Matus1976

What about motion in the absence of force. Aristotle taught "unnatural" motion required a force. What about an object moving at constant speed in a straight line on a frictionless surface. Does its uniform motion require force. Did Aristotle check? Galileo checked the matter out experimentally. Aristotle had the same technology to make the tests as did Galileo. Namely straight smooth planks. Ba'al Chatzaf I countered many of these 'criticisms' of Aristotle in this post

Well for starters taking the time to formulate this sincere response is a good way to proceed My point has been that many objectivists always react to the 'immortality' discussion with a quick knee jerk appeal to the 'indestructable robot' even though Rand and Piekoff explicitly were talking about an unchanging, unithinking, unfeeling, indestructable robot, none of which are applicable to a sentient being. The analogy served the purpose of highlighting that life is and ought to be the our highest value (and again I say, a particular good life, which I think is implicit in Rand's philosophy though often has to be explicitly stated) but somehow many objectivists and admirers of Rand twist that analogy and interpret it to mean that death is ultimately are highest value, (of course, only after a 'natural' life span) since, they think, it is the only thing that can give value to life. *That* is twisted. The indestructable robot analogy emphasized that life is and ought to be the goal of every action (because a being whose existence was indepedant of actions has nothing directing its actions) not that the threat of something being taken away must always be present in order to enjoy that something. Indefinate life span or not, lacking predifined limits on a life due to aging or disease or not; life, a particular kind of life, a good life, is and ought to be the goal of all of our actions, perpetually. Even so, the analogy is limited because it does little to distinguish between the mere mechanical existence of life, and living a particular kind of life, a good, eudaimonic, life. Fair enough true, but the way you entered the discussion, guns blazing, asserting that living an indefinate life span is only a fantasy of the burgeoise, the medicine is only a toy of the rich, is it not reasonable that I interpreted this as socialist / communist rhetorchic? As with all things that are new, only the rich will have them at first, they will spread to the rest of the population as the over all wealth of the population increases. But because some people have something, instead of all, this is absolutely no rational justification to make sure *no people, ever, have it* That is absurd. It is always better to have some people able to have something good over no people having it. Today a larger percentage of people in the world enjoy decent lives than ever before in the history of the world and it is largely industrial capitalism that is responsible for this. Thats not to say that it would be good if the rest of the worlds peopel could enjoy the same benefits, but often that requires toppling whatever shitty murderous tyrant happens to oppress them, and the exceedingly difficult task of weeding out deeply ingrained corruption. I would much prefer to see my children (when I have them) grow into adults, and have children of their own, and their own, and their own, etc. I wish I could have known my mother, when she was young and vibrant and energetic, and my father, and my grand parents, etc. Of course proper parenting prepares a child to live a rational independant life of their own, not shield them from life, so I do not see radical life extension as presenting any problems for raising children. Would you feel the same (exhausted, etc) if you retained your youth perpetually?

Kori, I responded to your concerns in post 18, if you choose not to read them, thats one thing. If you disagree, thats another. But now you pretend as if no response was ever made, if you want to raise an objection and refer to it later in a debate, at least make an effort to read the posters response to you, otherwise your purpose here seems to be to bait emotional responses and not a legitimate discussion and development of ideas.

Michael, I find your comments more wishfull thinking than an idenfitication of reality (A is not A. A is what I say it is) The logic gets a little twisted at times. Of course, this is the kind of comment I am talking about. You arent really saying anything, you just come in with some vague generalizations with no information, no evidence, no examples, which no one can respond to. Are you taking your lessons from the State Science Institute? My criteria for a worthless post is one in which I can repeat the same exact statement back to the poster with just as much justifcation. these are the types of comments Bob Mac flooded this conversation with early on, e.g. "Not thinking correctly" "Sloppy thinking" After giving some rather sophomoric and utilitarian objections, Bob says "Clearly this indicates you have given no thought any implications of increased life span/immortality including the consequence of how life is valued." Later says "you've demonstrated a remarkable ignorance regarding the basic concept of value itself" this from the person who said *the* source of value is scarcity. Anytime Bob or anyone makes a statement that is ultimately completely pointless except to make the poster feel good about trying to insult the other poster, I repeat the exact same comment right back at them. Usually, they eventually realize how fruitless the "well you are a big poo-poo head" comments ultimately are, and eventually stop posting, or stop making such comments. It took Bob some time, but it seems he has dropped most of that behavior.

Michael, can you be more specific as to which posting guidelines I am infringing on? If so, I will make an effort to no longer infringe on them.

