatly outweighs any possibility of pain and suffering (assuming hedonistic perspective of life).

Suppose you were born as an immortal. Whatever scientific theories you believe in still hold. If you are now given a single chance to lose your immortality, would you? It would be equivalent to someone choosing to be aborted because they don't want to face death.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby elasto » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:55 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:Every moment you're alive puts you at more risk of pain than if you are dead. That doesn't stop humans from struggling to stay alive despite overwhelming hardship. To me, this means potential pleasure/happiness greatly outweighs any possibility of pain and suffering

I think that is an incorrect conclusion.

Animals with no concept of potential pleasure or happiness also struggle to stay alive despite times when they suffer overwhelming hardship. It's simple a hardcoded evolutionary trait: species with such a deep-rooted survival instinct would be more likely to survive to procreate - and hence pass on this trait - than species without.

The desire to stay alive is about as core an instinct as is possible to have - and like many such instincts it's by no means a rational one. Or, rather, it's rational but only from the pov of the selfish gene, not its poor hapless human host.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Chen » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:48 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:Let's assume it's been experimentally shown that eternity in death is completely devoid of pain.
Every moment you're alive puts you at more risk of pain than if you are dead. That doesn't stop humans from struggling to stay alive despite overwhelming hardship. To me, this means potential pleasure/happiness greatly outweighs any possibility of pain and suffering (assuming hedonistic perspective of life).


Thing is in normal human life there's no risk of falling into a volcano and suffering FOREVER because of it. Hell once the sun expands into its red giant phase if we haven't gotten off the earth we're pretty screwed as immortals. Presuming we do leave in some sort of space ship, any little accident there will have you screwed and in pain/dying for possibly literally millions of years. All of these are not risks normal non-immortal humans have since they simply die instantly (relatively) in these cases.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:33 pm UTC

Cradarc wrote:Tyndmyr,
Let's assume it's been experimentally shown that eternity in death is completely devoid of pain.
Every moment you're alive puts you at more risk of pain than if you are dead. That doesn't stop humans from struggling to stay alive despite overwhelming hardship. To me, this means potential pleasure/happiness greatly outweighs any possibility of pain and suffering (assuming hedonistic perspective of life).

Suppose you were born as an immortal. Whatever scientific theories you believe in still hold. If you are now given a single chance to lose your immortality, would you? It would be equivalent to someone choosing to be aborted because they don't want to face death.


I'm not sure that eternal pain in conjunction with immortality even makes any biological sense.

We're basically in the realm of magic whatever the fuck, having left rationality and realism far behind, if you're going with that.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby DaBigCheez » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:58 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:Let's assume it's been experimentally shown that eternity in death is completely devoid of pain.
Every moment you're alive puts you at more risk of pain than if you are dead. That doesn't stop humans from struggling to stay alive despite overwhelming hardship. To me, this means potential pleasure/happiness greatly outweighs any possibility of pain and suffering (assuming hedonistic perspective of life).


This seems to be presupposing the conclusion, though. You're saying that, IF it had been experimentally shown that [thing], then the fact that [thing that happens now, without that hypothetical] proves your point. So you're assuming that people in a world with that hypothetical would act the same as in our current world, which is part of what you wanted to show, so...you're not actually showing much of anything.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Cres
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:14 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Cres » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:17 am UTC

A friend of a friend did his thesis in experimental philosophy on the question 'what would be the worst thing about living forever'. There was apparently an interesting gender split in the answers: on average, female respondents tended to say loneliness (ie watching all your loved ones age and die), while male respondents said boredom (ie running out of new stuff to do). 'Going slowly and comprehensively insane in the eternal void' didn't seem to feature very much, which I found surprising given what a terrifying prospect that is.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby elasto » Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:34 am UTC

Cres wrote:'Going slowly and comprehensively insane in the eternal void' didn't seem to feature very much, which I found surprising given what a terrifying prospect that is.

There's still hope: The end of the universe might not be slow and boring... It might be an exciting death where your very atoms are torn apart over and over!

The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. According to the hypothesis, the scale factor of the universe and with it all distances in the universe will become infinite at a finite time in the future. The possibility of sudden singularities and crunch or rip singularities at late times occur only for hypothetical matter with implausible physical properties.

