• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Statistics Every Immortalist Should Know


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 February 2003 - 10:29 PM


Statistics Every Immortalist Should Know

In this thread we'll explore and compile statistics concerning the debate on physical immortality. I hope to organize this thread into talking points and add this resource to the documents folder.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 February 2003 - 10:41 PM

Beliefs in Evolution/Creation

In views that diverge widely from those in other developed nations, in a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed people about their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Another 39 percent subscribed to a “theistic evolution” view, that humans did develop over millions of years from lower life forms, but God guided the process. Only 10 percent said they believe in evolution with no participation from God. Seven percent had no opinion.

A 1991 survey asking the exact same question in 17 countries found adults elsewhere were much less likely to take the literal view. In Great Britain, for instance, the percentage was 7 percent. Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands were also among the nations where a smaller percentage of adults believed in taking the Bible literally

Posted Image
http://abcnews.go.co...iews990816.html

Interestingly, the article indicates that the reason America has a higher number of people taking the Bible literally is because the US is a very free and open country in respect to religion. This creates a 'competition' for customers. Because of this competition, there is much more proselytizing to bring people into a certain fold.

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 February 2003 - 11:05 PM

------Planetary Death Rate
(courtesy of the US Census Bureau)
1.8 humans per second
106 humans per minute
6,360 humans per hour
152,640 humans per day
55,713,600 humans per year
http://sysopmind.com...ndimaterie.html

---------CRYONICS
98 :: In Suspension (4th quarter 2002)
52 :: Alcor
46 :: Cryonics Inst.

~1200 :: Registered Members
605 :: Alcor
~600 :: CI

----------NANOTECHNOLOGY -
Between 1997 and 2002 nanotechnology research and development has increased dramatically worldwide (all figures in US dollars):

USA: From $432 million to $604 million
Western Europe: From $126 million to more than $350 million
Japan: From $120 million to $750 million
South Korea: From nothing to $100 million
Taiwan: From nothing to $70 million
Australia: From nothing to $40 million
China: From nothing to $40 million
The rest of the world: From nothing to $270 million

----Planed Nanotech Spending by Govs in 2003
$1.2 billion :: Europe EU
$730 million :: United States
$600 Mill :: Japan
~$200 Mill :: China

---------Anti-Aging Research Funding
~$ ? :: By US Gov
~$ ? :: By Private Sector


---------Internet Meme Watch
GOOGLE (Word Count Internet): Feb 2003
physical immortality: 123,000
cryonics: 63,500
life extension: 2,570,000
==
GOOGLE (Word Count Internet): Oct 2003
physical immortality: 134,000
cryonics: 121,000
life extension: 6,420,000
===
GOOGLE (Word Count Internet): Oct 2003
"physical immortality" 134,000
cryonics 121,000
"life extension" 6,420,000



-------Lifespan Statistics
122 Years: Oldest Aged Person: Jeanne Louise Calment link

World Average:
~30,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 2000 ~63 Years
~15,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 1900 ~48 Years
~7,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 1800 ~24 Years

7 per 1,000 Births :: Infinite Mortality Rate 2000
300-400 per 1,000 Births :: Infinite Mortality Rate 1900


--- Oldest Lab Mouse
Died at four years, 11 months and three weeks old :: Mar 2003
http://www.imminst.o...T&f=42&t=942&s=

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 March 2003 - 08:56 AM

When will computer hardware match the human brain?
Hans Moravec
http://www.transhuma...me1/moravec.htm

Cool graphs and stats.. to be interwoven into this project.

Posted Image

#5 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 05 March 2003 - 02:36 AM

Beliefs in Evolution/Creation

In views that diverge widely from those in other developed nations, in a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed people about their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Another 39 percent subscribed to a “theistic evolution” view, that humans did develop over millions of years from lower life forms, but God guided the process. Only 10 percent said they believe in evolution with no participation from God. Seven percent had no opinion.

A 1991 survey asking the exact same question in 17 countries found adults elsewhere were much less likely to take the literal view. In Great Britain, for instance, the percentage was 7 percent. Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands were also among the nations where a smaller percentage of adults believed in taking the Bible literally

Posted Image
http://abcnews.go.co...iews990816.html

Interestingly, the article indicates that the reason America has a higher number of people taking the Bible literally is because the US is a very free and open country in respect to religion.  This creates a 'competition' for customers.  Because of this competition, there is much more proselytizing to bring people into a certain fold.


