Beats in bright hearts such an idea: "People are unworthy of immortality, first they should change." What needs to be changed in a person is perfectly understandable. We do not get tired of recalling this. Our literary classics have always done just that, pointing to human shortcomings. Our satirists from the stage loudly ridiculed public and personal vices. This activity - to sow reasonable, good, eternal - is popular now.
 
 
However, to inform about shortcomings - this does not help. Something we do not change much. We see this in the literature: the story can be many centuries, but reading is still interesting. Hence, types and problems (plots, motifs, images and conflicts) are understandable to us, distant descendants. Ancient stories are fresh and relevant. And, to give modern glossy to the ancient text, you can replace the spear with an automaton, and the sheep parchment on a smartphone. So, people still can not change.
 
And some bright hearts are anxiously knocking: "the nature of a person can not be changed". Others still believe that it is possible - they are looking for a way. Still others think that "if it is impossible to change nature, then, probably, it is possible to curb, take nature under the control of mind, spirit."
 
Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy tried to create a system of education of man. He believed that the system can be created on the basis of existing religions. Not everyone agreed with him. Some thought it was necessary to create their own, a new system of education - a new "religion" with the new "gods". At times, in some newborn system of education, there were no gods of speech. Some of us have found times when the society was brought up in a fairy-tale manner from the point of view of the mass scale and "novelty" of the idea, but it is usually from the point of view of methods: suggestions and punishments, when "the backbone" was broken by the nature of an ordinary person, "The essence of his personal interests - did not come out at that time, nature won. Now it is not a question of a particular case, but in general - all "bright hearts" believed and continue to believe that a person can be educated in one way or another. The basis of the method of turning a little man into a great Man, they see in education.
 
The essence now is not in different approaches, but in general - that "bright hearts" leave no attempts to change Man for the better. But why?! "What do blond hearts hurt?" But why: "smoke does not happen without fire" - mankind rolls somewhere under the escarpment, the personality suffers, society suffers - everything "burns". Here "light hearts" and "smoke" - hurt for all and for everyone. The problem is urgent.
 
And here I draw the attention of "bright hearts" to the fact that, besides education, there is another way - to directly change the nature of man: to prolong his life. And "prolongation of life" does not prevent "to sow reasonable, good, eternal", but even on the contrary - it will help. I am firmly convinced of this. My determination is supported precisely by "objections to immortality."
 
"Objections to immortality" clearly indicate the problems that will arise when a "pill of rejuvenation" appears: what will become acute in the individual and in society. "Objections" argue that there will be an "acute phase of the disease" that will lead to death. And my whole message is that the aggravation will not lead to death, but to recovery.
 
We'll figure it out. Let's analyze impartially. What do the objections say? What kind of "disease" is now taking place not in acute, but in chronic form? What exactly will die? What will heal? Where are the "objections" being mistaken, and where are they telling the truth?
 
A few words that "changing the time of life" is a change in the nature of man. "Objections" directly squeaked about it! It would seem that what to yell something, if "it's all trifles", if this immortality does not change anything in nature ?! No, really. Once they shout, it means - not trifles. But they are screaming. "No! Objections scream. - You can not change anything! Everything will only get worse! There is no need for immortality. " Scream, dear ones. It means - not trifles, then everything is serious: "immortality" seriously comes to the "sick callus". But you can object: this is just a "smoke" - it only indicates a hypothetical possibility of "fire". And maybe the most "fire" and no? Yes, gentlemen. "Fire" is. Extension of life will really change the nature of man. It is "time" that determines the "characteristics of nature" - this is what any physicist will tell us: "life is a process, the process evolves in time, time is the basis of the process."
 
We, as representatives of mankind, approach any process with one measure of time - "the average lifetime of one element of the system - a person". What matters is what happens in our life (not even our personal life, but the life of a hypothetical representative of humanity), what is important is that, in proportion to the time of our life, what we can observe and what we can react to is important.
 
For example, evolution is not important for us (the process), we do not even understand how much this is "one billion years". How is it different from the "million years"? We are not interested. And both for us - it's just "equally very much."
 
On the other hand, for us the process is not important, if its "lifetime" is less than a tenth of a second - everything that flashed before our eyes faster - we are not interested.
 
To us, give only what is comparable with the time of our life or with the time of our thought reaction - the processes whose "lifetimes" are from about one second to one century - we simply do not see other processes too fast or too slow.
 
As one Round person in one movie said: "You'll live longer - you'll see more." If we increase the life of a person, then "other eyes" will open, new "sense organs" will appear - we will begin to perceive long-term processes personally and personally. We will begin to feel that we will not be able to die, for ourselves, in our lifetime, with a heavy hungover delay, for example, a bad ecology or our craving for life on credit, the essence of which is our love for consumerism, for momentary pleasures. This blow will not happen after our death - "we will pay interest ourselves, do not flinch to the next world" - it will strike us, not by unknown to anyone not yet born descendants.
 
And for a thousand years, some "eternal hamlo" will accumulate his own karma - at last everyone around him will remember him, and the very thing that is being laughed at now: "let life condemn, let life punish". We've all heard about the "repeated dilemma of the prisoner" - the more acts of interaction are ahead, the more profitable it is not to lie, not betray, but to honestly cooperate and trust - this is said by a mathematician: "with a long life, good and honest be more profitable than angry and raspy" .
 
Now about the method of working with "objections to immortality." The method will be called somehow poetic. Mmm "The method of non-resistance." We will not resist the very objection. We will extract from the objection the favor. So do the masters of aikido. They are beaten, and they gently leave the line of impact, the blow does not block. On the contrary, they do not bustle about, they coolly move on to the very essence, to the center of equilibrium, and further, using the enemy's movement, bring it to the ground. Well, something like a waltz.
 
Let's start with respect for the "enemy". Worship him. You can not be crooked, but just mentally nod. Any opinion has the right to life. The enemy must be respected. We will not begin from the very beginning to think that he is a fool and does not understand anything. The one who objects to us, most likely clever. He was educated and educated, which means that he had teachers, he is not alone, he is a translator of some cultural values, he has gained strength for a long time and now he is throwing his wisdom to us. He says:
 
- Overpopulation.
 
And we will not wag carelessly and laugh. We will not begin to chop it with arguments about China and Europe. We will not notice maliciously that there is no problem, that it is invented, that under-population is now. This all does not work trivially. This is a battle at the level of information sources. "Your sources are lying, that's all," - so we are told by an opponent. And we need an ideological battle.
 
Let's notice where the "center of equilibrium" is with our opponent. And then we'll explain ourselves - why did we get involved in the fight, what exactly do we want from this particular conversation with a specific person. After all, it is often better - just keep silent. There is no point in arguing, there is no point in "provocateurs." Can you really convince someone if you just argue once ?! And in general, it is better to talk about girls, about money or about cars - the interlocutor's response is warmer. But "why should we dispute about immortality" - it's after, it's tomorrow, it's everyone will answer himself. And today we got involved. We are now looking where the enemy has a "center of equilibrium".
 
It is clear that if mankind is attacked by "overpopulation," if everything around is tight and stuffy, if everyone everywhere is pissed off, and angrily and nervously sleep on stacks on the sidewalks, if they stink, if it disappears, there is no water in the tap - it's inconvenient, this is really a problem. But why should overpopulation happen? Why is the opponent so sure of the "non-threat" of overpopulation? What gives it strength? What does he stand with his feet?
 
Usually this support can be formulated in two words: "the person is weak". Well weak and that's it. Nothing will come of it. You can not rypatsya. Previously, there was never anything a man could do, now he does not know how and can not, and in the future there is no hope - then there will be the same. A little-boned little man! With overpopulation, he will not be able to cope.
 
Worth our opponent on the "man-weaker" confidently. Here it is, its support. And break your leg will not work - sprung up, muscular leg. Try, tell him that the person is strong, that the human cosmic objects create (small, yes, but creates - can, means!) That he pressed down the microbes to the nail (yes, the microbes again get out from under the antibiotics, but the precedent was crushed the same!). Much that can be said in support of "a man is strong." Will not help. You will not break your leg, standing on the "man-weaker". The support is fundamental.
 
And do not break the support. It is necessary to withdraw the opponent from equilibrium. This receiver in hand-to-hand is called "puff". They hit you, and you do not jerk, do not climb "under the snags", you pick it up and pull it on. Everything itself will fall. That's what we're doing. We answer something like (fantasize a specific dialogue - it's ridiculous and ridiculous, yes, - here we make a discount):
 
- Of course there will be overpopulation. And how! Such overpopulation will be, what kind of light did not see. How long will overpopulation be? In three rows we will live on each other? Or five? And then what?
 
And the opponent will have to admit that then after all a person with overpopulation will do something. In his swinish manner, of course. The war will suit, a reptile. Will all the superfluous kill. But, look, man is no longer weak. The opponent had to leave the "man-weaker". What is he now worth? And by the way, where is our "overpopulation"? It's over? Any more a problem? Already post-apocalypse? Yeah In general, the opponent has grown a second leg, the second support. I had to take an opponent's step, so as not to fall. The second support sounds: "you do not have to change anything - and so everything is fine." That is, a weak person can not change anything, but here the person is not weak, can already, but will only do worse - he is stupid. The second support we will call "man-clever". Also a fundamental thing.
 
But what is the use for us? What is the "non-resistance method"? Just to make your opponent run? To win the disputes? Well, yes, a convenient, cheerful method of struggle. But we use it for another "work". Our job is not to fight objections, it's more than a fight. We saw what opponents are running around. They run only on two legs: on "chelovekoslob" and "chelovekoglupe". They never admit that a person is strong and intelligent. Do not believe. That's because a man is an animal, stupid and weak - they believe in it willingly, that's what they stand for.
 
Do you think that there are still opponents' legs? Let's see a few more examples. We will not see the other legs. Only "man is weak" and "man is stupid".
 
Here's the opponent said:
 
- Limited resources.
 
And we know and do not argue. Yes, resources are limited. But why is this a problem? Who can not cope with this? Weak and stupid.
 
- Social lifts will die out.
 
Yes, if you do not change the social order, then stall. It is necessary to change. Who can not change the social order? Weak and stupid.
 
- Do not change anything, and everything is fine.
 
Better than this "good" can not do who? Exactly - weak and stupid.
 
- The laws of nature are wiser. Evolution is right.
 
Who is wiser than the laws of nature? Yes, "again-zdarov." Only the weak and the foolish can think of the "wisdom" of laws and surrender submissively along the current. Clever and strong laws of nature use, and the question of "wisdom" and "correctness" of the law before him is not worth it.
 
- Do not prolong life. We do not know how the culture will change if everyone becomes immortal.
 
Who does not know? Who can not cope with the change? Uh-huh. "Well, you ponel!"
 
"Immortal existence does not make sense."
 
This opponent thinks so. And do not think so. We are not weak and not stupid. It makes no sense?! And we will find! And the meaning will be found, and the interest of life.
 
That's so everywhere. Take any objection - it sticks out only two legs (or one of them): "man-weaker" and "man-stupid." The other legs are not visible.
 
Opponents serve us well. They prepared for a long time - they absorbed cultural objections, absorbed the statements of thinkers. We, thanks to them, see the problems that the immortals will have. And assuming that a person is still strong and intelligent, we can imagine what this Man will do - how he will change the world, to live without overpopulation, to develop and progress, so that he can live comfortably. We now, thanks to objections, see the point: opponents pull the owl on the globe, they believe that a person will not change, and then immortality will make of that weakling and a fool a chop. But after all the person is strong and clever, and who is not strong and not clever, that will have to become strong and clever - this is what "objections" say, only in this way one can survive, and in another way, following the logic of "objections", not to survive than the good service of the opponents, that's the truth they show us.
 
My (and not only mine) statement is that immortality is necessary for everyone. Mass immortality will open people's eyes. I emphasize that immortality, in order to have the power to "open your eyes," must be mass. Then humanity will recover, then the nature of man will change. And the sooner we are cured of "weakness and stupidity", the better. You can not tolerate this disease. You can not leave it at that. It is dangerous for us - to conservatively store and cherish our "weaknesses and stupidities" - everything here on the planet will be sneaked, puzzled, we kill each other and die like pigs. None of the modern "pigs" will ever solve really significant problems: problems of resources, overpopulation, culture and social lifts. The opponents themselves know this. They themselves think so, when they object to universal immortality - "weak and stupid" do not solve problems. Yes, for sure, do not decide.
 
It's only bad that the opponents are sure that "weakness and stupidity" is invincible. But "she" is victorious. Precedents weight. As soon as trouble, as an exacerbation, as soon as the war - all at once all go astray in a friendly pile, everyone immediately "grow wiser and stronger". And on the basis of this phenomenon, some misanthropic masters make a monstrous conclusion that war is the engine of progress (they say, much has arisen in science, technology, and culture, thanks to wars and military threats - more blood is needed!). Oh no. There is no need for war. No need for grief and blood. I hinted at the war, only to indicate in detail what a person is capable of, what heights of reason and spirit are subject to him. "Strong and smart" is already among us. The war only gives "strong and smart" to work in full force ("weak and stupid" during the war are hiding).
 
A man is strong and intelligent - it was and so it will be. There is a peaceful way to "move progress" - to prolong life. People who are now creating a "pill of immortality" are doing a very good job: for the individual, for society, for the world.