The Long Journey

[Novidez]

Once satisfied, it is enough.

Do you really think that way? I mean, you will only feel that because you are constantly making comparison of your past, of your story. But if you think about it, the past doesn't exist at all, neither your story. If I asked you to show me the past, you won't be able to do it. You could tell me a story, words about it, yes, but even that woudl be something made in the present.
I think the moment a person starts to feel that way it means that he never values what it's happening now. Basically, he always making a comparison of the present with something in the past. It's interesting when you look at an object, or an animal, or something else for the first time, specially children, they don't know what it is. But they are really amazed about the beauty of it. Then, you tell them a story, a concept about what that 'is' and since that day, they won't see that thing as they saw it for the first time, but merely a simple concept, an idea. And, of course, a concept it's boring, because it is always the same. Seeing a zebra for the first time it's amazing, but then we learn it's a zebra and then we start devaluing it, because we already know that's a zebra (not the zebra itself, but the concept of it). If we remained on the state of not knowing sometimes, without any concepts and comparisons, we will probably look at a zebra always as it was something new for us.
So, the moment we start to making a comparison with the past, yes, I think life will be a limited box filled with satisfaction. But if we somehow managed to stop comparing, it would be a limitless box. And, of course, we could still use the past for specific life situations. Probably in a much saner way. But the past/the story/the beliefs/the concepts wouldn't be 'using'/controlling us.

[RRM]

I think the moment a person starts to feel that way it means that he never values what it's happening now.

That is not necessarily true.
You can truly value the love that you feel now, and feel fully satisfied after a few decades more.
Dont you think?

If we remained on the state of not knowing sometimes, without any concepts and comparisons, we will probably look at a zebra always as it was something new for us.

We dont.
We learn. We learn to trust on that first step that we master to make the next step. Taking those first steps for granted eventually is what enables us to run later.

[panacea]

That is just the kinds of things older people say/identify with to deal with the inevitability of death, and to not feel so bad about it. I'm sure I'll think similarly when I'm a little older, but I'll know it's just an emotional trick.
The truth is if it was normal for humans to live 200 years, everyone would prepare for about a 200 year life, identify with it, and slowly just understand in the back of their minds, that's about when their time is up, they'd deal with it emotionally, just as they do now, slowly over the elderly years. (This assuming from 100 to 200 they aren't like Stephen Hawking's state, but the timeline of aging is doubled).

The same is true if our average lifetime was cut in half, which it probably was in times of war, even tribal wars. Becoming a warrior and dying with honor, becoming religious/spiritual and dying with faith, or feeling like you've "had a good run" are all just emotional strategies to prepare for death, that others have either exploited or spread like hysteria to make it seem more true for themselves.

[RRM]

That is just the kinds of things older people say/identify with to deal with the inevitability of death, and to not feel so bad about it.

If you tell that to a couple of wise, old people, they will just smile at you.
Wisdom takes time to develop.
When we are young, we are brash, we think we know better, and do a lot of foolish things.
As we grow older, we learn about what really matters in life.

if it was normal for humans to live 200 years,...

I think that most elderly people would not be able to handle that emotionally.
People tend to become more conservative and rigid as they age.
Most people are simply not flexible enough to cope with all the changes that occur in 200 years, and with all the emotional distress.
They are usually either tired, bitter and rigid, or tired and fully satisfied.
An extra 100 years of life means 100 more years to become more rigid and more conservative.

[panacea]

There are animals which live longer than us, and animals which live shorter lifespans than us. We are animals. If we evolved to live for 200, 300, 400, or 1, 2, 3 years, our emotions and tolerance would adjust accordingly. I see some of that rigidness in you, to not be open to this kind of universal principle. There is no universal law that says the human in the current form can't tolerate longer or shorter lifespans. Lifespan is relative to the environment. Nobody would want to live very long in a virtual hell. Everyone wants to live forever in a virtual paradise. These are just part of the equation that demonstrates what we want in life, or how long we want to experience life, is defined by culture/environment from birth to present moment.

