Africa (was ...10 trillion people in this solar system?)

> From: Omar E. Vega
> Extreme longevity? Human body was no design for living more than we
> do now. Are you talking about re-engineering it? Sound like B-rate
> Sci-Fi to me.

Please go and join the group of people over there who said space travel,
heavier than air flight, radio, the lightbulb, the printing press and
(probably) the wheel were all either impossible or a waste of time. :P

> A woman of today, no matter what happens, in fifty years will be
> ready to enter into the coffin, in pretty bad conditions and with
> Alzhaimer. Besides, she won't have even a grandchild that cries for
> her when the old woman died.

This is not true. It's not 'inevitable' she will enter the coffin in fifty
years - especially if she goes under a bus tomorrow. At present there are
very big gaps in our understanding of how our bodies work. There is a good
chance of a significant break through of some kind in either extending or
improving human life over the next fifty years. If not for today's
generation, then probably starting in the next few generations.

> Conclusion: myths "encode" truths that only some people could see.

Possible comparable to the modern 'myth' that describes an atom as spherical
electrons orbiting spherical protons and neutrons. It doesn't actually work
that way, but it's simple enough for non-scientists and children to
understand, and paves the way for the next step.

> There is the idea that the rationalistic though is better.

It's usually better for decision making. Rationally, killing children does
not make it rain, and torturing prisoners of war does not garantee victory
next time. Methinks the ancient incas were using a little too much of the
other side of the brain. ;)

> Let imagine the father of your best friend dies. What is better to
> say to your friend:
>
> (a) Don't worry, fellow. Take it easy. He was going to died anyways.
> He has cancer, you know. He just stopped suffering.
>
> (b) By now your dad is resting in the peace of God. The creator
> loves us all and he will take care of the soul of a good man like
> him. Let's pray for the well being of his ethernal spirit.
>
> Choose.

Rationally, if he's agnostic, then (B) will make things worse. However you
choose (a/b/both) you are making a rational decision based upon what you
know of your friend. This is an example of why giving uncaring *advice* is
usually not a good thing.

> > None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are NOT
> > campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the
> >wayside.
> >
> If the only mission of myths were to anticipate science then their
> importance would be very minor.

Actually in this case I think the main purpose of the myth is to proceed a
more accurate way of record keeping. Until you can write something down
permanantly, giving each important star a story is the best way to ensure it
is not forgotten.

> Myths are symbols; psicological
> tools, healing tools, not just user manuals. No. Myths goes beyond
> that. Myths are models of the world that explain the "why" and not
> only the "how".

How would this apply to the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs or Bigfoot?

> There are many things in life that are not rational and not
> provable. Truths that are not scientific by ANY means.

Science is a tool to test ideas about the world. It can and has been applied
to complex systems like life, buildings and society. Rationally, we do the
things you mention because doing them (and everyone else doing them)
benefits us and/or our children. Please do not declare things unscientific
merely because you are not familiar with the theories.

John