1000 years old?
I ran by this article the other day. I thought of how many more advancements this, if became possible, could lead to. Please read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
However, several other assertions came to mind. First, if people could live for say 800 years, then how would science adapt. For example how much more could Einstein have taught us? Would he even have tried to expand our understanding of everything so diligently? What I am wondering is, "If time became less significant, would we work as hard, be as ambitious for strive so far as we do with less time?"
It is a common theme of man that time is precious and should not be wasted. However, if time became abundant, then perhaps the philosophy would double back on itself as the universe. Wasting time, lower ambitions for the first 400-500 years might be common. Thereby this would slow the advancements in science and technology altogether.
Or would man aspire to do more? Having reached what we now consider to be semi-immortality would we strive to reach farther and faster? Consider the possibilities of space exploration that could be achieved with longer life expectancies. Currently a round trip ticket to Mars, with no layover or time to research, is around 3 years. An average astronaut is around 35+ years of age. This means that of their remaining years 10% of their life, assuming they went to Mars, would be spent on a boat in space. Though many would volunteer, the rewards vs. the cost are hardly worth the venture. Ergo, we are trying to find ways to launch mid-space. Now, expand that life expectancy. Given we have adequate resources; the astronaut would be more likely to spend a longer tour of Mars. The time away would seem as nothing.
What are your thoughts on the impact of science on science; what is the impact on semi-immortality on societal advancement?
I ran by this article the other day. I thought of how many more advancements this, if became possible, could lead to. Please read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
However, several other assertions came to mind. First, if people could live for say 800 years, then how would science adapt. For example how much more could Einstein have taught us? Would he even have tried to expand our understanding of everything so diligently? What I am wondering is, "If time became less significant, would we work as hard, be as ambitious for strive so far as we do with less time?"
It is a common theme of man that time is precious and should not be wasted. However, if time became abundant, then perhaps the philosophy would double back on itself as the universe. Wasting time, lower ambitions for the first 400-500 years might be common. Thereby this would slow the advancements in science and technology altogether.
Or would man aspire to do more? Having reached what we now consider to be semi-immortality would we strive to reach farther and faster? Consider the possibilities of space exploration that could be achieved with longer life expectancies. Currently a round trip ticket to Mars, with no layover or time to research, is around 3 years. An average astronaut is around 35+ years of age. This means that of their remaining years 10% of their life, assuming they went to Mars, would be spent on a boat in space. Though many would volunteer, the rewards vs. the cost are hardly worth the venture. Ergo, we are trying to find ways to launch mid-space. Now, expand that life expectancy. Given we have adequate resources; the astronaut would be more likely to spend a longer tour of Mars. The time away would seem as nothing.
What are your thoughts on the impact of science on science; what is the impact on semi-immortality on societal advancement?