329 replies to this topic

[Sophianic]

I must admit, my command of the english language and philosophy is insufficient to debate with you on the matter further.

Perhaps you underestimate your potential contribution to this matter.

But my initial reference to "nothing can be proved, it can only be disproved", is a statement that in my awareness, a large majority of scientists will agree with (from all fields),

Unfortunately, your appeal to popularity does not demonstrate the validity of the principle "nothing can be proved; it can only be disproved."

and with all due respect I encourage you to ask around. I am sure someone will be able to put forward a better argument than that which I can present.

I will take your suggestion to heart and look more closely at the "fallibilistic" view of knowledge (the one you present) in contrast to the "justificationist" view (the one I present).

Alas... if you take your arguments too far by exploiting every concept and way of thinking on the subject then I think you will conclude that everything ever forever can boil down to speculation (no such thing as absolute truth or omniscient standard of knowledge).

This is radical skepticism, a position that makes no distinction between speculation and fact (contextual truth can be absolute, not with reference to some omniscient standard, but with reference to all existing and available knowledge). Indeed, your very assertion here, if speculation, would not say very much.

In other words speculation is a never ending way of forward thinking... and in my opinion the basis of what drives us.

If all knowledge were belief, what would be the point in acquiring more knowledge. If our notion of 'certainty' has no justification, then why believe anything at all?

The word 'speculation' is very much similar to 'hypotheses', the very things which drives our scientific research.

But they are different. You yourself suggest they are. Speculation has no basis in fact (which does not imply it has no value); hypotheses deal with facts and with what is 'possible' and 'probable' ~ concepts that require evidence, at least to some degree.

Hence I do not believe that specultion is as "MERE" as you say it is. It is one of the fundamental ways by which we have formulated our ways of thinking.... including all Your arguments.

Mere speculation is to be held in contrast to facts. I do not mean to de-value speculation. It certainly does inspire one to think, but if that all it does, it's virtually worthless. Combine it with facts and hypotheses, evidence and proof, and you begin to have a science.

Without initial speculation, we as a race would not have come up with the ideas such as yours(amongst others). Not true in the absolute sense of course, But.... : "what if/could" = imagination => concepts/ideas => possible speculation => research/investigation/look for evidence => proven/disproven => knowledge => progress. (amongst other possible routes).

Here, you seem to allow for both the fallibilistic (falsify a hypothesis on the basis of observation) and justificationist (justify a conclusion on the basis of evidence) views. Interesting.

If the speculation stage was cut out... *dot dot dot*

Yes, I understand. See above.

And so in closing.. I do not see a speculation to be made irrelevant as a result of there being no evidence. We cannot look for evidence of things that we do not speculate of. Data is renamed "evidence" as soon as we have found a corresponding speculation or hypothesis with which it goes.

"Evidence" need not be in quotes. Genuine evidence does exist. And speculation does have its place, but we need to be sure where it belongs in the broader scheme of things in our quest for knowledge and value.

[Jace Tropic]

Sophianic: You may ask: but how do you know that knowledge is not intrinsic? How do you know there isn't "a conscious entity whose nature and purpose we know nothing about, and whose influence invisibly and subtly guides us in the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge and value?" Again, the 'onus of proof' principle applies. Show me the evidence. But could we not create such a conscious entity? And are we not in the process of creating such an entity? Ah, but the answer to those questions may or may not be forthcoming. Mere speculation for now.

What you may be saying, in essence, is: We may be able to induce an absolute end of technological means by way of equating knowledge, and its expansion, with truth from a weighted-realist perspective; however, we cannot prove this type of an end, so it probably won't occur.

Wouldn't this be an argumentum ad ignorantiam? In this case, an argument that since it hasn't been proven true, it is therefore false. Does the "onus of proof" invalidate this false dilemma?

Jace

[Lazarus Long]

Not to change the subject, and please do go on. I just want to mention as this is a poll we are finally achieving something of a result worth mentioning, for what the data can be construed to reflect is the portion of readership that cares about issues on this site and that cares to vote.

