Scientist Says Immortality Only 20 Years Away

[RevolutionThroughReason]

A) To live a helthy way, as every other living being we are created in the way we can live in the nature and feed on the living organisms.
That is how our body is built and not only our but generally organisms.
We feed today mostly n dead modified products that cause problems of health, live a way of life that makes us self ill.
It is amazing to note that a todays Human thinks to be somehow an imperfect living to become ill of everything and to nead 1000 of scientists to learn how to heal all illnesses keeping an unnatural lifetyle.
This needs Territory for research centres, laboratory animals produced to be killed, food for those lab animals that have to be planted destroying natural biotopes, chemical reagents, that are produced destroying ecology. All to show for example materialy that "fried food is not natural and can create cancer", while understanding it is easy without doing all that.

B) Here you have the perfect example how , they want "eternal life", what is born will die, that is a natural law. Sciece atleast today tries simplto fullfill disires of humankind without asking on the just of those desires.

C)The last question I didn't actually understand, try to ask it in easier form, I am not perfect in English my friend.

a.) if what your saying is true why has the base life expectancy improved, polio been irradicated in most of the world, and people are better nourished now more than ever in the history of humanity? It just seems you're throwing around words and not actually demonstrating things with hard evidences.

b.) who said it's a "Law" , people used to say it was the "Law" to die at age 40, now people can live beyond 80, these Laws are man-made, not Nature's Laws.

c.) You're saying we're limited in what we know about nature, and then you say we can know nature by seeing. This is a contradiction then, because our sight would also be limited.

[Tjanaparh]

a.) if what your saying is true why has the base life expectancy improved, polio been irradicated in most of the world, and people are better nourished now more than ever in the history of humanity? It just seems you're throwing around words and not actually demonstrating things with hard evidences.

b.) who said it's a "Law" , people used to say it was the "Law" to die at age 40, now people can live beyond 80, these Laws are man-made, not Nature's Laws.

c.) You're saying we're limited in what we know about nature, and then you say we can know nature by seeing. This is a contradiction then, because our sight would also be limited.

A) Ask forst Yourself please Why polio was such a big problem? Why is Aids such a big problem why cancer is such a big problem? Why people on some periods thaught life expectance is 40 years?
Demonstrate that people havn't been living much longer than even 80 without science! Demonstrate that from ever in history people now are better! And do not accuse me in throwing words.

B) Laws of nature are not manmade, they exist, go in nature and see animals and plants and you will see how much they do exist.
C) I suppose You do not understand me.
Our knowledge is really limited, mainly beacause we like to ignore.

[IamDZJ]

why would they need a time machine to read Mars??

I said reach not read. Because its too far away and impossible to reach with the technologicals means of today's time.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

faye you wouldn't be here in your ripe old age of the 60's if it weren't for these scientists exploring how to improve health.

Big time slip up.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I said reach not read. Because its too far away and impossible to reach with the technologicals means of today's time.

it's not that far away, it's actually possible to reach there in a few years. Furthermore, rocket propulsion technology is improving tremendously. It may be feasible to do all of this by the 22nd century.

[IamDZJ]

In the world on science, there should be no room for the word "may".

[RevolutionThroughReason]

actually .......that's all science is is full of "mays" ....if it were absolutes, how could it improve or develop? ......go study science then comment on what its limitations are.

[IamDZJ]

no

[Toramana]

Let me say my opinion; Scientists and other scholars should have absolute freedom to pursue truth (as objectively as possible) without any regard to consequences (of the discovery of the truth). However, when it comes to use of the knowledge, rigorous (and very objective) social and physical scrutiny/control should be applied to limit the harmful effects and enhance the usefulness.

It is also a fact that much of our moral and social values and mores is due to the constraints imposed on us by our limited knowledge. And science breaks that.

I have one comment about scientific progress and preservation of nature i.e., it is our knowledge and the ability to estimate the overall (by overall I mean in terms of the entire system) cost and benefit of using knowledge that makes us sensitive or insensitive to the preservation of nature. A less technological and less knowledge-based society can be as ruthlessly exploitative of nature as an advanced but unaware one.

[faye]

You're just recycling (no pun intended) the same argument you already stated without nullifying my counter response. You're stuck in a loop Faye, your argument has been debunked. If there wasn't for scientific ingenuity, there wouldn't be people to care an environment even exists.

LOL...what rubbish!!!
you are the loopy one, trying to win a debate by playing silly games, like a teenage, high school boy, with a testosterone imbalance.
i thought we humans are here because god created the environment and us.
you lost your religion now????? or you think scientists are allah????

[Toramana]

LOL...what rubbish!!!
you are the loopy one, trying to win a debate by playing silly games, like a teenage, high school boy, with a testosterone imbalance.
i thought we humans are here because god created the environment and us.
you lost your religion now????? or you think scientists are allah????

faye, don't you think it is primarily science that makes us sensitive to the protection of nature. One may argue it is a double-edged sword that on the one hand gives you power and ability to destroy nature but on the other also gives you the knowledge to preserve it. Although, I think one's love/care of/for nature should not come entirely from one's rational ability---emotions and sentiments (and kind of deep love and affiliation of being part of nature) should also count.

[faye]

it's not that far away, it's actually possible to reach there in a few years. Furthermore, rocket propulsion technology is improving tremendously. It may be feasible to do all of this by the 22nd century.

big deal. so what????
tell me they are doing something worthwhile, not being denialists as to the mess they have created on this planet, by wasting resources to go elsewhere instead of fixing up their mess.
if you cure everything, too many humans survive and the planet is overpopulated. cover the earth with toxic poisonous chemicals, stuffs up the water, air and earth. chemicals produced by scientists are also causing more illnesses. chemicalised foods are counterproductive to good health. gm foods in animal feed were shown to cause fertility problems in pigs.
pharmaceutical medicines are on the firing line for causing deaths more than illegal drugs. (on the news this morning)

scientists can do some good and some bad. why are you being one eyed about science and scientists. is that not illogical?

[faye]

faye, don't you think it is primarily science that makes us sensitive to the protection of nature. One may argue it is a double-edged sword that on the one hand gives you power and ability to destroy nature but on the other also gives you the knowledge to preserve it. Although, I think one's love/care of/for nature should not come entirely from one's rational ability---emotions and sentiments (and kind of deep love and affiliation of being part of nature) should also count.

native peoples throughout the world, did not need science to tell them how sacred, precious and valuable, is the earth we survive on and by. they respected this world more than humans that consider it ok to pollute it with their scientifically created pollutants, that kill so many birds, bees insects, animals.
read some of the words from native americans and other pagans. they already knew that this wonderful creation is a wonderful creation and we are physically created from it.

[Karachi]

These guys can play God all they want, they will never succeed. every thing comes to an end

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

These guys can play God all they want, they will never succeed. every thing comes to an end

This is a real Muslim's repsonse.

Finally.