Gregory S. Paul wrote a must-read article about this disparity between the U.S. and other developed countries in the area of religious belief: "The Secular Revolution of the West," in the Summer 2002 issue of Free Inquiry magazine.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find this article on the Web, so you'll probably have to look up a copy in the library.

Paul points out that religious belief has imploded in most developed democratic countries in a kind of spontaneous way, without any organized effort to bring it about, unlike the case in former Communist countries. American religiosity makes the U.S. more like a Third World country than what you'd expect from our level of development. The fact that other modern countries can maintain a high quality of life without religion shows that people don't need religion to live successfully, despite all the religious propaganda to the contrary in this country. Fortunately, despite all the noises made by christian fundamentalists, the secularization progress in the U.S. is finally underway, so barring a catastrophe Americans will eventually catch up with the 20th Century's view of reality.

#6 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 14 March 2003 - 06:16 PM

http://story.news.ya...life_expectancy

U.S. Life Expectancy Tops 77 Years
Fri Mar 14,10:03 AM ET
By DANIEL YEE, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - Life expectancy for Americans reached an all-time high of 77.2 years in 2001, federal officials said

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) said Friday that life expectancy increased by two-tenths of a year from 2000. A drop in major causes of deaths, such as heart disease, cancer and stroke contributed to the increase.

For men, life expectancy increased from 74.3 years in 2000 to 74.4 years in 2001. For women, it increased from 79.7 years to 79.8 years for the same period. The CDC analyzed more than 97 percent of all state death certificates issued in 2001.

"For the individual, it's good news to know that diseases of the heart are declining, that cancer is declining and stroke is declining," said Elizabeth Arias, statistician for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which conducted the study.

"All of these have a lot to do with behavior, something that individuals have a direct say in their own lives in terms of diet and smoking and risk-taking behavior," she said.

The national death rate dropped slightly from 869 deaths per 100,000 people in 2000 to 855 deaths per 100,000 in 2001. The 2001 infant mortality rate remained the same from 2000 at 6.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Deaths from HIV (news - web sites) and AIDS (news - web sites) dropped nearly 4 percent between 2000 and 2001, a downward trend since 1995.

Deaths from heart disease and cancer dropped by 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Stroke deaths dropped by 5 percent. The biggest drop was 7 percent for influenza and pneumonia deaths, the CDC said.

"Heart disease accounts for over 50 percent of all deaths," Arias said. "As they decline, they have the greatest impact on life expectancy as opposed" to diseases that aren't as common among Americans.

Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of Emory University's department of health policy and management, said further research should be done to see what exactly has created the life expectancy increases.

"How much are due to changes in behavior and lifestyle or interventions in spending in health care?" Thorpe said. "Those are the types of analogies we need to do next to see what's driving improvement."

The report said there were more deaths from kidney disease, hypertension and Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), increases that ranged between 3 percent and 5 percent. Arias said the higher numbers of deaths from the diseases, which are common among the elderly, were expected because of the country's aging population.

Homicides also increased by 17 percent, something that federal officials attributed to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Without the attacks, the homicide rate would have declined by 1.7 percent, Arias said.

___

New federal data shows the life expectancy of Americans has increased to an all-time high.


U.S. Life expectancy at birth:

Overall:

2001: 77.2 years

2000: 77.0 years

Men, 2001: 74.4 years

Men, 2000: 74.3 years

Women, 2001: 79.8 years

Women, 2000: 79.7 years

Life expectancy by race:

Whites:

2001: 77.7 years

2000: 77.6 years

Blacks:

2001: 72.2 years

2000: 71.9 years

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

___

On the Net:

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

#7 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 March 2003 - 02:42 AM

THE HARRIS POLL #52, September 13, 2000
http://www.harrisint...dex.asp?PID=112

America continues to be one of the world’s most religious countries. The overwhelming majority of adult Americans believe in God (94%), heaven (89%), the resurrection of Christ (86%), the survival of the soul after death (86%), miracles (85%) and the virgin birth of Jesus (82%). Surveys in European countries have usually found far larger numbers of people who do not believe in God (and who probably do not believe in heaven, the soul or Christianity). Furthermore, there is no sign that America is becoming either a more, or less, religious country as measured by its beliefs. The numbers who hold these beliefs have not changed significantly since similar questions were asked in 1994 and 1998

#8 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:16 AM

This may be of use..

