4 ms·

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I completely disagree with you. I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I completely disagree with you. I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack of time, poor health and grief or hopelessness in the face of death. I also strongly believe that the epidemic of disastrous short-term thinking among us (particularly our 'leaders') is directly linked to the fact that each of us knows we're going to die all too soon. I could meet you halfway and say that in our current form, we may not be ideally suited for significantly longer lifespans-- but we can change ourselves with drugs, technology and genetic engineering, so it would be a temporary problem. The only paradise I believe is possible is one we create, and we cannot do it with this pathetically paltry handful of decades we're allotted.

01Michael10 11y ago
Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distribution of wealth), less disease, and less war for a better quality of life. Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barley habitable world.
- slfnflctd 11y ago
  > You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? I would argue that no one can, if that is your 'control' group and your experimental group gets 750 years. > We need [...] a better quality of life. Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. > I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world. Well, neither of us can tell the future. However, I can imagine lots of scenarios where this isn't a problem, from a decline in birth rate (very likely, given well established trends), to exponentially better resource management (totally possible), to orbital habitats (less likely but not impossible). > Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... [...] Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. It's fine to agree to disagree, but when you start with "Sorry but no..." I can't help but be a tad annoyed.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    >Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. Really? You ever been treated for depression? Maybe you should ask your Doctor about it... Sorry, if I am being harsh but your original comment and followup comment are very troubling to me. Life extension is BS. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first, then we can talk about living longer for individuals.
    - orangecat 11y ago
      The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first We have been: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report/report-card/twin-goals/ending-extreme-poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-re... . And curing aging would tremendously reduce health care expenses, which benefits everyone. then we can talk about living longer for individuals Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone.
      - 01Michael10 11y ago
        > Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone. Huh? That is a response to me? What I am talking about is --> Hey, we treated your cancer so now you can go back to your .50 an hour job.
    - Retra 11y ago
      >Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write). Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning all are godless in their heart no matter how often they practice their religion. I welcome it (hopefully at proper age) - I will make room for another generation, just like the previous one did for me. I have my time here, and that's enough.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich. Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it. I have my time here, and that's enough. And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
  - skarap 11y ago
    > these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite This is probably what concerns me the most. And in fact this is already reality. E.g. in my country if an average person discovers they have cancer, their chances are pretty grim in contrast with e.g. Switzerland. And there are countries which are really poor where a infection which is curable for $20 can kill people. An interesting movie to watch on topic: In Time (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ . This South Park episode is also exactly on point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ .
- derrickdirge 11y ago
  You're assuming steady resource requirements and birthrate. Both of those things can change. You're also assuming we're eternally bound to this planet.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world." Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science. Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so. Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.
saiya-jin 11y ago
This could well be said about Hitler for example. He sure aimed high, and could achieve much more if more time was given to him (albeit ageing wasn't what stopped him, luckily). I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble, far outside of harsh, unjust selfish real world. their well-intended ideas are based on some theoretical human beings that are selfless, pure hearted and will dedicate their life to help others. Usual Star trek thingie. Just that no human like that ever walked on this planet, and probably never won't (fingers crossed for that). We have elections every 4 year to reflect just that - limit the damage that can be done by a single group of people in full control. it works, within its own limitations of course. All other options are well proven to be worse. Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it one more time (no, 10 more times) and then go for a coffee. there has been countless individuals before with same/similar ideas. For some reason, world still works as it does.
- stared 11y ago
  It reminded my of a quote by Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being: "Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: The criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers." I found this in other places as well - e.g. in the autobiography of Jacek Kuroń (a figure in the Polish opposition against the communist regime, even though he was himself a socialist), culminating when he was in prison with a Nazi criminal. The later, even a decade or two after the war, was still convinced that he had been doing atrocities (he had no illusions about that) for a greater good (i.e. the new Pax Romana), a good that justifies anything.
- slfnflctd 11y ago
  > Hitler The rise and fall of the Third Reich is a perfect example of the counterbalance effect within our species, which longevity has little bearing on-- for every psychopathic, misguided or downright evil person bent on causing suffering & death, there are people willing to stop them. These people's longevity & capabilities will increase with those of the bad actors. > I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble Without them, we wouldn't have anything resembling the technology and social progress we've seen erupting like mad for the past couple hundred years. Is it a temporary phenomenon? Will we see another massive decline into an even more terrible 'dark ages'? No one knows. But dwelling on all the things that could go wrong is not how progress happens. > Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it... I don't know anyone who really believes they can do this, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself for the job. I give a fairly high probability that we kill ourselves off. However, predicting the future is a fool's game, and focusing on only the negatives is the practically the definition of self-defeating behavior. > For some reason, world still works as it does. It absolutely does not, our predecessors from 200 years ago would find the world we live in now fundamentally different to a very jarring degree on multiple levels. You can say that our basic social and governing structures are 'the same' if you use some crude metrics, and if you proposed that we've all been bossed around by the same secret society for thousands of years I might even entertain the notion, but 'the way the world works' changes in dramatic ways constantly. If it didn't, no school would ever need to update its curriculum.
skarap 11y ago
The thought of an eternal life obviously raises questions about the meaning of (eternal or not) life. Nobody has the right answer to those questions. That's why I think there will always be different (but equally valid) opinions about eternal (or very long) life. I, for one, think that immortal humans will be less like elves and more like Gollum.

01Michael10 11y ago

Sorry but no... We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer. You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distribution of wealth), less disease, and less war for a better quality of life. Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barley habitable world.

slfnflctd 11y ago
> You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? I would argue that no one can, if that is your 'control' group and your experimental group gets 750 years. > We need [...] a better quality of life. Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. > I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world. Well, neither of us can tell the future. However, I can imagine lots of scenarios where this isn't a problem, from a decline in birth rate (very likely, given well established trends), to exponentially better resource management (totally possible), to orbital habitats (less likely but not impossible). > Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet... [...] Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. It's fine to agree to disagree, but when you start with "Sorry but no..." I can't help but be a tad annoyed.
- 01Michael10 11y ago
  >Yup. Sure do. I consider life extension a potentially important part of that. Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. > I do. I've been hopeless in the face of death since I was 19. You may want to sit down for this next revelation, but... not everyone thinks like you. Really? You ever been treated for depression? Maybe you should ask your Doctor about it... Sorry, if I am being harsh but your original comment and followup comment are very troubling to me. Life extension is BS. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first, then we can talk about living longer for individuals.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    The person who had a good life in the early 1800's in central Europe would have been really pissed to have stayed around long enough to live during the depression and WWII in the next century. People often go through negative experiences; they generally don't kill themselves in response. I'd like to be around in 2200 even if there's another war and depression between now and then. Build a better, self-sustaining world for all first We have been: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report/report-card/twin-goals/ending-extreme-poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-monitoring-re... . And curing aging would tremendously reduce health care expenses, which benefits everyone. then we can talk about living longer for individuals Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      > Sorry Mom, no cancer treatments for you until everyone in Africa has an iPhone. Huh? That is a response to me? What I am talking about is --> Hey, we treated your cancer so now you can go back to your .50 an hour job.
  - Retra 11y ago
    >Living longer has NOTHING to do with a better quality of life. Really? Then why are we so adamant on building hospitals and stopping wars? Not dying is necessary prerequisite of having a quality life. What you're wanting is a quality death.
saiya-jin 11y ago
these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite. otherwise, this cash would be dedicated to matters you mention (and I fully agree with what you write). Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. Living till 120 just for the sake of living sounds more like a nightmare - that tells me they are terrified of death, meaning all are godless in their heart no matter how often they practice their religion. I welcome it (hopefully at proper age) - I will make room for another generation, just like the previous one did for me. I have my time here, and that's enough.
- orangecat 11y ago
  these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite Just like cell phones cost thousands of dollars and will only ever be toys for the rich. Just look at people beyond 80 - most of them are a mere shadow of their former self in all aspects. That's exactly what we're saying: aging is awful, and we should fix it. I have my time here, and that's enough. And that's why you'll refuse all medical treatment after you turn 60, right? (The expected lifespan for 20 year old people in 1850, before our godless and unnatural medicine started working: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
- skarap 11y ago
  > these movements are not about everybody living much longer, only selected wealthy elite This is probably what concerns me the most. And in fact this is already reality. E.g. in my country if an average person discovers they have cancer, their chances are pretty grim in contrast with e.g. Switzerland. And there are countries which are really poor where a infection which is curable for $20 can kill people. An interesting movie to watch on topic: In Time (2011) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ . This South Park episode is also exactly on point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198003/ .
derrickdirge 11y ago
You're assuming steady resource requirements and birthrate. Both of those things can change. You're also assuming we're eternally bound to this planet.
xlm1717 11y ago
People used to say the same 30 years ago of our current situation. "Who wants to be here in 30 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 7 billion people with little resources on a barely habitable world." Apocalyptic predictions have a very poor record of being right, even those purportedly based in science. Why would that change if you had 150 years? It wouldn't necessarily change but you would have more time to fulfill your potential, giving you a better chance of doing so. Yeah, we need all the things you listed for a better quality of life. Being able to live without ageing would help a lot to improve quality of life too. It would definitely help with having less disease, since we would have less age-related diseases, which are the biggest burden on society today.

saiya-jin 11y ago

This could well be said about Hitler for example. He sure aimed high, and could achieve much more if more time was given to him (albeit ageing wasn't what stopped him, luckily). I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble, far outside of harsh, unjust selfish real world. their well-intended ideas are based on some theoretical human beings that are selfless, pure hearted and will dedicate their life to help others. Usual Star trek thingie. Just that no human like that ever walked on this planet, and probably never won't (fingers crossed for that). We have elections every 4 year to reflect just that - limit the damage that can be done by a single group of people in full control. it works, within its own limitations of course. All other options are well proven to be worse. Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it one more time (no, 10 more times) and then go for a coffee. there has been countless individuals before with same/similar ideas. For some reason, world still works as it does.

stared 11y ago
It reminded my of a quote by Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being: "Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: The criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers." I found this in other places as well - e.g. in the autobiography of Jacek Kuroń (a figure in the Polish opposition against the communist regime, even though he was himself a socialist), culminating when he was in prison with a Nazi criminal. The later, even a decade or two after the war, was still convinced that he had been doing atrocities (he had no illusions about that) for a greater good (i.e. the new Pax Romana), a good that justifies anything.
slfnflctd 11y ago
> Hitler The rise and fall of the Third Reich is a perfect example of the counterbalance effect within our species, which longevity has little bearing on-- for every psychopathic, misguided or downright evil person bent on causing suffering & death, there are people willing to stop them. These people's longevity & capabilities will increase with those of the bad actors. > I am slowly starting to believe the biggest threat to mankind are idealists living in their own tiny little mental bubble Without them, we wouldn't have anything resembling the technology and social progress we've seen erupting like mad for the past couple hundred years. Is it a temporary phenomenon? Will we see another massive decline into an even more terrible 'dark ages'? No one knows. But dwelling on all the things that could go wrong is not how progress happens. > Next time you'll have an idea how to singlehandedly solve all mankind's problems, sit back, think about it... I don't know anyone who really believes they can do this, and I certainly wouldn't trust myself for the job. I give a fairly high probability that we kill ourselves off. However, predicting the future is a fool's game, and focusing on only the negatives is the practically the definition of self-defeating behavior. > For some reason, world still works as it does. It absolutely does not, our predecessors from 200 years ago would find the world we live in now fundamentally different to a very jarring degree on multiple levels. You can say that our basic social and governing structures are 'the same' if you use some crude metrics, and if you proposed that we've all been bossed around by the same secret society for thousands of years I might even entertain the notion, but 'the way the world works' changes in dramatic ways constantly. If it didn't, no school would ever need to update its curriculum.

skarap 11y ago

The thought of an eternal life obviously raises questions about the meaning of (eternal or not) life. Nobody has the right answer to those questions. That's why I think there will always be different (but equally valid) opinions about eternal (or very long) life. I, for one, think that immortal humans will be less like elves and more like Gollum.