Perhaps you misjudge Wolf, but that's your choice. Perhaps my judgement is based on the only evidence Wolf has provided so far, are you saying his yapping about burgeoise fantasies is not a mere socialist polemic? That his comment that medicine is only something that the rich get is hardly anything more than communist Rhetoric? What have I misjudged, what evidence do you present that I have misjudged? Were these statements sarcasm? As usually, you dive in, say little, back up your statement with no evidence, yet make grandoise declarations with not so subtle insults. Please give me even a remote reason to discount Wolfs disgusting anti-individual comments or don't bother contributing, such posts, like Bob Mac's "sloppy thinking" is basically indistinguishable from not being posted at all. They say nothing, make no claims, dont present any information, dont argue a point, only present an overacrhing generalizations as a pretentious insult so the author can give himself a big ol pat on the back. If you think Wolf's ideas are valid, then make a modicum of an effort to demonstrate that to a fellow life loving rational independant being, don't give me this "If I have to explain it to you you wouldnt understand" crap of the psuedointellectual. You can make worthwhile contributions to discussions, or you can blather nonsense. Hey it's your forum, and it's your choice.

You have undertaken a great and difficult struggle, and whether you succedded or failed in your heroic quest, you have apparently lived a difficult life of financial troubles because ofi t. So now that you have struggled, gambled with your life, what matters if you live a thousand more years or 1 more year? Why don't you just kill yourself now, if the only value of a life is the struggle (and failure) of a heroic ideal, well, you've achieved it, your life has all the value it could possibly have, does it not? So why are you still hanging around? Clearly you still find value in the moments of your existence, in the contexts which surround those moments, you still struggle with your heroic challenge, perhaps you may be able to struggle for it for another thousand years, if necessary. Perhaps building the world you would like to see will take longer than a typical life span. Is that now Hedonistic? To succumb to an arbitrary 'natural' limition foisted upon us by the random events of our evolution, is that 'just' and 'heroic' ?

I am more than willing to seek information out from sources I suspect have more knowledge than I, my ultimate goal being to form an as accurate assessment of the world as possible. My first interactions with Wolf, however, were rather nihilistic, containing socialist polemics and wanton attempts at hijacking this thread to get people to read his unrelated musings, and worse belittling Rand while simaltaneously utilizating the popularity her ideas gained in order to achieve an audience for his ideas, which he could not earn on his own. Not a good first impression in my opinion. Wolf is also, ultimately, arguing for a vestige of Original Sin (in that we must change the world, or ungergo a 'heroic struggle' which includes the potential for massive loss) in order to 'justify' our existence. Sorry, but I dont buy that feeling guilty for my existence crap, no one ever has to 'prove' their worth for existence, they do not need to change the world in order to justify their lives, every man has a right to his own life and to live it as he sees fit, without assaulting another man's person or property. If Wolf wants to risk life and limb for his cause celebre, more power to him, but to belittle others for choosing to live their lives thier own way, which no one owns but themselvies, by regurgitating a vestige of original sin, arguing that they must do something to prove their worth for existence, is disgusting. His professed standards of value, so far, have been heroic struggles with potential of life ruining failures, and 'gambling ones life' and how many words he wrote. Sorry, not my standards, nor the standards of any rational life loving entity. He writes It "wont matter" to whom? to HIM? To EVERYONE ELSE? Why must I prove my worth for existence to him, or to anyone? *that* is a disgusting attitude. If Wolf wants to provide an 'executive summary' of why his ideas are worth reading and considering, and I find them intruiguing, I'll be all over the essays. But so far in this thread he seems like an angry bitter nihilistic person who feels guilty for existing, as such I have no interest in reading anything he has to say. And furthermore, I don't need some pretentious jerk accusing me of not undergoing any struggles, heroic or otherwise, which might or might not result in personal bankruptecy or whatever other nonsense he defines as part of 'heroism', he knows nothing about me, nor do I need to prove the worth of my life or my existence to his nonsensical altruistic standards. . The thread is not to talk about Wolf's essays, but whether the fact that life will end is what actually gives life purpose and meaning. There are many things to learn from many people on all these forums I participate in, but examinations on the standards of life with regard to indefinate life spans is clearly not one of them, as most objectivists present sophomoric objections and instant disengenous appeals to Rand's "indestructable robot" (without understanding or even remembering the nature of her argument) Though I admit Wolf's claim that indefinate life spans are fantasies of the burgeoise and hedonistic is a new one on me, and takes the trophy for childish 'objectivist' objections to indefinate life spans.

So you are using Rand's popularity to gain an audience to your yapping so you can attack her ideas and the things which brought her popularity. Is that "Heroic"? Additionally, your definition of "Heroic" is rather shallow Or is that just how one convinces one's self that a life of failure had a purpose and was ultimately just?

