9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
And I'm certain some religious conservative is going to be upset if this is actually possible.

^ That's not a joke either.

Yeah, I can see statements of the kind "we're not meant to live forever". Well, thank you, I'll determine what I'm "meant to" do myself. "Forever" may be a daunting prospect, but even a few thousand years would be rather nice

We'd need a way to make ourselves mentally young again though. The prospect of an age of gerontocrats ruling over a stagnating society because everyone is risk-averse to the point of paranoia is rather unpleasant. As I see it, the adapation of society to extreme longevity is a much greater challenge than technology.

[Jassu1979]

Physical immortality would pretty much wreck every ecosystem by default.

We're already experiencing the averse effects of a population spike, and that one was caused by nothing more than a slight increase in average lifespan based on a lower infant mortality rate. (People born in the 1960s have basically seen the global population double in size during their lifetime.)
Attempts at countering that trend through limiting the number of children per couple have been very much ineffective, and entailed a whole new set of problems. (People clinging to traditional notions that boys are preferable to girls, leading to a surplus of men; an age curve that pretty much wrecks the inter-generational contract etc.)

Death is not the ultimate enemy of life - it's an integral and important aspect of the same. Remove it from the equation, and what you get instead is the true enemy of life: stagnation.
The first organisms on this planet were all but immortal; natural selection eventually introduced sexual reproduction and aging to the mix because it provides much better opportunities for adaptation and recombination.

To mess with that system means to ultimately destroy yourself.

[Aurora313]

Life without death is just an accumulation of experience. Life is life because there's an end to it.

[Ieldra]

@Jassu1979:
Assuming that everything else stays the same, yes, extreme longevity would be disastrous, but I do not think everything else would stay the same. Practical problems are there to be solved one way or the other, and evolutionary arguments become moot as it becomes possible to make adapations through deliberate design.

Science fiction has approached the topic in several different ways, ranging from various dystopian scenarios, balanced ones as in Peter F Hamilton's confederation universe and Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space universe and utopian societies like Ian M Banks' Culture. I have no idea how we will deal with the prospect of immortality, be it physical or digital. But it won't be long until we'll have to deal with it, right here on Earth. Our societies will have to adapt, break with many traditional notions, or....yes, be destroyed. That we find it impossible to imagine life in such a world now doesn't mean that it's not possible, or that it necessarily must be bad. Every era has its own set of challenges.

We don't have a choice not to "mess with the system". It's in human nature to do so. How we deal with the effects, that will determine our future.

@Aurora313:
Nothing will remove death as a reality. In the end, entropy cannot be denied. However, up to a certain point death can be a choice. As I see it, to die from old age after 100 years is something of an insult of fate. Why wouldn't we want to extend life to the point where we don't *want* more?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 août 2012 - 11:40 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Don't people in the ME timeline live longer already? So whats the problem in increasing it further if we can adjust for it?

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...
Don't people in the ME timeline live longer already? So whats the problem in increasing it further if we can adjust for it?

I guess there's a problem if things change too fast. Say, get your life expectancy from 150 to 1500 in one step. Fortunately, we can headcanon that particular scenario as we want.

[Shaigunjoe]

A lot of people feel that the 'population paradox' is something that makes immortality a bad thing, but it is just another problem that needs to be solved. Look at Zeno's paradox or Olber's paradoxs, no where near as big of a problem now as when they were first proposed.

[Jassu1979]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

A lot of people feel that the 'population paradox' is something that makes immortality a bad thing, but it is just another problem that needs to be solved. Look at Zeno's paradox or Olber's paradoxs, no where near as big of a problem now as when they were first proposed.

I suppose the big question is: do we want to live in a world with extremely few children? For that's what a vastly extended lifespan will ultimately entail. simply for economic & ecological reasons. If we turn too much of this planet into a dysfunctional prothesis for our own survival/convenience, the results will not exactly improve our quality of life. We're in the middle of an anthropogenic mass extinction event as is, with species disappearing irrevocably on a daily basis and biodiversity shrinking rapidly.