Significant decline in mortality rates shown for Los Angeles County

Using the California Statistical Master Death File for the years 1990 to 2000, investigators announced significant declines in mortality rates had taken place for the leading causes of death in Los Angeles County (LAC) over the 10-year period. The results from their study were announced at the national meeting of the American College of Preventive Medicine Meeting in San Diego.
Louise Rollin-Alamillo, M.A., lead author for the study, who is with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, said the leading causes of death that declined were: cancer (15 percent decline), stroke (17 percent decline), heart disease (26 percent decline), chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (29 percent decline), unintentional injuries (32 percent decline), suicide (32 percent decline), homicide (45 percent decline), and HIV/AIDS (77 percent decline). However, the investigators did see a significant increase in mortality from diabetes (53 percent) over the 10-year period.

Data for the study came from deaths organized into leading cause categories according to underlying cause of death on death certificates in LA County. They were calculated by race/ethnicity and standardized using the 2000 U.S. population figures.

Study results showed that all-cause mortality rates declined by 14 percent in African-Americans, by 15 percent in Caucasians (white persons), by 14 percent in Asian/Pacific Islanders, and by 21 percent in Latinos.

Moreover, age-adjusted mortality from diabetes was over two times higher in African-Americans (44 per 100,000 population) than in white persons; it was one and one-half times higher in Latinos (30 per 100,000), when compared with white persons, (19 per 100,000) or with Asian/Pacific Islanders (18 per 100,000).

According to the authors, declining mortality rates for most leading causes of death might reflect the success of intervention efforts. However, racial disparities persist and may be widening despite declining mortality rates.

They believe that these findings highlight the importance of focused primary and secondary prevention efforts, especially those focused on diabetes.

#9 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 31 March 2003 - 07:10 AM

Credit Lazarus Long for finding this information:

http://channels.nets.../believeindevil

Is There a Devil? Find Out Who Says So


Look to your left. Look to your right. Chances are both people you see believe in the devil and hell.

We are a nation of believers. A Harris Poll surveyed 2,201 American adults about their religious beliefs and found out some fascinating information. Most Christians--not surprisingly--believe in God, the survival of the soul after death, miracles, heaven, the Virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But more than half of all adults also believe in ghosts. About a third believe in astrology. And more than a quarter believe they were reincarnated from other people who walked on this Earth generations ago.

This is what your friends and neighbors believe in:

God: 90 percent
Miracles: 89 percent
Survival of the soul after death: 84 percent
Resurrection of Christ: 80 percent
Virgin birth: 77 percent
Devil: 68 percent
Hell: 69 percent
Ghosts: 51 percent
Astrology: 31 percent
Reincarnation: 27 percent
Where will you go after you die?

Expect to go to heaven: 63 percent
Expect to go to hell: 1 percent
Expect to go to purgatory: 6 percent
Expect to go someplace else: 11 percent
Don't have a clue: 18 percent
Here are some fun facts from The Harris Poll:

Women are more likely than men to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs.
African-Americans are more likely than whites and Hispanics to hold Christian beliefs.
Republicans are more likely to hold Christian beliefs than members of other political parties.
The level of religious belief is generally highest among people without a college education and lowest among those with postgraduate degrees.
Not all people who call themselves Christians actually hold conventional Christian beliefs. For example, 1 percent of Christians do not believe in God and 8 percent do not believe in the survival of the soul after death.
More than a quarter of those who say they are not Christian do believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the Virgin birth.
--Cathryn Conroy

#10 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 May 2003 - 05:17 AM

Transhumanism Membership Stats :: http://www.transhumanism.org

WTA Board: 3 non-US, 7 US
> > > >
Paid members: 34 non-US, 76 US
> > > >
Basic members: 1127 non-US, 1060 US
> > >

#11 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 20 April 2004 - 06:45 PM

Yeesss... This thread really speak to my perfectionist way of living. I have several links stored that may have interest to this thread. I will look them up soon. I would love to have a up to date progress indicator with immortality related information. ;)

#12 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 20 April 2004 - 06:49 PM

What is the progress on this project ?.
It seems this thread has been idle for some time.

