Why it may be impossible to live forever

[INRM]

I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. Think about it. Time is zero, but for you it's one. Even a butterfly changes the mass of the universe if it suddenly popped into it.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by INRM
I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.That was your first mistake.....enjoy your shower.
You are heading off to work and it's going to be a long hard day.....relax......take it easy.....feel the warm water run over your body......

Originally posted by INRM
Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. Yes, even God is man-made and cannot last forever.

Originally posted by INRM
The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning. Where time stands still?.....
Without time there is no change.
Without change there is no experience.
You might as well be.....dead!

Originally posted by INRM
The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. In fact, you would change it from one where time had no meaning into one in which things change and, therefore, one in which there is time.

Originally posted by INRM
Think about it. ....but not in the shower!

Originally posted by INRM
Time is zero, but for you it's one. :confused:

Originally posted by INRM
Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?Not exactly.
How exactly would we cause time to move on from zero?

Originally posted by INRM
We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline. Well, perhaps we would kick-start their timeline.

Originally posted by INRM
Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what? If you go from a universe that has time to one that doesn't, what this means is that you are effectively....dead!

[Agammamon]

We have no real definition of time other than "its what keeps everything from happening at once". No one's ever measured time so its pretty difficult to say what properties it actually has.
In any case, while anything "man-made" may have a finite lifetime, that doesn't necessarily apply to this hypothetical multiverse, so that even introducing "time" to a universe eventually kills it, you can just move to another.

As fas a my past being rooted in mortality. That really means only what you let it mean. Mortality isn't a physical constant. Its a limit of our current form, a limit that can be removed.

[American]

If you mean truly "forever", I don't think that's an issue we can deal with realistically. If you mean extending our lifespan by hundreds of years, that's only a few decades away, I believe. Too late for us, we're doomed to live a normal lifespan I think, but the next few generations may see it happen.

[AmateurScientist]

The way you have framed the issue is really a cosmic question.

There is likely a much more prosaic answer. It seems that cells may have a finite number of times in which they can divide. Without further cell division, life cannot continue, as organs would wear out without repair and maintenance and wounds would not heal.

Death may be pre-programmed into out bodies.

AS

[Frostbite]

Never say impossible. ;)

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Never say impossible. ;)

You just have....:D

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Death may be pre-programmed into out bodies. Yes, as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

[Crossbow]

It is impossible to make anything last forever let alone live forever.

Given enough time even electrons and protons will breakdown;
without electrons and protons, there will be no atoms;
without atoms, there will be no elements;
without elements, there will be no molecules;
without molecules, there are no compounds; and
without compounds, bilogical life cannot happen.

[rwald]

There's a very good reason that we can't live forever. Entropy. Or, more loosly, everything decays over time. So must we.

[BillyJoe]

While everything else gets weaker and dies, entropy gets stronger and lives forever.

[rwald]

Actually, "life" could be defined as a local reversal of entropy (in an open system, of course, so that the second law isn't broken). Thus, saying that "entropy lives forever" is nicely ironic.

[Yahweh]

Its no secret nothing man-made will last forever. Not even twinkies.

[Drifterman]

BillyJoe originally posted:
Yes, as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead

Depends on how you define procreation. Parenting is an important aspect of our reproductive cycle. If good parenting is an evolutionary advantage, then good grandparenting might be too. And good great- grandparenting, and so on.

[BillyJoe]

Good point, Drifterman, but you get my gist don't you.

[Drifterman]

Aye, your gist is clear.

[xouper]

American: If you mean extending our lifespan by hundreds of years, that's only a few decades away, This reminds me of a related question I have. As I understand it, medical science has made great strides in eliminating things that keep people from living to their potential maximum age, but has medical science done anything to increase that potential maximum age?

I'm using the term "potential maximum age" quite loosely here because I don't know what the appropriate term is. What I mean by that is the upper bound that some people have lived to. In other words, my question is, that while the average lifespan has increased, has the upper bound of the range been increased by any significant amount?

