Weez Blog

Wow--intriguing questions here. There's a (frightening, in my opinion) fantasy of living at the "end of things" implied in this possibility of stopping the aging process.

I'd imagine that immortality will be a very expensive proposition at first, taking class warfare to a whole new level (imagine Dick Cheney hanging on long enough to purchase non-death).

But it's interesting how much our experience of life (and anticipation of eventual death) frame our narratives. Our "stories" would be completely transformed.

The Methuselah Mouse project, like the X-Prize for space exploration development, is providing serious incentive fore research into neglible senesence. (Will be able to spell that soon without thinking about it).

Given the state of the world, the most likely people to get at this "technology" would be rich old powerful people - long before, say, some kid in the third world who doesn't have potable water.

Not saying that the pursuit of this is bad, but that the imbalance is glaring.

There are some, that I'd prefer not to purchase non-death. And it is possible that assasination becomes an industry - even more so than now.

That's what I was thinking last night--that assassinations would probably become more common. Wars themselves might also change, potentially becoming much more violent.

Quite frankly, the power assumptions tied even to the pursuit of such a project worry me. Power over death is essentially a power over others.

Still, I have to admit these fantasies are enticing (especially when I wake up feeling sore or tired or when I wish I could spend more time traveling and reading and stuff).

I wondered whether or not people are capable of taking a long view of life - we're not very good at it now (Looking at KF's post at Planned Obsolesence - we are all busy).

It's so easy, and sometimes seemingly impossible not to look at the very close next impending catastrophe.

If our lifespans became 300 years, could we think in terms of the future better? Be a little less myopic about energy, or war? I don't know. I suspect we're not really that more advanced than a baby that figured out that out of sight doesn't mean out of existence.

Not impossible. But I don't think it is our inclination.

%you take the long view and I'll take the other view ... %

Looking into the future may depend upon being percepting about the upcoming instant :)

The wonderful thing (Oh, I've picked up Liz Lawley's fascination with that word - "thing")
http://mamamusings.net/archives/2003/10/22/happy_blogiversary_to_me.php

I was saying, the wonderful thing about humans is that ability to do group work. And this means coordinating across different timelines. And someone helps align the time scales.

And since animation is your thing and animation runs on cuing, I conclude by suggesting that far or near the trick of the matter is in synchronization.

If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is a man who has so much as to be out of danger?

Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct, but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.