Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/18/13 02:25 AM, 24901miles wrote: Why are people dying in the future? That seems pretty far-fetched.

If medicine advances to the point where natural death is improbable, murders will skyrocket.
Unless you mean bringing the dead back to life? If so, fuck ya! Revive me when pocket sized microwaves for corn dogs on the go becomes a thing

At 12/18/13 02:06 AM, 372 wrote:

but no politically speaking, sending our dead into space could possibly give a hostile alien race predisposed knowledge of our anatomy

Or it can show them that we're not to be fucked with.

At 12/18/13 07:47 PM, 24901miles wrote:

What parasite? Are you calling my species–my homey Garfields–parasites? You take that back! Unwanted traits and genomic flaws can be ironed out! No limits!

Photoshop? Embrace the chaos...

I certainly would be for setting our corpses in geostationary orbit over this planet. It would be a work of art.

At 12/18/13 08:00 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 07:47 PM, 24901miles wrote:

What parasite? Are you calling my species–my homey Garfields–parasites? You take that back! Unwanted traits and genomic flaws can be ironed out! No limits!

Photoshop? Embrace the chaos...

What? Who were you calling parasites?

At 12/18/13 09:03 PM, 24901miles wrote:

What? Who were you calling parasites?

Humanity... think I stole that line from Matrix...

At 12/18/13 02:06 AM, 24901miles wrote: It would make a lot more sense to bring them back to life or not let them die in the first place. It would probably be more cost effective, too, since healing death is relatively simple compared to shooting people into orbit around a planet every time one dies.

Healing death is RELATIVELY simple compared to putting things into orbit.

I'm sorry, we've shot lots of things into orbit, never have I heard of anyone being brought back from the dead asides from things like temporary death like heart attacks, etc.

At 12/18/13 07:14 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 02:59 PM, Slacker013 wrote: You can cure everything but death will still be part of the natural order of things. Perhaps we can extend a lifetime by an extra 100 years but your still only postponing the inevitable. From life, death is guaranteed, immortality is overrated. Besides, a new frontier comes with it's own risks... like necromorphs...

Is that entire paragraph a video game reference or just the last word?

If not, you can totally cure death, aging, and Darwinian evolution. No limits.

You can cure death by aging, but not death.

As time approaches infinity, the probability of dying is 1.

You can't fight the increasing entropy of the universe, and supposing you could tunnel into another universe ad infinitum, after limitless time there is 100% certainty that you would encounter a black hole and all of your quantum information would be destroyed.

Better idea, throw the dead in volcanoes. Everyones happy.

At 12/18/13 10:02 PM, sweet21 wrote: Better idea, throw the dead in volcanoes. Everyones happy.

I think everyone is happy when they have their Soylent Green. You wouldn't want to deny them that, would you? Don't waste food.

At 12/18/13 02:03 AM, 372 wrote: you're not a fucking "LBGT Counselor" fucking take that shit off you fucking creep

It's okay, 372.

It gets better.

1. We create a virus that brings corpses back to life.
2. For every dead person from now until the year 2020, we strap a small time-activated syringe to them that will inject itself at a set time and then launch them into orbit.
3. We wait until January 1st, 2020.
4. SPACE ZOMBIES

At 12/18/13 09:17 PM, PyroGreg wrote:

At 12/18/13 02:06 AM, 24901miles wrote: It would make a lot more sense to bring them back to life or not let them die in the first place. It would probably be more cost effective, too, since healing death is relatively simple compared to shooting people into orbit around a planet every time one dies.

Healing death is RELATIVELY simple compared to putting things into orbit.

I'm sorry, we've shot lots of things into orbit, never have I heard of anyone being brought back from the dead asides from things like temporary death like heart attacks, etc.

Well, let's be clear about what setting we're using in this scenario. If the choice is between putting bodies into orbit or burying them on another planet, we're already at a point where orbital launches or interplanetary missions solely for funeral arrangements are more economic than cloning their body and transferring their mind, or some sort of advanced medicine which heals aging before it accumulates and causes health problems.

