The religious, non religious and advances in technology.

CerebralCortex

When I was in my 4th year of college I came across an article not sure where, but the essence of it was that if technology advances as it currently does, exponentially, that essentiality what it means to be human will be changed radically.
At this time I was myself agnostic on the idea of some personal god but articles like this and other ideas brought me to the logical conclusion that a personal god was ridiculous hence my atheism (thats a side issue).
Fast forward two years later and I hear of a guy called Ray Kurzweil and his ideas on the technological singularity which seems quite plausible.
Fast forward again to a few months ago when I started giving credence to what Aubrey de Grey had to say not only that but I'm now a proponent of what he has to say.
Now I don't know whether anyone here thinks the idea of curing aging and extreme longevity is crazy. But it can't be denied what is likely to happen in the next 50 years with respect to regenerative medicine and information technology. The people we are now and the society we have now may well be completely different in the future good or bad.
I don't start threads very often because my command of the english language isn't that great. But what I'm attempting to do is spark a debate including the religious and non religious on what the implications of ever increasing technological advancement will be on society, religion etc...
For example if the effects of aging are obviated how would religions cope with the idea that people no longer die from aging( a fringe idea I know but...)?

bnt

CerebralCortex wrote: »

For example if the effects of aging are obviated how would religions cope with the idea that people no longer die from aging( a fringe idea I know but...)?

Based on religion's track record so far, religious authorities simply would not cope with any such changes. They might adopt the bits that suit their agenda, just as they have done with the Internet, but ignore the rest.

When you talk about extended lifespans, I immediately think of the flipside to that question: birth control. In the extreme case, if people live forever, it seems obvious to me that new births must cease. Or, to put it another way: you could measure Man's total impact on the planet - and on Man - in terms of "man years". If you count up seven billion people, living an average of 80 years, you have 560 Billion man years of "wear and tear". If that same seven billion people live 200 years, that's 1.4 Trillion man years.

So, if you want to "do no more harm", you would have to reduce population accordingly. I'm not talking about mass murder, I'm talking about having fewer children e.g. if lifespans double, it means 1 child per family. Do you imagine the Catholic Church agreeing to that? :cool:

CerebralCortex

bnt wrote: »

Based on religion's track record so far, religious authorities simply would not cope with any such changes. They might adopt the bits that suit their agenda, just as they have done with the Internet, but ignore the rest.

When you talk about extended lifespans, I immediately think of the flipside to that question: birth control. In the extreme case, if people live forever, it seems obvious to me that new births must cease. Or, to put it another way: you could measure Man's total impact on the planet - and on Man - in terms of "man years". If you count up seven billion people, living an average of 80 years, you have 560 Billion man years of "wear and tear". If that same seven billion people live 200 years, that's 1.4 Trillion man years.

So, if you want to "do no more harm", you would have to reduce population accordingly. I'm not talking about mass murder, I'm talking about having fewer children e.g. if lifespans double, it means 1 child per family. Do you imagine the Catholic Church agreeing to that? :cool:

Well you don't even have to go as far as overpopulation to show the impact what technology tells us about ourselves has on religion. The simple fact that the "certainty" of death by aging isn't as certain as before (I'm making an assumption there) puts a spanner in the works on the christian idea of judgement when you die.

Zillah

Clicking your singularity link triggered a three hour wikipedia marathon for me. These things happen. I can now, however, tell you all about neutron stars, strange matter, ebola and various extinction events. Gamma Ray Bursts are fascinating things really.

CerebralCortex

Zillah wrote: »

Clicking your singularity link triggered a three hour wikipedia marathon for me. These things happen. I can now, however, tell you all about neutron stars, strange matter, ebola and various extinction events. Gamma Ray Bursts are fascinating things really.

My apologies good sir that was never my intention. What I was trying to do was make the case that the human experience that so many religions in my opinion depend on won't be constant for whatever the reason.

Joe1919

Who Wants to Live Forever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgK_keIJq-4

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I can now, however, tell you all about neutron stars, strange matter, ebola and various extinction events.

CerebralCortex

Joe1919 wrote: »

Who Wants to Live Forever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgK_keIJq-4

I don't but I'd like the choice. I've heard it put like this:
Q. "Do you want to live to be a hundred?"
A. "I don't know ask me when I'm 99."

It isn't really the point of the thread. I will say this however, whatever life I do have left I'd prefer it that at no stage someone will have to change my nappy or that I have to be strapped into a chair because I can't be trusted to walk out of the room and unwittingly injure myself.

Turtwig

Well seeing as religion mainly came into being to help humans cope with death; if death dies then religion dies.

Corkfeen

Malty_T wrote: »

Well seeing as religion mainly came into being to help humans cope with death; if death dies then religion dies.

