4 ms·

I would imagine that an immortal society would value individual lives less, since endless population growth eventually becomes a nuisance, and people would impl

by 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 tveita 10y ago

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.