Since I didn't vote for a very long time I respect that such readers as do not vote (like the truth), are still out there. )

Nevertheless, a result is forming on
A: Theist, non-theists, and what relative type composes our nascent demographic.
B: How we appeal to what type of thinker.
C: And our need to address the overlapping categories of the original poll.

So you are "other"? Other what? Theist, non-theist, or atheist? Other is a way of saying "I do not want to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" that allows its category to be distributed over both theist and non theist. Atheists tend to admit it; that is the point of stating you are atheist to begin with rather than leaving the question open,IMO.

Now I have used non-theist instead of agnostic, BTW, I assume no one will quibble about me putting Buddhism in with the other theist propositions? It is a religion as practiced by its millions of adherents and while it is "nontheist" with respect to a single defined God, it is not trying to be purely rational either with respect to creative and destructive force.

And I don't care if you are Druid, Native American Shamanist, or a Polynesian Polygamist for pagan as I still think it is theist. I suggest that the argument of institutional and organized religion versus individual spiritualism is a subject that overlaps non-theist discussion.

A lot of what happens when you analyze the arguments we have had about agnosticism can be understood as a debate about "qualifying" the individual experience of spirit, and for some whether such experience is ever valid. Secular humanism can be seen as dodging the question of theism but not being comfortable as either theist or atheist too so by default is non-theist and reflects the qualification of spirit as its primary distinction.

Yes, this topic includes drugs, drugs of all types including neurotransmitters affecting and effecting emotional experience as well as psychotropic hallucinogens and daily doses of sugar and caffeine are a part of the discussion.

But it is much more, it is about the quality of our works and our aspirations. Spirit is about conscience not just consciousness, spirit is about our goals. So those of us that seek to tread upon self created futures cannot beg off the question of having our dreams scrutinized and assessed for validity. The validity of that spiritual experience is also understood pragmatically as one prime motivation psychologically for all human endeavor.

What is sorely lacking in the labels is a truth beyond the social associations of what can be more accurately understood as cultural imperatives but what is understood individually as the process by how we determine our own destiny's.

[Sophianic]

Jace Tropic: What you may be saying, in essence, is: We may be able to induce an absolute end of technological means by way of equating knowledge, and its expansion, with truth from a weighted-realist perspective; however, we cannot prove this type of an end, so it probably won't occur.

We may have the capacity to create such an end, and we may be in the process of creating it. We can speculate about whether we do have the capacity and about whether we are in the process, and provide indications that we do have the capacity and that we are in the process, but no one at present can inductively prove such an end in a way that says "given this and this, this is what's going to happen."

Wouldn't this be an argumentum ad ignorantiam? In this case, an argument that since it hasn't been proven true, it is therefore false. Does the "onus of proof" invalidate this false dilemma?

I'm not saying that we do not have the capacity, that we are not in the process, and that we cannot know what is going to happen ~ at some point in the future, we may know (i.e., I do not appeal to ignorance to bolster my position and thereby create a false dilemma). And since I'm not making a positive claim about what is happening or will happen, the 'onus of proof' principle does not apply.

In the meantime, we need to be careful that we don't commit the fallacy of reification when we talk about creating an entity of greater-than-human intelligence. We can imagine such intelligence; we may feel good when we think about what it could do for us; and we may have faith that it would save us from ourselves. But to actually talk about it as if it exists, or will (necessarily) exist, are serious errors in judgment; they narrow the scope of our vision for what the future may hold for us. I've seen this error committed too many times not to mention it here.

[Jace Tropic]

Sophianic: In the meantime, we need to be careful that we don't commit the fallacy of reification when we talk about creating an entity of greater-than-human intelligence.

Understood and noted.

Sophianic: But to actually talk about it as if it exists, or will (necessarily) exist, are serious errors in judgment; they narrow the scope of our vision for what the future may hold for us. I've seen this error committed too many times not to mention it here.