I suppose that's one of those factors that rarely show up in SciFi scenarios, because we are so used to think of our own species in isolation from the rest of the ecosphere - or even in opposition to it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Jassu1979]

However - and here's where I'm in full agreement with the post-humanists - it's an exciting idea to think that we might actually seize control of our own further development, allowing conscious changes where we could formerly only trust to the efficiency of mindless natural processes.
Of course, there are lots of risks involved here, from genetical bottlenecks (because everybody wants "perfect" children conforming to dominant beauty standards) to all sorts of nasty side-effects because as a species, mankind does not operate all that differently from any other species out there.

But maybe that will change. Maybe we will escape the lure of those instincts that keep pulling us in unwanted directions.

[Wayning_Star]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

A lot of people feel that the 'population paradox' is something that makes immortality a bad thing, but it is just another problem that needs to be solved. Look at Zeno's paradox or Olber's paradoxs, no where near as big of a problem now as when they were first proposed.

I suppose the big question is: do we want to live in a world with extremely few children? For that's what a vastly extended lifespan will ultimately entail. simply for economic & ecological reasons. If we turn too much of this planet into a dysfunctional prothesis for our own survival/convenience, the results will not exactly improve our quality of life. We're in the middle of an anthropogenic mass extinction event as is, with species disappearing irrevocably on a daily basis and biodiversity shrinking rapidly.

I suppose that's one of those factors that rarely show up in SciFi scenarios, because we are so used to think of our own species in isolation from the rest of the ecosphere - or even in opposition to it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

not with the ability to travel all over the system still intact, theres more room, and lends to the need to procreate. Usually populations decrease when living conditions restrict. Even here on old earth, the population is becoming aware of the dangers of over doing...a good thing is as/more dangerous than first thought. 

also, I think too many people equate synthesis with immortality. It doesn't. Nor does it represent some sort of perfect existence, other than to be free of the cycle, there is nothing going on that's all that in the current MEU, tech is everywhere,and its all reaper donated anyway. The races are already there, just didn't know it yet. They have little choice either way, even unfound troglodytes out in who knows where will eventually progress and meet technology. Synthsis would likely just give them a 'one up' pre existing cultures haveing to instantly adapt to the change. There will likely be some strife cause of it, but that is part of nature, isn't it?

[Wayning_Star]

Jassu1979 wrote...

However - and here's where I'm in full agreement with the post-humanists - it's an exciting idea to think that we might actually seize control of our own further development, allowing conscious changes where we could formerly only trust to the efficiency of mindless natural processes.
Of course, there are lots of risks involved here, from genetical bottlenecks (because everybody wants "perfect" children conforming to dominant beauty standards) to all sorts of nasty side-effects because as a species, mankind does not operate all that differently from any other species out there.

But maybe that will change. Maybe we will escape the lure of those instincts that keep pulling us in unwanted directions.

"mindless process" ? seems a bit rash..

[Jassu1979]

Your reference to troglodytes brings up a relevant question: what of pre-industrial sapient species throughout the galaxy? What will they make of their sudden transformation? Will they even comprehend what is happening to them? And what will they do afterwards? (The epilogue shows that even plant life is affected by the green pulse, so it stands to reason that these species WILL be affected.)

What does a caveman do when he's suddenly transformed into a techno-organic hybrid with lots of nanotech implants?

Modifié par Jassu1979, 02 août 2012 - 08:21 .

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Jassu1979:
Assuming that everything else stays the same, yes, extreme longevity would be disastrous, but I do not think everything else would stay the same. Practical problems are there to be solved one way or the other, and evolutionary arguments become moot as it becomes possible to make adapations through deliberate design.

Science fiction has approached the topic in several different ways, ranging from various dystopian scenarios, balanced ones as in Peter F Hamilton's confederation universe and Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space universe and utopian societies like Ian M Banks' Culture. I have no idea how we will deal with the prospect of immortality, be it physical or digital. But it won't be long until we'll have to deal with it, right here on Earth. Our societies will have to adapt, break with many traditional notions, or....yes, be destroyed. That we find it impossible to imagine life in such a world now doesn't mean that it's not possible, or that it necessarily must be bad. Every era has its own set of challenges.

We don't have a choice not to "mess with the system". It's in human nature to do so. How we deal with the effects, that will determine our future.