Actually its Eudaimonic, not hedonistic (epicurean), its not pleasure for it's own sake. Rand's advocated life of rational self interest is not founded around "Heroism" (did I miss the essay where "Heroism" is the highest value?) One could rightfully say that Life is an end of its own, it does not exist for the sake of something else. But I would clarify of course that life as in a good life, and not a mere mechanical existence, is an end of its own, if not, then life does in fact exist as a means to something else, a good life for yourself. What exactly are you doing on a Rand Forum anyway? With comments like: I wouldnt expect a socialist / communist to understand desiring to live a full productive good life of rational self interest. None of which is incompatable with desiring to live a long full life. What exactly is your objection here? That Long lives are not compatable with Heroic challenges? That heroic challenges are the only purpose in life? Well you could always do the opposite, never try to do anything so you don't realize how much of a failure your are, is that your story? Or to quote Homer Simpson "The first step of failure is trying!" The purpose of life is to Risk it? Don't think so.

I think You miss the distinction being made between valuing a moment in ones life, and valuing life all together. In many cases people value a particular moment *more* than their whole life, such as the reckless youth who jumps on the top of a friends car while riding on the highway saying "You only live once!" You go from talking about care (being careful) in life, and jump to placing a value on a moment of life (because it is short) these are not directly related. I can be very reckless and value individual moments in life, or I can be very careful and desire to live a long time so I would enjoy more moments. You act as though life has a total potential of joy, and whether spread over a short time or a long time, the total amount is the same. This is, of course, ridiculous, I can live a fabulous moment in a long life or a short life, over and over again, the longer life would lead to a more fulfilling life since I could experience more moments that I enjoy, work toward larger and larger long term goals, achieve more things, develop more ideas, strive toward the best possible existence. You must be alive in the first place in order to value moments, whether you have few moments or many moments. I do not place a value on a moment based on its time relationship to all my moments, but on it's 'intrinsic' value to me, toward living a 'good life' The point being if you value moments at all, you ought to want to have as many of them as possible. If you have the potential of experiencing many more moments, you will be more careful to protect that potential. By your rational, the value of a moment exist only in relationship to the total number of moments, the fewer the total number of moments, the higher the value of each individual moment. If this is the case, you should vow to kill yourself the very next moment, so this moment will be of greatest possible value. Of course this is silly, moments have value because of the experiences surrounding that moment, not *only* because it is one more moment taken away of the remaining ones. If you do something stupid, which you enjoy, you play a benefit cost analysis game based on how much you value your life now and how much you value the experience you are about to partake in and how risky that behavior is, assuming you are intelligent enough to think about it at all, and you weigh that against your life. People who climb mountains engage in risky behavior because they find some value in it that outweighs the risk, but the cost they measure against is based on a typical human life span of 75 years, losing 75 years is less bad than losing 750 years or 7,500 years. Everyone expect to live around that time and that is the estimated time they use to gauge the value of the life they are currently risking. The is embodiment in many common psychological elements, like the “you only live once” or “carpe diem” (I prefer Carpe Aeternitas) and is most startlingly present in the attitudes we hold toward the deaths of children and young adults verse old people, the children and young adults, most people feel, were robbed of the life they ought to have had a change to enjoy, that ‘typical’ life span of 75 years or so, while the old person was said to have run their course, to lived a good full life. They got their fair turn, their time has come, etc, In reality, the longer someone lives, the richer and fuller their lives and their personality is, and the more tragic it is to die, I think. Though all death is tragic. If you value life, you ought to prefer to live in almost all cases over not living. If a moment has any value it all, then it is always preferable to live more than less, unless the only value you derive from moments of existence is their relative number with your expected whole. Is that truly what you base all your valuation of moments on? Sure, perhaps in the last moments of your life, you place immense value on moments qua moments, but it is because the intrinsic value of existence at every moment to you is brought to the fore-front of your consciousness. But when you are at home cooking a meal, reading a good book, working on a project, or making love to your spouse, are you thinking only that this particular moment has value because you only have a total of 2,365,200,000 moments (the number of seconds in an average life) remaining? Or is it because of the circumstances surrounding that moment and the events of that moment itself that you find value in it?

