>"Soon people will be able to
>download their consciousness into a computer/robot and live forever (or a
>much longer time than 82 years)", I believe most futurists would agree that
>this is now a question of when, and not if.
I don't believe this at all, Christopher. If you wanna download something, you have to know what it is, and you have to be able to represent it in the digital form necessary to reproduce it. I doubt our complexities of consciousnesses and unconsciousness will ever arrive at an objective definition of what our consciousnesses and unconsciousnesses are (indeed it seems logical to me to say we never will), and I doubt even more that the dynamic relations which constitute the universe of a person's conscious and unconscious being can be digitised. And ain't it just possible that the amalgam of consciousness and unconsciousness that characterise each of us might be just a tad related to our physical being - in which case even a successful download ain't so much a reproduction of us into another form, but the creation of a new form that ain't us. Ergo, whoever does the eternal living, it won't be us ... which kinda defeats the point ...
>Once this step occurs, how long will it be before wetware (or at best,
>just >homosapiens) are just a memory? History has shown us time and again
>that once >an evolutionary step of this kind occurs,
But where in the record do we find 'an evolutionary step of this kind'?
>the previous species is wiped out within a few generations
Well, when sexual reproduction came along, it didn't kill off the species who kept reproducing themselves in the old way, did it. Amoebas clearly saw all that sexual politics and dressing up wasn't for them, and their continued presence indicates they had a point, no?
>(relatively speaking). Further, given the nature
>of sex as both a reproductive and emotional act, would it survive a
>transformation like this? Maybe, maybe not.
Well, for one thing sex is a beaut way of making us interdependent. Humans are no evolutionary proposition at all as loners, and anything that inclines 'em to hang together is pretty damned functional, I reckon. And I'm not sure our consciousnesses are suitable for eternal life, either. Time scarcity rather gives action its meaning, no? Shit, I'd never get these !#* essays marked! And, anyway, I fear eternity is a long time to go without at least humouring the flesh-inclined sexual yearnings that are an inextricable part of one's un/consciousness ...
>Just something to consider considering this all may begin to occur within
>the next 100 years. When you place that in perspective of 700,000 years of
>civilization, it's very very soon.
We got people dropping dead across the planet and we're spending resources that could save lives on investigating the possibility of saving some other lives by turning 'em into stark-raving mad robots who can't die. Sounds about right ...
Cheers, Rob.