@Aurora313:
Nothing will remove death as a reality. In the end, entropy cannot be denied. However, up to a certain point death can be a choice. As I see it, to die from old age after 100 years is something of an insult of fate. Why wouldn't we want to extend life to the point where we don't *want* more?

depends on what we "want" as opposed to what we "need" , or so I thought, but..I've been wrong before..many times acutally..   Yes, I know it's surprising..but... lol

[Wayning_Star]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Your reference to troglodytes brings up a relevant question: what of pre-industrial species throughout the galaxy? What will they make of their sudden transformation? Will they even comprehend what is happening to them? And what will they do afterwards? (The epilogue shows that even plant life is affected by the green pulse, so it stands to reason that these species WILL be affected.)

What does a caveman do when he's suddenly transformed into a techno-organic hybrid with lots of nanotech implants?

nothing, especially if the plant life is affected, they'd chalk it up to some storm clouds over a mountain or some such. I'd be more curious how the average animals would react. Tigers that could run faster, but gazells could turn on a smaller % of a dime.. Snails could walk on water and bugs could chew through glass,etc.. all head canon tho..I hope.

edit: I missed your comment on techno organics and nanotech.. that wouldn't happen with synthesis, as it's supposedly on a molecular level and quite subtle. Smallest change would be enough to settle the feud between organics and their created sapience. Technology, can't live with out it, can't destroy it when it gets "uppity"..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 02 août 2012 - 08:29 .

[RohanSpartan]

In Stargate, The Ancients Ascended the right way.
Catalyst= Your doing it wrong.

[Wayning_Star]

RohanSpartan wrote...

In Stargate, The Ancients Ascended the right way.
Catalyst= Your doing it wrong.

no cross pollenating permitted ..

[RohanSpartan]

Wayning_Star wrote...

RohanSpartan wrote...

In Stargate, The Ancients Ascended the right way.
Catalyst= Your doing it wrong.

no cross pollenating permitted ..

Hey, The Ancient civilization is over 50,000,000 years old. They can do whatever they want.

[Ieldra]

RohanSpartan wrote...
In Stargate, The Ancients Ascended the right way.
Catalyst= Your doing it wrong.

Out of curiositiy: how did they do it? The Ancients I mean. I don't know much about the Stargate universe.

As for the Catalyst, yeah, that's why we stop the cycle.

[Aurora313]

Uh - they shed their bodies to exist as energy. I think they used their technology to accelerate their biological bodies to the point where they could willfully shed them and live as energy... one of the main cast does it twice, but gets in a lot of sh!t because he actually wanted to use his abilities to help others in the lower planes... basically flipping off the ascended Status quo of 'non interference'. It got him into a bind or dozen.

The actual process was something like half-spiritual enlightenment, half physical readiness.... I haven't watched the series for a few years, so I can't remember exact details.

Modifié par Aurora313, 03 août 2012 - 12:32 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ieldra2 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...
Don't people in the ME timeline live longer already? So whats the problem in increasing it further if we can adjust for it?

I guess there's a problem if things change too fast. Say, get your life expectancy from 150 to 1500 in one step. Fortunately, we can headcanon that particular scenario as we want.

Yes well thats what I meant by "if we can adjust for it". Guess my words failed me again.
Offtopic: Leviathan is looking awesome.

[Aurora313]

What's the bet that Leviathan is gonna shed more light/allude to the control/synthesis endings?

[DirtyPhoenix]

At this point I don't even know what the heck a Leviathan is, but I think I spotted Harbinger's voice at the ending of that trailer. About shedding more light on control/synthesis, I'm all for it as long as it doesn't create inconsistencies.

And they badly need abit of foreshadowing, its just sad it would be coming through an optionala DLC, if at all.

EDIT: And if it does have anything to do with control/synthesis, I can already see the ****storm brewing.

Modifié par pirate1802, 04 août 2012 - 02:01 .

[Aurora313]

Leviathan is a thing of monstrous size. THE Leviathan of ME could refer to the Leviathan of Dis that the Batarians found some 10-30 years ago in the lore which went missing.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I know what a Leviathan is, I meant I have no idea what that is in ME. Is it the Leviathan of Dis? Is it another rogue reaper? Is it a member of the race that created the catalyst as some suggested? Or is it something new altogether?

Speculations!

[Aurora313]

Crap - sorry. Heh - kind of hard to pick up sarcasm with only text.