My comments on the Kathleen Touchstone essay. I think commenters in this thread haven’t read this full passage recently, note Rand does not simply say “Imagine an indestructible robot… it could have no interests or goals (thus values)” but explicitly asks us to imagine not only an indestructible robot, but a robot which can not change in *any* respect. Why that qualifier? Because change and growth are closely related to having values and goals, if this robot, or the immortal beings in “Tuck Everlasting” could not change in *any* respect, than they could not even form new memories, they could not have new experiences, they could not grow and pursue a ‘good’ life. As elaborated in the “Can Art Exist without Death” article by Kathleen Touchstone, linked by Stephen Boydstun, Piekoff developed this idea further, and added the further qualifiers that this robot could not even feel anything, it could not have pains or pleasures. Indeed, such an entity, which perpetually exists, is indestructible, and unchangeable, and can not feel anything (can it even think?) would certainly have no values, it is hardly indistinguishable from a sub atomic particle, no living entity, no conscious, sentient entity could be described in such a way. This essay mentions Charles King assessment: “King argues that it is not necessary to have an ultimate value in a system of values; that it is by virtue of having values (what one values) that life is valuable, not the other way around. Life is an instrumental, not an ultimate value” I would have said, of course, that ‘life’ (the mere mechanistic process) is not our ultimate highest value, but a particular kind of life, the *good* life we aspire to attain, essentially what Kind is saying, though I do identify and argue of a particular highest value, and life is the instrument to pursue it. Readers arguing that the scarce commodity of time in life is what brings it value ought to read the second essay, which examines that claim in some detail. Interestingly, Touchstone’s essay adds this point, countering the “boring” argument in Hicks essay essentially the same way I did; “If one effectively has forever, it may follow that these kinds of opportunities will arise again and again. But, in some sense, each experience is unique. Regardless of how similar, no two are exactly alike” Let’s look at Touchstone’s elaboration on Piekoffs elaboration of Rand’s Indestructible Robot Analogy. Touchstone writes: “Suppose that, for an immortal being, eating food would no longer be necessary to sustain life. The senses of taste and smell would no longer be required. The evolutionary tendency is for anything that is not used to be eventually lost. However, it could be argued that even if immortals did not need to eat, they might enjoy it, and the pleasure of doing so would be sufficient to retain the capability. Procreation, except under very unusual assumptions, would be illogical, however. There would be no need to procreate, physical pain would not be needed to warn the organism of physical danger. Sensation for heat flow need no longer exist to preserve life.” What follows is a lot of rationalizations which seek to make the source of every single action of rational sentient human beings merely actions to sustain literal mechanical existence (the joy from mental exercise prepares us for complex situations, the joy from competition sports refines our reflexes and perceptual abilities, etc) This is the same materialistic crap that is so prevalent in Skeptic circles, which basically abdicate any human volitional capabilities which come from choices and values in favor of mind numbed automatons bent on sex and survival. Such is a sad view to hold of one’s own existence. Now, lets make Touchstone’s vision of an ‘immortal’ sentient being a little more realistic. Literal indestructibility is non-sensical to discuss, it is a metaphysical impossibility. The real ‘immortal’ being would have a small, yet still finite change of being destroyed. Thus, the sense of taste and smell would be extremely heightened, smell because dangers to existence which can be revealed through those senses would be more easily avoided (an explosive gas accidentally venting inside a space station, for instance) taste to detect poisons or other dangers to one’s existence, even in minute quantities. Some being might choose to retain many of our biological systems and functions, including the necessity to eat, or they might choose to retain the joy of it, and implant a nano-scale fusion reactor just in case food becomes too scarce. Physical threats to ones existence would be heightened, not diminished, to ensure longer perpetual survival (read about the Puppeteers in Larry Niven’s "Ring World" for a fictionalized example of this) Certainly sensations for Heat flow would be heightened to a great degree, since extreme temperatures will probably always be a threat to ones existence. Procreation would be illogical?? Here is the disgusting embodiment of that philosophical materialism notion that humans only have children in order to procreate, I don’t even feel this point worth rebutting it is so disgusting. Additionally, evolution by natural selection is for beings undergoing external selective pressures, and occurs because the 95% not containing the right mutations die brutal deaths. Humans of course no longer are undergoing any kind of evolutionary pressures to any significant degree, and the ability to manipulate our own genetic code and that of our off springs renders the idea that ‘things we don’t need, like the sense of taste, would disappear’ in-applicable, never mind that they would be irrelevant given the fact that in order to ensure a longer life we would need to be more aware and more cautious of threats to our existence. A being who expected to live tens of thousands of years would need to start worrying about asteroid impacts, getting struck by lighting, space craft crashes, landslides, random severe mechanical failures, etc etc. Ultimately, Touchstone refashions Rand’s immortal robot, giving it feelings and senses, and abstract reasoning, but retains it’s indestructible nature. She glosses over the aspect of change, and of the ability to pursue the value of a *good* life, and instead focuses on the literal indestructibility and so asserts values are not possible and Art would not exist, in any meaningful sense. Why so much time is spent discussing a metaphysically impossible scenario is beyond me.

