Leave a comment

Comments 6

fritters February 22 2004, 18:52:34 UTC
I have two perspectives on that.

On the one hand, with your happy positive future outlook, yeah, I think someone would be interested in the new faces, new technology, ability to travel further and further and see newer and newer things and it would keep someone interested for aeons, but I think eventually everything would seem familiar in one way or another. I agree with the conventional wisdom, but I believe it will take a long time.

On the other hand, what if there was a huge war or disease and everyone died or almost everyone and the rest were horrible mutants and technology was thrown back thousands of years? You wouldn't want to live alone in a wasteland or trying to outrun flesh eating cannibals for the next several hundred years.

It all depends on your point of view.....

Reply

owldragon1 February 23 2004, 04:13:55 UTC
If the immortality were anything like Highlander style immortals, even without the enhanced physical abilities, I think I could get the upper hand on who or whatever might be still alive after a holocaust like that. And from there, eventually build a power base, and bring back civilization and culture, assuming humans could be kept from dying out because of what happened.

Simply growing a new civilization would keep me busy for a long, long time. I'm sure I could find something to do in most cases, but if humans died off I might get bored trying to evolve more sentient life. Dolphins and chimps aren't the best conversationalists, from what I hear.

Reply


thealien February 22 2004, 23:14:05 UTC
To be completely immortal, unable to die? Hmm. It would depend on the details. To simply never grow old, now, that has great appeal.

The tricky part would be avoiding being locked up by the government so they could do 'research' on you.

Reply

owldragon1 February 23 2004, 04:18:41 UTC
Government experimentation would suck, but if I could go uncaught for long enough perhaps I could 'adjust' the workings of government just enough to put me in charge. From there, I could potentially take control to the point where nobody would risk my wrath by locking me up. Then I'd fix the major flaws in our government and probably introduce new ones in doing so.

Reply


bzial February 23 2004, 00:27:39 UTC
I have had the same opinion for a while now: I want to live 200 years. 500 tops.

Reply

owldragon1 February 23 2004, 04:24:45 UTC
200 is my minimum preferred lifespan, 300 is better. After 500 is where I expect to need the altered perspective of planning decades or centuries in advance. Of course, such plans must always be made with allowances for the unexpected. Especially since the unexpected can often be much more fun than the planned for. :)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up