#13 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 26 May 2004 - 07:38 AM

These stats are a sad look at just how backwards most Americans really are. I shudder to think that there are this many disillusioned human beings on this planet. I would have thought there would be more transhumanists members but again much lower than I would have thought. It seems these people need a healthy dose of Carl Sagan for Breakfast, followed by Bertrand Russell for lunch and maybe BJKlein for dinner! :)

I would also like to see statistics on deaths from past and current wars, it would be nice to see just how uncivilized we are given where we should be at IMAO ;)

#14 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 26 May 2004 - 08:21 AM

What is the progress on this project ?. It seems this thread has been idle for some time.


Ongoing and welcome to any further revision and addition.

#15 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 13 August 2004 - 06:57 PM

These stats are a sad look at just how backwards most Americans really are. I shudder to think that there are this many disillusioned human beings on this planet. I would have thought there would be more transhumanists members but again much lower than I would have thought.

So what about someone who believes in Christianity, Evolution, and Transhumanism? Is such a person "backwards"? I realize where you were going with this, but...

To be honest, my belief in Christianity is more a vestige of a strong faith that was not burned into me through indoctrination during childhood, but rather acquired by choice after high school, despite my belief in Evolution.

Now, nine years later, I am in a state of conflict at the moment, as I currently strongly embrace Transhumanism. It appeals to the scientist in me, much as Evolution did and still does. But more than that, Transhumanism gives hope and faith about the future, in the immortalization and perfection of our bodies and minds, und so weiter. A religion consisting of Transhumanism combined with a healthy dose of cynicism, leads to many aspects of the Christian religion I hold dear, without the need for the mystical and unknowable.

Even many of the motifs of both "religions" line up: belief in the eventual perfection and immortality of our bodies; belief that Man will someday become as God, able to control matter itself, and to direct the Creation and course of life on a planetary scale; belief in a single event to take place roughly 2 millenia after Christ that will cause such upheaval as to make prediction of events beyond that event useless, after which governments and society itself will drastically change, and shortly after which Man will become immortal; belief that society will become corrupt and lose all of the morals held dear by our forebears (i.e. sexuality in all its forms will become legally and socially acceptable (e.g. adultery; prostitution; polygamy; homo-, bi-, and trans-sexuality, etc.), profanity, sexuality and violence in media (and the first two in public) fully tolerated, honesty and integrity increasingly replaced by self-preservation and self-gratification, and people generally given the choice to do whatever they want without social judgement, let alone legal judgement); belief that the Constitution will hang by a thread (as the likes of Bush, Ashcroft, and a number of powerful Senators, and future versions of the same, continue to erode privacy, free speech, etc.); belief in a world-enveloping and -devastating war to occur at or near the aforementioned "event".

In my mind, the two views are not entirely incompatible; even if Christianity were found to be untrue, I admire the accuracy with which its "prophets" have predicted modern problems.

Rather than dwell on this conflict until resolved, I merely move forward with Transhumanism, while not denying Christianity, with the faith that this conflict will be resolved eventually. Either they are fully compatible or not; time will tell. At the very least, I know they are not fully incompatible, so I maintain my claim to Christian faith for now.

Besides, I believe that if Christianity is true, then the issue will be resolved in the next few decades, well before my "natural" lifetime is up, and certainly long before my bio-engineered lifetime is up. I actually foresee the Singularity as being closely correlated with the rates of change and chaos that should accompany Christ's second coming. Between that, the possible WMD wildcard possessed by terrorists, the general tension around the world between nuclear and non-nuclear heavily armed nations, and a few well-timed natural disasters, and I foresee disasters of Biblical proportions in the waiting, which could herald the coming of a "Messiah".

But, it might not happen. I'm enough of a pragmatist that it won't end my world if the world just keeps on chugging along for decades after the Singularity, with no sign of His coming. I may even abandon my Christian faith long before the Singularity, but I'm not bound to do so any time soon...

Jay Fox

PS: I hope I haven't tarnished my image here. I try not to discuss my religious beliefs here when I'm in the other fora, as they are mine and I have no intention of forcing them on others. I am as much committed to the goals of immortality and human enhancement as anyone else here; I simply don't particularly see (for the moment) why these are incompatible with religion.