The unaccountable complexity pathways toward aforementioned end, or whichever, seem to elicit apathy of implications. I don’t think this is intentional. Even the best efforts in accounting for these pathways cannot guarantee a thorough account. Unfortunately, over-analyzing could and does impose on freedoms. This is certainly unwelcome within pragmatic (read: implication-denial for short-lived (a lifetime in today’s terms) gratification), individualistic societies. I’m not sure, however, how much freedom is warranted en route to a possible complete annihilation of the human race. Accordingly, enough do deny an absolute assessment of the implications I’d imagine.

I do not disagree that these are serious errors in judgment. This particular concern is probably futile in the present context. It’s more of an observation and it’s not to undermine the efforts of those, and I think that includes you, Sophianic, who are extremely diligent and carry similar concerns, if not more sophisticated.

Jace

[Sophianic]

Jace Tropic: The unaccountable complexity pathways toward aforementioned end, or whichever, seem to elicit apathy of implications. I don’t think this is intentional. Even the best efforts in accounting for these pathways cannot guarantee a thorough account.

I think this "apathy of implications" is also a product of simple human need, most notably the very basic needs for safety, security and stability. Although not intentional, the ready gratification of these needs does hamper the ability and willingness to give a full account of what is happening and where we could be headed.

Unfortunately, over-analyzing could and does impose on freedoms. This is certainly unwelcome within pragmatic (read: implication-denial for short-lived (a lifetime in today’s terms) gratification), individualistic societies.

The key, I think, is to adopt a principled balance between reason and emotion ~ not something that most people are willing or able to do ~ they're much too involved in their daily dramas to take the time to do so, or they lack the abstract ability to comprehend and implement it.

I’m not sure, however, how much freedom is warranted en route to a possible complete annihilation of the human race. Accordingly, enough do deny an absolute assessment of the implications I’d imagine.

I see the human race as a work in progress. Through education and culture, I see it developing the technology to perfect and transform itself. What the ultimate end will be is anyone's guess. The best we can do is to make an ongoing, contextual assessment of that development and its implications, using both reason and imagination.

I do not disagree that these are serious errors in judgment. This particular concern is probably futile in the present context. It’s more of an observation and it’s not to undermine the efforts of those, and I think that includes you, Sophianic, who are extremely diligent and carry similar concerns, if not more sophisticated.

Jace, I think I was just doing my due diligence for the sake of reason and logic. If the prospect of a greater-than-human intelligence satisfies a deep emotional need for some, but narrows their vision of what the future may hold for them, then I will tolerate it. But if they attempt to impose that need on others, I will challenge it ~ albeit gently.

[Lazarus Long]

Sophianic says:

I see the human race as a work in progress. Through education and culture, I see it developing the technology to perfect and transform itself. What the ultimate end will be is anyone's guess. The best we can do is to make an ongoing, contextual assessment of that development and its implications, using both reason and imagination.

This is a very important observation that I suggest we should all take note of. It is a valid observation and one that highlights a key confusion in the discussion of evolution as progress and the risk immortality present to the species in the form of stagnation of social development.

First a reminder individuals grow & learn, species & societies evolve. I seem to have to keep reminding people that these words are commonly misused. Not in this particular case by either of you Jace & Soph but in general are all too often by those that confuse questions of Natural Selection, Social Progress, and Manifest Destiny.

The transformative process that we in the "Transhumanist movement" as individuals seek to undertake heralds the larger one but it does not presume it rationally; it defines it pragmatically.

So let me take his opportunity to say that I think in general the reason that we have a debate with so many of the fundamentalist mindset is that they either adhere to the parochialism, which claims that "it is the best of all possible worlds;" hence feel Natural Selection or Manifest Destiny should predominate or they depend psychologically upon such notions to provide a sense of security against the vagaries of life.

Natural Selection is perceived to be the fairness of random chance (life's lottery) and Manifest Destiny assumes a preordained path, both can now be seen as non-rational and the attempt to introduce reason to the process of Selection for growth is why I call this process Human Selection and assumes that we must rise to the responsibility entailed.

The path of freedom and responsible action is derived through the realization that Human Selection has already supplanted Natural Selection and we must now address the myriad of specifics for that issue in all its magnitude to become responsible navigators not only for our individual growth, but for exploring the course our species develops as its next phase of evolution.