My comments on the Stephen Hicks Essay: “Life is too valuable to sit around and just watch it slip by” So if it is so valuable, and too valuable enough to just watch it slip by, why is it not valuable enough to choose to continue living indefinitely? “Of course, immortality could be great – not because it would make life worth living, rather because it would give us more time to do more or get more or enjoy more of those things that do make life worth living” My sentiments exactly, and by immortality of course I am referring to an indefinite life span, not metaphysical indestructibility. The author emphasizes this when they call it a “conditional immortality” “It would be a conditional immortality, conditional upon your continuing to fulfill all the normal requirements for human life, including eating, sleeping, keeping warm, and so on” The author writes “I think values are possible only if one faces, in some form, a life and death alternative; so if one is unconditionally immortal, then no values would be possible” I still disagree with this sentiment, even though it is conceptually a metaphysical impossibility, because it is not mere life that is our standard of value and basis for morality, but a particular kind of life, a good life that is enjoyable to us. One may rationalize every action to be indirectly related only to our literal mechanistic existence, but I think this is disingenuous, we highly value life because it is a necessary component of living a “good” life, a life can not be good without being alive, but it is the particular kind of life that we strive for, not just mere existence. That particular kind of life can still exist when the threat of destruction is reduced to such a degree as to be almost irrelevant. “Now suppose we asked Steinbeck and Brecht whether immortality would be worth it. Their response would no doubt be: Are you kidding us? We do not see why any amount of life is worth living, let alone an infinite amount of it. Life is pain, depression, and horror” Readers of this thread who object to conditional immortality as a threat to values and as a mechanism by which life is rendered meaningless should take this comment to heart, your lack of valuing indefinite existence is born of your philosophy, which is not a rational life loving one, but a pessimistic malevolent universe one. A point this author hints at when they write “The values to be achieved certainly need not be limited to any one range of items: they can include increasing your knowledge, enriching your friendships, experience art, developing your career, and so on.” Also, when the author writes: “An infinite amount of time would only give you more time to do more of those things that make life worth living in the first place. But that is to say that life *is* worth living in the first place, that life has value independently of the amount of time available to live” And the authors conclusion: “Whether your life is to be seventy-five years long, or two hundred years, or several millennia, the principle is still the same: time considerations are at the very least of secondary import if not irrelevant to the value of life” That is, life is not meaningless because it is too short, or too long, a life is as meaning full as one makes it. Ultimately, the author concludes (rather short sightedly) that an immortal life (indefinite life span, not indestructible) would eventually become a burden, simply because it would become boring. Once growth and change become impossible, the author argues, life is no longer worthwhile. The author rests this argument on the infinite life span in a finite universe and that ultimately all experiences will become repeats of past experiences. For starters, there are in fact in infinite variation of experiences possible, even in a finite universe, experiencing something you have all ready experienced with a new information set will market he experience new as well, that is, the fact that you experienced it *now* instead of *back then* makes the experience intrinsically unique. In short, the author does not make a sufficient case that growth and change are impossible perpetually. Even so, this is an argument against a life span that stretches *billions* of years, where one has visited hundreds of galaxies and millions of planets, and read every book and seen every piece of art work and heard every song, etc. This is not an argument against life extension, or even radical life extension, but only a problem, even at the authors admission, that would arise only after billions of years. As such, I would hardly take this to be a rational objections to radical life extension, and actually something that argues strongly in favor of it, as “Any amount of life is preferable to none at all, that human life is the most precious thing in the world” (and I would add, as before, a very long life is preferable to a short one) Michael

Nice... Amazingly, Jeff, that Milkshake, that particular arrangement of atoms, mixture of flavors, plastic container and straw, all those particular things exist in that particular pattern NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!!! Talk about Scarce! Can one even being to fathom the value of such a rare and precious gem? A trillion dollars? A trillion trillion dollars? Amazing! Look closely folks, you will never see another milkshake like this one even if you were immortal. If value is derived from scarcity, than this milkshake (oh, and actually everything else) is the most valuable thing in the universe.

Bob, you are agreeing with me here, this is what I have been saying all along. The people who suggest you must die in order to value life gloss over that in all the other cases where we think we need to lose something in order to truly value it we remain able to subjectively compare these experiences, but you can not subjectively experience death. Intelligent rational beings do not need to be tortured to know they don't want to be tortured and they do not need to die in order to know they value life. As I said in MY VERY FIRST POST To which you responded in your first post that the possibility of losing things, and the difficulty in acquiring them, is what gives things value. A very twisted definition for values. Your argument is worthless, Bob. And you know it is. You want to quit now rather than concede an unsupportable position. Scarcity, demand, supply, etc, decide the value of an object to another person within a free economy of trade. Would my killing everyone else make you feel like your life is more valuable? Well maybe, but only because it is forcing you to really think about the issue, your life isnt actually more valuable because you are the only life. The worth of an object or service within a society of material entities which must exist through material means is decided by their supply, cost, demand, etc. The value of a life, of *your own* life, is irrelevant to how many *other* people have life. I value my fingers and eyes because I have them, and I use them to further my efforts at a *good life*, not because few other animals can see so many colors so vividly and because no other animals have the dexterity of my hands and fingers, I could not care less what the relative scarcity or supply of opposable thumbs is when I judge the value of my own, similiarly I dont care whether their are 1 million other people or 100 billion other people in the galaxy, I still value my own life just the same. Again, you have some very twisted conceptions of values. Bob, you are better of quitting, but I am getting amused at how far your denial will go.

