43 replies to this topic

[Khannea SunTzu]

Catholicism is in trouble, and one main cause for trouble is a recruitment crisis. The amounts of aspirants they used to recruit as recent as the 1950s numbered in the tens of
thousands in my country alone. The number of recruits in my country for aspirants (those that seek a career vocation in the church) numbers in the hundreds right now, if
that. This is a consistent reality in all of the church, and the nett effect we have been seeing - unsuitable priests (or worse) are shoveled around dioceses to make sure they
don't drop from the hierarchy. They cannot afford losing any of their insiders. Seeking career priests, nuns and all that from third world countries has been a disaster, as
these regions are conservative to the point of 19th century ethics, and completely unsuitable to place in other parts of the world. Debating the Church on these issues will be
extremely difficult - if they talk, they will seek to do so publicly, so they can profile. That invariably means talking with a trained PR serpent, who is 'under strict instructions'
from the Vatican at all times. They don't talk meaningfully through forums, letter exchanges, publications in scientific articles, and if they do, they always expect full
acknowledgement and knowledge of the most detailed aspects of their ideological framework. If you argue with Catholics you get nowhere if you don't know the bible.

The movement right now is shellshocked and deeply traumatized for clear reasons. There has been talk of a 'controlled withdrawal', where the catholics accepted strategical
losses "for a century" and retreated back in ultra conservative regions, 'abandoning" pagan land. This is because the church is very much split between the stormtroopers
from places like Poland or Chili or Senegal (who routinely express homophobe opinions that would get you all but thrown in prison over here) and the very old, very mellow
clergy from more modernist nations.

The arguments the Church will hear are:

1 - god will raise the dead at some time in the future. Right now, when you die, you experience nothing and sleep until awakened. It is not up to humans to know when the
final reckoning occurs, and there is actually no reason to conclude that science would not be able to extend lives, or re-awaken semi-deceased humans from states of
suspended animation, or even extend lives. This may all be part of God's plan, and nowhere in the bible are there contradictions with these possibilities.

2 - stagnation is another word for conservativism. If the pope does not like societal stagnation, why doesn't he do as he preaches and oppose stagnation and inflexibility
in his own church? The same argument goes for the Catholic church - it is overrun by unhistorical levels of old people and this is contributing to a geriatrocratic climate of
opposition to new ideas. Life extension would do something else - it would make people younger. Inflexibility is in part the result of myelinisation of the neurons; if
medical science can rejuvenate humans in a healthy manner, it would produce essentially young people with a lifetime of experience.

3 - The most likely persons to be converted to Catholicism are mature people with a healthy body and a stable life. People who are young in mind, sick and living a life
riddled with extremes are less likely to be constructive in Catholicism. Using life extension, Catholicism would stand to prosper significantly, allowing for priests with a
fresh mind, the benefits of age and accrued wisdom - and the passion and fervor of a young man.

4 - The plan of god has been consistently 'been revealed' as the human species to fill the world. Life extension will contribute to not merely this; it would force people to
both life with the consequences of selfishness, and it would cause people to seek for methods and philosophies of living properly. States and governments would stimulate
a spiritual, long-term oriented lifestyle in all humans.

5 - Irregardless of life extension, we will see governments seek for rational means to restrict population growths. Does the church favor a life-centered answer to any
emerging population politics debate, or does the church emphasize one centered on death?

6 - A long life is common in biblical figures - some antedeluvian biblical figures lived nearly a millenium. Could certain desirable states of grace be dependent or more
likely with a longer life?

7 The longer a human lives, the longer a human has an opportunity to recanth sin, and accept jesus christ as savior. The older and wiser he becomes, the less likely he
will lose his faith. Once a sinner dies, he is lost. Hence, if as few people as possible die, statistically, the more opportunity exists for the church to save souls.

8 Without the massive progress made in average lifespan in the last 2 centuries, the catholic church would have been not half as big as it is now - what exactly is the
average age of the typical Catholic clergy? Life extension and rejuvenation would keep clergy serving god on earth for much longer periods. Without the progress in
average lifespan in this century alone, how much currently serving Catholics would have been dead (and unreplaced) by now?