It has always been individuals that have lead evolution and social growth by mutation and personal example. We here are those pathfinders of the future by choice not mere default.

[Jace Tropic]

Lazarus: The path of freedom and responsible action is derived through the realization that Human Selection has already supplanted Natural Selection and we must now address the myriad of specifics for that issue in all its magnitude to become responsible navigators not only for our individual growth, but for exploring the course our species develops as its next phase of evolution.

Laz, yes, and I think the key thing I overlooked is that by introducing and positing reason we are thus able to facilitate a very good self-correcting process. We do this even now, and we mature as we progress.

Jace

[David]

It looks like you are advocating eugenics, Laz. Or something similar. Or am I wandering off the mark again? (Not enough chocolate, as usual)

[Cyto]

It has always been individuals that have lead evolution and social growth by mutation and personal example. We here are those pathfinders of the future by choice not mere default.

Well put.

[Lazarus Long]

David:
It looks like you are advocating eugenics, Laz. Or something similar. Or am I wandering off the mark again? (Not enough chocolate, as usual)

All our domestic animals and plants, as well as ourselves may be said to already be the product of eugenics. What it is about time to do is realize this truth and stop allowing ourselves to be sold a lie. There is no going back to "Nature" there is the possibility that we take responsibility for defining "Nature" and then defending and developing that idea.

I am not advocating the common view of eugenics. I am against doing these things by neglect and through plausible deniability by begging "ignorance," as reason for innocence. What I am saying is that if Darwin sailed on the Beagle today the objective analysis of the global environment would show that more of it is influenced by what is called artificial selection than natural selection right now. In large part this is not benign neglect; it is through the malicious manipulation of ignorance for exploitive intent.

The politics and economics of environmentalism as it is currently structured is trapped in an arcane and futile debate of socialist/capitalist economics and semi-religious perspectives of Nature that in fact no longer exist to protect. Is there Random Selection in a managed parkland? On a farm? In most river systems? In controlled watersheds and aqua-cultural coastal farms? Even governing Human procreation?

What I am saying is that ignorance is no excuse, look into the mirror and maybe you won't like the realization that you are already the beneficiary of eugenics but it is high time we all started facing facts, we are perhaps even such creations ourselves. What is more important is that we stop thinking we will be saved by some higher power that in its best and fairest guise is simply random chance, or even the promise of the fabled Singularity. These problems will not go away by accident (Random Selection) or Divine Intervention, so we (you and I) must roll up our sleeves and address them head on.

I am not a tool of industry. I am a realist and to preserve endangered species already requires gene banking and some cloning to accomplish. Land management on a global scale is a disaster and as for marine habitat, we have in my lifetime not just the last century, witnessed a genocide of species, whose parallel is only matched by the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid in the KT event 65 million years ago.

We are the Great Glacier, the Human Glacier that is the driving force already ruling over nature whether we like it or not, whether we are ready or not, and it is long past time we rose to meet this responsibility and embraced it rationally. We are terraforming our planet and calling it progress, but what type of planet do we want to occupy?

I am not so inclined to live on "Trantor". I am not so enamored of concrete, glass and steel that I define its visage as the paradigm of progress so I am taking the approach of Muir and Emerson. I am challenging us to be more honest in our relationship with that delicate and fragile lover we daily abuse caused Nature. To become good human spouses to this world that is our fecund mother and lover. Call it Earth Husbandry.

To accomplish this we need to realize that Human Selection (for which Artificial Selection is only one aspect) already dominates over Natural Selection, if for no less reason than shear numbers. Now you can counter as many many try, "it's all good" we are part of nature so anything we do is OK it is just evolutionary progress and our right as a species to accomplish. This is the just the Manifest Destiny Doctrine packaged in a candy wrapper.

What I said was that humans are distributed into basically three groups of cognizant perspective, those who defend the oldest way of random chance, which is already beyond repair without the destruction of our own species as it exists, those that defend Manifest Destiny as if we can do no wrong, and those few but growing numbers that understand we must approach this panoply of problems as Responsible Rationalists, understanding that we are already immersed in a world governed by Human Selection. We are not going to "rationalize away" the problems but instead must accept the responsibility to define and address them directly.