Or if that's still not clear, let me try my question another way. For the sake of the following question, I shall use 90 as an arbitrary number, so please subsititute a better number if you like. As I understand it, two centuries ago, for example, there were fewer people who lived to be 90 years old. Nowadays medical science has helped more people to live to 90 (thus increasing the average), but has medical science helped people live beyond that (increasing the upper bound)?

[American]

Originally posted by xouper
This reminds me of a related question I have. As I understand it, medical science has made great strides in eliminating things that keep people from living to their potential maximum age, but has medical science done anything to increase that potential maximum age?

Not humans, but worms (I think nematodes, increasing their normal lives from 1 to 3 weeks, if I recall). The key is to alter the germ line; there are specific genes they've identified that are common to "all species" (that's BS, I really mean "all vertebrates", or some lineage). They've bred worms to play with those age genes (tracking every cell's development in its body, I think ~1200 total).

It's no small thing jumping to humans. It goes beyond gene therapy, ethically, to altering the species.

I think if we don't make a controlled effort to do it, it will happen in other ways that we won't be able to control and regulate (like in the course of treating disease, or simply exporting the technology to countries where it's legal).

My big question is how you will perceive this from within your own mind and body. Maybe brain activity/metabolism feels pretty much the same no matter what your natural lifespan, for example the short life a toad may feel like the long life of a tourtise to the organism. So would a 300-year old be lacking in observational skills, as if the brian can only take the information of a regular life? That's my own weird notion, I can't say why one might think that.

[clusterm2]

Originally posted by rwald
Actually, "life" could be defined as a local reversal of entropy (in an open system, of course, so that the second law isn't broken). Thus, saying that "entropy lives forever" is nicely ironic.


More so than "Nothing lives for ever"?

[csense]

Originally posted by INRM
I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. Think about it. Time is zero, but for you it's one. Even a butterfly changes the mass of the universe if it suddenly popped into it.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?


Considering the context of your entire post, you're positing an alternative universe in which time is non existent.
If there is no time, then there is no distance or motion.
If there is no distance or motion, then there is no space.
If there is no time and space, then there is no universe.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by xouper
This reminds me of a related question I have. As I understand it, medical science has made great strides in eliminating things that keep people from living to their potential maximum age, but has medical science done anything to increase that potential maximum age?Dawkins has written some thoughtful stuff about this in some of his books. He suggests (light heartedly) that it would be easy to raise the expected life span of humans by preventing younger humans from procreating. You would start by not allowing anyone under, say, 40 years old to become a parent. After a few generations of that, the minimum age limit would be raised to 45, and so on. Extrapolating from experiments on animals would indicate that an expected human life span of 200 or 300 years might be achievable by such means.

The more interesting section is where Dawkins discusses how human evaluation of probabilities and risk taking is influenced by how long we expect to live. For example, if you expected to live for 10,000 years then you would likely not want to cross roads, as you would almost certainly be run over. Similarly you would not want to live in an ordinary house, as the risks of it collapsing or burning down would be unacceptably great.

ceptimus.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by csense
Considering the context of your entire post, you're positing an alternative universe in which time is non existent.
If there is no time, then there is no distance or motion.
If there is no distance or motion, then there is no space.
If there is no time and space, then there is no universe. I'm stuck here.....

"If there is no time, then there is no distance......"

Wouldn't there still be distance, just no time to measure it in.
There would be space and distance but no time and motion.
In other words, we would have a static universe.
A static universe would not be worth living in - because nothing happens.

[xouper]

ceptimus: The more interesting section is where Dawkins discusses how human evaluation of probabilities and risk taking is influenced by how long we expect to live. For example, if you expected to live for 10,000 years then you would likely not want to cross roads, as you would almost certainly be run over. Similarly you would not want to live in an ordinary house, as the risks of it collapsing or burning down would be unacceptably great.I guess this would explain why old people are more likely to go skydiving than young people? :p

[sorgoth]

Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ceptimus: The more interesting section is where Dawkins discusses how human evaluation of probabilities and risk taking is influenced by how long we expect to live. For example, if you expected to live for 10,000 years then you would likely not want to cross roads, as you would almost certainly be run over. Similarly you would not want to live in an ordinary house, as the risks of it collapsing or burning down would be unacceptably great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess this would explain why old people are more likely to go skydiving than young people?


Hmm....I think Xouper has a good point there. People aren't going to avoid all risk to live forever (well, a few might...)


Anyway, a few thoughts about Time: (This is all my personal opinion, probably littered with errors)

Time seems to be simply how we measure the changing of matter. "Time", as an actual thing, does not exist. A universe without time would be a universe without energy. So since gravity creates potential energy (Wait, not quite, but I don't know how else to say it), Nothing could be made. So it would just be a jumble of protons and neutrons, just stuck in the before big bang stage. Right? So if you DID find a way to travel to that universe, you would put energy in it (by the simple act of traveling) and kick start time there. However, since there is no possible way (so far) to even observe othere universes, the question is moot.

[csense]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I'm stuck here.....

"If there is no time, then there is no distance......"

Wouldn't there still be distance, just no time to measure it in.
There would be space and distance but no time and motion.
In other words, we would have a static universe.
A static universe would not be worth living in - because nothing happens.

Just as you can not divorce time from space, you also can not divorce distance from motion. None are mutually exclusive. We can analyze them individually, but they ultimately mean nothing unless they are also correlated with their counterparts. Motion means nothing unless there is something to move, and someplace to move to...and motion equals time. they are all correlated...


Do you want me to continue?

[rwald]

"Space" and "time" are not seperate concepts which can be treated individually. Both "space" and "time" are components of a bigger concept, namely spacetime. While I guess there could be a universe with no time dimentions (just as there could be a universe with fewer spacial dimentions), you couldn't "transport" there even if interuniversal transports were allowed. It would be as if you tried to transport onto a planer universe. You wouldn't fit.

[ceptimus]

Time is what stops everything happening all at once.

ceptimus.

[csense]

Originally posted by rwald
"Space" and "time" are not seperate concepts which can be treated individually. Both "space" and "time" are components of a bigger concept, namely spacetime. While I guess there could be a universe with no time dimentions(sic)

You're contradicting yourself

[csense]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Time is what stops everything happening all at once.

ceptimus.

But in order to say everything you must make the necessary assumption that there is a distiction between things, which involves time

Time is inseperable from space, or concepts.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yes, as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

I don't agree. As a human being you have genetic and cultural influence over the specie.

[BillyJoe]

Okay, apart from....

Parenting, grandparenting and great- grandparenting, and so on.
And genetic and cultural influence over the species.

.....as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.


Anyone else?

[ntech]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Okay, apart from....

Parenting, grandparenting and great- grandparenting, and so on.
And genetic and cultural influence over the species.

.....as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.


Anyone else?

You have it wrong. It's the fundies that don't think sex is fun for the sake of sex. The problem with them is they try to have kids until they're dead.

They feel that it's a sin to have sex without trying to infest the world with non stop little fundies that they can brainwash.

Yea as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

Well OK except for:
Fun sex
A kiss
Art
Music
Intellectual pursuits
A walk on the beach
A day as a family
Reading a book
Watching a movie
Seeing a Play
Visiting a museum
Science
Sitting by a lake
Hiking
Climbing
Learning
And everything else

Sorry but your statement makes no sense to anyone but possibly a blind creationist.

PS I thought this was a science section. Not the fundy section.

[American]

If each couple has 2 kids (who also live to have 2 kids), we're good. Less than 2 and we'll perish, more than 2 and we'll choke this planet to death with overpopulation.

That's speaking strictly on long-term averages.

[ntech]

Originally posted by American
If each couple has 2 kids (who also live to have 2 kids), we're good. Less than 2 and we'll perish, more than 2 and we'll choke this planet to death with overpopulation.

That's speaking strictly on long-term averages.


I agree with that. My wife and I stopped at two as well.

We know of a fundy family from our old town that had 12 kids who each had 8 to 10 kids etc.
I find this practice vain and disgusting and with no regard for the health of the planet.

They write letters to the paper with the attitude that god wants them to spit out good little Christians to dominate the earth. I see the same thing with orthadox Jewish families and other born agains etc.

[Landis]

I saw a program on the Discovery Channel a few days ago in which they profiled a scientist who created a SuperFly. The Fly by human standards would be 250 years old and still functioning like a young 'n . Working on the theory that after we procreate and create children, the aging process in our bodies begins to speed up. He began selectively breeding flies and postponing the onset of procreation. After many generations (and about 20 years) he bred the Super Flies. An interesting comparison was made to the fact that in our current society, working women are postponing children until they are near the end of their fertility periods (i.e. in late 30's or early 40's). Theotricaly, over a period of a few hundred years, this trend could create humans who live to as much as 250 years.

On another topic, time, in Ken Wilber's book "Up From Eden" he postulates that early humans had little if no sense of time. When they sat around a fire at night, with a full belly, they were pretty much in "Eden" because they had no sense of tomorrow. He goes on to discuss that the advent of the farming culture was one of the epic changes in human evolution since it was the first indication that human's had developed a sense of time. They finally could grasp that a seed planted in the ground would produce food a few months later.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by INRM
I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. Think about it. Time is zero, but for you it's one. Even a butterfly changes the mass of the universe if it suddenly popped into it.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?

Umm... what exactly does "forever" mean in a universe where time has no meaning?

[xouper]

American: If each couple has 2 kids (who also live to have 2 kids), we're good. Less than 2 and we'll perish, <span style="background-color: #ffc">more than 2 and we'll choke this planet to death with overpopulation</span>. That's speaking strictly on long-term averages.Sounds like a good motivation for expanding humanity's habitat beyond Earth.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by xouper
Sounds like a good motivation for expanding humanity's habitat beyond Earth.

So we can ruin and overpopulate another planet?

The math doesn't work. The steel doesn't exist to build the ships that could move people fast enough to make a dent in the population problem.

It's important that people understand this so they know there will be no deus ex machina to save the day; we have to solve the overpopulation problem ourselves the old-fashioned way - either fewer people get born or more die.

[xouper]

Sundog: So we can ruin and overpopulate another planet?Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

The math doesn't work. The steel doesn't exist to build the ships that could move people fast enough to make a dent in the population problem.Perhaps I need to clarify that I didn't propose a solution to the population problem on Earth. I was trying to make the point that off the Earth, we are not limited by the Earth's resources, so it won't be necessary to limit total population growth for that reason.

It's important that people understand this so they know there will be no deus ex machina to save the day; we have to solve the overpopulation problem ourselves the old-fashioned way - either fewer people get born or more die.Well, that's one opinion.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by xouper
Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.



Of course not, we'd never do that TWICE, would we? ;)

My money says we'd just muck up the new planet too.



Perhaps I need to clarify that I didn't propose a solution to the population problem on Earth. I was trying to make the point that off the Earth, we are not limited by the Earth's resources, so it won't be necessary to limit total population growth for that reason.



Understood, but now you've simply limited yourself to the resources of the NEW planet. TANSTAAFL.

Well, that's one opinion.

Yup. From a fellow named Malthus. Unpleasant fellow, but ignore him at your peril.

What's your opinion? Leaving out things like enormous Arks In Space or teleportation?

[xouper]

Sundog: So we can ruin and overpopulate another planet?

xouper: Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

sundog: Of course not, we'd never do that TWICE, would we? My money says we'd just muck up the new planet too.OK, back up here. Since I am not proposing we go ruin another planet, it's ridiculous to imply I said such a thing. that's what I meant by "don't be ridiculous" - I meant don't put words in my mouth.

And I don't accept your assertion that we have ruined this one.

Sundog: Understood, but now you've simply limited yourself to the resources of the NEW planet. TANSTAAFL.Who said I was limiting future habitats and resources to planets? Come on, don't be so limited in your thinking. We have a long way to go before the resources of our solar system are used up. And beyond that, there's a whole galaxy out there. I see no reason to believe that our solar system cannot support a reasonable growth rate for a long long time.

Yup. From a fellow named Malthus. Unpleasant fellow, but ignore him at your peril.Which specific doctrine of Malthus are you referring to? And what's your opinion of the refutations of Malthus?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by xouper
OK, back up here. Since I am not proposing we go ruin another planet, it's ridiculous to imply I said such a thing. that's what I meant by "don't be ridiculous" - I meant don't put words in my mouth.



Slow down, Xoup. I never implied you said anything. That's simply my own opinion.



And I don't accept your assertion that we have ruined this one.



Okay. I find your optimism refreshing.



Who said I was limiting future habitats and resources to planets? Come on, don't be so limited in your thinking. We have a long way to go before the resources of our solar system are used up. And beyond that, there's a whole galaxy out there. I see no reason to believe that our solar system cannot support a reasonable growth rate for a long long time.


Where do you intend to get the materials to sustain a civilization, if not from the planets? Asteroid mining? Impossibly uneconomical.

It just seems to me you're relying on some technological deus ex machina to allow unlimited growth. There's no reason to believe one will appear.

Which specific doctrine of Malthus are you referring to?

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by ntech
You have it wrong. It's the fundies that don't think sex is fun for the sake of sex. The problem with them is they try to have kids until they're dead.

They feel that it's a sin to have sex without trying to infest the world with non stop little fundies that they can brainwash.

Yea as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

Well OK except for:
Fun sex
A kiss
Art
Music
Intellectual pursuits
A walk on the beach
A day as a family
Reading a book
Watching a movie
Seeing a Play
Visiting a museum
Science
Sitting by a lake
Hiking
Climbing
Learning
And everything else

Sorry but your statement makes no sense to anyone but possibly a blind creationist.

PS I thought this was a science section. Not the fundy section. Hey, ntech......

.....ah.....er.....well....ah.....pull your head in, man. :hit:

ntech:k:

[ntech]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Hey, ntech......

.....ah.....er.....well....ah.....pull your head in, man. :hit:

ntech:k:


Ouch, Yeah right BJ

I'm from NY. There is not much you could do to me to make me feel bad. Sorry!!!

[xouper]

Sundog: Slow down, Xoup. I never implied you said anything. That's simply my own opinion.OK, thanks for clarifying that. I mistook it for something else.

Where do you intend to get the materials to sustain a civilization, if not from the planets? Asteroid mining? Impossibly uneconomical.Apparently I shall have to defer to your expertise in the future economics of asteroid mining.

It just seems to me you're relying on some technological deus ex machina to allow unlimited growth. There's no reason to believe one will appear.I didn't say "unlimited growth". I was trying to say that if we expand off the planet, we won't have to settle for zero growth so soon.

As for reasons to believe in any future deus ex machina I offer examples from history. Consider the simple tractor (and its descendents). Another example, if not for the phone company's deus ex machina, our current phone network would require the employment of every person on the planet as operators. There is plenty of reason to suspect that future technologies will enable sustained growth rates.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.htmlOK, that. I thought as much. I think history has sufficiently refuted his point that food production cannot keep up with population growth. I guess he assumed there wouldn't be any deus ex machina. :)

[rwald]

The phrase you're looking for, xouper, is "necessity is the mother of invention." Coined by Boserup, who believed that the increased population pressure would result in advanced technology to deal with said pressure. And, as you just pointed out, in some historical cases it has.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rwald
The phrase you're looking for, xouper, is "necessity is the mother of invention." Coined by Boserup, who believed that the increased population pressure would result in advanced technology to deal with said pressure. And, as you just pointed out, in some historical cases it has.

Malthus did indeed overlook the technological aids to food raising. But these advances don't overcome the basic problem (which I'm trying to remember correctly after many years, excuse me if I screw it up) that population grows exponentially while food production increases in a linear fashion.

My point in bringing up Malthus is the very obvious one that a civilization is limited by the resources available to it. Xouper talks as if all we have to do is get up there and we'll find the vast resources of the Solar System instantly available to us.

It ain't that simple. Someone will still have to dig for iron, aluminum, uranium, etc; someone will have to prospect for ice; etc., etc., etc. Far from removing limits on growth, population growth will decline in such a resource-poor environment.

[xouper]

Sundog: Malthus did indeed overlook the technological aids to food raising. But these advances don't overcome the basic problem (which I'm trying to remember correctly after many years, excuse me if I screw it up) that population grows exponentially while food production increases in a linear fashion.Yes, that's essentially what he said. However, history hasn't validated his premise.

My point in bringing up Malthus is the very obvious one that a civilization is limited by the resources available to it.OK, if that is your point, I agree.

Xouper talks as if all we have to do is get up there and we'll find the vast resources of the Solar System instantly available to us.Well, dang. If that is the impression you got of my point, then I didn't express myself well enough.

It ain't that simple. Someone will still have to dig for iron, aluminum, uranium, etc; someone will have to prospect for ice; etc., etc., etc.Of course. :)

The point I was trying to make is not that resources "out there" are free. I was making the point that by expanding humanity's habitat beyond the Earth, humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth.

[BillyJoe]

ntech,

Originally posted by ntech
Ouch, Yeah right BJ

I'm from NY. There is not much you could do to me to make me feel bad. Yeah, I'm pretty thick-skinned too.
That's why I decided to make light of your mischaracterization of my post.

Originally posted by ntech
Sorry!!! Apologies accepted. :cool:

BJ

[Sundog]

Originally posted by xouper


The point I was trying to make is not that resources "out there" are free. I was making the point that by expanding humanity's habitat beyond the Earth, humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth.

I understand. I think, though, that these resources will be much more difficult to extract, produce and deliver than Earthly resources (imagine the shipping charges alone!) and this will present a "bottleneck" in the size of a society that can be supported. In other words, the resources won't be able to be delivered at a rate that could support unlimited expansion.

I want space colonization as much as anyone. I just see problems in the way.

[xouper]

Sundog: I think, though, that these resources will be much more difficult to extract, produce and deliver than Earthly resources (imagine the shipping charges alone!) and this will present a "bottleneck" in the size of a society that can be supported.Well, again, I must defer to your apparent expertise in the future economics of extraterrestrial resources.

In other words, the resources won't be able to be delivered at a rate that could support unlimited expansion.Again, I didn't use the word "unlimited", so your comment doesn't apply to any opinion I offered.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by xouper
Well, again, I must defer to your apparent expertise in the future economics of extraterrestrial resources.


I take it you disagree, but surely some things can be extrapolated from what we know, even though we're not there yet. If space-based economics works like Earth-based economics, there will be limitations. If not, that is a deux ex machina in itself, to believe that space-based economies won't be bound by the same rules as Earth-based economies. But certainly this is just my opinion, based on nothing but what I think I understand about how the world works. :D


Again, I didn't use the word "unlimited", so your comment doesn't apply to any opinion I offered.

You said:

"humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth."

I meant "unlimited" in the sense that you meant "limited".

[xouper]

Sundog: You said: "humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth."

I meant "unlimited" in the sense that you meant "limited".I am not familiar with that use of the word "unlimited". To me, "unlimited growth" is synonymous with "growth without limit", and that certainly is not what I said.

Let me clarify what I meant.

Humanity as a whole will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth, but rather it will be limited by the resources of the Solar System. And even though that is a much bigger limit, it is still a limit. I don't know why you keep quibbling about this. Do you disagree with my premise that if humanity expands its habitat beyond Earth it will no longer be limited by the resources of Earth?

[BillyJoe]

NOT LIMITED: this is used in a relative sense (eg not limited by the resources of Earth)

UNLIMITED: this is used in an absolute sense (not limited by anything)

[Underemployed]

ntech:

We know of a fundy family from our old town that had 12 kids who each had 8 to 10 kids etc.

Exactly why I want to have 12 kids who I can raise as skeptics. We must rise to the challenge! Sadly my wife has yet to come round to the obviousness of my solution, but I have hope.

On living forever, I recall somebody once did a statistical analysis showing that if we did not die of old age, the average lifetime would be about 800 years due to the near certainty of death by accident at some point - mechanical failure of your hover-boots, falling meteorites, vengeful husbands (see above), and so on and so forth.