Replies

I appreciate the hopefulness for tomorrow and would agree it does lie in great part to technology. And I'm not embarrassed to admit I'd prefer to have the technology first if at all possible.

This issue changes the dynamics of life. Something man didn't give regardless of our belief system. That just seems rather important to me.

When we reach this point.....(begin quote) "will allow us to transcend our frail bodies with all their limitations. Illness, as we know will be eradicated." (snip) "We will be able to live as long as we choose." (end).....then we will no longer be human IMHO.

I admit his understanding of exponential growth and how this would and has played out does sound logical.

And again.....(begin quote) "biology will never be able to match what we will be able to engineer once we fully understand life's principles of operation." (end).....at risk of contradicting myself I find that terribly arrogant. As if we could fully understand life's principles of operation. Good lands, we humans can't even agree on the standard. I said "at risk of contradicting myself" because I still feel we can master this humanity more than we have now. Replacement of the faulty hardware doesn't fix a human soul or repair a broken heart.

I still agree with advancement and would welcome something that could make a faulty heart beat longer. Is that hypocritical? Perhaps, or its just recognizing there should be limits to mankind.