If you've never seen Through the Wormhole on the Science Channel, then you don't know what you're missing. It's not all geeked-out science, nor is it as grossly boring as a lecture in quantum physics. It really circles around life, and even the episodes that don't focus on life seem to circle around discovery and how it relates to life.
In other words, it's not all nerdy (though parts are: Dr. Michio Kaku is practically the Oriental Mr. Rogers who calls himself a conservative revolutionary... pffft) so fear not the incomprehensible depth or bore factor because neither is an issue.
There is a currently running episode or two focused on eternal life. They are truly interesting and in my usual form, I like to shop the minds of the greatest thinkers I can find to try to bring something to people that they can turn into a meal.
The theories gaining some speed seem to focus in a few different areas. In one, we manage to "upload" our brains and live that way, forever, by essentially having all of the information in our brain, including our conscious and such other intangibles, loaded into hardware. In another, we take it a step further, cloning ourselves and then downloading the mind, with all of its experiences, into the clone's brain, becoming ourselves again, only with a young body again and a new lease on life.
A couple of others are similar to each other; in one, the eventuality of the evolution of humans leads to our descendents being interested in our "time," and reviving it in order to learn about or experience it using their advanced technology, essentially creating a fake Earth with real people and events from the past (all of us) who, once created, never need to die again. The similar one suggests that time travel either is already occurring or will occur, and that anytime anybody "visits" a period that was during your life, you are, of course, re-animated and living again.
These are only a few that I've seen getting some respectable thought by thinkers among us; there are many others that are getting attention and more theories that are coming out every day. They all deserve a look, I believe, but I favor a few of these or some combination of them that makes a few things seem to be highly probable to me, and that's what I want to share.
First, although I'm not afraid to step outside of the laws of physics or thermodynamics or any other man-made "law" or "rule," when I propose a potential theory, I will stay within the confines of those laws for this post.
Time travel has not only been proven possible by mathematics already, but it has been proven physically (wiki is a good place to start if you wanna check those experiments out). While the science community wobbles on the legitimacy of the experiments and the research, most accept that if Einstein says something is definite, then it is at least possible and he was certain that space-time could be deformed, and if and where that happens (or when) time travel (and travel through space) will happen. I won't get into the time/space theories I like to probe that involve various events (I have many) like the Nazi Bell (a time machine, some suggest, designed by the Nazis) showing up in Pennsylvania in 1965 having jived perfectly with Einstein's theory--the thought that they indeed zapped from Germany in 1945 to land in PA in 1965. That's for another post... or book... but here, we'll look at how time travel and other theories suggested above will directly affect you, and how many days your brain will be allowed to exist, in total.
First, time travel. I say it's coming, or it's here. Do you? If so, this is the thing that beats me up about it: what are the chances that this moment is one you're living for the first time? If you are re-animated every time somebody visits the present, isn't it almost foolish to think that this just so happens to be our first time through? Mathematically, isn't it more likely that as you are reading this, this is your 50th, 100th, 10,000th time being in this moment? If all of space-time is connected, then this applies no matter which "species" of life is using the technology, no matter how far they are away. Arguably, they may not even have to land at a time that you existed--they may only need to pass through it in order for all of the moments between their departure and arrival point to be forced to exist again. That means you are popping back to life constantly as time travelers make their ways through time to see or experience or change whatever they are trying to do such things to.
Under that theory, you do live forever, but you never realize it.
A better theory might be this (I'll take one from above and just build on it a little): one physicist believed that eventually mankind would have evolved so far that every person and every moment will be brought back for observation... his theory was much deeper; I'm simplifying (his involved a tying in of meeting consciousness with God with all information). Here's how it can work. Look at the growth rate of our technology. It's fast. It's also accelerating. The only thing that's going to stop it is global catastrophes that take away billions of human lives and/or our ability to develop technology.
We have 4 or 5 billion years before the sun destroys our planet. We are already planning for colonizing the moon and I expect that the colonization of Mars is close behind. We will spread out. We will spread beyond our own solar system, and eventually, our galaxy. That's really a pretty safe bet. That whole, "Don't keep all of your eggs in one basket," thing has people realizing it's time to spread out just to keep our species alive. If you think about it, this isn't a lofty goal. It's a probability that borders on being a certainty.