Let's look at what we have so far.
You say we've "shot things into orbit". While that's true, there are over a thousand objects in orbit, they all cost millions of dollars to launch. The first object put into orbit was Sputnik, which was in 1957. This has all been done with a clear economic and scientific objective to justify the extreme expense. The cost of space travel with human passengers isn't measured in millions of dollars, rather, it costs billions and (interplanetary expeditions) trillions of dollars to build environments which protect and provide for astronauts. Just to get an idea how how expensive this is, the International Space Station has been in operation for 15 years and has cost more than 150 billion dollars.

Conversely, since 1957 we have added nearly twenty years (twenty in nations with universal healthcare, fifteen in nations with capitalist healthcare) to the life expectancy of females. That's being done because a larger healthier workforce is more productive and creates more wealth overall.

So we have research into both field a right now. Scientists are bioprinting replacement organs, tissue, brain tissue, and repairing existing bodies. We're building computers with information complexities comparable to rooms full of people (Tianhe-2, Google, cloud and distributed computing systems). We also have private companies building new launch systems (SpaceX, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aero). Overall the trends are convergent and space isn't getting nearly as much funding as healthcare because financiers recognize that it's more important. Over time it will be less expensive to launch things into orbit, we will be able to launch more things into orbit, but it will also be necessary to keep people alive during interplanetary expeditions. There's not only a larger driving force behind the healthcare industry, but it's even overlapped by the aerospace industry.

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

At 12/18/13 10:00 PM, Scintillating wrote:

If not, you can totally cure death, aging, and Darwinian evolution. No limits.

You can cure death by aging, but not death.

As time approaches infinity, the probability of dying is 1.

You can't fight the increasing entropy of the universe, and supposing you could tunnel into another universe ad infinitum, after limitless time there is 100% certainty that you would encounter a black hole and all of your quantum information would be destroyed.

Black holes don't destroy information and post-humans have hundreds of billions of years to come up with a solution to entropy, if it's even a cosmological issue.

At 12/18/13 02:06 AM, 372 wrote: but no politically speaking, sending our dead into space could possibly give a hostile alien race predisposed knowledge of our anatomy

...

Dot.

At 12/18/13 10:14 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 12/18/13 02:03 AM, 372 wrote: you're not a fucking "LBGT Counselor" fucking take that shit off you fucking creep

It's okay, 372.

It gets better.

i feel like he's gonna lure fragile gay 13 year olds like amar and take advantage of them :(

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

At 12/18/13 02:01 AM, tox wrote: would it be right to set our dead afloat in space, revolving around our planet or bury them on a different planet as we become more and more space aged
should we return the dead to wherever they are born for a burial

Imagine a lifeless body orbiting the Earth at 1000 km/s suddenly smashing into a satellite or an orbiting space station.

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process. It is just a canopy term referring to health defects rooted in an imperfect form which eventually cause your life to end. Diseases, genomic defects, bodily harm, random acts of malice, war... these are not the things which should control life. Mankind thrives on sculpting trees into homes and works of art. We build our own environment, innovate, discover, explore the world. And we need to be alive to do that. A man should never bow his head to nature.

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process.

You obviously have no grasp of the theory of evolution if you think death is..."unnecessary"

At 12/18/13 11:40 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process.

You obviously have no grasp of the theory of evolution if you think death is..."unnecessary"

You obviously have no grasp of biology if you think evolution and death are "necessary" for a population which has reached solved mortality.

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process. It is just a canopy term referring to health defects rooted in an imperfect form which eventually cause your life to end. Diseases, genomic defects, bodily harm, random acts of malice, war... these are not the things which should control life. Mankind thrives on sculpting trees into homes and works of art. We build our own environment, innovate, discover, explore the world. And we need to be alive to do that. A man should never bow his head to nature.

I liked what Agent Smith said better... I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

At 12/18/13 11:43 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:40 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process.

