What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
We, as humans, have found immortality to be an impossible occurence. Over the years, humanity has attempted- and failed- to ‘ascend’ to immortality. What I wonder is: WHY is immortality impossible? God’s will? Or perhaps something else?
Your thoughts, please.
The opposite – Adam was created immortal, only the sin caused him and everything in the nature to become mortal aka non-eternal.
This will be reversed back in the Future World, whatever EXACTLY that means (too many diverse opinions on DETAILS).
But as of now, we CAN be immortal – in our children who follow our path, whatever that be.
Though nowadays, this is a declining trend in many cases…
Well, maybe some people don’t want to be carrying on some “monkey traditions”. :DDD
Yup, this is almost the same what caused the Flood – they lived for hundreds of years and were super humans, so they ended up drowning.
The reason – they rejected morality, so that “everyone did what is pleasing in his eyes” which lead to “perversion and injustice abound” (not exactly a quote).
Talking about “no objective morality”…
Anyways, we should be more concerned about HOW we live, not HOW LONG.
Just because we haven’t found immortality to be possible yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Obviously we’d have to integrate with technology to some extent in order to be sturdy enough to last through the ages. That, or find a way to keep our most vital parts preserved and active, like the science-fiction staple of “brains in jars”.
This would all be way down the road, of course, and would more than likely prolong our lives rather than making us immortal. But it isn’t out of the question; decay can be fought with constant renewal. It’s just a matter of finding out how to apply that principle to our physiology.
> *Originally posted by **[somebody613](/forums/9/topics/283349?page=1#posts-6111438):***
> The COMMAND was.
> “Don’t eat that candy” is equally a PART OF EDUCATION like “don’t touch that wire” is.
> Which means, that it’s not the CANDY that is important, but rather OBEDIENCE.
So if my son touches the wire I should then condemn him and his children for disobedience. Wow, I’m a massive dick.
* * *
To the OP:
I don’t think that there is any higher instance that keeps us from living forever. The reason why we are not immortal is biology. I think that we currently cannot achieve immortality because our cells cannot replace themselves indefinitely. After a certain point our body’s potential is simply at its limits. It starts to degenerate until it finally gives in. Better food and keeping the body in shape can extend the time we have, as we can see today if we compare it to the past or countries that don’t offer their inhabitants the same living standard we have in developed countries.
What is interesting is that there are organisms that are theoretically immortal like [this jellyfish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula) that basically can revert to its polyp stage after already having lived in its adult form. Maybe we will find out how this works on a genetic level soon and maybe we find a way to apply this to other genomes, maybe even our own some day.
zomgsilverore, are you considering immortality and reproduction to be mutually exclusive? Because if not, then every human who ever lived would still be alive (apart from a relative handful of accidental deaths). And every human who ever lived would still be reproducing! That would make for quite a crowded planet. Our species would have eaten everything long ago. Without food and without altering our physiology dramatically, how could we remain immortal?
I think most people would prefer “not aging” over “not dying in a can”. :D
You sound like someone never educated nor educating anyone…
Cause in EDUCATION, the goal is to make one understand and remember to “not do” something.
But it’s much easier (and effective) to hit the hand of a 3-year-old who wanted to touch a wire (so he gets the “NO”), than to start explaining him electricity (cause he WILL grow up and find out it anyways, but NOW he has to learn NOT TO TOUCH, only).
Or do you think otherwise?
The seeming contradiction of free choice vs omniscience, is a very LONG (and HARD) topic.
But it IS explained positively, not they way you want it to sound.
[A little insight into this.](http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Free_Will/Responses/Medieval.shtml)
‘cause we still don’t understand the driving force behind our aging process. plus, certain provisions in our body are limited. we can theoretically keep regrowing our skin forever, but not a couple other things. we’re just not made to last.
and biologically, it is necessary for individuals to die; to expire. because it’s a necessary trait of evolution as we understand it. we as a species or population, would not be able to adjust to changing environmental situations if the individuals that make up our species or population wouldn’t die and be replaced by newer generations. so without this aging mechanism, our species would have eventually become unviable and would ironically died out.
survival of the “fittest”, in it’s strangest form.
> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/283349?page=1#posts-6112549):***
> ‘cause we still don’t understand the driving force behind our aging process. plus, certain provisions in our body are limited. we can theoretically keep regrowing our skin forever, but not a couple other things. we’re just not made to last.
> and biologically, it is necessary for individuals to die; to expire. because it’s a necessary trait of evolution as we understand it. we as a species or population, would not be able to adjust to changing environmental situations if the individuals that make up our species or population wouldn’t die and be replaced by newer generations. so without this aging mechanism, our species would have eventually become unviable and would ironically died out.
> survival of the “fittest”, in it’s strangest form.
I think you contradicted yourself there with the “we still don’t understand the driving force behind our aging process” thing and the “biologically, it is necessary for individuals to die; to expire. because it’s a necessary trait of evolution as we understand it” etc. thing even if in rough approximations.
The rest of your ideas make perfect sense though to me.
I don’t see how immortality is possible. We couldn’t live forever, because entropy would eventually make it impossible. Also, I can’t think of anything that can’t be destroyed with enough effort.
Basically, it seems like we would have to find a way to reverse entropy on a large scale, and render ourselves impossible to destroy. In addition to the second, you would probably have to make pain a much more muted thing, because living forever in pain does not sound satisfying.
well there’s two different definitions of immortal: undying, and unaging. what you now seem to be refering to is undying; something that will never die. that seems unlikely.
but i think this discussion should be about unaging; that which has stopped aging. i think we might in some form achieve this.
@Somebody – What I propose wouldn’t necessarily result in anyone living in a tin can. By the time it’s possible, I assume it will be more an integration of man and machine than our brains being flat-out placed inside robots.
It would start with little changes. Brain implants, small mechanical augmentations to make our lives better (already happening to an extent; look at pacemakers and the much-researched synthetic eye). That’ll continue and escalate until we can either prolong our lifespan indefinitely, or become extinct. It’s inevitable that we will integrate with technology; more and more people subscribe to the power of science and technology every day. The only question is what results it will have on our species.
As for those discussing evolution as a barrier to immortality, I do not see it that way. We have already defied evolution to a great extent by prolonging the lives of those who would otherwise die with modern medicine. It is humanity’s role, with our free will and rationality, to break the patterns that once bound us, (and still bind the animal kingdom, such as instincts and “survival of the fittest”) and push the limits of our capabilities.
Provided we don’t go extinct, we’ll just keep learning and growing. We will expand as needed to maintain our numbers, provided our technology keeps up in terms of providing habitation potential for barren planets. As long as humanity continues to exist, I can’t rule out the possibility of immortality being achieved one day.
Bicentennial Man subverted…
NOT a very nice solution…
BTW, even from evolution’s POV, it’s never said to be limited to “natural” causes only.
We’ve already killed countless species since the first mammoth was killed with a rock – and affected countless species by artificial breeding (I don’t believe in evolution, but I can use it for explanation purposes).
But I personally hold the way I said before – we were created immortal and so we shall revert to this state ultimately.
The only question is, WHEN.
Not sure on this and it maybe complete bull if we found a way to stop chromosomes shortening (which is caused by chromosomes reacting with oxygen or, something like that, over time) we could stop or prevent aging. Anyone else heard of this theory?
Don’t be so sure we can’t find a way to stop aging and essentially be immortal
[We’re getting closer everyday](http://www.globaltimes.cn/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Print.aspx?tabid=99&tabmoduleid=94&articleId=720619&moduleId=405&PortalID=0)