I hate to tell everyone this but there is no such thing as "new blood."  It's an illusion invented by each generation so as to look down on their predecessors.  Human beings stay pretty much the same, with a few cultural tweaks here and there that cycle (what was hip to your grandparents was old hat to your parents and is hip to you) and of course we do evolve, but that takes millions of years.

I read Socratic dialogues and have no difficulty, separated a whole world and several thousand years from them, fully understanding their motives and humor and relationships and so on.  Part of that no doubt is Plato's genius, but still it tells me people everywhere and every-when are pretty much the same.

We do not need new people every generation (although I must say I like children so a world without them would be lacking) to keep things fresh.  We just need seriously enforced term limits.

I tend to think that if technology solves the aging problem that in itself will solve a lot of other problems.  We would of course have to have a sustainable economy recycling and using only the energy of the sun (in its various forms) and we would of course have to be sure everyone is part of the package, not just the wealthy.  I tend to think we are making good progress if you look at the statistics around the world, but have a way to go.

We will never live forever -- just indefinitely.  That, I have to keep repeating, since it doesn't seem to sink in.

There is a more serious danger I might predict if death from aging were to stop.  We would still be exposed to accidents, and there is a set of personality traits that make one more likely to die accidentally -- the thrill of taking risks, criminality, immediate gratification, and so on.  These people would selectively die out more than those who are more conservative -- leading over a few thousand years to an extremely conservative, risk-averse population.  This does not sound good.

If one would be happy one must not be attached to things -- to material possessions, to those we love, to our nation or religion or ideology, not even to our own personal existence -- this is all because nothing is permanent and we therefore necessarily must suffer when they go away if we are attached to them.

This is good advice, if taken in moderation (another Buddhist rule, but really a common sense one that most religions have, the middle way) -- don't be grasping -- let go when the time comes and one suffers less.  I see the grief at death so common in the West that is just not expressed here -- people here do let go.  Hard to explain.

This is all fine and I am so immersed into this kind of thinking that I can't avoid bringing up Buddhism in this context, even though I think it, or at least it, as it is often interpreted, is wrong.  The prescription for happiness may be not to grasp, but maybe it doesn't so much say we shouldn't hold while we can -- why be unhappy just to be sure one is never unhappy?

This is however a digression from my point.  What I wanted to talk about is overcoming aging and ultimately death through technology and medicine and what I see holding up the research in these areas that is of a superstitious and religious nature -- that death is somehow "natural" or a good thing.  That barrier cannot be overcome until we realize that it is wrong, and evil, and in fact probably the greatest single evil in the world.

It seems to me it requires an anti-intellectual bent (I think more common in the States than in Asia where scholarship is honored) to be a Christian nowadays.  Christianity runs so counter in its very nature to what we have learned about cause and effect (no curses, no original sin, no demon possession) as well as to what we know about nature (species are not fixed, it is possible to change genetic makeup of organisms artificially) and of course what we know about the mind (no soul).

Those who want to believe can do so in spite of modern knowledge only by holding their hands over their eyes and ears (sorry that takes four hands to do well) and refusing to hear.

The willingness to believe what we want to believe without evidence or even in the face of evidence is I suppose a form of insanity, although I always chalked it up to being just a bad case of dishonesty.

God, being benevolent, created evil so we could appreciate and enjoy good.  God, being malevolent, created evil just naturally.  It seems that we get the same world whether God is one or the other.

It is incumbent on us to live healthy lives and to teach our children to do the same, but when it comes to other people I've always kept my mouth shut.  That is their business and just as I stay out of their morals I stay out of what they eat or smoke or whatever.  (As a matter of fact as part of trying to avoid being judgmental I don't even pay attention to such things).

Now regarding some of the responses I've gotten, a lot of people don't get it and keep with the mantra that everything dies therefore it is not an evil and further that therefore we must die.  This is an empirical conclusion, but not one that is a logical necessity, and one I think that if minds could be changed and resources accordingly redirected could be fixed.

