Re: virus: Re: Future man,

Ken Kittlitz (
10 Apr 1996 08:23:23 -0400

Reply to: RE>>virus: Re: Future man, immortality

Marek writes:
>It's not like we have a choice, you know. Nor will *believing* in
>immortality inundate you from death, or will it? I have found transhuman
>thinking quite appealing due to its optimism and "will do" stance; but
>for now these are dreams. I have to agree with Bill: you're not doing
>Transhumanism a favor by pouncing at people, even less by putting =
>above any debate. I don't think your words could be understood as a
>threat, no; but a variation on the infamous FOAD they were.

I agree that hopes for avoiding mortality are dreams -- for now. But =
enough effort, I think mortality can be avoided, or at least greatly =
through scientific progress. If one believes that immortality is =
*always* going
to be beyond our reach, one is not going to support immortality research; =
one thinks immortality is "bad", one is unlikely to take advantage of =
extension technologies as they become available. Hence the great meme
(originated by Dave Krieger?]:

All anti-immortalists must die.

Not a threat; merely an observation. If it strikes the anti-immortalist =
as a
threat, perhaps he/she should reconsider his/her reasons for thinking =
death is a Good Thing...