The hypothesis relies crucially on the type of dark energy in the universe. The key value is the equation of state parameter w, the ratio between the dark energy pressure and its energy density. If w < −1, the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Such energy is called phantom energy, an extreme form of quintessence.

A universe dominated by phantom energy expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure. When these interactions become impossible, the structure is "ripped apart". The model implies that after a finite time there will be a final singularity, called the "Big Rip", in which all distances diverge to infinite values.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby PAstrychef » Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:56 am UTC

Was just thinking how odd the title of the thread is. If living forever was possible, how would you even stop people from doing so? Especially in the manner described by Cradac, where you are reborn even as you die. If this was choice made by individuals, then anyone who wanted to could do so, but I suspect a fair number of people would opt out.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby elasto » Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:18 am UTC

Yeah, the title annoys me every time I open this forum.

Of course humans should be allowed to live forever, should they so choose. They should not however be forced to live forever...

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Vahir » Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:14 pm UTC

I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread that magic is a pointless question, because it doesn't exist.

Much more interesting, I think, would be if science eliminated age-related degradation, while still leaving you able to die from freak accidents. I, for one, would be completely on board for that.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:42 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread that magic is a pointless question, because it doesn't exist.

Much more interesting, I think, would be if science eliminated age-related degradation, while still leaving you able to die from freak accidents. I, for one, would be completely on board for that.


That seems much more plausible. And, obviously, I'd be pretty okay with that, as I think most would be.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:20 pm UTC

If people don't die accept by accident, then sooner or later you have a lot of people. We got to 7 billion by only living a hundred years, give or take.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:23 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If people don't die accept by accident, then sooner or later you have a lot of people. We got to 7 billion by only living a hundred years, give or take.


Naah. Curing old age won't stop people from dying on PURPOSE.

Easy solution is easy.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Whizbang » Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

If people can live forever, then the long trip to other planets or stars won't be the obstacle it is now to space travel. Therefore, surpluss people can find new homes. Also, whether or not immortal people should have children is a separate question as to whether or not they should be allowed to become immortal. I imagine procreation laws will become a thing rather quickly.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Naah. Curing old age won't stop people from dying on PURPOSE.

Easy solution is easy.
Right, people are just going to shoot themselves after having been granted immortality. I don't think so. I might buy into shooting other people. Such as grandpa just won't get out of the way and let the kids take over his business, shoot him.
Whizbang wrote:If people can live forever, then the long trip to other planets or stars won't be the obstacle it is now to space travel. Therefore, surpluss people can find new homes. Also, whether or not immortal people should have children is a separate question as to whether or not they should be allowed to become immortal. I imagine procreation laws will become a thing rather quickly.
Well not to put too fine a point on this. Assuming that it was possible and assuming that other life exists, how might your long lived neighbors feel about you coming in to their neighborhood? Unless of course you speculate that it could only happen to humans.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:34 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Naah. Curing old age won't stop people from dying on PURPOSE.

Easy solution is easy.
Right, people are just going to shoot themselves after having been granted immortality. I don't think so. I might buy into shooting other people. Such as grandpa just won't get out of the way and let the kids take over his business, shoot him.


Precisely. Humans are *really* good at killing each other. Getting them to NOT do so is the hard bit.

If we want to usher in a wave of death and war...that's not even hard.

So, I'm not going to stress too much over overpopulation...especially given that improved standards of living and long lifespans correspond with low birth rates.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby ucim » Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:30 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:www.logitech.com/tabletkbd-win8android/support
People are being born faster than we can launch rockets. There are over three hundred thousand new people being born every day. So no, unless you are imagining a thousand jumbo jets full of people being launched daily to stars that might not even have suitable planets, that's not the answer.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Whizbang » Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:41 pm UTC

Sure, but if procreation laws go into effect (perhaps in the form of infertility along with immortality), then we can work on getting surplus people on other worlds slowly and responsibly. Once the pressure is off, we can start slowly allowing procreation again.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:12 am UTC

Of course if you could have controlled the birthrate in the first place we wouldn't need to get rid of excess population so that we could overpopulate the planet again. At an average of 150 pounds per person my math says that 1 billion weigh about 75 million tons. To ship people to the stars you have to get them to orbit. Even assuming you can get food, fuel, steel or whatever for the ships in space, just lift costs would be astronomical. But okay.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Whizbang » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:18 am UTC

Details, details.