Both fatalism and theism work together but are opposed jointly by pragmatism, this idea that we create our fate. Hasn't anyone else noticed that Random Selection is derivitive of large scale "choice" expressed across generations? That is what adaption is predicated on, an ability to choose an environmental option and act on it.

To best meet these challenges we face we cannot turn our back on any tool in our shop. We cannot go forward by hamstringing ourselves and expecting to run. We also cannot turn back the clock of evolution. There is no "evil science" and "good spirituality," there are only dangerous minds and powerful forces balanced with love and reason.

[Bookcase]

Sophianic,

*time on my hands and myself on my mind*

Hehehe... on a different note, may I ask what your professional/academic background is? - you don't have to say, just curious.

[Sophianic]

may I ask what your professional/academic background is? - you don't have to say, just curious.

When I feel the time is right, I'll introduce myself to those who read this forum.

[immortalitysystems.com]

We do need an individual that will, by personal initative and use of political power, put some energy (do whatever it takes), in to the needed memetic mutation to give us the Human Right of physical immortality as a choice?

Let's remember, every day hurts and the last one kills!

I am over 60, give me "Biotech or i will die"

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com: We do need an individual that will, by personal initative and use of political power, put some energy (do whatever it takes), in to the needed memetic mutation ...

One need not get entangled with a political system to influence others on the prospect of immortality. Educating people is the first priority, and anyone can take the initiative to do that in their own way ~ one on one or one on many. A cultural revolution precedes a political one.

[imminstmorals]

Unitarian Universalists
Very diverse beliefs

I won, I aced
=D
God doesn't exist

The wisdoms from gods and philosophers are accepted and reconsidered in matter of time

[immortalitysystems.com]

Sophianic,
I feel that the kind of cultural revolution we are talking about needs somebody like Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed as a promoter to give us physical immortality as a choice.
The providers of "spiritual immortality" (going to heaven), will do what ever it takes to defend their hold on the global population.
I hear that there is a move to outlaw stem cell cloning via the United Nations.
Especially in the USA the hold of "Religion" is so influencial that the change in culture we are looking for may need more than talking to people.
Evolution is driven by the breaking of rules (mutation on the genetic level).
It is possible that some laws have to be broken (memetic mutation), to have the change in cultural evolution we are hoping for.

Edited by Mind, 26 October 2003 - 10:48 PM.

[imminstmorals]

Once the product is approved. The media can shut those promoter up, all we need is time and government 's support.

The only thing we have to worry about is restructuring our society so that everyone is fairly treated and paid. That requires more time than ever!

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com: i feel that the kind of cultural revolution we are talking about needs somebody like Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed as a promoter to give us physical immortality as a choice.

A spiritual leader that organized a movement to encourage its members to proselyte on behalf of the prospect of immortality would likely be in danger of being assassinated. I believe that a more subtle approach is required.

The providers of "spiritual immortality" (going to heaven), will do what ever it takes to defend their hold on the global population.

I'm not so concerned about the "providers." I'm more concerned with the followers who allow themselves to be shaped and molded by other-worldly belief systems, especially the young ones who are still impressionable.

Specialy in the USA the hold of "Religion" is so influencial that the change in cultur we are looking for may need more then talking to people.

I agree that it will take more than just educating people about what the future of technology and the prospect of immortality have to offer. But it does start with education.

Evolution is driven by the breaking of rules (mutation on the genetic level).  It is possible that some laws have to be brocken (memetic mutation), to have the change in cultural  evolution we are hoping for.

An interesting notion. What memetic breaks in cultural evolution did you have in mind?

[immortalitysystems.com]

Sophianic, (i don't know how the use the "QUOTE pull down future)

"What memetic breaks in cultural evolution did you have in mind?

I hope there are some scientists who have the moral courage to do what ever it takes, including embryonic stem cell and human cloning, in any way they consider advantages to further the goal of eliminating sicknes, old age and death.