Religious people tend to have many weaknesses when it comes to rational thought and planning for the future, and these weaknesses are probably a big part of why atheists and transhumanist don't like the organized "mystical" religions. I don't particularly see myself having these weaknesses. I don't view my belief in life after death as a crutch to not pursue immortality, but rather as a backup plan if plan A fails. I don't use my religious beliefs as a justification to end an argument I'm losing.

I view religion as a guide in making my own moral decisions, but I know well enough to respect other peoples'. As my own relgion attests, people should be free to believe as they will, and the laws should be based on the will of the people, even when in direct conflict with religious values.

#16

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 14 August 2004 - 09:41 AM

jaydfox I wouldn't say Transhumanism and religion are incompatible but I would think the tendency is toward an agnostic concept or atheistic belief combined with some materialist views. These latter tend not to clash as much with Transhumanism as some religious beliefs.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that you can believe in a religion and still be a transhumanist. If you are person who is more open-minded to the what it entails to be a transhumanist as a whole, or in part at least, then you can certainly be religious and a transhumanist at the same time.

With that in mind however, many members of this board are well aware of the threat that organized religion(s) can pose to transhumanist pursuits. Those sections of the religious population that want to impede progress or limit social evolution of a society because of their beliefs. Even if you subscribe to the same religion as some of these people, you may not interpret your religious belief the same way and can support transhumanism in the face of such resistance from fellow religious followers.

This post may seem a little jumbled but I hope I got my point across, and if you were wondering I am an agnostic.

#17 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 15 August 2004 - 01:30 AM

With that in mind however, many members of this board are well aware of the threat that organized religion(s) can pose to transhumanist pursuits. Those sections of the religious population that want to impede progress or limit social evolution of a society because of their beliefs.

Agreed.

Even if you subscribe to the same religion as some of these people, you may not interpret your religious belief the same way and can support transhumanism in the face of such resistance from fellow religious followers.

Indeed, I've found this to be the case in discussions with others of my faith (or I suppose I should say, of my religion. Our "faith" is placed in many of the same things, but to vastly different degrees).

This post may seem a little jumbled but I hope I got my point across...

Yes, it came across quite well. And thanks for not being judgemental.

Jay Fox

#18 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 December 2004 - 04:12 PM

CRYONICS

Alcor - Life Extension Foundation
Located: Scotsdale AZ
Started: 1972
Members: 667
Suspended: 64 (Dec 2002: 52)
Cost: 80k neuro, 150k full body

Cryonics Institute
Located: Clinton Township, MI
Started: 1976
Members: 464
Suspended: 67 (Dec 2002: 46)
Cost: 28k full body (only)

"The Prospect of Immortality" by Robert Ettinger
Private Publication: 1962

DEATH

Human Death Rate (US Census Bureau):
1.8 per sec
106 min
6,360 hr
152,640 day
55,713,600 yr
http://sysopmind.com...ndimaterie.html


MPRIZE

$105,593 - Cash
$794,866 - Cash & Pledges
http://www.mprize.org/


LIFESPAN

117 yrs - Kamato Hongo (Died Oct. 31, 2004)
http://www.oup.com/e...der/japan_cent/

122 yrs - Jeanne Louise Calment (Feb 1997)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=510

Avg human lifespan (World):
1800 -- 24 yrs
1900 -- 48 yrs
2000 -- 63 yrs

Avg human lifespan (US)
2003 -- 77 yrs

Avg human lifespan (Japan)
2003 - 85 yrs women
2003 - 78 yrs men

4 yrs 11 mths -- oldest mouse (Feb 2003)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=42&t=942

IMMORTAL LIFE

Hydra
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=884

Sea Urchins (200+ yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=48&t=2272

Tetrahymena
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=48&t=1064

Microbes (Alive after 2,800+ yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=536

Hela Cells (Cancer)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=518

Beta Cells
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=512

Stem Cells
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=511

Bacteria (Alive after 250-million yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...ct=ST&f=48&t=66


PLANTS

BristelCone Pine (4,700+ yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=517

Mojave Desert creosote bush (12,000+ yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=514

King's holly (43,600+ yrs)
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=48&t=513


ANTI-AGING DRUG COMPANIES

Elixir Pharmaceuticals
LifeGen Technologies
Longenity
Chronogen
GeroTech
Juvenon
Rejuvenon

#19 dave01

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 December 2006 - 07:47 AM

World Average:
~30,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 2000 ~63 Years
~15,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 1900  ~48 Years
~7,000 Days :: Average Human Lifespan in 1800 ~24 Years


Great compilation of statistics. I find averages too often to be non-useful or misleading, and I think that's the case with human lifespan. I think medians and tiers are probably more useful. For example, median lifespan, and lifespan of the 99.99th% (1 in 10,000, or the 600,000 longest living people).