9 If the use of technology to abort an embryo is a grave sin, and if the denial of these same technologies to save the unborn child is also a grave sin, why is the denial
of the same technology, if available, to keep a person from dying a similar grave sin? Does god make distinction between the soul of an unborn child of the soul
of an old person? Does god promote death under any circumstances? Is withholding medical treatments to extend life not a form of murder, or 'euthanasia' ?

Edited by Khannea Suntzu, 10 April 2010 - 12:03 AM.

[Solarclimax]

Good stuff.
I wouldn't know what to say to that, so good look with it. Hehe.

Going a bit off topic here, but i had an idea, so thought i would share in-case it makes some sense.

Why not replace the words life extension, immortality ect. Any words that give people the impression that it's about living forever which seems to be what people think of, probably vampires and cults ect, and instead use words like. Youth extension, vitality and also the already often used terms like rejuvenation ect. Then invent something like you see on tv adverts, something that is some type of anti aging thing, even if it's some skin care product whatever (because apparently not everyone wants to be a vampire but they do want to get rid of wrinkles). Then market it as something that correlates in some way to life exten... I mean Youth extension. Not only generate funding from the sales of such product, but also link it to Youth extension so that the current anti ageing market (things like stay younger looking skin care whatever) and Youth extension begin to merge and eventually are seen as the same thing. Then when someone says we can't have life exten.. I mean Youth extension just point them to a l'oreal advert and say youth extension is already here, in the form of skin care and vitamins ect that you see on tv.

[Florin]

Contrary to the claim made in previous posts that indefinite life extension would threaten the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict (according to one of his encyclical letters, "Spe Salvi") seems to think that people aren't interested in faith, because they actually do not want to live for an indefinite period of time. He thinks that people paradoxically don't want to die but also don't want to live forever either—possibly due to their perception that endless life would ultimately lead to boredom. He also thinks that indefinite life extension would "...place the earth and humanity in an impossible situation, and even for the individual would bring no benefit." Since living indefinitely on earth would be impossible (he might be referring to resource limitations and environmental degradation caused by explosive population growth due to indefinite lifespans) and wouldn't benefit the individual anyway because "...often it brings more toil than satisfaction," the solution for him is to become a kind of wirehead in heaven by embracing a "...supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality...plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time—the before and after—no longer exists [emphasis mine]...plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed with joy."

From Pope Benedict's encyclical letter, "Spe Salvi," dated November 30, 2007 under the "Eternal life – what is it?" section:

...parents expect more for the one to be baptized: they expect that faith, which includes the corporeal nature of the Church and her sacraments, will give life to their child—eternal life. Faith is the substance of hope. But then the question arises: do we really want this—to live eternally? Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable. This is precisely the point made, for example, by Saint Ambrose, one of the Church Fathers, in the funeral discourse for his deceased brother Satyrus: "Death was not part of nature; it became part of nature. God did not decree death from the beginning; he prescribed it as a remedy. Human life, because of sin ... began to experience the burden of wretchedness in unremitting labour and unbearable sorrow. There had to be a limit to its evils; death had to restore what life had forfeited. Without the assistance of grace, immortality is more of a burden than a blessing". A little earlier, Ambrose had said: "Death is, then, no cause for mourning, for it is the cause of mankind's salvation".

Whatever precisely Saint Ambrose may have meant by these words, it is true that to eliminate death or to postpone it more or less indefinitely would place the earth and humanity in an impossible situation, and even for the individual would bring no benefit. Obviously there is a contradiction in our attitude, which points to an inner contradiction in our very existence. On the one hand, we do not want to die; above all, those who love us do not want us to die. Yet on the other hand, neither do we want to continue living indefinitely, nor was the earth created with that in view. So what do we really want? Our paradoxical attitude gives rise to a deeper question: what in fact is "life"? And what does "eternity" really mean? There are moments when it suddenly seems clear to us: yes, this is what true "life" is—this is what it should be like. Besides, what we call "life" in our everyday language is not real "life" at all. Saint Augustine, in the extended letter on prayer which he addressed to Proba, a wealthy Roman widow and mother of three consuls, once wrote this: ultimately we want only one thing—"the blessed life", the life which is simply life, simply "happiness". In the final analysis, there is nothing else that we ask for in prayer. Our journey has no other goal—it is about this alone. But then Augustine also says: looking more closely, we have no idea what we ultimately desire, what we would really like. We do not know this reality at all; even in those moments when we think we can reach out and touch it, it eludes us. "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought," he says, quoting Saint Paul (Rom 8:26). All we know is that it is not this. Yet in not knowing, we know that this reality must exist. "There is therefore in us a certain learned ignorance (docta ignorantia), so to speak", he writes. We do not know what we would really like; we do not know this "true life"; and yet we know that there must be something we do not know towards which we feel driven.

