Page 1 of 1
What do you think of Holts 'Vision'?
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:26 pm
by Revan
His species as it stood didn't deserve to survive: that was the crucial point. Therefore humankind had to change. They had to learn from the Amnion as much as the Amnion learned from them.
They had to become capable of what the Amnion could do.
Force-growing infants.
Imprinting minds.
Practical immortality.
The Amnion had it already. They passed their peculiar consciousness undisturbed from one generation to the next. Their bodies had become tools, organic artifacts, to be shaped, used and discarded as necessary: when one suffered damage, grew old, or died, they simply imprinted themselves upon another. For that reason their ultimate victory over humankind was inevitable. There was no limit to how much they could learn - or how long they could wait.
But if human beings acquired the same capability - if they developed the skill to pass their minds from one inadequate, mortal body to the next - if Holt could prolong his own life indefinitely - Ah, then the nature of the real contest would be altered. Then humankind's innate talents for treachery and mass production would enable them to overwhelm their genetic enemies. And Hold would lead humanity into a limitless future.
Death would never be able to touch him.
Holt's vision... immortality, raises many moral questions.
Do you think Holt's vision is bad? That it is morally wrong? Or that is an amazing imaginative goal? If you had the chance, would you take that immortality?
Never mind the practical questions the question raises. the reality of no-one ever dying, and over-population. I know that, we all do. Instead look at the ethics of Holt's vision.
Honestly, if it were me, and I was in the position where I had a choice, I would take the option of "Imprinting minds", or drugs to fight against the aging process; maybe not forever, but for a time at least.
Because I take it as given that God and heaven do not exist. We are mortal, composed of biological cells, tissues, nucleuses. There is no "spirit" to go up to heaven, and the idea of heaven is impractical; it doesn't exist.
Therefore death is the end, one your body dies, and you die. Forever.
Does anyone want that to happen to them? I don't, I would certainly jump at the catch to prevent my death; and I wouldn't be the only one.
What about anyone here? What would you do?
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
by Usivius
I think I agree with the protagonists of the novels. I think Holt's ideals (not to mention how he goes about them... but that's a different topic) are shite.
Irregardless of heaven and hell, I think the further we separate ourselves from the natural world, the less we become human and ultimately doom ourselves.
Admittedly, I have a rather severe view, I guess, but one cannot expect to separate themselves, as we have been slowly, and now more quickly been doing, is from the world in which we live. The idea that we can continuously change the world, and ourselves, is ultimately damning (oops, wrong word
). If we allow ourselves to evolve along with the changes of the natural worl, we stand a better chance of surviving a lot longer with the world. Unfortunately, we forse to drastic a change upon ourselves and the world, so that neither can catch up naturally, and we are forsed to change things further.
OK, I realize my rant is a little vague, but I will leave it that way, as I am at work and feel al ittle guitly spending the proper time such a topic requires. tee hee
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:52 pm
by Gart
Holt's vision has some merit...if knowledge and experience could be passed along in the way he envisions it might give humanity an edge. Whether a species that had gone that way could still actually be defined as human is quite another question.
However, my feeling is that his tactics would hold up a lot better if they weren't essentially aimed at personal survival, at considerable risk to the species he claims to be trying to preserve. Of course, he believes that his survival is the key to humanity's.
Would I take this particular version of immortality? No, because it's not me that would go on, it'd just be a copy.
As for would I take anti-aging drugs, well probably. I don't know about what happens after death; as a vague agnostic I hope for an afterlife but I have no definitive evidence of one. Even if there is one, there'd still be the matter of God's judgment to face, and I can't say I'm likely to measure up well against that standard. So anything that would help me stave off oblivion or judgement is something I'd favour.
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:38 pm
by Usivius
Even if there is one, there'd still be the matter of God's judgment to face, and I can't say I'm likely to measure up well against that standard. So anything that would help me stave off oblivion or judgement is something I'd favour.
good one...
I've got a few people 'up there' who are already putting in a good word for me...
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:12 am
by Cord Hurn
His species as it stood didn't deserve to survive: that was the crucial point. Therefore humankind had to change. They had to learn from the Amnion as much as the Amnion learned from them.
They had to become capable of what the Amnion could do.
Force-growing infants.
Imprinting minds.
Practical immortality.
The Amnion had it already. They passed their peculiar consciousness undisturbed from one generation to the next. Their bodies had become tools, organic artifacts, to be shaped, used and discarded as necessary: when one suffered damage, grew old, or died, they simply imprinted themselves upon another. For that reason their ultimate victory over humankind was inevitable. There was no limit to how much they could learn - or how long they could wait.
But if human beings acquired the same capability - if they developed the skill to pass their minds from one inadequate, mortal body to the next - if Holt could prolong his own life indefinitely - Ah, then the nature of the real contest would be altered. Then humankind's innate talents for treachery and mass production would enable them to overwhelm their genetic enemies. And Hold would lead humanity into a limitless future.
Death would never be able to touch him.
Holt's "vision" is a bunch of self-serving bunk, a way to rationalize some "rational lies". He'd readily sacrifice his own species if it served his personal desires; I've got no doubt of that.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:50 am
by Avatar
Well, he was afraid to die. So he would do anything he could to prolong his life, preferably indefinitely.
--A
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:53 am
by Cord Hurn
Avatar wrote:Well, he was afraid to die. So he would do anything he could to prolong his life, preferably indefinitely.
--A
Most definitely, Avatar! And if it took selling out humanity to live forever, he'd do that, too! So I think he just
rationalized that what was good for him was good for humanity. He wouldn't be the first.
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:57 am
by Avatar
Hahaha, I'm surprised he even took the trouble to rationalise it.
--A
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:52 pm
by Cord Hurn
Avatar wrote:Hahaha, I'm surprised he even took the trouble to rationalise it.
--A
I suppose Holt took the trouble because he needed to squelch what little bit of conscience he had left.
