MagnaCool--Habitable Exoplanet!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri
Would you want to live forever? If so, why?

Have you considered whether it is actually desirable for man and our immediate surroundings to pursue immortality?

because life is good

Originally posted by Emetri
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is actually something that is feasible, which I highly doubt. Hence my comment on which part of the anatomy seemed to generate most of this discussion.

Nobody said it was feasible. We lamented the fact that even 20 years down the line it probably won't be feasible.

Unless you are referring to our very modest predictions that it will eventually become feasible, in that case you might want to check which orifice your own notions are emminating from.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri
Dear me, you're actually afraid to die. What a narcissistic notion. Quite hip though, so I understand.

He finds it distasteful but he might fear it no more than he fears the flatuence or body oder of strangers in a lift.

[Ned]

A question and some thoughts:

Does that they know whether this new planet is located toward the galactic center from Earth or away from the galactic center from Earth? I assume it would take less energy and therefore less time for us to move toward the galactic center rather than away from it.

Second, I have always thought that interstellar space travel will become possible for humans when humans can live long enough to go there and come back. I am also somewhat sure that no civilization will finance a manned space voyage of this kind unless they themselves will still be alive when the explorers return to tell their tale. A one-way mission with the explorers having no idea of what they are going to find when they get there and without the possibility of return seems more like a suicide mission than a mission of exploration or colonization. If one can return, however, the mission can be both one of exploration and colonization depending on the circumstances.

In addition to breaking me mission up into a number of vessels for reliability purposes, I suggested that any mission would be followed up by numbers of resupply/reinforced missions even before the first mission was scheduled to arrive at its destination. In this way, subsequent missions could carry fuel (and spare parts) for return missions even if the explorers could not find materials to manufacture fuel locally and even if the machines that they would use to manufacture those materials became nonfunctional for one reason or another.

On the reliability issue, I don't think it was an accident that Columbus took three ships when he discovered America.

[Arcite]

Well 100 years ago life expectancy in N. America was around 48, now it is up to 86. We have doubled our life expectancy in a very short time. So, in the next 50 years we should be able to extend our life expectancy to atleast 120 or more. This doesn't even take into account advances in cryonics or biomedical implants.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri
Dear me, you're actually afraid to die. What a narcissistic notion. Quite hip though, so I understand.

Could you elaborate on why you think lamenting a lack of a cure for senescence is narcissistic? Do you not grieve when a loved one dies? Do you only grieve if they weren't old?

[Emetri]

Geronimo,

"Even 20 years down the line" is a tad too late for a guy like.. oh I don't know.. Caesar? King Arthur too, though it may technically be moot for him.

20 years is nothing in the scheme of how long people have vainly dreamed of this. Check back in a thousand years and some people will still tell you "We're getting there, just a matter of true commitment to the cause really!"

He-he.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri
Geronimo,

"Even 20 years down the line" is a tad too late for a guy like.. oh I don't know.. Caesar? King Arthur too, though it may technically be moot for him.

20 years is nothing in the scheme of how long people have vainly dreamed of this. Check back in a thousand years and some people will still tell you "We're getting there, just a matter of true commitment to the cause really!"

He-he.

Whats your point? Are you claiming that as much or even more progress in medical knowledge was made in the years 100,000 BC to 1000 AD as is made in just 2 or three years now?

[Emetri]

Hm, I'm nearly done elaborating, I think. I just consider death to be the natural conclusion to life, that's all. It's a release which, in time, most people grow to accept and embrace. If you don't, you have a problem. For a while, at least..

Arcite,

There's a natural boundary to the human lifespan, which has nothing to do with how average longevity has historically evolved. I think we've all but reached that boundary in the developed world at this point. No valid projections can be made on the basis of historical developments if the body physically breaks down at 115.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by self biased
cool we'll have Dwarves. or Squats. i just hope that the tyranids don't come by and eat them. again.

We'll have to get crackin' on making that Astartes Gene-seed.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lonestar



We'll have to get crackin' on making that Astartes Gene-seed.

That didn't do ermm squat when the tyrannids came for them

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Geronimo


That didn't do ermm squat when the tyrannids came for them

Obviously they'll have to be Ultramarines!

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Emetri
Hm, I'm nearly done elaborating, I think. I just consider death to be the natural conclusion to life, that's all.

The human race gave up living a natural life when it chipped its first stone tool or harvested its first crop of grain. We're a profoundly unnatural species. We may not have every been meant to live indefinately but grassland dwelling apes from africa were probably never meant to live in skyscrapers or walk on the Moon.

Death might be the natural conclusion to life but that doesn't make it the best one.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri
Hm, I'm nearly done elaborating, I think. I just consider death to be the natural conclusion to life, that's all. It's a release which, in time, most people grow to accept and embrace. If you don't, you have a problem. For a while, at least..

I agree that people should not allow themselves fret over death in general. You can't save anybody from the reaper.

They may be excused for some limited fretting over what they can do to affect the timing however.

[Emetri]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Whats your point? Are you claiming that as much or even more progress in medical knowledge was made in the years 100,000 BC to 1000 AD as is made in just 2 or three years now?

No, I'm saying it can't be done, which should be quite obvious to most sane people. Those who have their heads severed and frozen just in case something pops up not included. If I had anything to say about it, they'd have "Foolish worm-depriver" stamped on their foreheads, in ever-so-slightly acidic ink.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Emetri


No, I'm saying it can't be done, which should be quite obvious to most sane people. Those who have their heads severed and frozen just in case something pops up not included. If I had anything to say about it, they'd have "Foolish worm-depriver" stamped on their foreheads, in ever-so-slightly acidic ink.

How did you discover it can't be done? Obviously you've made clear that you don't simply mean that it can't be done at present. It is now clear that you are saying biological senescence cannot be effected at all, ever. 115 years is a hard limit apparently dictated by the limitations imposed by physics? Somehow this is obvious to most sane people?

Perhaps I'm misreading your point.

Exactly what is obvious to most sane people? How did they come by this knowledge however early and easily it may have been gained?