You obviously have no grasp of the theory of evolution if you think death is..."unnecessary"

You obviously have no grasp of biology if you think evolution and death are "necessary" for a population which has reached solved mortality.

Lmfao you can't tell me I have no grasp of biology and then start talking science fiction. "Reach solved mortality" You sound like a little kid. Without death a organism would never be able to evolve in the first place. In fact "evolution without death" is a logical fallacy. It's like saying 2+2=4 even if you take away a "2"

At 12/18/13 11:55 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:43 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:40 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I went afk half a dozen times writing this and I'm not going to edit it for flow.

Death is humanity! Our obsession with it is what gives us the drive to live... why spoil that by being immortal? Do you seriously want to live forever?

Dying is an unnecessary consequence of the evolutionary process.

You obviously have no grasp of the theory of evolution if you think death is..."unnecessary"

You obviously have no grasp of biology if you think evolution and death are "necessary" for a population which has reached solved mortality.

Lmfao you can't tell me I have no grasp of biology and then start talking science fiction. "Reach solved mortality" You sound like a little kid. Without death a organism would never be able to evolve in the first place. In fact "evolution without death" is a logical fallacy. It's like saying 2+2=4 even if you take away a "2"

Hahaha. Are you simple in the head dude?

But OK, let's prove you wrong.

1. What I am actually saying is that death is unnecessary when you can just heal the sick, replace defective tissue, and repair any damage. Nowhere in any of my posts would I say the fanciful creationist sentence you seem to be trying to tack onto me here.
2. Although this is not what I was saying, you can have evolution without death. If you simulate the evolution of a species in a computer, selecting positive traits for whatever environment the population is going to live in, and apply them to a living population, you've effectively circumvented natural Darwinism. Conveniently enough, the future of medicine is going to be computer controlled robotic microsurgery and we're already dedicating massive computing power to brute force simulations.
3. 2+2=5 you slut. You're not looking at the big picture because you're so eager to get into an argument.

Death is unnecessary at this point in our evolution. It's a consequence of the evolutionary process which can be completely removed from the species using medical technology.

At 12/19/13 12:19 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:55 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:43 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:40 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

You have a very juvenile understanding of this topic.

But OK, let's prove you wrong.

1. What I am actually saying is that death is unnecessary when you can just heal the sick, replace defective tissue, and repair any damage.

That's not currently possible ....aka science fiction.

2. Although this is not what I was saying, you can have evolution without death. If you simulate the evolution of a species in a computer, selecting positive traits for whatever environment the population is going to live in, and apply them to a living population, you've effectively circumvented natural Darwinism. Conveniently enough, the future of medicine is going to be computer controlled robotic microsurgery and we're already dedicating massive computing power to brute force simulations.

That's....science fiction....that has not been invented. Genes simply are not just "traits you can apply to people". It's was ridiculously complex to learn how to change genes as simple as changing eye color, you claim you can just feed amazing helpful traits into an unborn population
You're completely talking science FICTION.

Death is unnecessary at this point in our evolution. It's a consequence of the evolutionary process which can be completely removed from the species using medical technology.

no....it's not.... humans like every animal are still evolving...if I have to explain this to you then I rest my case here
And hell just for the sake of a fun debate; If you were going to have all the people in the world live forever, where would you get the resources to feed them all? GMO'S? Living things create mass, where would you put all the people? Different planets? Population (without this science fiction world you love so much) is already a problem on earth.

At 12/18/13 02:01 AM, tox wrote: would it be right to set our dead afloat in space, revolving around our planet or bury them on a different planet as we become more and more space aged
should we return the dead to wherever they are born for a burial

Where did you even get this idea? Do you know the benefits of burying the dead in the ground? Firstly, the human body begins decomposing as the nutrients we gathered when we were alive are combined with earth, grass and flowers begin to grow their, and we become one with nature. Also, insects begin eating our body for nutrients that also contributes to the survival of nature. I don't see anything wrong with burying the dead. We get our own fancy coffins we could have designed it ourselves, and we can add treasures or secret into our graves which was precious to us. Thus, leaving a time capsule for future generations to say "Hell he was one awesome dude back in his time".
But yeah, disadvantage is, we require more land. So, space might also be a good route. Yes in Space it is good. We will take money from the families for sending the deceased to space so they may live on as shining beacons of stars. Or burying them in a different planet is also good. Yes, I Agree with your theory.