Not sure if the idea of living forever would just eventually create more fears. So would people be driven back to religion to deal with it. They still have to fear doomsday too.:D

Turtwig

Corkfeen wrote: »

They still have to fear doomsday too.:D

We've got superman for that ... oh wait:eek:

Húrin

I don't think that the proponents of these grandiose, utopian projects have taken into account the fact that peak oil will make it very difficult to continue funding advanced research like that.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think that the proponents of these grandiose, utopian projects have taken into account the fact that peak oil will make it very difficult to continue funding advanced research like that.

Really? You think the lack the vision?

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Really? You think the lack the vision?

Yeah, when oil runs out we'll just use human blood like that Keanu-Reeves first-one-good-but-rest-mediocre-trilogy-thingy-ma-bob idea used by the baddies.
Supposely a single human body can generate a lot energy, ahh screw that let's just use apes and chimps.

Zillah

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah, when oil runs out we'll just use human blood like that Keanu-Reeves first-one-good-but-rest-mediocre-trilogy-thingy-ma-bob idea used by the baddies.
Supposely a single human body can generate a lot energy, ahh screw that let's just use apes and chimps.

Or cattle. Or elephants.

robindch

Soylent Green is people!

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

Or cattle. Or elephants.

Yeah but they're our food source, I've never heard of anyone eating apes.

*awaits googled replies*

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

what the implications of ever increasing technological advancement will be on society, religion etc...

Interesting question.

First thing is to note that religion will almost certainly continue to evolve to maintain its appeal to sufficient people to permit it to propagate from generation to generation. A century ago, mall churches and televangelists didn't exist, whereas now, they're amongst the largest and most effective vehicles of religion the world has ever seen.

I'm surprised that religion hasn't yet acquired significant use of social networking sites, all the more so since they're mostly composed of impressionable young people. But I'd expect that to change, especially if religion can come up with a means of permitting people reliably to signal resource investment in the religion via social networks -- but that may be difficult.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

For example if the effects of aging are obviated how would religions cope with the idea that people no longer die from aging( a fringe idea I know but...)?

I can't imagine that people are going to stop dying any time soon, but in the unlikely event they do, the problem of the heat death of the universe won't go away, so the "message" will continue to be appropriate at least in some way. And even if that gets resolved and people do become physically immortal, well, religion will just evolve some other means of appealing to people. A few centuries back, a lot of medical treatment involved praying that the evil spirits would bugger off, whereas now, those kind of people go to jail.

As above, the main thing is that religious evolution will continue and what's around in 2000 years from now will be as different from what we have today as today's stuff is from the Roman gods.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone eating apes.

I'm sure that people have eaten apes -- moneys are certainly a common food source in Africa and it's generally suspected to have been the route by which humans acquired SIV, the simian immunideficiency virus which is common, but non-fatal in monkeys.

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

...As above, the main thing is that religious evolution will continue and what's around in 2000 years from now will be as different from what we have today as today's stuff is from the Roman gods.

I agree, but why don't the religious on the forum never see it like that I mean its so blatantly obvious its almost in your face.

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

why don't the religious on the forum never see it like that I mean its so blatantly obvious its almost in your face.

At this stage, and in relation to this specifically, I'm having a hard time coming up with anything better than a suspicion that many people simply don't have the cognitive hardware to understand evolution, or to understand its implications with respect to culture.

Alternatively, and more generally, it could simply be on account of the power of religion to suppress internal inquiry, and to discard any personally-unconvenient conclusions that do happen by. I certainly can't think of any reasonable, rational question to which most religions don't have a prepackaged toss-it-over-the-dead-ball reply (which usually forms one link of a circular chain of mutually-supporting, but ultimately evasive, answers).

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

I certainly can't think of any reasonable, rational question to which most religions don't have a prepackaged toss-it-over-the-dead-ball reply (which usually forms one link of a circular chain of mutually-supporting, but ultimately evasive, answers).

True. An example I've seen several times when contradictions in the bible are mentioned:

believer: If you mean the differences between the old and new testament that's explained because Jesus brought a new conevant blah blah blah

non-believer: In fact no I meant contradictions within the old testament, within the new testament and within different tellings of the same event in the new testament
believer:...........................If you mean the differences between the old and new testament that's explained because Jesus brought a new conevant blah blah blah


non-believer: *head explode*

CerebralCortex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't but I'd like the choice....