I agree many people alive today wouldn't like the idea of living longer. Many people alive today also worship gods like the savages did in earlier times. Many people alive today are just completely unaware of a basic concept of the universe. That doesn't change the fact that eventually, if we don't become extinct first, we'll rise out of our ignorance and embrace common sense ideas like "hey, let's live longer, and healthier, and not let religion or traditional lifespan numbers and that other ridiculousness get in our way".

[RRM]

There are animals which live longer than us, and animals which live shorter lifespans than us. We are animals. If we evolved to live for 200, 300, 400, or 1, 2, 3 years, our emotions and tolerance would adjust accordingly.

Ah, you are talking about evolution.
Sure, evolution changes everything.

I see some of that rigidness in you

Thats because im older than you

[Aytundra]

Using your own quotes:

When we are young, we are brash, we think we know better, and do a lot of foolish things.
As we grow older, we learn about what really matters in life.

if it was normal for humans to live 200 years,...

I think that most elderly people would not be able to handle that emotionally.
People tend to become more conservative and rigid as they age.
Most people are simply not flexible enough to cope with all the changes that occur in 200 years, and with all the emotional distress.
They are usually either tired, bitter and rigid, or tired and fully satisfied.
An extra 100 years of life means 100 more years to become more rigid and more conservative.

If you tell that to a couple of wise, old people, they will just smile at you.
Wisdom takes time to develop.
When we are young, we are brash, we think we know better, and do a lot of foolish things.
As we grow older, we learn about what really matters in life.

I see some of that rigidness in you

Thats because im older than you

Still does not mean that you will know what a 200 year old would think.
This is what you think when you are young and brash and think you know better at the age of <100 years old.
Maybe a 150 year old gets more flexible...

[RRM]

Ha ha, touchée

[Aytundra]

Oops, I almost forgot, RRM probably knows those 200 year olds.

Even the Mona Lisa undergoes the ravages of time, while MRR does not appear, is it can be a real vampire who's to find something to avoid the suspicions ... Oooppss

[RRM]

Yep. I can travel in time, remember?

[panacea]

I don't think I know better because of my lack of experience, my worldview is that everything is determined by physics, that means no superstitious beliefs, no such thing as time, free will, etc. There are just events and physics causing those events to me. In that world, a human is no more special than a squirrel, both consisting of dna, both consisting of the same atoms that make up a rock, both determined by the same physics. Therefore, when you try to tell me that a product of that physics cannot emotionally deal with being 200, 300, 400, 5 billion years old, I think to myself, that is stupid, since we adapted to live as long as we do now as a result of living as long as we do now, not as a preplanned wish to die at a certain age. If lifespan is extended, a newborn child that is not taught to think he/she should die at 60-100 years old naturally if they're lucky, doesn't grow up to expect that, and would be entirely suited emotionally to living longer (or vice versa, shorter).

Furthermore, the material universe is huge, and there are countless alien species out there, some more/less/same intelligent as we are, and I find it highly unlikely they all determined about 100 years is as long as any lifeform that is highly intelligent wants to live.

Using logic is far superior to "experience". "Experience" is what got us antiquated traditions like worshiping the sun for better crops.

[RRM]

If lifespan is extended, a newborn child that is not taught to think he/she should die at 60-100 years old naturally if they're lucky, doesn't grow up to expect that, and would be entirely suited emotionally to living longer (or vice versa, shorter).

That depends on how lifespan is extended.
If this change would occur through evolution, i agree, because then our 'emotional biochemistry' would adapt too.
But if we use some sort of trick (eg Wai diet and autophagy combined), there is only an increase in lifespan, and no adaptation in 'emotional biochemistry' to this longer life.
If all newborns are then to live 200 years, i think that, emotionally, many people would not be much more than living plants beyond the age of 100 years old.

Furthermore, the material universe is huge, and there are countless alien species out there, some more/less/same intelligent as we are, and I find it highly unlikely they all determined about 100 years is as long as any lifeform that is highly intelligent wants to live.

Of course, but these species will have evolved to what they are, meaning that they can cope with the lifespan they are adapted to.

Using logic is far superior to "experience". "Experience" is what got us antiquated traditions like worshiping the sun for better crops.