So, we do.
Humans spread, and they develop, and evolutions begin "splitting." Humans living on a moon of Saturn are going to evolve differently than those on a super-Earth with different environments, populations, and events. What that means and what is really exciting about it is that if we humans now are essentially defining ourselves as a "missing link," that won't, of course, be missing--we are the core species from which many other families of humans will evolve. We are going to be, as they look back in 10,000, 50,000, and 100,000 years from now, the parent species.
Before I got off into another direction, though, as I'm prone to do, let's bring it back to how this will affect you and how long your mind gets to live, total.
You must know, just by the common expectation of eventuality, that one or more of those human-evolved branches of beings will come back. They will come back to this place and this time, and as their populations grow and grow, so too will their trips to "see" us. But what's different about this theory is that not only will we come back to life during each visit that happens in our time period, but they will have the technology to let us know it. That will happen either by simply informing us in ways we can't deny (showing us proof that this is not the first time we've been "alive at this moment") or they'll truly re-create us from DNA or some other science and anybody that can bring you to life using that kind of science will almost certainly have available to you the ability to visit any moments in your life however many times you want to with the clear knowledge that you are visiting a moment (or re-living it vs. just living it) in addition to that new life you'll be living that they have given you. If you want to tie this in with religion, go ahead; my problem is that religion is too simple, so I present a theory like this to say that even if there is no religion or none prove to be accurate or true, you are going to live again and you will have the option to live forever.
That, of course, brings up that question of why you might want to live forever. In my book, The Lost Dialogues of Table 18, there is some discussion of why we might even want to consider living forever... this life, filled with more pain than pleasure. All told, though, if you can live a moment or re-live it at will, couldn't you find pleasurable moments to live or re-live over and over, and won't technology have come far enough to give you a way to experience pleasure constantly, even as you explore new moments in your life (micro or bio-tech that essentially gives you the effects of a great drug, constantly)? Of course that will be available.
So, here's Kevin's good news for you. You're going to die, but you are going to be given life again--that I'm certain of, deep down. What I'm not certain of is whether or not you'll realize you're alive again. I believe it's coming--I believe that you will know you are alive again. I believe you'll have available to you choices on how to live those moments, through traveling to/through your past, traveling into the future, or just hanging out in the present, marveling at the choices available to you. In that, you can't find anything but beauty.
Kevin A. Kierstead, Author
Points on writing, life, and the other thing.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Help Me Fight the Creepy Smile!
Know what I love about blogging? I have two issues to address in this post, but I didn't have to burn brain wax to craft a title that would encompass them both. Easy to love that if you're a type "B," like me.
For some order, I'll keep this first part true to the title.
You probably already know what I'm talking about with regard to the creepy smile. I couldn't tell you when it started... maybe 2005ish? It's when somebody is speaking about something that is clearly and plainly not related to something a human being would generally smile about, yet they smile anyway. Not a flashy smile. Not a simple, "I'd-like-to-make-others-smile-so-I'll-toss-one-out-while-I'm-speaking," smile.... no sirs and ma'ams. This smile is a deviant smile, and it is easily spotted because it begins to slowly spread across the speaker's face, not while he's talking about a hot date he once had or a prank he pulled on somebody, as you would expect... not when he's about to deliver the punch line of a joke or say anything related to humor or sarcasm or anything else that can even be loosely connected to a normal human reason to smile or try to make others smile.
No, no.
These smiles begin to creep onto a face while one is talking about deep space or capital gains tax or sentences with the word "draconian." It comes across the faces of many prominent, regularly-interviewed folks when they are talking about the most non-smile-related shi8 you can possibly think of.
What is it? It's a sad and scary thing, all in one. It's a major and flagrant display of confidence--one that says, "I'm so gd sure of myself and what I'm saying that I'm going to make sure that you know that I have absolutely zero reserves about saying it (see my smile starting?) and, in fact, I'm so confident that I'm going to keep it on... not a flash, no, but a 5 or 10-second face deformation that shows that I'm so comfortable in my own shoes that I can talk about the decline in urban infrastructure funding while bearing my teeth, slowly, first two, then four, then six or ten. Why am I doing that as a little personality trait deal and not just keeping a straight face until the context that would support a smile arises? Well, because I saw others do it on TV or at work, so now I do it. I do it because they do it. If they are doing it, it must be cool."