My point (agenda) here has been more limited -- just to get people to see that death is wrong.  Not that suicide and self-sacrifice are always wrong (wrongs often have worse wrongs to override them) but that all else being equal death is wrong.

I read a novel the other day about a woman who jumped off a bridge in London and became the goddess of the Thames -- the old god had abandoned the place as too polluted.  Of course the Thames is now one of the cleanest industrial rivers on earth, and she took credit for it -- the pollution was not something that "just has to be accepted," but a wrong that people can do something to fix.

Over the years I've discovered to be wary of wishful thinking.  We know unconsciousness is possible since we sleep and so on, and it sure seems to have been our state prior to birth.

Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and find an afterlife as is so widely imagined.  I have to say though that it is just as possible, if our spirit survives our body, that we will find ourselves in a state of suspended nothingness, with the desires of people but no sensory input and no way to move or do anything (disembodied spirit -- not far removed from the Buddhist concept of "hungry ghost").

The ancient Stoics made the point that since death is nothingness it holds no terrors, nothing to fear.  Somehow I miss the point here.  Obviously I won't know what I'm missing, but now I do know what I will miss and I don't want to.

Oh, well, in the meantime life goes on.

OK I am frustrated, and not just by an unresponsive computer.

First, in the earlier posting I put my points in personal terms, trying to make it more effective; maybe I shouldn't have as this seems to mislead people to think I'm talking about a personal problem, and I am talking about death, a universal problem.  The point I make is that it is a problem, something wrong that we should try to fix.

Second, when I say I "fear" dying, it is not like I hide under the bed.  I rather resent people boasting about how they don't fear death so much but this or that instead.  Horse hockey puck.  Let us be honest, if not on these boards at least to ourselves.  Also, if there were no fear there, then what virtue is achieved in saying that those who lean on religious notions of personal after-lives are largely motivated by this fear?

Finally, let me make it clear that I agree there are worse things than death, although when one reminds oneself that death is forever the list becomes short.  There are circumstances where I would die for my family and friends, even for my country and certain ideals.  Indeed I would rather die myself than kill someone.  I have had this discussion before -- I think it takes a visceral understanding of death as a real thing to understand this, as the unfortunate notion of a "right" of self-defense is so ingrained in our cultures.

I need to follow up a little on my last post based on some feedback I've gotten.

I don't need any particular help dealing with all this, I just want to talk about it.  We all have angst about death from time to time and after a longer life we get experienced in dealing with it (although I am prone to depression anyway).

I don't think death is "natural," or if it is then that is beside the point -- we are not born to die -- we are born ambitious and rebellious and loving and forming bonds and grasping -- death is the last thing we are born to do.  The idiots who say they wouldn't want to live indefinitely should put a boundary on and then be prepared to kill themselves when they reach it, and not find an excuse.  The point is given health and security, we do not want to die, ever.

This idea that all must die to "make way" for others is in my view just silly Malthusianism -- all kinds of ways to deal with it other than killing off the old folks could and would be put in place if aging were to be defeated (defeating all death would be more difficult but would come in time).  More than likely population growth would stop on its own, as we see now in the more advanced countries where children are not as much needed -- indeed in many populations are now declining or at least would be if it weren't for immigration -- the United States included.  Besides, it's a big universe.

My point is that the fact of aging and death strikes me as evil, something wrong, something causing suffering and grief and fear and no end of religious idiocy.  That it is "natural" does not make it right any more than if it were unnatural that would make it wrong.  Right and wrong have to do with suffering and its avoidance and even with pleasure, not with nature.

My seventy-second birthday is in a few months.  Every year this thing called a birthday happens no matter what I do, and every year it gets worse, and every year it brings up thoughts about death and wondering how much longer I have.  Of course I am not alone.

Having, it seems, overcome the health problems I was having, I find myself in spite of my age able to continue my work, since it is mainly mental.  I can't travel as I use to but the internet nowadays makes that unnecessary, so I am productive and have no excuse for feeling sorry for myself.

