Re: virus: Re: Future man, immortality

Romana Machado (
Tue, 9 Apr 1996 19:12:39 -0700

>Uh, Romana, sorry to butt in -- but I've been following this exchange and
>there's something I thought you could explain: if you acknowledge that
>the inevitability of death "is a fact" (with which I can only agree) then
>what's the stuff about "Then Die! All who oppose immortality must die"??
>It's not like we have a choice, you know.

Even today there are a few things that you can do to postpone the
inevitable. You are not likely to do them if you like the idea of death.

Nor will *believing* in
>immortality inundate you from death, or will it?

You must be using a definition of the verb "to inundate" that I can't find
anywhere, which makes your question hard to answer.

I have found transhuman
>thinking quite appealing due to its optimism and "will do" stance; but
>for now these are dreams.

There is such a thing as practice - a whole range of actions - from taking
life extension drugs to signing up for, and supporting research in, cryonic

I have to agree with Bill: you're not doing
>Transhumanism a favor by pouncing at people, even less by putting yourself
>above any debate.

Transhumanism needs no evangelist. It stands on its own merits. Unlike
weaker ideologies - it requires no faith, and everyone doesn't have to
"believe" in it for it to work.

> I don't think your words could be understood as a
>threat, no; but a variation on the infamous FOAD they were.

I find death-romance quite "anti-human".

Romana Machado
"Peek of the Week" at
"Free Speech Online Blue Ribbon T Shirt" at