Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:19 pm

When, once, if we manage to achieve what you are predicting, which might, or might not happen, then I might, under some circumstances, agree with you. Until then, I will stick with what has been tested and proven as the only means of leaving some sort of lasting impression behind.
I know that Msimon agrees with me to some extend on this matter too (we do agree every now and then).
The jews have realized the value of their genes long ago. Thats why they do certain things differently from others.
A truly smart people. Thats one reason why I like them so much.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:27 pm

You know what.

I think it would be better to have been born, been cold, been hungry, been thirsty, seen death, seen strength, known the love of a mother, known the horror of the evil man can bring and yet also know the brotherhood of some men, to have grown and struggled and ultimately died in the pursuit of my share of dwindling resources, then it would have been to have never been born at all.

Stick your social engineering. Live free or die.

regards

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:19 pm

Skipjack - I agree at least on the conditional. I do think the means to realize what I described will definitely happen. I'm not sure if the tested & proven is the only way to make things that'll stand the test of time. But I do think there's little merit in staying on the beaten path. For myself anyway.

Seedload - If you were never born, there would never be a "you" to regret never being born. Not that I disagree with that last motto either.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:24 pm

I'm not sure if the tested & proven is the only way to make things that'll stand the test of time.

Show me a single something that has survived longer than your oldest genes. I mean anything that you (or any other man) would have a chance of achieving, doing, changing, building, creating, establishing, etc.
Anything.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:41 pm

Read up in this forum. There have been previous discussions about this. Thorium fuel cycles and refurbishment of burned up uranium fuels can stretch this out for a long time. Plus, we can also get uranium from the oceans. I cant remember all the details, but the numbers were in the thousands of years.

250,000 is the end estimate with everything (incl seawater).

The great thing about fission fuel is that it's a very small portion of the total cost to produce power relative to fossil fuels. So even fuel that costs ten times what today's does barely nudges the price to the consumer at all.

This is another reason why we probably shouldn't expect a big leap in energy costs anytime in the next 100 years. Hopefully, we won't need fission much longer than that.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:46 pm

250,000 is the end estimate with everything (incl seawater).

The great thing about fission fuel is that it's a very small portion of the total cost to produce power relative to fossil fuels. So even fuel that costs ten times what today's does barely nudges the price to the consumer at all.

Yepp, what Mr Tall says.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:14 pm

Skipjack wrote:
I'm not sure if the tested & proven is the only way to make things that'll stand the test of time.
Show me a single something that has survived longer than your oldest genes. I mean anything that you (or any other man) would have a chance of achieving, doing, changing, building, creating, establishing, etc.
Anything.

That's a loaded premise. We haven't been building that long. We didn't have the knack to build anything (ephemerous or not) till much later than those genes first came to be. Those genes predate "man" himself.
Again, how little time do you expect the voyager probes to survive ? Lascaux's a dozen thousand years or so. The Pyramids are pretty old, though they've definitely eroded. Maltese Temples date back 6ky. Also, genes and man-made things aren't exactly comparable. One is vital to man, the other is usually dispensable. And genes are definitely easily destroyed.. As easily as boiling an egg. Or not having the will or interest in reproducing. So much for standing the test of time.
Anyway, I think you're reaching. We could build such timeless things now if there was any incentive. I don't see what the big deal is.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:55 pm

Ok, maybe I have missunderstood what you want to do.
One desire of every (well almost every) human being (well not just humans anyway) is to live. You can not live forever, so you might want to leave something behind that passes the tests of time.
In producing offspring, you have a good chance of achieving that and therefore partial immortality.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:05 pm

Skipjack wrote:Ok, maybe I have missunderstood what you want to do.
One desire of every (well almost every) human being (well not just humans anyway) is to live. You can not live forever, so you might want to leave something behind that passes the tests of time.
In producing offspring, you have a good chance of achieving that and therefore partial immortality.

Every mother wants to see grandchildren.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:20 pm

Every mother wants to see grandchildren.

Yupp

Hey, I know quite a few fathers that do too

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:24 pm

I don't get any immortality vibe from having some molecules of mine passed on. That one never convinced me.
I'm not trying to do anything, just debating to try to figure out why you think genes are more resistant to time than anything we could make, and now why people buy into that passed on/immortality thing. It just doesn't add up, to me, so I must be missing something that others are seeing. We're not even sure that we are the same person from moment to moment, or decade to decade (I personally think we are, but there's pretty compelling arguments we aren't - JStrout and I and a few others debated this here a while back), and even the clone scheme is suspect, so just a molecule is pretty scarce.