I think that in this very precise and permanently valid way, Augustine is describing man's essential situation, the situation that gives rise to all his contradictions and hopes. In some way we want life itself, true life, untouched even by death; yet at the same time we do not know the thing towards which we feel driven. We cannot stop reaching out for it, and yet we know that all we can experience or accomplish is not what we yearn for. This unknown "thing" is the true "hope" which drives us, and at the same time the fact that it is unknown is the cause of all forms of despair and also of all efforts, whether positive or destructive, directed towards worldly authenticity and human authenticity. The term "eternal life" is intended to give a name to this known "unknown". Inevitably it is an inadequate term that creates confusion. "Eternal", in fact, suggests to us the idea of something interminable, and this frightens us; "life" makes us think of the life that we know and love and do not want to lose, even though very often it brings more toil than satisfaction, so that while on the one hand we desire it, on the other hand we do not want it. To imagine ourselves outside the temporality that imprisons us and in some way to sense that eternity is not an unending succession of days in the calendar, but something more like the supreme moment of satisfaction, in which totality embraces us and we embrace totality—this we can only attempt. It would be like plunging into the ocean of infinite love, a moment in which time—the before and after—no longer exists. We can only attempt to grasp the idea that such a moment is life in the full sense, a plunging ever anew into the vastness of being, in which we are simply overwhelmed with joy. This is how Jesus expresses it in Saint John's Gospel: "I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you" (16:22). We must think along these lines if we want to understand the object of Christian hope, to understand what it is that our faith, our being with Christ, leads us to expect.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 10 April 2010 - 11:32 PM.

[N.T.M.]

If we were to present the concept of radical life extension (as we'd call it, appose to indefinite, etc.) to the catholic church, it must be on the premise of reducing suffering. We'd have to explain how aging and many diseases are not actually mutually exclusive, but that the diseases are merely a facet of aging, and that curing this disease would end a lot of suffering. If we can get the church to discuss it in a positive light, it holds lots of potential for influence.

[brokenportal]

Nice find Florin.

The excerpt outlines a main part of the reason for the big 8.

Big 8, to know:

- *the nature of existence, ie infinity, conciousness, particle phyisics, etc..
- if there is a god, gods, no god, or something else
- how we got here
- how the universe got here
- what all else is out there like hover ability, light speed, aliens, populated galaxies, dimensions etc..
- all forms and extents of all pleasures current and undiscovered.
- the fulfillment of all goals that time brings you to want, restaurant owner, pro football, climbing mountains etc..
- universal elimination of fallacy

Pope Benedicts words (and paraphrasing of Saint Augustine quoting Saint Paul), seem to be saying that a lot of people just dont know what to do with themselves, they have a hard time thinking up good reasons for why they might want to be excited about getting up tomorrow.

looking more closely, we have no idea what we ultimately desire, what we would really like. We do not know this reality at all; even in those moments when we think we can reach out and touch it, it eludes us. "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought," he says, quoting Saint Paul (Rom 8:26). All we know is that it is not this. Yet in not knowing, we know that this reality must exist. "There is therefore in us a certain learned ignorance (docta ignorantia), so to speak", he writes. We do not know what we would really like; we do not know this "true life"; and yet we know that there must be something we do not know towards which we feel driven.

This leads people, it seems, to not really care if they die. Ive seen this sentiment reflected in old people that I know who have said things like "pfft, I dont want to live to 100, I better not, Im ready to go soon." People that dont care if they die are also much more likely to participate in wars. What should people "pray" or hope for? If they feel driven to live, but they cant figure out really over all what for, then what might that be? Its the big 8. If we can get more people to think in terms of them it seems more people will find and have more reason to want to live. Also, when they want to live, besides being flippant and care free about death and war and things like that, wanting to live for big reasons also makes them want to fight bigger, fight harder.

Ill have to think about how to address that more delicately in a proposed letter.