Logic only brings you so far. For many men, women are 'not logic'.
If you are a man who basis everything on logic, that may not get you anywhere when it comes to women.
If you have lots of experience with women, however, you may be much better equiped.

Logic is based on what you understand. There are so many things we do not understand yet, so that there are large holes in our understanding of everything around us, and therefore huge limitations if we base everything on logic.
Instinctively we, and other animals, 'know' many things that we cannot understand through logic, so that if you only accept things based on logic, you may get far behind.

[panacea]

'emotional biochemistry' has a foundation in evolution, but just like lifespan, and even more so than lifespan, emotional perspective is shaped by society, culture, and the environment even if no mutations take place. For example, I don't need any 'emotional biochemistry adaptation' from evolution to be willing to live for 1000 years, or more. If I can do it, without the evolutionary "adaptation" in my DNA, other people can too with the same "non-mutated" DNA, it's a cultural/upbringing/life circumstance determinant. Often, people who want to die, but then have a near death experience, have a renewed appreciation and zeal in life, because their emotional bonds are broken by a shocking event. I'd say, getting a new body when you're old and crippled, is a similar shocking event. No it won't convince everyone, to aim for such a goal is foolish, since humanity is divided on every topic imaginable from race to religion to politics to sexual orientation and dietary habits and so on. The important thing is - what is the logical answer to how long should we aim to live for, ignoring the negative emotions which misguide us in every way throughout life to cause all of the misery and misunderstanding, greed, violence, depression, superficial fear, etc in the world.

The alien species most likely don't naturally evolve to live for a lifespan that is super long, most likely events happen which wipe them out before that, since evolution is very slow and lots of collisions happen in the universe. Statistically they must invent technology which allows them to achieve that before those events happen.

The type of logic regarding men and women you're talking about is the "Men are from Mars and women are from Venus" oversimplification of the concept of reasoning. Yes, women are more in touch with their emotions than men in most cultures today, that's arguably a culturally taught thing, the same as men having the leader roles, associating with colors like blue not pink, and playing with army men not barbie dolls. Some animals, the females are dominant, leader roles, more violent, etc. Humans are animals, what you see the majority of men/women doing right now is not the only way it can be. Some cultures had the roles largely switched around, some still do, and I'm sure in the future it will change dynamically over time as well. Logic is independent on your gender, but cultural adaptation to valuing your emotions more or less is, at the current time, heavily impacted by your gender and upbringing related to that gender.

You are right logic, and reasoning, is entirely based on what you understand. Also dead on that we don't understand a lot yet, but we understand a lot at the same time. Wrong though that logic is only as good as what you understand. Emotions are superior to logic to a certain extent of primitivism - we must trust our instinct and emotions when doing things like touching a hot pan - remove finger quickly because it hurts and is dangerous, or don't jump off a high cliff, because it's scary. However emotions havent evolved to handle questions about how to work a computer, or if there is a heaven or hell, for that you need to use logic and reasoning, not emotions or faith, if you want to discover the most accurate course of action in response to your goals, statistically speaking.

[Aytundra]

Logic only brings you so far. For many men, women are 'not logic'.

T-4-4 = ?
For many men (,men logic that), women are 'not logic'.
1000 = men
900 = many
1000 = women
hence: 900-logic, 1000-are-emotional.

For a few men (,men logic that), women are 'logic'
1000 = men
100 = few
1000 = women
hence:100-logic, 1000-are-logic.

(When RRM logics:)

If you are a man who basis everything on logic, that may not get you anywhere when it comes to women.

If 900-logic, then don't understand 1000-emotional.

(When RRM logics:)

If you have lots of experience with women, however, you may be much better equiped.

900 = lots
If 900-logic+900-of-experience+1000-are-emotional = better equipped?
------
RRM is not logic in the creations of these equations.
The equations are not solve-able.
There is a looping mechanism: ' logic on logic is not logical '.
Good Fiction Writer Though!

[Oscar]

I think that the experience of living long(er) is also greatly influenced by the quality of life, i.e. how healthy one is.