Yes in cases where death is guranteed, people will be more likely to act carelessly. In a life which could be nearly eternal with care, people would be more cautious (on average, no doubt Bob Mac's and such will kill themselves) Generally I am not talking about a metaphysically immortal being, something that is an impossiblity, but the point being made in this thread by Victor's original post and others that an immortal being would have no basis for values is still false (yes even though Rand used an analogy of an immortal robot, read my previous post on the distinction) even if it is an irrelevant discussion, I still do not agree that a metaphysically immortal being would have no values. Regardless, such immortality is not possible, and too often people use the indestructable robot analogy in order to oppose general life extension, asserting that any significantly unnaturally long life would be without value as well. *That* is rediculous

Just because Rand wrote that all values must be directly related the perpetuating life does not prove that pursuing a particular kind of life, a 'good' life, is without value. Rand can be forgiven for not making this explicit statement this oversight as indefinite life spans were simply not worth rational discussion at that time, and the importance of recognize life as a standard of value was so undervalued that the argument was far more important to make and the qualifiers not worth noting. But now you and most objectivists have taken a conceptual simplification and turned it into a gospel like commandment. Is Life your highest Value? is life your *only* value? How does loving your partner contribute to your literal mechanistic process of life? Perhaps they will help you when you are sick, and vice versa, but is that really why you love your partner? What does arguing on this forum do to perpetuate your literal mechanistic process of life? Sure you may rationalize and pyschologize and attempt to trace every one of your actions back to supporting the literal mechanistic process of life, but you miss Rand’s point entirely. If Life, the literal mechanistic process of life, was your only and necessarily your highest value, you would be more than ready and willing to give up things which make your life *good* (selling out your family, friends, and loved ones) in order to merely perpetuate your breathing and eating. Life, in the literal mechanistic sense, is not what Rand meant by one's highest value, and this is obvious and explicitly demonstrated by Galt's willingness to commit suicide in order to prevent Dagny from being tortured, it is a particular *kind* of life, a *good* life, that is and ought to be your highest value. It is redundant to need to point this out, “life” in Objectivism implies a good life, but many people seem to miss that point. Life means a particular kind of life, a good life, it does not just mean existing, and consequently a perpetual existence will not automatically rob you of pursuing values in accordance with a *good* life. So indeed, one can be immortal (even in the metaphysically impossible sense) and yet still seek to have a ‘good’ life, and not merely base all actions and motivations on perpetuating their mechanical existence (which none of you are doing anyway, otherwise you would be spending every waking moment attempting to defeat aging and disease, yet you remain on this forum arguing) But regardless, that type of immortality will never exist, it will only ever be something we approach asymptotically. So in your mind, at what point does your life cease to be worth living because your safety and existence is more likely to continue perpetually? Some day we may defeat aging and disease, your average life expectancy would then be some 5,000 years, since an accident will get you eventually. But soon you will wear comfortable and protective advanced technology clothing, and your body may be filled with nanotechnological robots capable of instantly repairing massive damage, lets say your average life expectancy may now be 50,000 years, is your life not worth living now? Or even farther down the line, you may slowly replace your neurons over time with electronic equivalents and then distribute your consciousness over multiple storage points simultaneously, now your average life expectancy is 5 million years, your literal mechanistic existence is virtually guaranteed, yet you must always choose to continue to exist, you must always continue to want to exist. Is your life not worth living now because the chance of death is so remote? Yet in all of these you can still pursue what you deem to be a *good* life. When the literal mechanistic process of existence is virtually guaranteed, you are free to focus on the *good* part of the *good life* and not merely the *life* part of it. Stop appealing simplifications and out of context quotes to 'prove' an immortal life is valueless. Life is not the standard of value and morality, a *good* life is the standard, I should think this qualifier should be redundant to readers of Rand, yet it seems many people here fail to grasp this. As such, being guaranteed the literal mechanistic perpetuation of existence (if you choose it, being forced to be immortal is definitely not a metaphysically relevant scenario) does not rob you of value, but frees you to focus on the *good* part of life and not merely on existing.

My apologies Brant, I did not intend to imply that, edited the post for clarity.

You are either being intentionally argumentative or are incredibly stupid. Of course I am makeing the judgement call that I would prefer life over non-life, but you can not subjectively compare a state of existence with a state of non-existence in order to determine which you prefer more. I should think this is obvious. I raise this point because people usually say, like you imply, that you can know how good life is if it is taken away from you (which is different from being forced to conciously recognize it's value at that very moment because of the threat of it being taken away from you) just like you can't know how good freedom is until you are a slave, or you can't know how good comfort is until you are tortured, all of these, however, require you to subjectively be able to experience both states and then to compare the two. As I have said a dozen times, you can not subjectively compare non-existence with existence in order to value the later or more understand which you value more, just because you dropped my word 'subjective' from my statement doesnt mean you have some grand insight, it just means you are ignorant or intentionally disingenous. I said in post #1 I said to YOU in post #3 I said, again to YOU in post #5 In post 20, I again said You either have a spectacularly large retarded spot in your brain regarding this concept, or you are just arguing for it's own sake, either way since you have no interest in a legitimate discussion I see no reason to continue.