#20 chuckb

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 4

Posted 22 February 2007 - 02:34 PM

Only 10 percent said they believe in evolution with no participation from God.


It seems to me that a group such as ours should be mostly made up of this group.

However, I cannot count myself among those 10%, because I do not 'believe' in evolution.

I know it has occured as fact. This is different from belief.

Belief is NOT science. Belief is faith.

The only hope we have of avoiding death does not lie with belief. It lies with PROOF of facts. It lies with science. One cannot 'believe' science any more than one can perform "faith surgery", (if we remember the Gary Larson cartoon). If you 'believe' in the findings of science, you don't understand science. You are practicing pseudoscience, which is not the same thing.

Please excuse my arrogance in sounding like a lecturer, but the point needs to be made, and I think the more scientifically minded we immortalists become, the closer our goal is.

#21 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 22 February 2007 - 07:35 PM

Jaydfox - Thanks for coming out of the closet!

Many people visit this board who never post - I'm sure some may feel intimidated by the strong atheistic lean of this thread - Its great to see someone like yourself admitting to a religious beleif

I agree we have a lot of weirdos out there - People who kill in the name of god - A religious majority that is intolerant and too conservative - preachers who kill and the priests who rape

As a semi religious person myself - I don't think religion is the issue - I can see how people think it is but I think its just an excuse - People who have never questioned their religious beleifs or who have never asked themselves the tough questions are easy targets
(we might as well martyr them while we are at it)

The real problem I think most educated people have with society stems from ignorance and intolerance.

We need to educate more people and have them think for themselves.
Not kick them in the heads!

Ignorance and Intolerance feed many of the ills of society -

Edited by shadowrun, 22 February 2007 - 07:47 PM.


#22 chuckb

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 4

Posted 23 February 2007 - 12:43 AM

Excuse me for being forward, but you must have misunderstood.

Absolutely nowhere did I admit to any religious belief.

Being entirely a scientist, although not professional, I have no room for 'belief' anywhere in my life.That is the message I was trying to get across - people who 'believe' anything about science don't understand that science is incompatible with 'belief'.

Evolution, being a proven fact, need not be 'believed' in, merely acknowledged as true or -falsely- 'believed' to be wrong.

Anyone who is religious and not a hypocrite should have nothing to do with immortality; they would believe in everlasting afterlife, on the basis of faith alone, as there is no proof whatsoever for it.

I wish people to understand that science cannot have belief anywhere in it, and so belief must be left behind altogether.

please forgive me if I was unclear in my previous message.

#23 jdog

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Arkansas

Posted 23 February 2007 - 09:37 PM

It seems to me that a group such as ours should be mostly made up of this group.

However, I cannot count myself among those 10%, because I do not 'believe' in evolution.

I know it has occured as fact. This is different from belief.

Belief is NOT science. Belief is faith.

The only hope we have of avoiding death does not lie with belief. It lies with PROOF of facts. It lies with science. One cannot 'believe' science any more than one can perform "faith surgery", (if we remember the Gary Larson cartoon). If you 'believe' in the findings of science, you don't understand science. You are practicing pseudoscience, which is not the same thing.

Please excuse my arrogance in sounding like a lecturer, but the point needs to be made, and I think the more scientifically minded we immortalists become, the closer our goal is.


Believe it or not, you do "believe" in evolution. The concept of evolution, as with any other scientific law or principle is essentially derived through a series of reasonable inductions. As 'scientific' and 'empirical' you think you are, while that is rational, is just a perception. Our idea of science is unfortunately founded on non-empirical and immaterial concepts.

#24 chuckb

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 4

Posted 24 February 2007 - 12:59 AM

Hardly. 'Belief' and 'Proof' are not compatible.