We can't live forever today, but I wager if we manage to extend life span to 150 or 200 in the next 50 years or so, effectively indefinite life span for those people would be possible. And then it's relatively little waiting to see a lot of unpredictible tech that IMO are as good as true immortality. Even then, I don't think it's going to be so extraordinary as some might expect.

But back to standing time.. The reason genes survive so long is that they're so numerously and constantly duplicated, inside just a single person. Advanced nanotech ought to match that. Nature did it passively, an active approach should at least match it. The means to it are nearly in our reach already.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:10 am

Kseniya Simonova

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:25 am

Skipjack wrote: Show me a single something that has survived longer than your oldest genes. I mean anything that you (or any other man) would have a chance of achieving, doing, changing, building, creating, establishing, etc.
Anything.

It's about passing on knowledge, not genes. Humans have moved on from just "selfish gene carriers", as Hawkins discusses, and now something else has happened - a 'virus', as it were in computer terms, that has taken over the brain of humans that now makes them do things that they wouldn't do if it were just up to the genes. Our intellect is a parasite on us as physical animals. As per the cartoon above.

What has survived? Language. Words. Ideas. Mathematics. The idea of God. Stories. Music. The instinct to organise. Agriculture. Tool making. Intellect, invention and technology. The tenets of; friendship, love, honour, valour, glory, war. These things have probably begun even before homo-sapiens evolved from the last iteration of man. Proto-man has made all these things and they have lasted. Individuals can excel in any of these, and if the knowledge of them survives then so they can live forever.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:11 am

I should have thought of this earlier:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Not that big of a deal after we're regulating birth, right?

Someone has been reading a bit too much malthus, methinks.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:06 pm

What has survived? Language. Words. Ideas. Mathematics. The idea of God. Stories. Music. The instinct to organise. Agriculture. Tool making. Intellect, invention and technology. The tenets of; friendship, love, honour, valour, glory, war.

Language? How old is the english language, hu?
Insignifficant.

It's about passing on knowledge, not genes. Humans have moved on from just "selfish gene carriers", as Hawkins discusses, and now something else has happened - a 'virus', as it were in computer terms, that has taken over the brain of humans that now makes them do things that they wouldn't do if it were just up to the genes.

Ahem, intelligence to a large extent is genetically predetermined. According to Eisenck, it is 70%. Genetics so far seem to confirm this.
A lot of our behaviour and what makes our personality is genetically predetermined. Like it or not.

We're not even sure that we are the same person from moment to moment, or decade to decade (I personally think we are, but there's pretty compelling arguments we aren't - JStrout and I and a few others debated this here a while back), and even the clone scheme is suspect, so just a molecule is pretty scarce.

True, I have had the same theory. Our conscious self is changing with every bit of information that we ingest. However, what stays the same, always is our genetically predetermined component. This is a large part of what makes us "us".
People love to argue and try to make this part less signifficant than it is. After all, we all love the idea of free will and some lefties love the idea of "everybody is born the same", tabula rasa and all that crap.
Sorry guys, nice ideals, but not what science says.

I see lots of people looking for "a meaning in their lives". Then they go to all sorts of seminars and what else. All bullshit. The meaning of life is to procreate and to take good care of your offspring. That is all there is. Everything else is decoration and the sugar on top.
One day, sooner or later, I will die. I am very aware of the fact that this is final.
There is no afterlife (trust me, I went and looked in May, it was nothingness)! But, so I hope, I will have enough time to see my children and hopefully even grandchildren before I die (without coming back). I think that is a good feeling and the way I want to go. See life at the moment of my death.
At least I hope that I will have enough time to look back at my life the last few seconds before I die. Last time was very sudden and unexpected. I did not even notice that something was happening.
Anyway, I imagine that to be beautiful (if that is even possible). To see, or at least think of, the life I created(!) and that I will leave behind, when my time comes. My offspring will be a part of myself and a part of my parents too. I will see them and myself in my children and grandchildren.
If you dont have children, then you end your parent line as well.
I think that is not fair towards them. I for my part will try to have as many children as I can afford and I will try to be even better a parent to them, than what my parent were to me (and they were quite good, so that is a tough benchmark).

So what else could I do with my life, that measures up to that?