Why did the chicken cross the road?

Matthew (@ojai) 9 years, 8 months ago

Today, I bring this discussion to the table ——— MORALS & MORTALITY.

I’m going to get right to it.

~ Mortality – The state of being subject to death.
~ Morals – A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

The idea of immortality, that everlasting life, sought for yet — held in the dark in the wake of ethics. As we people advance and as technology advance, it’s becoming clear we are entering a world that our ancestors never dreamed of(or did they?). Singularity, the rapid advancement of potential technological advancements in human health and the idea of a “synthetic humans” are coming into play more than ever.

The thought that we may be able to alter our biology to be stronger, smarter, healthier and near immortal to many is beautiful but is also terrifying and immoral to many others. To some it is a historic, revolutionary idea. To others it is unnatural and completely defies all that we know to be. So, what are we to do?

Hop in my phone booth, it secretly doubles as a time machine. We’ll head to a time in the future, where this is becoming a world wide dilemma as humans have a tug of war with what is moral and the pursuit of the everlasting.

Do you think humans will generally accept or deny this possibility? Is it too unnatural? If all things die, should we also? If a species is intelligent enough to bring a sort of immortality into play is it rightfully deserved? We as people know our lives set to limits. You are born, you die. But does it HAVE to be that way REALLY? The belief of an afterlife and a God clearly play the most important role in this decision.

Let’s imagine there is a seperation between two sides in humanity — one being in favor of this new way of life and being immortal — the other in favor of being all natural, sticking to the script, live and die humans as it has been throughout history. What if there is a split and a civil war between the two sides? That, to me, is an INCREDIBLY fascinating idea? As you can tell if you have read this or a few of my discussions, I tend to snowball with questions hahaha it’s just how I get my all of my thoughts into writing. So pardon me if all the question marks I’ve peppered on your screen haunt you in your sleep my friends.

So what do you think — do you think we should or could do it? Why or why not?

May 23, 2012 at 5:59 am
Living Stone (153) (@cloudstuck) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

I believe we’ll never be able to be immortal. We die. There is no escaping that.

We will prolong our lives significantly in the future, I do believe. The impact that will have on our minds is a tough one. If our minds can cope (which they have proven to be able to stay strong until at least the mid 100 and teens (113-119). So that might not be a problem…a healthy body equals a healthy mind, and hopefully society starts fueling healthy minds rather than minds that are catered for submission.

So if in fact we begin to be able to live until our 300th birthday, and our minds stay strong, the question is how would that impact our will to be proactive…wait…stop, stop, stop.

I’ve just realised I need to think about this more; as typing this I have begun to ask myself, if we could make ourselves biologically live until we’re 300, why can’t we just keep going. It is most likely my spiritual, cosmic side that says we need to die. I can’t define it past that.

As far as our effects on our day-to-day life, I can’t say. As real as the trip in your time-travelling device felt, I don’t have experiences to answer this question. I do believe that whatever happens, it will be for the good. I think if we did develop such powers, we would EVENTUALLY use them for the greater of humanity (and hopefully the world [they are one anyway])….so yeah…i don’t know. I’m optimistic though.

Peace bro. I like this topic a lot.

Iggy Nujić (110) (@iggy316) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

@cloudstuck, i feel like a healthy mind leads to a healthy body… rather than the other way around

Matthew (1,127) (@ojai) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

@cloudstuck, Ah, I enjoyed reading your reply man! I’m happy to see you were having the snowballing affect of asking yourself question upon question after giving it some thought. I think this topic is a very thought provoking one for sure.

@iggy316, I disagree. I feel as if a health body leads to a healthy mind. Then again…you could argue in order to have the act of trying to maintain a healthy body, you may need a healthy mind first? You know what, I think it may just work both ways?

Alicia Lee (146) (@aliwine) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

I like to believe that the soul is immortal, so if we spend a little longer in the “vessel” we have now what is the problem? Who knows how long life on other planets with intelligence lasts. Life is a journey to acquire knowledge, so if we have longer to learn then is there really an issue? In a sense of energy we are all immortal, no matter what we live on in one way or another so changing that way isn’t a problem in my eyes.

HOWEVER, what the stupid conservative government does with it is a whole other issue. With longer life would come more dictators in my opinion. Bible thumpers would see living longer as an act against god, where one can argue that we were made in it’s image and given the ability to rise to it’s “immortal” level.

So in the end what the government does with it is what we really have to worry about. “Vote George Bush 2136”- ew.

Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

Humans cannot be immortal, they can have everlasting life but there is a huge difference. An immortal can walk the face of the sun, amidst nuclear fusion reactions, a human with everlasting life cannot.
But I have thought along these lines before and I came to a conclusion where the interpretation of morality is unique to each of us. There is one fundamental piece of morality that ideally all of us would accept, other than not deliberately harming others, and that is not affecting their choices without their consent.
A puritan movement that denies the progressives their choice would violate this, as would a progressive movement that denies the puritans their right. But you would have a moral population issue and an unfair advantage to the progressives. So I believe that the price of ones everlasting life would have to be their spawn. ie: only puritans can procreate.

Bryan Hellard (307)M (@xyver) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

I think that we’ll just shut down eventually. We may find a way to prolong life into the hundreds, maybe two hundreds, perhaps even the thousands of years, but eventually people will get sick of living. If we truly are meant to die, then we will make that choice when the time comes.

Living Stone (153) (@cloudstuck) 9 years, 8 months ago ago


As stated above, I would say it goes both ways.

You are what you eat. Natural energies from natural foods does affect the mind (I’m not sure if there is research for this, so the word ‘does’ I am throwing out their loosely :)

JustHer (26) (@staringatstars) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

to get to the other side and be immortalized in a joke.

Iggy Nujić (110) (@iggy316) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

@cloudstuck, @ojai, i actually respectfully completely disagree. Would you take those nootropic type natural foods if you weren’t in the right frame of mind in the first place? Whenever i look to change myself physically, the first thing i do is meditate. After all, your thoughts control the reality around you.

Living Stone (153) (@cloudstuck) 9 years, 8 months ago ago


That’s cool. I think they go hand in hand. Like there isn’t one without the other. Like they both make you a healthier you. Like they both bring you down if you get down.

Buddha not being the skinniest of dudes backs up your point :)

Anonymous (2,654) (@) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

Deus Ex: Human Revolution… It is good to preserve human life and continue to exist and enjoy the wonders, make it at least better, not ideal, for our kids… but no one should get obsessed about these things. Immortality is an idea that wasn’t well formulated in my opinion. If somehow people discover a secret for living more on the planet, there will have to be laws on preventing over-population around the galaxies!

Now, considering that there are some “medusas” that are “immortal” – they regenerate their body cells and could die only if kiled – and live under water, also don’t interefere with the world much, don’t stand in someone’s way, it’s kinda normal. But I cannot imagine a world with people who aren’t aggressive and competitive, so immortality doesn’t really excite me that much. As the morals go, people get bored and always will find something to fight about. (“one of the many reasons I hate the human race. you’re not going to cure cancer, stop inflicting your problems to the world..”) :)

But the chicken crossed the road, because it was brave.

daveb (119) (@daveb) 9 years, 8 months ago ago

The other side immortality is senesence, which has fascinated me since I first learned about it:


I always thought of life and death (from aging) as being inevitably connected, but as I understand it they’re not. death from old age evolved because the lack of death from old age wasn’t beneficial to the survival of a species.

it sort of blows my mind to think that survival of the fittest selected against immortality and in favor of death from old age. science-types who’ve studied this, I’d love to hear more as my understanding is purely armchair.

Viewing 11 reply threads
load more