The Quest for Immortality and How it Drives Civilization

[MachineGhost]

I recommend this book.  While not having the best prose or anything especially erudite, I feel it provides a "missing link" that ties together disparate threads from human history, especially in terms of irrationality and religion, and which does not rely on the tired, old perspectives of economics or war.  There's a lot more going on under the hood of civilization than I previously realized.

http://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Quest ... 307884910/

MG

P.S.  I'm tickled pink by the whom of who wrote the one negative comment.

[MediumTex]

P.S.  I'm tickled pink by the whom of who wrote the one negative comment.

I read that one, and it reminded me of the manager of a fried chicken joint criticizing an article suggesting that eating too much fried food might be bad for your health.

[MediumTex]

In looking through more of the reviews of this interesting book, the topic nibbles around on an idea that has been endlessly interesting to me, and it involves the social and cultural analogs to the individual's desire to live forever.  These collective beliefs are manifested in the desire for the state, religion, or other set of organizing beliefs and structures to exist into perpetuity, even though all human institutions have a way of passing away as they lose their relevance and/or ability to control their adherents.

If you think about it, it's sort of like the modern state is to government as religion is to the individual.

[jackely]

In looking through more of the reviews of this interesting book, the topic nibbles around on an idea that has been endlessly interesting to me, and it involves the social and cultural analogs to the individual's desire to live forever.  These collective beliefs are manifested in the desire for the state, religion, or other set of organizing beliefs and structures to exist into perpetuity, even though all human institutions have a way of passing away as they lose their relevance and/or ability to control their adherents.

If you think about it, it's sort of like the modern state is to government as religion is to the individual.

The Bible says that man (ADAM) ate from the tree of life after being warned not do do it and then God drove him from the garden and set a a flaming sword to guard the tree of life lest he eat of it again and live forever. (For the record, MOSES is the author of this nonsense many years after it actually happened).

This was the accepted wisdom for many years. I think even Darwin accepted the Biblical account before he set out on his adventures to the Galapagos (or so I have read though how can you ever really know what was in Darwin's mind considering the biased state of mass-media at the time - sarcasm intended).

So what of the desire to live forever? Do brute animals even conceive of the concept of forever?.

What is the driving force to live forever and where does it come from?

For the record, I am not anti-science. I have great respect for the achievements of science. The discipline of science has served us well and has been a very great benefit to society as far as I can see - please keep up the good words scientists.

But I don't see where it has the answers to the most important questions. Maybe it will. If it can present it in a form beyond XYZ=ABC*234^2d&4F squared and I can understand then I will be happy (probably not, I'll  still drink too much and my wife will complain).

[lazyboy]

The subject of immortality naturally leads me to thinking about longevity, which likely is the best we can do.  I'm interested in the practical aspects of longevity but I like a good story and theory so I'm also curious about the book MG is recommending.

Below is a link to a video of a Chi Gong master and a neuro-psychologist taking about and demonstrating practical methods to increase energy, well being and longevity.

In Conversation with Master Mingtong Gu and Dr. Rick Hanson

A Qigong Mind and A Benevolent Brain. From May 1, 2012 Live Online broadcast. (01.01.27)

http://www.chicenter.com/Chi/OnlineCour ... 9&pid=RH12

[MachineGhost]

Having now finished the book, I have edited and downgraded the emotion of my original recommendation.  To put it in MMR terms, it was good for the "operational realities" of how various immortality narratives have shaped civilization throughout time, most especially in the extreme over-emphasis on the individual that we are so aligned to in the West, especially libertarians.  What I find weak, however, is in the "proscriptive remedies".  The author comes up with very little evidence to denounce each of the immortality narratives as worthless and then assumes that smidgen of data is enough to declare ad hoc invalidity going forward.  Maybe he was trying to stick to a logical, rational argument or maybe it was his personal beliefs interfering, but I did not find it convincing.

[MediumTex]

Having now finished the book, I have edited and downgraded the emotion of my original recommendation.  To put it in MMR terms, it was good for the "operational realities" of how various immortality narratives have shaped civilization throughout time, most especially in the extreme over-emphasis on the individual that we are so aligned to in the West, especially libertarians.  What I find weak, however, is in the "proscriptive remedies".  The author comes up with very little evidence to denounce each of the immortality narratives as worthless and then assumes that smidgen of data is enough to declare ad hoc invalidity going forward.  Maybe he was trying to stick to a logical, rational argument or maybe it was his personal beliefs interfering, but I did not find it convincing.

It is always a little unsettling when someone who obviously has a very strong mind takes on a large topic and miraculously winds up the analysis at a set of conclusions that perfectly align with the beliefs that he brought to the topic in the first place.

That's not to say that arriving at conclusions that match up with one's own beliefs somehow takes away from the strength of the conclusions, but I am always a lot more impressed when a researcher winds up an analysis by saying something to the effect of: "What I discovered is not what I was expecting or looking for, but nevertheless I have to report that this is what I found."

For example, when I read or hear Richard Dawkins speak, he always seems remarkably dismissive of anything that doesn't perfectly agree with his worldview.  When you combine this apparent lack of intellectual curiosity outside of a certain mental framework with a personal style that might be described as "pompous asshole", I feel for those people who are forced to interact with him (or people like him) who really are willing to consider the views of others in good faith and with an open mind.