I disagree, ultimately, as many people in this thread have demonstrated, and the other threads I linked, allegedly life loving rational people still find some kind of value in death, and ultimately, for some reason or another, convince themselves they want to die. What is the point of this? It is born of pyschologically having to rationalize the cessation of our own existence through the 90,000 years humans have existed. Logically all sorts of nonsense would arise, and we see no 'objectivists' and also many 'secular' educated people making up reasons to cease to exist. Philosophically, these people who accept death as something that *ought* to happen (which comprise the vast majority of the population) undermine any serious efforts to try to do something about it. In the past, this didnt matter, but today, with the ability to control individual atoms, reprogram human genetic codes, change gene expressions with epigenetics, etc etc etc, we stand on the cusp of a technological revolution which could see the end of aging and disease for humanity. Most people, currently, would oppose any explicity efforts to actually 'defeat' aging, not for any scientific reason of the difficulties involved, but because they think, and argue, that we *ought* to die. Perhaps it will not be this generation, or even the next, but sometime, soon, humanity will conquer aging and disease. Convincing ourselves that we are supposed to die undermines any effort to do that. People like Leon Kass, chairman of the US presidents Council on Bioethics, 'best known as a leader in the effort to stop human embryonic stem cell and cloning research' (-wikipedia) embodies this hostility Desiring to live a long time is too "selfish" I'll kill you so you'll truly value your life.

Talk about obfuscation! We've gone from 'valuing' life, to 'worshipping' death, to life 'less meaningful'. Why are diamonds valuable? Gold? Money? Anything? 1) People want or need "it" 2) "It" is scarce or limited All of these presuppose the ability to compare the state of having something with the state of not having something, which is completely irrelevant to the question of existence. Also, people want or need things because it provides a service to them, or it is proven useful to some degree, either in further life, as in the literal mechanistic process of life, or in furthing life, as in a good life worth living. Things we seek make our lives more enjoyable, but to seek anything which makes life enjoyable, you must first and foremost seek the things which make life possible. To define value based solely on how prevalent something is, is absurd, it presumes worth is only relative, and nothing has any absolute value whatsover. Life has absolute value, because to value anything, you must be alive. That people want or need it is not a definition or an exaplanation of why things are valuable, it is restating the same thing. Things are valuable because people want or need them? Duh. WHY do they want or need them? Because it allows them to continue to live, or because it allows them to live what they percieve is a better life. If how scarce or not scarce something is (your #2) is your primary condition for judging the value of something, then you live a sad and pathetic life. All of these examples, again, presuppose the ability to compare before and after states. These are irrlevant to the question of life and death, you can not subjectively compare a state of non-existence with a state of existence, like you can compare wealth with non-wealth or health with non-health. Additionally, being fabulously wealthy and financially secure does not diminish the value of productive work in ones life, simply because productive work is no longer necessary to sustain your existence. Life is intrisincally always more valuable than non-life. Whether you would find value in a life with an indefinate life span is up to you, feel free to kill yourself. People understand how much they want to live more when they are close to losing their life because it is forcibly on the forefront of their concioussness, not because actual death is required to give live value, which is an idiotic concept, because values are only possible to living entities. You will always value life over non-life, up until the instance of death, where you are no longer capable of valuing anything, because you no longer exist. Bob, It's pretty darn clear you haven't given this topic any serious LOGICAL thought.

How funny you should accuse Bob of "obfuscating the original point of contention" in the exact same post where you do just what you are accusing. I repeat, "indefinite lifespan" was not what Victor was speaking of, but, in fact, "immortality". The problem is, people use "immortality" to mean both an indefinately long lifespan (one without predetermined limitations such as aging) and also one of indestructable permanence. Which did Victor mean? he said And this was in response to Mark Weiss's thread where we was upset at comtemplating the cessation of his own existence. Why would Victor talk about "life eternal" zapping life of meaning when responding to someone fretting about death except as a thinly veiled attempt to make someone feel good about their own demise? He is, in effect, saying "yeah, it sucks that you might die someday, but heck imagine if you were indestructable and could never die!!! oh the horror!!!" or he is saying "yeah, it sucks you might die someday, but imagine how terrible it would be if you lived a really really long time?" Literal immortality, an indestructable being, is a metaphysical impossibility, and while Rand's indestructable robot analogy is excellent for identifying a primary standard of morality, it should not be taken to mean that efforts at living a perpetual existence would rob life of meaning. One will always retain the choice to cease to exist, life will still always, no matter how technologically advanced we get, require a set of directed actions to sustain your existence. But the indestructable robot analogy is too often taken as proof that life extension would devalue life, which is absurd, with people routinely appealing to death as a source of value (giving life meaning, etc) See some other threads at other Rand inspired forums on the topic do you think living an indefinate life span (a life where you get to live, essentially, as long as you choose to live) as something that would make your life less meaningfull?