I see the breaking of laws, even to the extend that it could be considered aberrant behavior on the level of an individual, as the driving force behind cultural evolution.

I don't know if i should name names of historical figures that have shaped our global culture, because many of them would today be considered politicaly incorrect.

[Bruce Klein]

Alfred,

to quote, highlight the text and then click 'QUOTE' in advanced editing mode. This will put the quote code around the text like so:

[QUOTE]this is the text[/QUOTE]

which then becomes:

this is the text

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com: I see the breaking of laws, even to the extend that it could be considered aberrant behavior on the level of an individual, as the driving force behind cultural evolution.

I think you mean the breaking of laws that have been arbitrarily imposed by political or religious authorities. Even so, I don't think this (the breaking of laws) would be the driving force behind the evolution of culture. I believe there's something more fundamentally positive: the indomitable will and spirit of a single individual, acting in possession of courage, with integrity and purpose.

I don't know if i should name names of historical figures that have shaped  our global culture, because many of them would today be considered politicaly incorrect.

Political correctness is a form of social tyranny; challenge it every chance you get.

[immortalitysystems.com]

For instance the leader of Russia, Mr. Stalin, without his help, who knows if we would today be the global power we are. I feel that he had an influence on the global cultural evolution.

Would we have made the trip to the moon, which opend the door to the use of orbital space, if we had not had the so called "cold war".

Is he an exampel of a single individual with indomitable will and spirit?

Social tyranny has been a major force in memetic (cultural) evolution.

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com: For instance the leader of Russia, Mr. Stalin, without his help, who knows if we would today be the global power we are.

His help? I would hardly call it "help."

I feel that he had an influence on the global cultural evolution.

But his influence was not positive.

Would we have made the trip to the moon, which opend the door to the use of orbital space, if we had not had the so called "cold war".

The "cold" war may have been a factor, but I don't believe it was necessary.

Is he an exampel of a single individual with indomitable will and spirit?

But he lacked the courage, integrity and purpose to serve life.

Social tyranny has been a major force in memetic (cultural) evolution.

But not a positive force. Your comments and questions seem to lack a moral compass. The ends can never justify the means.

[immortalitysystems.com]

What is a moral compass?

I feel that what is considered moral and ethical usualy mainly serves the function of preserving the status quo.

[nefastor]

Tough one... I don't much like religion (because of all the wars, crusades, jihad and proselitism... all over non-sensical "sacred texts"). Religions ask you to be meek, be humble, be poor, because you'll be rewarded ONCE YOU'RE DEAD.

It obviously seems like a ridiculous scam to grab my "worldly possessions", but it's all the more stupid when you promise a reward in the afterlife to someone who has no intention of EVER dying

Anyway, I don't find the idea of God any reassuring... after all, didn't he condemn me to a limited and crappy life on Earth just because Adam and Eve did something stupid in Heaven he clearly wanted them to do ? I mean, besides Hitler, who ever condemned THE UNBORN CHILDREN of people to torture and death for no reason at all ?

Nah, don't tell me... cigarette makers, oil drillers, polluters worldwide inc., nuclear bomb junky governments...

My point is... there rather should be no God, 'cuz the only gods sadistic enough to make the world as it is aren't people I'd like to worship and pray to.

For the record, I was christened soon after birth... I didn't get a choice, but since I don't believe in this stuff, there's no harm done.

Jean

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com: What is a moral compass?

Essentially, I see it as a sense of right and wrong, derived from experience with the acquisition and application of principles of conduct, independent of anyone's feelings, including your own.

I feel that what is considered moral and ethical usualy mainly serves the function of preserving the status quo.

Unfortunately, this is a common feeling.

[immortalitysystems.com]

Sophianic,

you use the word compass relating to moral, does that not imply that morals are used to reach a goal?
In the status quo isn't the goal usualy going to heaven to find some kind of immortality there?
Could it be that our sense of right and wrong is formed by the authority of the judeo/christian religion. Based on the tradition of a belief in some kind of a God in the sky. The churches, guardians of ethics and morals will do what ever it takes to stay in power (busines), that is, preserve the status quo.
As it stands now most people put their desteny in the hands of the "Good Lord" or what ever the names of the respective Gods are. Since this are centuries old traditions, they will be difficult to change.