[chrono]

Very interesting. I think Aubrey's approach is along the right lines: rather than engage in a fruitless debate that won't change anyone's position, let's talk about the practical implications and opportunities which the church's involvement might entail.

I have no knowledge of the Vatican's decision-making process, but I think it is pretty certain that the Pope does not address random topics in his second-most high-profile speech of the year without a great deal of prior analysis and preparation. The appearance of radical life extension in this homily is thus a sign that we are making far more impact than we might have assumed.

I think some of us might be taking this somewhat more literally than it was intended. I see it primarily as a warning not to forget what is "truly" important (i.e. faith/the afterlife) just because science says it can prolong life, and as a convenient metaphor for spiritually fruitless secular machination on a day celebrating God's ability to transcend death. After all, life without death has been a thought experiment for thousands of years, something used in the religious/spiritual program to come to terms with the fact that life ends.

The fact that they're aware of some of the current state of research and potential issues, but haven't made any clear announcements about their position, might support this interpretation. However, this isn't to say that it isn't valuable for understanding some of the Vatican's understanding about how the issue might interact with faith.

There may be a chance to avert that scenario, by developing a line of communication soon that helps the Vatican to evolve their current position into a more rounded one.

There's another possible outcome here. With the science in its infancy, with no current treatments to hold up as example, all they have to respond to are the larger philosophical implications. If they're as opposed to the basic idea as this speech and letter might suggest (as one would expect, honestly), how easy will it be for us to divorce the palatable short-term goals of ameliorating the diseases and suffering of old age, from the almost-inevitable long-term implications of this technology, and the threatening shifts in biological and cultural paradigms it will necessitate? Will we have a good answer to the accusation of "playing God?"—as logical as this all seems to us, moving toward indefinite life extension will be irreconcilably at odds with many Catholics' beliefs. And there may be no way to convince some until they have something to gain by it.

In other words, forcing them to articulate a stance before there are unignorable practical benefits (and members of the flock to anger by depriving them of something they will want) may serve to cement their opposition. And speaking to them directly may force us to answer questions which have no answers they will like.

I think there is one big risk, which is that the Vatican will become aware that they have ventured into territory of which they know little and will clam up and let the topic fade into the distance.
...
Whether we can in fact do that depends critically, I suspect, on first impressions: on finding a way to approach them constructively and non-antagonistically.

I think avoiding a direct dialogue with the Vatican might be best at this point; it could backfire. A message of support seems highly improbable. And a neutral outcome could easily cause the issue to fade into the background: I can't picture a policy of unconcern necessarily generating any more investment at this stage (are there rich Catholics holding back because of ambiguity?), and "Vatican not opposed to future life extension treatments" might not make headlines. Also, a diplomatic dialogue could result in a set of conditions ("We're ok with it, as long as you don't meddle in certain areas, which are God's domain"), generating concrete grounds for a policy of disapproval.


Rather, what about a more oblique approach? Try to get the media interested in the possibility that the church is opposed to treating the various maladies of old age, and prolonging life. An existing "situation" in the public eye might be incentive to give a more supportive message. This is also where the assertion that treating aging doesn't conflict with religious beliefs might be useful, as well as remarks which minimize the Pope's predictions of a dystopian future brought about by longer life as just a little silly (but not in so many words). This will anchor the idea in the mind of the public (Catholic or not) that the church is stubbornly and needlessly opposing something which will help people in huge ways, and make it incumbent on the church to convince them otherwise. Like Shannon said, they have some ground to regain these days.

A less confrontational press release/etc. might simply mention the Pope's address and assert that there is nothing in conflict here with religion. Though if a primary goal is to raise awareness, a bolder approach might be needed. The "controversy" would generate press more effectively than meeting with church officials. Most importantly, this approach isn't contentious, merely strategic.

I like Shannon's idea of trying to find a liberal priest who would be willing to speak out in favor of life extension. At the very least, it would be good publicity, and suggest it isn't incompatible with faith. Working from the bottom of the organization might be advantageous anyway, as people there are less hyperaware of policy and political implications, and are able to be more relaxed than those close to the top.

I have no idea how publicity works, and as a devout atheist I know little about the realities of church politics, but maybe someone can work with these ideas a little.