Not a disease. Apoptosis is -normal- functioning. Dying is a built in function of living things on this planet. Living forever would be abnormal. Bob Kolker Thats not true, many living organisms do not have any pre-programmed genetic senscence in them, many kinds of trees, some types of fish, some types of frogs, lobsters, etc. Regardless, I dont look to how nature has made us for any kind of declarations on how life *ought* to be.

My point is that you are continuing to obfuscate the original point of contention. do you or do you not think that dying gives additional value to being alive, do you concede that all of those comparisons of having vs not having require a subjective point of view from which to compare them and are thus irrelevant to death (since you have no subjective point of view of being dead) Think whatever you want, but it's you that has given very little thought to the topic, as suggested by your knee jerk appeals to economic issues and population issues. What would make humans immortal? (lets use the more accurate term 'indefinate lifespan' since metaphysical immortality is an impossibility) generally defeating aging and diseases would be required to do that. If aging is defeated, of what relavence is the question of 'retirement'? If you are healthy enough to work indefinately, you wouldnt need to retire. Converseley the most modicum effort at planning for retirment would make you able to retire and live off investments after some time, be 100 years or 1000 years. But these questions are not relavent as to whether or not YOU think DEATH makes your life MORE VALUABLE. Philosophically, you ultimately WANT to die. Sure, so? Oh, so now we are evolutionarily programmed robots? Right, I forget I am engaging in this debate and studying objectivism because I want to propogate my genes; I just want to get laid. Can you back that claim up, or is this just some armchair pyschologizing? Risk behavior is not connected to lifespan AT ALL? Are you sure about that? Clearly it is a complex topic but to assert it has nothing to do with anything except trying to get females attention is absurd. Indeed, so whats the problem? The same point I make above, you can work forever, if you want, always learning new things. Or you could retire, and do nothing, as long as you want. The economic consequences? Who cares, unless you are suggesting that life extending medicines should be witheld because of what you percieve the economic consequences might be, again, you are implicitly appealing to utilitarianism. I do not brush off your objections because I haven't considered the topic, you know nothing about me so quit that sloppy thinking and projectioning you are doing, it's more indicative that you have done little thinking on the topic because your objections are the Objectivist equivalent of "well if everyone was selfish we would all kill each other" I personally attended a lecture presented by David Friedman, the son of Milton Friedman, on the economic consequences of indefinate life spans. It was interesting, but no where in this lecture was he even remotely hinting, like a knee jerk reactionist, that we ought to consider not *allowing* indefinate life spans if dire economic consequences are found. etc. There will no doubt be many complicated scenarios that arise if humans achieved inexpensive and plentiful indefinate life spans. Does that mean we should not allow them? No. As such, those objections, in addition to being wild speculation, are completely irrelevant. Clearly this indicated you have given no thought on any of the implications of increased lfe span, including the consequences of how life is valued. Clearly it indicates you are trying to obfuscate the obvious and disgusting utilitiarian implications of your reactionary comments. Clearly Life has tremendous value regardless of the possibility of death, thats pretty clear. In fact, you've demonstrated a remarkable ingornace regarding the basic concept of value itself. Every single example you have used where the loss of something contributes to it's value requires a subjective comparison of the two states, duh, NOT POSSIBLE when you are dead. Hmm, lets see, a Value is something that we seek to acquire or perpetuate. Apparently your definition of value is something you seek to acquire only if your are perpetaully threatened by losing it. Yeah. okaaaay. Bob Mac is, indeed, a religious deathist.

Uhh...I'm guessing they'd engage in even 'riskier' behavior (if you can even call it that). I mean, who's gonna stop me if I kill someone? I can't get the death penalty. I'll fuck whoever I want...if I get an STD, who cares? It can't kill me. Chaos. I don't understand that logic ("people live much riskier lives because they are sure they are going to die anyway..."). My impression was that people acted more cautiously because of that limitation. I know I do. But also, I'm a teenager, so I'm immortal anyway...Teehee! I think you make the mistake of confusing metaphysical immortality (an impossibility) with indefinate lifespans. Also, as I said, nations with shorter average life expectancies experience people engaging more often in riskier behavior. Think about it, if you could remain physiologically 25 years of age indefinately, would you play russian roulette? Would you speed without your seatbelt? Would you drink and drive? If you do something stupid, you could be missing out on thousands of years of an enjoyable life time. Right now, no matter what you do, you will probably be dead in 50 years, so whats the big deal if you die trying to do something stupid? Its just 50 years of life you missed out on. Compare that with missing out on 500 or 5000 years of life. And if all diseases were cured, so what if you fucked anyone you wanted? You wouldnt be anyone I morally looked up to, but so? Also, is the threat of disease really what stops you from sleeping with everyone NOW?