The raw truth is that there is irony here, and I know that because I'm a bona fide irony hunter.
These people trying to show their strength are actually imitating others. They are being led by a weak and very creepy fad... a trend set by the pompous. My studies of psychology in school were not nearly enough to qualify me to explain this. Only the deepest thought in the inquisitive mind (about human nature) could bring this issue into the light as I am, and that's not a pat on my own back--it's an admission of an affliction. I can't stop finding this stuff.
Help me destroy this creepy trend of the haughty and their sycophants. It's truly disturbing--this creepy-smile deal--when you think about it. I hope.
When you're listening to somebody speak in person and they start giving you that creepy smile at a most inappropriate time (you'll know), simply interrupt them. I hate interrupters, but by the crack of St. Peter's white arse, I will interrupt them when they start this smile and ask, "What is that smile for? No, you were just smiling. I don't understand. I wasn't smiling at you; I was just listening with a straight face, and you were telling me about how you knew your boss delegated his hardest work to you and that you knew his job better than him and that you were getting tired of doing his work on your pay, which in no way involves humor or should invoke a smile of relief or gratitude or any other kind of known smile, yet you started smiling, got this big smile on your face as you were talking. What are you smiling for? What is the cause and meaning of the smile?"
Shine the light on them.
And while we're aiming lights around, can we focus one on anchor reporters? Well, not necessarily anchors, but the ones that are sort of shuffling the stories to and fro between field reporters?
Watch national news sometime (it happens with world and local, but especially nationally-focused news folks). You'll have a news dealer, of sorts, bringing you 1 minute spiels from the medical guy and the weather guy and the finance girl and the fashion girl and as they give their headline for the segment and finish up, the anchor-at-hand will almost always add her little 2 cents to it, when she is not the expert. What should she do? Say, "Thank you..." and move on to the next effing line on the teleprompter. Just this morning, I saw it twice; an unnamed anchor-at-hand was talking to a doctor who was talking about disease and a new organization that had been started by a family with diseased children and as he finished by saying their new "mantra," something like "Live for today, hope for tomorrow, and pray for a cure," she adds in something like, "Always be thankful for your family, for the moment, and realize how bad others have it..." blah blah mc-effing blah.
No, anchor-at-hand. No no.
You may not teach us your morals. We just heard from somebody who went to school for eight or ten or twelve years and did all the research for this story and did the story and then delivered the family/new organization's mantra and now you are going to to take that piece of cake, drop your two grains of unrefined sugar on top and sell it as your own? No, I do not accept your ploy. You go out in the field, you become the expert and do the research for your own stories, and I'll be fighting the anchor-at-hand that is trying to grab your jet pack straps to sneakily rise above the fray with you to deliver his message from the same elevation.
Human nature. The parts that I love, I really do love. The parts that I hate are few. Unwarranted confidence, masking a weak nature to be a follower (indeed, a need to be led) is one that bothers me. Taking credit for the work of others and pushing morals (or religion/politics) bothers me. And hypocrisy (not addressed here) drives me batty. I'm always looking to enlist folks into my army that will battle uglies. Help me, please, battle these uglies.
For some order, I'll keep this first part true to the title.
You probably already know what I'm talking about with regard to the creepy smile. I couldn't tell you when it started... maybe 2005ish? It's when somebody is speaking about something that is clearly and plainly not related to something a human being would generally smile about, yet they smile anyway. Not a flashy smile. Not a simple, "I'd-like-to-make-others-smile-so-I'll-toss-one-out-while-I'm-speaking," smile.... no sirs and ma'ams. This smile is a deviant smile, and it is easily spotted because it begins to slowly spread across the speaker's face, not while he's talking about a hot date he once had or a prank he pulled on somebody, as you would expect... not when he's about to deliver the punch line of a joke or say anything related to humor or sarcasm or anything else that can even be loosely connected to a normal human reason to smile or try to make others smile.
No, no.
These smiles begin to creep onto a face while one is talking about deep space or capital gains tax or sentences with the word "draconian." It comes across the faces of many prominent, regularly-interviewed folks when they are talking about the most non-smile-related shi8 you can possibly think of.
What is it? It's a sad and scary thing, all in one. It's a major and flagrant display of confidence--one that says, "I'm so gd sure of myself and what I'm saying that I'm going to make sure that you know that I have absolutely zero reserves about saying it (see my smile starting?) and, in fact, I'm so confident that I'm going to keep it on... not a flash, no, but a 5 or 10-second face deformation that shows that I'm so comfortable in my own shoes that I can talk about the decline in urban infrastructure funding while bearing my teeth, slowly, first two, then four, then six or ten. Why am I doing that as a little personality trait deal and not just keeping a straight face until the context that would support a smile arises? Well, because I saw others do it on TV or at work, so now I do it. I do it because they do it. If they are doing it, it must be cool."
The raw truth is that there is irony here, and I know that because I'm a bona fide irony hunter.
These people trying to show their strength are actually imitating others. They are being led by a weak and very creepy fad... a trend set by the pompous. My studies of psychology in school were not nearly enough to qualify me to explain this. Only the deepest thought in the inquisitive mind (about human nature) could bring this issue into the light as I am, and that's not a pat on my own back--it's an admission of an affliction. I can't stop finding this stuff.
Help me destroy this creepy trend of the haughty and their sycophants. It's truly disturbing--this creepy-smile deal--when you think about it. I hope.
When you're listening to somebody speak in person and they start giving you that creepy smile at a most inappropriate time (you'll know), simply interrupt them. I hate interrupters, but by the crack of St. Peter's white arse, I will interrupt them when they start this smile and ask, "What is that smile for? No, you were just smiling. I don't understand. I wasn't smiling at you; I was just listening with a straight face, and you were telling me about how you knew your boss delegated his hardest work to you and that you knew his job better than him and that you were getting tired of doing his work on your pay, which in no way involves humor or should invoke a smile of relief or gratitude or any other kind of known smile, yet you started smiling, got this big smile on your face as you were talking. What are you smiling for? What is the cause and meaning of the smile?"
Shine the light on them.
And while we're aiming lights around, can we focus one on anchor reporters? Well, not necessarily anchors, but the ones that are sort of shuffling the stories to and fro between field reporters?
Watch national news sometime (it happens with world and local, but especially nationally-focused news folks). You'll have a news dealer, of sorts, bringing you 1 minute spiels from the medical guy and the weather guy and the finance girl and the fashion girl and as they give their headline for the segment and finish up, the anchor-at-hand will almost always add her little 2 cents to it, when she is not the expert. What should she do? Say, "Thank you..." and move on to the next effing line on the teleprompter. Just this morning, I saw it twice; an unnamed anchor-at-hand was talking to a doctor who was talking about disease and a new organization that had been started by a family with diseased children and as he finished by saying their new "mantra," something like "Live for today, hope for tomorrow, and pray for a cure," she adds in something like, "Always be thankful for your family, for the moment, and realize how bad others have it..." blah blah mc-effing blah.
No, anchor-at-hand. No no.
You may not teach us your morals. We just heard from somebody who went to school for eight or ten or twelve years and did all the research for this story and did the story and then delivered the family/new organization's mantra and now you are going to to take that piece of cake, drop your two grains of unrefined sugar on top and sell it as your own? No, I do not accept your ploy. You go out in the field, you become the expert and do the research for your own stories, and I'll be fighting the anchor-at-hand that is trying to grab your jet pack straps to sneakily rise above the fray with you to deliver his message from the same elevation.
Human nature. The parts that I love, I really do love. The parts that I hate are few. Unwarranted confidence, masking a weak nature to be a follower (indeed, a need to be led) is one that bothers me. Taking credit for the work of others and pushing morals (or religion/politics) bothers me. And hypocrisy (not addressed here) drives me batty. I'm always looking to enlist folks into my army that will battle uglies. Help me, please, battle these uglies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)