Contrary to the claim made in previous posts that indefinite life extension would threaten the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict (according to one of his encyclical letters, "Spe Salvi") seems to think that people aren't interested in faith, because they actually do not want to live for an indefinite period of time.

The Pope imagining people don't want to live forever doesn't mean that life extension doesn't threaten the Church. Much like the Easter speech, absence of death in this passage is treated as a thought experiment for examining the psychology of faith-based hope. The Church's real policy when confronted with an emerging science with such far-reaching, high technology, and transhumanist implications will be much more pointed. It seems obvious he's indulging in some wishful thinking here with regard to human psychology, which might be good for us when it comes to changing people's minds.

And whatever their philosophical stance, you can bet they'll be aware this will entail a huge erosion of of what sells Catholicism. To quote a passage from the letter immediately before the pasted text concerning Baptism: "the priest asked what name the parents had chosen for the child, and then he continued with the question: “What do you ask of the Church?” Answer: “Faith”. “And what does faith give you?” “Eternal life”.

Edited by chrono, 12 April 2010 - 02:20 AM.

[Florin]

Very interesting. I think Aubrey's approach is along the right lines: rather than engage in a fruitless debate that won't change anyone's position, let's talk about the practical implications and opportunities which the church's involvement might entail.

I agree that concentrating on getting rid of the suffering that aging causes is the right approach. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic Church will react when it realizes that it won't be possible to alleviate the suffering that the diseases of aging cause without the side effect of indefinite extension of lifespans.

Contrary to the claim made in previous posts that indefinite life extension would threaten the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict (according to one of his encyclical letters, "Spe Salvi") seems to think that people aren't interested in faith, because they actually do not want to live for an indefinite period of time.

The Pope imagining people don't want to live forever doesn't mean that life extension doesn't threaten the Church. Much like the Easter speech, absence of death in this passage is treated as a thought experiment for examining the psychology of faith-based hope. The Church's real policy when confronted with an emerging science with such far-reaching, high technology, and transhumanist implications will be much more pointed. It seems obvious he's indulging in some wishful thinking here with regard to human psychology, which might be good for us when it comes to changing people's minds.

In reality, radical life extension might threaten the Catholic Church, but it's nice to know that the Church's position is that it won't; it doesn't think that extended lifespans will reduce desire for or faith in an afterlife. Instead, the Church claims to be ambivalent about indefinite lifespans due to perceived undesirable externalities such as resource depletion, environmental degradation, and anti-natalism. Since these are largely secular issues, they can be dealt with in a rational manner if necessary. By the time the Church sees proof that radical life extension is causing significant drops in its membership, it'll be too late to do anything about it, and even if it could, I can't image the Church preaching against taking treatments that cure age-related diseases.

Another kind of unstated unease might be at work here as well. Since radical life extension will postpone the Pope's wirehead paradise indefinitely, the faithful would be stuck here on earth in less than ideal circumstances for a much longer period of time. This probably isn't much of an issue though relative to the Church's duty to alleviate suffering.

And whatever their philosophical stance, you can bet they'll be aware this will entail a huge erosion of of what sells Catholicism. To quote a passage from the letter immediately before the pasted text concerning Baptism: "the priest asked what name the parents had chosen for the child, and then he continued with the question: "What do you ask of the Church?" Answer: "Faith". "And what does faith give you?" "Eternal life".

Fortunately, they don't seem to think—at the moment at least—that radical life extension will threaten them since the kind of "eternal life" that they offer is free from the unpleasantness that they think people experience here on earth.

[Florin]

According to another homily, Pope Benedict admits that biological immortality would be "...a useful medicine of course for our spiritual and human lives..." but objects to it because it would only be "confined to within this biosphere" (by denyng the faithful entry into heaven perhaps) and repeats the same "world full of old people" objection.

From Pope Benedict's homily, "I survived because 'I knew I was expected'," dated March 9, 2008:

Life, death: basic questions

We now come to today's Gospel, which is dedicated to an important, fundamental theme: what is life? What is death? How should one live? How should one die?

[...]

We could say that science, and medicine in particular, is one great struggle for life. In the end, medicine seeks to counter death; it is the search for immortality. But can we find a medicine that will guarantee us immortality? The question of today's Gospel is precisely this.