The time has come to break away from the old traditions (religions). Are we truly Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or do we only think we are.
To be Homo Immortalis, we need to start becoming self suficient and not relay on the good grace of some sky good in heaven.
Do we need a different set of ethics and morals to provide us with the choice of physical immortality and the good live on Earth and in Orbital Space?

The charter of the United Nations needs to include the right to the persuit of physical immortality and migration to Orbital Space!

[nefastor]

Good speech, ImmortalitySystems, yet there is something I wonder : do we NEED a different set of moral values ? Or just a "cut-down" version of the religion-imposed one(s), without any such stuff as "going to Heaven" or "afterlife retribution" ?

The thing is, religions have choosen early on sets of moral values that most people would agree with, because they represented "the easy way" to sticking together. Being nice is easier on communauty life than everybody being rude to everybody, for instance.

I'm an atheist, and I don't see a problem with being nice. In fact, people with a strong moral compass pointing towards "the good" would seem most suited to live together in a narrow space ship without killing each other after a few weeks or months.

In any case, whenever you create a set of values more than one people (you) must follow, you are creating a religion. But can we all have our own set of moral values ? And who is to say if we do, we'll all end up with compatible sets of moral values ?

A psycho may find it moral to kill me, and I may find it moral to defend myself. If we both get into a beer-can sized ship to Mars, it's unlikely we'll both be alive when we get to Mars.

Thinking for/by yourself is great, and I'm a big advocate of that. But life in society isn't possible without a common moral compass, and that's what religions have been smart enough to provide.

Ultimately it's like an industry : if you get in the computers market segment when there are already IBM-PC's and Macs... you'll be happy if you can convert 10 users to your own architecture, however superior it may be.

This is sad, of course, but this human nature, and almost necessary. Changing moral compass on the scale of the entire species would cause much damage before anything good (let alone stable) emerges.

That's one reason why I want to be immortal. If we all were immortal, we wouldn't need to fear the pain and risks that come with changing, and we'd be able to change for the best whenever we need to.

Jean

[Sophianic]

immortalitysystems.com you use the word compass relating to moral, does that not imply that morals are used to reach a goal?

Yes, having a moral compass implies that moral principles are used to reach a goal.

In the status quo isn't the goal usualy going to heaven to find some kind of immortality there?

As you know, we live in a pluralistic society, comprised of many different belief systems. For some, getting to heaven after they die to live happily ever after may be their ultimate goal.

Could it be that our sense of right and wrong is formed by the authority of the judeo/christian religion. Based on the tradition of a belief in some kind of a God in the sky.

If you were raised with Judeo-Christian values and beliefs, then yes, your sense of right and wrong will be, to some extent, informed by them. But if you think, as I do, that you can choose values and beliefs that inform your own sense of right and wrong, then there's no reason why you should feel bound by values or beliefs that are at variance with your own.

As it stands now most people put their desteny in the hands of the "Good Lord" or what ever the names of the respective Gods are. Since this are centuries old traditions, they will be difficult to change.

Yes, they would be difficult to change. But as far as I can tell, traditions don't generally change; they morph. Or die a slow death.

The time has come to break away from the old traditions (religions). Are we truly Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or do we only think we are.

Yes, the time has come. Some might even argue that the time has passed.

To be Homo Immortalis, we need to start becoming self suficient and not relay on the good grace of some sky good in heaven.

I agree, but there are billions who would disagree with you because they feel their lives are inextricably tied to the love and grace of God to guide them through troubled times.

What to do?

Do we need a different set of ethics and morals to provide us with the choice of physical immortality and the good live on Earth and in Orbital Space?

The choice to live without an expiry date, in this world, is a moral choice. Now, what non-theistic code of personal conduct sustains that choice?

The charter of the United Nations needs to include the right to the persuit of physical immortality and migration to Orbital Space!

The charter of the UN needs to recognize and uphold the inalienable rights of individuals.