Still, each year that passes is a year closer to death, and I fear both dying (the discomforts and emotional things and so on that it implies) but, more, I fear death.  I have no illusions that there is nothing there to be afraid of -- that is the problem -- there is nothing there.  Long ago I grew up and stopped believing childhood pablums about heaven where all the little puppy dogs go and hell where evil people like to imagine their enemies (since I don't think I really have any enemies and in my life can only think of one person I ever hated -- and now I just feel sorry for him).

We have a biological instinct to want to survive (animals that don't do their utmost to survive in the short term don't and therefore don't have progeny and their genes disappear).  Does this explain the human desire to live?  I don't think so -- otherwise we would not have suicide as the ultimate expression of despair -- nor do animals with such an instinct really have any conception of death anyway.  The biological survival instinct causes us to move our fingers from a hot stove, but does not cause us to sit and wonder about what we are doing with our lives, is it enough, and how much time is left.

I suppose it might be some sort of side effect of this instinct -- but how this would work doesn't suggest itself, to me, at least.  No -- it is plain enough to me that although death is real it is not right.  We should not die, and I trust someday in the future we will not.  In the meantime something is terribly wrong.

An object in rest naturally tends to say in rest; an object in motion naturally tends to stay in motion with the same velocity.  It takes an external object to change this.

Why?  Newton I think it was who first propounded it (although come to think of it I have a vague notion here he may have gotten the idea from others) but all it is is a naked assertion.  We look and we claim that this is what we find (after "adjusting" (rationalizing?) for all sorts of complicating factors such as air pressure and ground friction and gravity and magnetism and so on).  Are we so sure or is it not just a simplifying assumption to make the math work out.  Maybe we design our universe to fit our maths.

What has always bothered me, besides the point that some people take things like this to try to support -- absurdly -- pre-believed religious notions, is why that object out there sitting all alone in space insists so strongly that it doesn't want to move.  Believe me it is a rather profound problem in both philosophy and physics (the real tough physics problems still tend to be philosophical).

It won't do about anything to just say, "That's the way nature is."

Here very briefly stated and over-simplified is my take on consciousness:

What is "conscious" or "aware" is not a thing but a process -- more akin to a flame or a wave than to a gland or bit of brain tissue.  We realize this by sitting quietly and mindfully "watching" our mind do its thing.  What we "see" are short-term memories of where the mind was a moment ago, so don't let the ability to "watch" fool you -- it is all part of the process, not something separate.

What we see is a loosely connected chain of thoughts, sensations, memories, external distractions, what have you.  Sometimes a sort-of link or causal connection can be discerned, sometimes it seems random.  Of course we see only the surface and there is a lot going on unseen (below in the depths) that we don't see so the seeming randomness may or may not be real.

There is a lot of well established scientific evidence that this arises somehow from neuronal activity and the exchanges of chemicals and so on between neurons, plus other things.  This tells us little about how this electrical and chemical activity turns into mind and awareness and so on -- quite a little mystery there.

A couple days ago I posted a comment that the sexual promiscuity typical of many young male homosexuals, including myself for a few years, is something of a waste of time.

I've had second thoughts.  Of course, most of what we do in life, in the end, is a waste of time.  All the effort I made learning the ins and outs of, first, the insurance business, and then, second, computer programming (at about forty I abandoned underwriting and redefined myself as a computer analyst -- maybe more about that someday) were all a waste of time since I use neither skill today and the skills I did learn are now obsolete.  All the massive study time I spent on both in the end were a waste of time except very short term.  Similarly, the effort finding sexual partners is a waste of time only longer term -- short term it was pleasurable and in the end served me well.

For someone like me who doesn't like competing, a sexual drive forcing me to get out there and compete was, I think, a good thing.  Of course you have to remember that even though for a decent looking, masculine (or at least normal behaving -- excessive masculinity is as much a turn-off in my eyes as is femininity), young man, in a major American city, sexual partners and sexual flings were easy to come by, even though one might suffer a high rejection rate.