Maybe we'll just make a space elevator or something.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:38 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:Details, details.
I admire a person who isn't afraid of large numbers. :lol:

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby Azrael » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:47 am UTC

elasto wrote:Yeah, the title annoys me every time I open this forum.

Heh.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Should humans be allowed to live forever?

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:04 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
elasto wrote:Yeah, the title annoys me every time I open this forum.

Heh.

I see what you did there
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Cute

Postby ucim » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:16 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:...we can start slowly allowing procreation again.
I like how we need permission (from government?) for one of the most basic biological functions. That by itself will probably make the flight list manageable. Will we need permission to eat too, and to take a dump? How would this be managed? A smartphone app?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Whizbang » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:25 am UTC

We are social creatures that must live with each other. It would become downright immoral to allow exponential growth with no death rate. Preventing death from age and illness on a large scale will necessitate birth control on a large scale. Otherwise that is just a super fast road to misery for all. So, yes, a basic biological function will have to be controlled. But then we are already proposing controlling a basic biological function (age).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby ucim » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:01 am UTC

Whizbang wrote:So, yes, a basic biological function will have to be controlled.
I assume it's all for our own good. Fine. I'll do the controlling. Make your applications to me, with the fees payable in cash. I will examine your fitness to reproduce, and then permit you to have sex for one week. All activities will be videotaped of course, to ensure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.

Applications to view these public records can also be made to me, along with the payment of a suitable records research fee.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Thesh » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:44 am UTC

I got tricked into clicking on this thread, Damned title change.

ucim wrote:People are being born faster than we can launch rockets. There are over three hundred thousand new people being born every day. So no, unless you are imagining a thousand jumbo jets full of people being launched daily to stars that might not even have suitable planets, that's not the answer.

Jose


Rockets, no, but space elevators? Possibly. 300,000 people a day isn't that unrealistic. You don't even need suitable planets; people can live entirely in space stations. Sending people to other stars only becomes necessary when you are reaching the limit on resources within the solar system, which we've got centuries to plan for. Once you get there, you just need enough suitable material to manufacture space stations.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Chen » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:48 am UTC

Not to mention there is still plenty of room on this planet as well. With advances in hydroponics and other indoor vertical crop growing I'm fairly sure the planet can sustain FAR more people than we currently have. I mean just consider those ocean cities people are proposing. Once people start getting FORCED to use more of the available planetary surface, they will do it. It's just that there's no huge need for that at the moment.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:06 pm UTC

If we are in to fantasy, why not a Ringworld? One space platform to rule them all.

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Autolykos » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If we are in to fantasy, why not a Ringworld? One space platform to rule them all.

Thinking in 2D while living in a 3D universe is so 50s. Living on the inside of a Dyson sphere is so much cooler :)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jul 10, 2015 12:40 pm UTC

Except for the part where now nothing keeps you from falling into the Sun.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Chen » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:08 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If we are in to fantasy, why not a Ringworld? One space platform to rule them all.


We're talking about a situation whereby we've stopped dying from aging and disease, yet my talking about habitation on the ocean or better using what land masses we do have, is the fantasy part?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: What's so great about Tuesday?

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:16 pm UTC

Autolykos wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If we are in to fantasy, why not a Ringworld? One space platform to rule them all.

Thinking in 2D while living in a 3D universe is so 50s. Living on the inside of a Dyson sphere is so much cooler :)

To the contrary, the sphere is a 1950s SF trope, while Ringworld is from 1970. There is an SF evolution there. The sphere is an easy concept. It's basically "We Want All The Light". It took a while to sink in how extreme it really is as proposal. Both in technical difficulty, and how extreme your space and energy needs to be. Easy to catch in numbers, trickier to sense what those numbers imply. If you write a story about vaguely human beings with a Dyson sphere, you're just off.

That's Niven's play. He expects that his readers have heard of the sphere concept, but underestimate its extremity. So he presents the much more modest ring and illustrates how large it already is, how magically extreme. Its builders not in sight, too alien to write about.

In a way, it might be a better illustration of the Dyson sphere concept than a book with an actual Dyson sphere.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests