Please do not confuse immortality with eternity. Immortality, here,
refers to perpetual cell division, not divinity or magic shields.
We still will have to drive defensively. And won't we, when the
possibilty of a collision may mean 200-300 years lost instead of the
pre-written sentence of 80 years. You know the attitude; 'no matter how
safe or how prudent, we're going to expire anyway due to old age, so let's
have fun now.'
On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Brian C. Smith wrote:
> Patrick O'Neil (patrick at corona) wrote:
> : On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, John de Rivaz wrote:
> : The only remedy to all this is if EVERYONE accepted very strict,
> : worldwide birthcontrol regulations. How likely is that? The earth is a
>> If I was going to live a LOT longer would I not have
> a much greater "long term" interest :) in restraining reproduction,
> conserving and recycling resources, and engineering a way off
> this one small planet?
>> With much more life to live would I not take my living more
> seriously--and perhaps in time mature into a more responsible
> being than I would otherwise.
>> My point being...pessimism based on current human "short-timer"
> attitudes might turn out to be in part unfounded.
>> In otherwords, longer life might improve us enough to deal with
> the consequences of human life better.
>> Just a thought for the pessimists out there.
>> --BCS--
>> solve but one puzzle: eternal life, and you will have time to
> solve them all!
>>
