Talk:Immortality

Transhumanism

Could this perhaps be merged with transhumanism? ·Femilisk™ 11:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you see any content to merge?

There was an entry in the To Do list: "Immortality - do I have to explain why?". I should have given in to the temptation to add "yes".--ZooGuard (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say immortality is only relevant in relation to transhumanism. For one thing, deities were typically assumed to be immortal. 141.134.75.236 (talk)

True, I accept. And I guess paramecia are actually immortal. So there's that. ·Femilisk™ 17:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organisms ·Femilisk™ 17:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Death

There is a section covering both biological and spiritual immortality in the death article. AugustusCaesar (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is terrible

This is the sort of article that is deleted for sheer crappiness. I can't see a way to make it not crappy. Short of writing a Wikipedia-lite piece. Can anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the quality is unsurprising, as it is an offspring of the "To do list". Writing an article just to tick a box rarely produces good stuff.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To do list stuff is mostly better than this ... who added it, and what were they thinking of? - David Gerard (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a first article with accompanying apologies. But what would we want to do with this article, anyway? ^{Don't click here} 13:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fear of death, uncertainty about the possibility of an afterlife, and doubt about one's purpose in this life is the sort of FUD built into the human psyche that is easy to sell. The essential features of immortality, and who gets it and why, are the subject of endless angel-dancing type discussions, some less inane or uninformed than others. That said, I'm not well enough grounded in psychology or comparative theology to lay a decent framework for this article. The possibilities are plentiful, but it needs an accomplished auteur to do it justice. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this also covered under death? Redirect?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a stupid question. what does Wikipedia-lite mean? Does it mean basically copying from the Wikipedia article? (sorry I realize this is somewhat off topic.) Anyway I want to keep the article as is but I think that's probably just my emotional bias. ZooGaurd is probably right about a redirect being appropriate at least for the time beeing. Those are my 2 cents anyway. --NonPerson (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the whole mob, but I'm pretty sure it means something like "we are not a crappy Wikipedia wannabe." WP style is dry, neutral, and (in the ideal case) sourced out the wazoo. RW makes use of editorial freedom to poke fun at serious-faced bullshit, at least the way I see it. Reliable sourcing is useful here, but it isn't the kind of touchstone it is on WP. RW's value to the readership, IMO, is the ability to cut to the chase, to digest the essentials of a contentious topic without needing to make a show of balance. Some of the subjects close to the core of the RW mission need some serious unbalanced mockery, in aid of debunking them and exposing the people who stand to benefit from selling dishonest spin.

I would favor redirecting this to Death#Immortality until that section grows enough to justify splitting it out into its own main article. If there is content here that needs to be merged over there, it will still be available in the history. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations on virtual immortality

@David Gerard you reverted my request for a citation on virtual immortality. I seldom see such strong assertions about the inevitability of these technologies. Either cite it or I'll simply qualify it with 'some techo-utopians think' or similar. Deku-shrub (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, {{ping}} doesn't work on the current version of RW (which is one of a thousand reasons we're looking at updating and upgrading our MediaWiki P3setup). You'd better poke him on his talkpage if you want a guaranteed response. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a mocking description of standard transhumanist woo, and I think is quite clear enough as being such - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not standard for transhumanists to support cryonics and whole brain emulation, this is based on your limited experiences with parts of Less Wrong I believe Deku-shrub (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I realise they're a desperate embarrassment, but too bad - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote

Should the third quote here? Anna Livia (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)