At 12/19/13 12:30 AM, 372 wrote:

At 12/19/13 12:19 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:55 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:43 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:40 PM, 372 wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:37 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/18/13 11:25 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

At 12/18/13 10:24 PM, 24901miles wrote:

You have a very juvenile understanding of this topic.

You aren't in my head, I'm not in yours. You made the first reproach, and I'm willing to talk it through.

But OK, let's prove you wrong.

1. What I am actually saying is that death is unnecessary when you can just heal the sick, replace defective tissue, and repair any damage.

That's not currently possible ....aka science fiction.

It's becoming possible, and we're talking about a society which is more advanced than our own. "More space aged" -tox

2. Although this is not what I was saying, you can have evolution without death. If you simulate the evolution of a species in a computer, selecting positive traits for whatever environment the population is going to live in, and apply them to a living population, you've effectively circumvented natural Darwinism. Conveniently enough, the future of medicine is going to be computer controlled robotic microsurgery and we're already dedicating massive computing power to brute force simulations.

That's....science fiction....that has not been invented. Genes simply are not just "traits you can apply to people". It's was ridiculously complex to learn how to change genes as simple as changing eye color, you claim you can just feed amazing helpful traits into an unborn population
You're completely talking science FICTION.

No, you're just setting up unnecessary limitations on the potential of medical science. You do realize we're not talking about shit that can be done in January of 2014... Right? You've read the whole thread... Right?

Death is unnecessary at this point in our evolution. It's a consequence of the evolutionary process which can be completely removed from the species using medical technology.

no....it's not.... humans like every animal are still evolving...if I have to explain this to you then I rest my case here

Lol, please find for me a single sentence wherein I said "humans are no longer evolving".

It's almost like we're not even having the same conversation. Let me reiterate: people do not need to die, death is a disease which can be cured, and a population which has cured death does not need Darwinian evolution.

And hell just for the sake of a fun debate; If you were going to have all the people in the world live forever, where would you get the resources to feed them all? GMO'S? Living things create mass, where would you put all the people? Different planets? Population (without this science fiction world you love so much) is already a problem on earth.

I hate science fiction, bro. Living things do not create mass, they reassemble it.

At 12/19/13 12:30 AM, 372 wrote:

At 12/19/13 12:19 AM, 24901miles wrote:

Stop looking at the frame, it's nice but it's kind of not the picture! What idiot thought that it would be best to launch the dead into space anyway? Wouldn't it be more fitting for man to be destroyed by which it created? That which was sparked by man and gave him the edge to one day overcome everything? WHY NOT CREMATIONS!?

being an aware consciousness floating around, exploring the cosmos...
sounds like a p. legit afterlife

At 12/19/13 12:46 AM, 24901miles wrote:
It's almost like we're not even having the same conversation. Let me reiterate: people do not need to die, death is a disease which can be cured, and a population which has cured death does not need Darwinian evolution.

Okay this is my point this is not true. Death is not a "disease" by any means.People only die when their cells are unable to reproduce functioning replacements successfully. I'm going to fill you in on some cell bio. It's called the The Hayflick limit. You're cell's DNA gets shorter every time they replicate, until they are no longer able to reproducing functioning and reproducing cells.
As you read this you're probably going to want to say "hey but future super medicine can fix this"
No. You remove the hay flick limit in a cell, you don't get immortal cells. You get rouge cells. You get something you probably heard of known as cancer. You get tumor. Cell death is a key function in the biological clockwork of every organism, If i go into this any more would be like doing your homework for you.
So yeah, I won't.