Evolution is proven to have occured.
Where is there 'belief' in the fossil records, showing intermediate forms?
Where is there 'belief' in Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy, showing distant relation in diverse groups?
Where is there 'belief' in comparing the DNA of diverse groups?

There is no 'belief' in any of that. It relies on solid proof: the record is there for us to see, no matter where in the world you live, no matter what differing specimens you use. There are no inductions to be used when you have a fossil of Archaeopteryx in front of you.
Show me where proof is not the key concept of science and then I *might* believe you. If I were credulous.

You seem to be using philosophy, am I right?

#25 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:31 AM

There is no 'belief' in any of that. It relies on solid proof: the record is there for us to see, no matter where in the world you live, no matter what differing specimens you use. There are no inductions to be used when you have a fossil of Archaeopteryx in front of you.
Show me where proof is not the key concept of science and then I *might* believe you. If I were credulous.


Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Epistemology

#26 jdog

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Arkansas

Posted 24 February 2007 - 05:15 AM

Hardly. 'Belief' and 'Proof' are not compatible.

Evolution is proven to have occured.
Where is there 'belief' in the fossil records, showing intermediate forms?
Where is there 'belief' in Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy, showing distant relation in diverse groups?
Where is there 'belief' in comparing the DNA of diverse groups?

There is no 'belief' in any of that. It relies on solid proof: the record is there for us to see, no matter where in the world you live, no matter what differing specimens you use. There are no inductions to be used when you have a fossil of Archaeopteryx in front of you.
Show me where proof is not the key concept of science and then I *might* believe you. If I were credulous.

You seem to be using philosophy, am I right?


Yeah, I guess you could call it "philosophy". I suppose I opened a "can of worms" with my response, but I couldn't help it - I'm taking a quantum reality class this semester [lol], and theory of knowledge is exactly what we're discussing at the moment.


What I'm trying to say is that in whatever context you choose, when we 'throw around' these absolutes; "this is a 'fact,'" "that is the 'truth,'" etc., and when we reduce these lables to their core, ultimately what we're left with is a foundation that is immaterial and unverifiable. In other words, we can't make statements without taking something for granted. ALL propositions about what we think to be 'real' and ALL methods we use to establish 'facts' are taken for granted. These 'facts' are just constructions of a limited human mind that to put it bluntly, doesn't know its a**hole from a hole in the ground 100 light years away from us. Do we know the 'law' of gravity applies 100 light years away? No, we do not. So, it's quite possible the concept of gravity takes on different properties to the ones we know here on earth.

I realize this is outside of the scope of the thread, and probably nothing you expected a semantic quibble over, so I appologize, but out of personal principles I felt it necessary to point this out that using the word 'believe' is more rational than using an absolute such as 'factual' or 'truth'.

#27 chuckb

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 4

Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:22 PM

Actually, some things you mention I find interesting. For the diagram on Wiki, I operate firmly in the red side of 'truth' - that is, things as they actually are, and not how I would wish them to be - of course I should love it if there were an afterlife - then I would not have actually lost anyone! But what we want of course is not what reality is. (BTW, epistemology, being a philosophy, has no actual proof, has it?)

I find it interesting when you bring up the example

Do we know the 'law' of gravity applies 100 light years away?


We have no reason to logically postulate otherwise; it appears to be a true fact wherever we look. Since it appears to be so, why would one question the logic? If it should be proven otherwise some other day, then we have something different to know.

I could understand that in theoretical physics, and/or the study of particles you start getting into realms of suspecting something to be true, and then operating under the set of conclusion if your suspicions are in fact reality.
But there is no need for belief in there.

Is there not a difference between:

concluding something is true based upon fact
and
concluding something is true based upon desire
(while having either deliberate or non-deliberate ignorance of certain facts)

This is the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Given the facts we have today about our longevity and the brain being all that is required for life, we predict that putting your brain only "on ice" is ALL that will be required for your future resurrection, when technology develops the neccessary tools. Most of us are 99% sure that there won't be something missing from us because our so-called 'soul' has fled!
Someone who isn't sure at all, would probably have belief in there - because they haven't studied!

Having studied at the Bachelor's level only, I have seen more than enough evidence to know evolution has occured. I will not waste my time with ridiculous hair-splitting being suprised every morning that the pencil makes a mark on both sides of the paper, and then continue my crossword! (Thanx to Doug A. I hope his brain is on ice!)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users