5 ms·

I disagree. It should not be the goal of everyone because we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying. That litera

I disagree. It should not be the goal of everyone because we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying. That literally is a "first world problem". Let's fix the crises first

nathcd 10y ago
Why not both? To me, your argument sounds a bit like the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because we have enough problems here on earth.
- shshhdhs 10y ago
  Both is fine. I disagreed with OP that it is the goal of "everyone". It is only the problem of the rich.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Really? Mortality is only a problem of the rich? Huh... interesting.
    - shshhdhs 10y ago
      Mortality by age, and mortality by violence, starvation, sanitary conditions, diseases, etc, etc are very different problems. See the difference?
adrusi 10y ago
If you can give a million rich people an extra 1000 years of life, is that not as good as giving 100 million poor people an extra 10? Arguably it's better since those thousand years are going to be spent in greater comfort than the 10 years in the other case. How much should we value global justice relative to human life?
- shshhdhs 10y ago
  The problem I see with your strawman is that only the rich have the ability to extend age for the rich, further leaving the poor behind who are unable to close the humanitarian gaps on their own. What have we done to deserve to live 1000 years while others starve, other than being born in better circumstances.
  - adrusi 10y ago
    That was not a strawman, unless you think I missed something about your position. The question I asked was how much we should value the extent to which people "deserve" longer life against the moral value inhernet in extended life. You have to show that the fact that the rich have done nothing to "deserve" extended life (which I'll assume is true for the sake of argument) is bad enough to outweigh a million people getting an extra 1000 years of life, regardless of who those people are.
orangecat 10y ago
we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying Do we? Preventing people from dying is at the core of what "humanitarian issues" actually means. Yes, too many people die because of violence or starvation or lack of basic medical care, and we should absolutely address those problems, but the effects of aging are harming billions of people and will ultimately kill them.
- shshhdhs 10y ago
  Death is a guarantee, even if you extend it. While in the United States we may live 70-100, in other countries they live to maybe 40, while child mortality is sky high. It would be awesome if we can close that gap first, instead of making the divide between the rich and poor even wider.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    It would be awesome, sure, but if both things can be done in parallel, why not? This smells of a "if I can't have it first, nobody can have it" thinking. Do lives of the westerners matter so little? Are they not people too?

nathcd 10y ago

Why not both? To me, your argument sounds a bit like the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because we have enough problems here on earth.

shshhdhs 10y ago
Both is fine. I disagreed with OP that it is the goal of "everyone". It is only the problem of the rich.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Really? Mortality is only a problem of the rich? Huh... interesting.
  - shshhdhs 10y ago
    Mortality by age, and mortality by violence, starvation, sanitary conditions, diseases, etc, etc are very different problems. See the difference?

adrusi 10y ago

If you can give a million rich people an extra 1000 years of life, is that not as good as giving 100 million poor people an extra 10? Arguably it's better since those thousand years are going to be spent in greater comfort than the 10 years in the other case. How much should we value global justice relative to human life?

shshhdhs 10y ago
The problem I see with your strawman is that only the rich have the ability to extend age for the rich, further leaving the poor behind who are unable to close the humanitarian gaps on their own. What have we done to deserve to live 1000 years while others starve, other than being born in better circumstances.
- adrusi 10y ago
  That was not a strawman, unless you think I missed something about your position. The question I asked was how much we should value the extent to which people "deserve" longer life against the moral value inhernet in extended life. You have to show that the fact that the rich have done nothing to "deserve" extended life (which I'll assume is true for the sake of argument) is bad enough to outweigh a million people getting an extra 1000 years of life, regardless of who those people are.

orangecat 10y ago

we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying Do we? Preventing people from dying is at the core of what "humanitarian issues" actually means. Yes, too many people die because of violence or starvation or lack of basic medical care, and we should absolutely address those problems, but the effects of aging are harming billions of people and will ultimately kill them.

shshhdhs 10y ago
Death is a guarantee, even if you extend it. While in the United States we may live 70-100, in other countries they live to maybe 40, while child mortality is sky high. It would be awesome if we can close that gap first, instead of making the divide between the rich and poor even wider.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  It would be awesome, sure, but if both things can be done in parallel, why not? This smells of a "if I can't have it first, nobody can have it" thinking. Do lives of the westerners matter so little? Are they not people too?