Maybe. I think it's extremely unlikely, but it could happen. It's tough.

Existing forever. What about the loved ones forever gone? Would we not eventually be bored beyond reason? To be fair, I think that those that always say that it is because we are finite that we are able to give meaning to life is not that clear to me.

I believe it was Wittgenstein that said this, but I don't remember. He said something like death is not something we experience in life, it is not an experience for us. Dying yes, but death, no. We live each moment assuming we are not going to die the next second.

There is something strangely timeliness about this attitude. Because if we did know exactly the time we had left, we might do things with extreme urgency, but few of us do.

As for getting rid of death anxiety. Only when I'm not in my right mind am I terrified of death. When I'm fine, it does not bother me rationally. I wasn't bothered before I came here. I doubt I'll be bothered afterwards.

For the time being we take what we have and live this incomprehensible "now".

Existing forever. What about the loved ones forever gone? Would we not eventually be bored beyond reason? To be fair, I think that those that always say that it is because we are finite that we are able to give meaning to life is not that clear to me. — Manuel

Yeah, there's a lot of philosophical questions here to go about. I mean, life with respect to death or boredom, which are prominent topics in philosophy. I suppose my point would be to look at life as a limited thing, as it always is perceived and then go about making a decision as to whether one would want to prolong it or try as to.

Yes. All very hard questions. I guess one big problem is having people around which you identify with and ground your meaning or add substantial value to it. It would be better if they had the option too.

On the other hand, being put in such a place, by your own volition, to choose to end your life given immortality, would be a very devastating situation to be in.

Then again, maybe not in some cases. But it would be a problem for some and not a small one.

My hope in this discussion is to invite David Pearce to the discussion or alternatively see if other members can overcome the anxiety of death and live a more rich and happy life. — Shawn

Shawn, thank you for the invite. Defeating death and aging is going to be insanely difficult, but transhumans will be quasi-immortal. Whole-body replacements ("head transplants”) should be possible in a decade or two. Cyborgisation will accelerate. I reckon the biggest technical challenge will be sustaining eternally youthful brains. Yet already, transplanting dopamine-producing nerve cells grown from a patient's own cells back into their brain can relieve motor signs and depressive symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Aging but nominally healthy humans too could benefit from the enhanced mood, motivation and vitality conferred by implants. Where (if anywhere) do we stop? Thorny issues of the nature of enduring personal (non-)identity can't be dodged:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#parfit

That's interesting about identity. But, I surmise that due to regulations and oversight much of this will be limited to the ultra-rich initially and then slowly enter the market.

How fast or how long do you think humanity will switch over to transhumanism?

How fast or how long do you think humanity will switch over to transhumanism? — Shawn

I would guess that next century most people will be transhumanists. Presumably, inhabitants of twenty-second century won't use the label "transhumanist" any more than modern humans call ourselves "trans-neanderthal".
If my scepticism about a machine "Intelligence Explosion" is unwarranted, then this timescale is too cautious:
https://www.hedweb.com/quora/2015.html#intelexplos

I am not concerned with death. She is an old friend that will call on me as she chooses. When she does, I will hold her hand and walk through that door with her. And it will begin anew.

One of the concerns which I have about transhumanism is that if people are enabled to live for way beyond the natural lifespan is what effect this would have on the environment. Of course, even now we can have medication and surgery which extends our lives a lot longer than if they weren't available. However, if we were to extend it on a far greater level thre population would become so large and there would be such a demand for resources, that life may become unbearable. Also, we are in danger of running out of petroleum and, the lifestyles we are living are damaging the planet, especially the climate.

I am also unsure about ideas such as having head replacements. I have come across people having new heads put on their teddy bears, but I am not sure how it would work with humans. Of course, we are not used to it, and if we think about life as we know it, probably many aspects of our lives would have only have been science fiction about 50 to 100 years ago. But, in some ways, the ideas of transhumanism almost seem like trying to create the 'mythical' beings like the Nephilim and humans of Atlantis, who were said to live for about 300 years.

I am not concerned with death. She is an old friend that will call on me as she chooses. When she does, I will hold her hand and walk through that door with her. And it will begin anew. — Book273

"And it will begin anew"? Don't you really mean "It will be finished forever"?

"And it will begin anew"? Don't you really mean "It will be finished forever"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. I mean it will begin anew. Not sure how that was unclear.

Atlantis worked out so very well for them. If we go that route then I support ending in much the same fashion.

"Your scientists spend so much time wondering if they could do something they didn't stop to consider if they should." Jeff Goldblum: Jurassic Park. Very wise words.

Not sure how that was unclear. — Book273

It was quite unclear. Are you saying that your life will begin anew, at your death? I always thought that death was the end of life, and that is final.

Death is the end of my animation of this body. The body itself will decay. The force that had been animating it will transition elsewhere, there, as best as I am able to determine, things will begin anew. I do not believe death, in it's current usage, is final; merely another aspect of change, and not so unfamiliar.

I am not sure what to think about the idea of Atlantis. I know that many people believe it existed as a reality and many don't. Plato refers to it, as does Homer.

I wonder to what extent we could go back to a stage like Atlantis, and I do wonder how transhumanism would fit into the picture?Previous to coming across the ideas of transhumanism, I had read about junk DNA as untapped potential. I am inclined to believe that some of the ancient people were not simply primitive, but had power, knowledge and wisdom, which became lost.

Based on the readings I have done I would suggest that power, wisdom, and knowledge are far from recent acquirements and that the concept of Atlantis, actual or not, is hardly beyond the realm of possibility. We could not, currently, reconstruct the pyramids using only the material that was available when they were built, despite our espoused advancements in physics and sciences. To me that suggests the builders of the pyramids were more skilled and knowledgeable than we are today. Eastern theology/philosophy has been explaining phenomena for thousands of years and we have provided no better, and many worse, explanations for these phenomena. Not seeing much advancement there. I cannot speak to the countries of the world, I lack experience beyond North America, however, many of the books I read have multiple (english, french, latin, greek, and arabic) languages used in them, written in a fashion to suggest that the reader would be able to easily flow through the reading, regardless of the language used.

I am fluent in English, passible in French, and can fumble in Spanish. My coworkers speak primarily one language only, as do most in the region I live in. I feel woefully under educated when I read these books, needing to constantly reference Google translate as I read. This, to me, suggests that we have lost linguistic ability over time, not improved upon it.

I am not saying that we have no accomplishments, just that I see no reason to assume that no one before us has accomplished equal, or greater, accomplishments.

I think it extraordinary that Dave Pearce propounds on the most outlandish and frankenstein-esque implications of science - without any apparent objection by religious and subjectivist fundamentalists that have assailed me here for months on end, for suggesting science is a significant truth, the most sober and fundamental implications of which we need to pay attention to - vis a vis, the sustainability of our existence.

Pearce has repeatedly refused to acknowledge my argument that science describes an understanding of reality that implies a systematic application of technologies necessary to a sustainable future. The genetic technologies Pearce advocates are logically subsequent to the technologies to harness heat energy from magma, to produce limitless clean electricity, to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - not least because without these technologies applied first, genetically engineered super-longevity could not be supported environmentally. It would be a disaster.

Pearce's "wouldn't it be cool" approach to science is the very anthesis of my argument that science and technology need to be applied systematically, and for the right reasons to achieve sustainable prosperity, and I reasonably expected mine to be the more palatable view, yet uncanny valley bio-tech nightmares do seem to be what the customer wants! Sustainability, not so much!