Also, I liked older men -- mainly in their thirties and forties -- not uncommon but not common either -- the main emphasis is for partners in their twenties and even younger.  I was I think lucky that way as associating with these guys helped me mature and got me a lot of advice and help in life, and in the end got me out of my typing job and into something where my degree was appropriate.

What happened is that I became friends with a guy who couldn't understand why, with Harvard and all, I had the (in his eyes) dead-end job I had.  He just didn't believe that absence of the degree should be such a barrier.  So he networked around a little for me and got me an interview with an insurance company looking to hire underwriter trainees (degree required) and talked them into taking me anyway -- and, once one has such a job, that does the trick for the future and the degree never came up again.

Competence wins out in practice but getting in the door requires either credentials or some sort of "in."

Indeed, thinking about it I learned a lot in those days.  I was typically naive and over-worried about pleasing my partner in sex, and I was taught how to say, "no."  Since there were certain things I found painful and unaesthetic, this was a good lesson.  Of course one must not be sexually selfish -- good homosexual sex is mostly a matter of two people "taking turns," unlike heterosexual sex where in theory a mutual climax is achieved simultaneously.  (A lot of gay guys try for this too and in some cases it works, but I don't think it is the rule and I don't think it is terribly important).

As I see it now the biggest problem with promiscuous sex is the law of diminishing returns.  One can never duplicate the tremendous excitement and pleasure that comes with the first few experiences, and after awhile one finds oneself fantasizing during sex as though one were just masturbating.  You then think about this and wonder what it was all for.  So a lot of people end up trying wilder and wilder sexual activities and, of course, mixing in drugs.  I did a little of that too and sometimes it was good, but, fortunately, I kept my head and realized fairly quickly that pleasure is transient and cannot be grasped, and there is no point trying.

And, of course, one also wants a permanent relationship.  At first one builds a network of friends -- some of whom are old tricks where the sex was not worth trying to repeat, but most of whom are just other gays one shares life with but not sex.  What about having a lover?  Even better, what about having a life partner?

I decided that if it happened and I found one, that would be great, but I wasn't going to worry about it. 

I don't think much is accomplished denying claimed miracles such as the virgin birth by saying they don't happen and aren't believable.  That is the idea of a miracle -- they don't happen and aren't believable, but, it is claimed, happened anyway -- hence there necessarily was supernatural intervention.

The only real problem I see with such claims is one of evidence.  They are extraordinary claims and therefore need extraordinary evidence before being worthy of acceptance.

There is also what may be a minor theological problem -- why should a perfect omnipotent being need to interfere with the workings of His creation?

Celebrities should not bellow opinions other than how to act or whatever.  They are not authorities on anything else, and I don't care if I agree with what they are saying or not -- they are given entirely too much credit and the press and everyone else should ignore them when they are out of their competence, just as we do with anyone else behaving like that.  Talent and intelligence, also, are only slightly related (you do have to have a few smarts to properly utilize your talent if you are talented).

The "God of the gaps" concept is one I have to constantly remind myself of in a slightly different context.  I fully know better and am repelled when people try to insert God into places where science doesn't have a full answer to something, but I have noticed it sometimes enters my thinking in a subtler way -- not God exactly but some form of mysticism or Taoist concept.

This is when I ponder the problem of sentience -- the fact that we experience the universe through sense sensations -- sensations entirely created by our brain that have only a loose connection with the reality "out there."  That some such interface would be needed to simplify and interpret incoming sensations is easy enough, but the way it manifests just boggles me over -- I "experience" things -- colors and sounds and smells and pains and itches and emotions -- they don't happen to me they are me.

I use to take that as evidence that a non-material, non-physical aspect to existence must be part of our existence, and hence part of the world, and it is easy to apply words like "spiritual" or "ethereal" to it.  However I think that is to go too far: all we can say if it is a mystery to us is we don't know and can't conceive any way it could be, but that could be lack of imagination, not real.  Just because I can't conceive how something could be a certain way does not prove it can't be.