I just wanted to address what I said here the question was "Who wants to live for ever?" and the above was my response, what I would say now is: Ya it wouldn't be so bad and I'd still like the choice. I'd still like to know what the religious think on this? They never really engaged and I think they should because the 21st century is not something they can ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

seamus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I just wanted to address what I said here the question was "Who wants to live for ever?" and the above was my response, what I would say now is: Ya it wouldn't be so bad and I'd still like the choice. I'd still like to know what the religious think on this? They never really engaged and I think they should because the 21st century is not something they can ignore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

But religions aren't proactive, by and large. Certainly the primary failing of all the Abrahamic religions is their insistence that the world is what it is and doesn't change (or shouldn't change). So in the case of Christianity they've developed elaborate methods of validating change by re-interpreting doctrine to suit reality, in the case of Islam they just stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that change doesn't happen by attacking it.

I really firmly believe that "eternal" life is way too far out of our own lifetimes, and to think otherwise is dreaming. However, the singularity argument is somewhat compelling. If we reach a time where human life can be extended to (say) 200 years, then it's reasonable to assume that during that 200 years of life, that upper limit will be continually extended to the point where although "eternal life" didn't exist when a person was born, by virtue of their long life, they will be alive when "eternal life" becomes a reality.

I would imagine that both social structures and religions will embark on something of a divide if that ever happens. At the moment, the concept of eternal life appeals to me. I like being here, I like being alive, I'd love to see what the future holds. But come back to me in 50 years when everyone I was closest to in the whole world has died and you may get a different answer.

You may even see entire communites of "natural" living people who choose to die a natural death. Religion would naturally flourish in these communities.

For "immortal" communities, there would be massive social upheaval. Two core events are common to all societies - birth and death - and elaborate rituals surround both - even in secular groups. Remove natural death and death becomes a whole other ball game. "Immortal" people will still die from time to time from incurable disease or fatal accidents, and these deaths will be much more damaging to a society which hasn't developed coping mechanisms.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

I'm surprised that religion hasn't yet acquired significant use of social networking sites, all the more so since they're mostly composed of impressionable young people.

I'm starting to suspect you're a double agent giving ideas to the other side...

CerebralCortex

seamus wrote: »

But religions aren't proactive, by and large. Certainly the primary failing of all the Abrahamic religions is their insistence that the world is what it is and doesn't change (or shouldn't change). So in the case of Christianity they've developed elaborate methods of validating change by re-interpreting doctrine to suit reality, in the case of Islam they just stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that change doesn't happen by attacking it.

Again I'd love to hear what the religious would have to say about that.

seamus wrote: »

I really firmly believe that "eternal" life is way too far out of our own lifetimes, and to think otherwise is dreaming. However, the singularity argument is somewhat compelling.

1. You really firmly believe that "eternal" life is way too far out of our own lifetimes based on what evidence? I mean when you phrase it as "eternal" life then you probably have a point. But it's not dreaming to suggest radical life extension is possible for people living now especially those who are young and healthy. Is it?

2. The nature of the singularity concept is that the rate of growth in technology is exponential implying that the ability to deal with the problems of aging which are already amenable to science will be exponentially magnified. So does the compelling concept of the singularity not contradict the idea of radical life extension being a dream assuming of course you see eternal life and radical life extension as the same thing?

seamus wrote: »

If we reach a time where human life can be extended to (say) 200 years, then it's reasonable to assume that during that 200 years of life, that upper limit will be continually extended to the point where although "eternal life" didn't exist when a person was born, by virtue of their long life, they will be alive when "eternal life" becomes a reality.

It's what Aubrey de Grey calls Longevity escape velocity or the Methuselarity similar to the concept of the singularity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/

seamus wrote: »

I would imagine that both social structures and religions will embark on something of a divide if that ever happens. At the moment, the concept of eternal life appeals to me. I like being here, I like being alive, I'd love to see what the future holds. But come back to me in 50 years when everyone I was closest to in the whole world has died and you may get a different answer.

Well that assumes they'll opt out of using therapies and technologies for increasing health span. I agree society would be profoundly changed by such developments but for the better, as the way I see it aging and involuntary death is a cruel joke, that probably is at the root of a lot of humanities troubles.

seamus wrote: »

You may even see entire communites of "natural" living people who choose to die a natural death. Religion would naturally flourish in these communities.

And its very important that people should have that choice.

seamus wrote: »

For "immortal" communities, there would be massive social upheaval. Two core events are common to all societies - birth and death - and elaborate rituals surround both - even in secular groups. Remove natural death and death becomes a whole other ball game. "Immortal" people will still die from time to time from incurable disease or fatal accidents, and these deaths will be much more damaging to a society which hasn't developed coping mechanisms.

Of course no truer words were spoken but I think in such a scenario there would be an ecosystem of technology which may provide a safer environment then the one we currently have. The human consciousness may be on a more robust substrate by then who knows?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVsnkRoYfX0