3 ms·

Reversal test: In a world where people didn't get old, would they decide to invent aging? I'm certain they wouldn't. I totally agree that there are disadvantag

by chroma 10y ago

Reversal test: In a world where people didn't get old, would they decide to invent aging? I'm certain they wouldn't. I totally agree that there are disadvantages to indefinite lifespans. It's just that those disadvantages are overwhelmed by the fact that aging kills 100,000 people every day. And it's not just that people die, it's that they spend decades becoming frail and less capable. They can't enjoy as many things as they used to. Their vision, hearing, and even their minds fail them. If we lived in a world without aging, only a sadistic monster would want to inflict such suffering on others.

hashnsalt 10y ago
I agree with your point. Part of aging research is to reduce the rate of deterioration and maybe avoid it altogether. I just have a problem with the idea of living forever. Maybe add a cap on human lifespan?
- kobeya 10y ago
  Let's say we live in a world where human bodies don't age. How do you suggest enforcing that cap? Gas chambers?
  - hashnsalt 10y ago
    I don't have an answer to your loaded question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question). Edit: link
    - secstate 10y ago
      The problem is that it's not really a loaded question, but a valid response to the idea of an age cap amidst indefinite life spans. How do you propose capping the life span of an adult without the use of a termination agent?
      - hashnsalt 10y ago
        I am not proposing anything. I don't know how we can cap the lifespan of an adult. But I do know that if we have a cure for aging today, i.e. people stop dying from this day onwards, the population is only going to keep growing and that doesn't seem very sustainable. This is, of course, given that people continue to have children. Halting the production of new offspring could be interesting to witness from an evolutionary standpoint. As far as the loaded question is concerned, I did sense an inflammatory tone in kobeya's response with the gas chambers question. Your response, on the other hand, is more discussion-oriented and open-minded.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      Except it's not a loaded question at all -- administrative murder seems to be exactly what you are proposing.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Plain old accidents? No cap required.
- farresito 10y ago
  Jeez, no, not a cap on lifespan please haha. No one can still wrap in their heads what indefinite lifespans will mean, but I'm sure adding a cap on lifespan is not something we want to do.
tveita 10y ago
I would imagine that an immortal society would value individual lives less, since endless population growth eventually becomes a nuisance, and people would implement some kind of population culling. Whether old or young lives would be valued more is anyone's guess but probably the old and powerful would keep the amount of young at a manageable level. It could take the form of endless wars, blood sports, or a Logan's Run-esque age limit. Halting aging to me is science fiction, mostly of the dystopian kind.
- chroma 10y ago
  A few points: First, eliminating aging won't make people immortal. People will still die from accidents, violence, disease, and suicide. I vaguely remember doing the math, and without aging, life expectancy would be around 300 years. (The variance in LE would be huge though, since one's age would have no effect on mortality.) Second, arguments about overpopulation prove too much. If you're against anti-aging because of overpopulation, you should also be against reproductive freedom. After all, any couple that has more than two children is contributing to overpopulation. Anyways, there's a simple solution to overpopulation: A one child policy. Even if everyone's immortal, you'll only end up with 2x the original population. (8 billion people have 4 billion children, who have 2 billion children, who have 1 billion children...) I submit that such a policy is more humane than forcing everyone to spend decades becoming senescent before dying. And finally: Who are we to decide for our descendants that anti-aging technologies are bad? Assuming no civilizational collapse, future generations will be smarter, wiser, and more knowledgable than we are. It's better to invent these technologies sooner so that they can choose for themselves whether or not to use them. If they agree with us, we'll have wasted some research money. But if we're wrong, we'll have condemned millions to die. Unless we're damn sure it's bad, the cost-benefit analysis favors inventing anti-aging tech.

by chroma 10y ago

hashnsalt 10y ago

I agree with your point. Part of aging research is to reduce the rate of deterioration and maybe avoid it altogether. I just have a problem with the idea of living forever. Maybe add a cap on human lifespan?

kobeya 10y ago
Let's say we live in a world where human bodies don't age. How do you suggest enforcing that cap? Gas chambers?
- hashnsalt 10y ago
  I don't have an answer to your loaded question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question). Edit: link
  - secstate 10y ago
    The problem is that it's not really a loaded question, but a valid response to the idea of an age cap amidst indefinite life spans. How do you propose capping the life span of an adult without the use of a termination agent?
    - hashnsalt 10y ago
      I am not proposing anything. I don't know how we can cap the lifespan of an adult. But I do know that if we have a cure for aging today, i.e. people stop dying from this day onwards, the population is only going to keep growing and that doesn't seem very sustainable. This is, of course, given that people continue to have children. Halting the production of new offspring could be interesting to witness from an evolutionary standpoint. As far as the loaded question is concerned, I did sense an inflammatory tone in kobeya's response with the gas chambers question. Your response, on the other hand, is more discussion-oriented and open-minded.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    Except it's not a loaded question at all -- administrative murder seems to be exactly what you are proposing.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Plain old accidents? No cap required.
farresito 10y ago
Jeez, no, not a cap on lifespan please haha. No one can still wrap in their heads what indefinite lifespans will mean, but I'm sure adding a cap on lifespan is not something we want to do.

tveita 10y ago

I would imagine that an immortal society would value individual lives less, since endless population growth eventually becomes a nuisance, and people would implement some kind of population culling. Whether old or young lives would be valued more is anyone's guess but probably the old and powerful would keep the amount of young at a manageable level. It could take the form of endless wars, blood sports, or a Logan's Run-esque age limit. Halting aging to me is science fiction, mostly of the dystopian kind.

chroma 10y ago
A few points: First, eliminating aging won't make people immortal. People will still die from accidents, violence, disease, and suicide. I vaguely remember doing the math, and without aging, life expectancy would be around 300 years. (The variance in LE would be huge though, since one's age would have no effect on mortality.) Second, arguments about overpopulation prove too much. If you're against anti-aging because of overpopulation, you should also be against reproductive freedom. After all, any couple that has more than two children is contributing to overpopulation. Anyways, there's a simple solution to overpopulation: A one child policy. Even if everyone's immortal, you'll only end up with 2x the original population. (8 billion people have 4 billion children, who have 2 billion children, who have 1 billion children...) I submit that such a policy is more humane than forcing everyone to spend decades becoming senescent before dying. And finally: Who are we to decide for our descendants that anti-aging technologies are bad? Assuming no civilizational collapse, future generations will be smarter, wiser, and more knowledgable than we are. It's better to invent these technologies sooner so that they can choose for themselves whether or not to use them. If they agree with us, we'll have wasted some research money. But if we're wrong, we'll have condemned millions to die. Unless we're damn sure it's bad, the cost-benefit analysis favors inventing anti-aging tech.