Spiritual immortality

Let us try to imagine that medicine succeeds in finding the recipe against death, the recipe for immortality. Even in this case it would always be a medicine that fitted into the biosphere, a useful medicine of course for our spiritual and human lives, but in itself confined to within this biosphere.

It is easy to imagine what would happen if the biological life of man lasted for ever; we would find ourselves in an ageing world, a world full of old people, a world that would no longer leave room for the young, for the renewal of life. We can therefore understand that this cannot be the type of immortality to which we aspire; this is not the possibility of drinking at the source of life for which we all long.

Precisely at this point, when on the one hand we realize that we cannot hope for biological life to be infinitely prolonged, yet on the other, we desire to drink from the very source of life to enjoy life without end, it is precisely at this point that the Lord intervenes.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 14 April 2010 - 10:09 PM.

[Luna]

I also agree with Shannon. don't just point out and focus on aging's suffering, make sure to focus on the benefits and how anti-aging helps people.
Younger, healthier, able to go out traveling, maintain fitness, explore more..

I think it is neat that the pope recognizes our movement as something coming true. Silly that he might try to condemn it.. but we already know humans.

Step forward Aubrey and WIN! DO NOT DIE (and keep us with you :3)

[Inkstersco]

Does anyone have any insight into how the topics of the speech itself are selected (irrespective of the Catholic stance of radical life extension)?

--Iain

[Inkstersco]

I also agree with Shannon. don't just point out and focus on aging's suffering, make sure to focus on the benefits and how anti-aging helps people.
Younger, healthier, able to go out traveling, maintain fitness, explore more..

Yes, although on one hand the universal suffering caused by aging is logically enough to make waterproof argument in favour of rejuvenation, in practice, a positive, practical vision is sometimes necessary to help counter the concerns such as the church has expressed. Not a specific manifesto, but a set of imaginable futures.

--Iain

[chris w]

I think it's good that he finally acknowledged, and as someone pointed out it's always useful to be able to say to all them naysayers something like : "So you think his holiness Benedict the XVI would take time to adress an issue if it wasn't worth adressing ?" But on the other hand I guess that in the long run it doesn't really matter that much, because frankly I am of the mind that in 20 - 30 years the Vatican will be a sort of living and talking, cultural half - museum, resembling in a way the British royal family ( only that they are at least symbolically attached to a significant government, whereas the pope is not ). Does anyone know what prince Charles thinks about radical LE tech ? He probably thinks something, if you aksed him, but not that it matters a tiny bit.

If the Catholic Church manages to hold ground in South America or even gain some in Africa, it is insignifacant, as we all realize that those are not the places, that the technologoy will come from. I think either way they are riding down a slope, with native Europeans becoming more and more religiously indifferent, and with the rising ( albeit still not that much, as alarmists want you to believe ) Islamic community, and the latest sex scandals only made the ride a little more embarasing.

It's funny to think that in other places of the world, that you would consider to be in cluthces of religious lunacy, LE doesn't cause not even a fraction of the resistance than it does in places dominated by Christianity. For instance Judaism seems a bit more receptive, as it is very much silent on the topic of afterlife. And the Far East is a whole different story - in supposedly Comunist China, ateism never really caught on, there wasn't a need for that, since there was no powerful clergy to fight over land ownership, as was the case in Europe ( besides, try taking on those Shaolin guys, good luck ), and nowadays they' re basically one step from popping out designer babies, and what ? not a word of concern from the Taoist or Confucians or Buddhists .

Edited by chris w, 18 April 2010 - 12:50 PM.

[chris w]

I can give you an example of what I think will be the state of matters in the future from my own country, where still supposedly 90 % of folks describe themselves as Catholics, but at the same time virtually every one of them who has a sexual life uses some form of contraceptives banned by the pope, and moreover they don't even see that as a case of conflicting morals, they don't even think about it as an ethicla dillemma, so I don't think religious resistance will matter at all for us.

Edited by chris w, 18 April 2010 - 12:47 PM.

[fmarkos]

Hi.

One way to approach this is to use the "Omega point" idea (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Omega_point).
It was proposed by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I will not waste your time, just please read the Wiki entry.
I think this idea provides a compatibility (to some extent) between Singularity, immortality and religion. For me, it bridges my faith in God and my faith in science and technology.


Markos

Edited by chrono, 24 October 2010 - 03:59 PM.
trimmed quote