5 ms·

There's a difference between you wanting to die personally and death being good for society as a whole. Death keeps old things from taking up the resources tha

by panic 10y ago

There's a difference between you wanting to die personally and death being good for society as a whole. Death keeps old things from taking up the resources that new things need to live. When our cells don't die, that's called cancer. It's great for the cells involved -- until it kills the person they're a part of.

Razengan 10y ago
> When our cells don't die, that's called cancer. No. No, when cells multiply uncontrollably, that's called cancer. So, right now, in fact it's unchecked population growth that's much more akin to a cancer, than any hypothetical immortality. As for unnecessary (or less important) things taking up resources; how many people do you know who have had their appendix and gallbladder taken out?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  the appendix and gallbladder are non-vital organs but they still perform useful functions. unchecked population growth is indeed a problem, what impact do you suppose it will have on the population when people keep living longer and longer, and a few of them are essentially undying? in your comment, are you meaning to speak metaphorically or am I reading into it too much. the symbolic reading of your words suggests that certain people might have the status of a gallbladder. did you mean to imply that?
  - Razengan 10y ago
    The organs remark was bonus snark, but yes: we will have to address unchecked population growth sooner or later, because lifespans will – should – continue to rise as well anyway, thanks to advances in medicine and hygiene, unless something goes terribly wrong in some area.
hwillis 10y ago
Luckily this problem has been solved in high brow science fiction: http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Near_Death_Star http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Near_Death_Star In all seriousness I find that to be an unconvincing argument; isn't it better to have that choice rather than let it be made for us? Where would we be if Newton and Einstein were still alive? The only argument for aging I've ever liked is that culture just can't really advance without it- old people (on the whole! many older people are fantastic and very progressive) eventually seem to stop catching up to the rest of society. But still, it seems like insufficient reason to let brilliant people die.
- dontreact 10y ago
  As an example, wasn't Einstein a strong opponent to some of the weirder conclusions that would later be drawn by Quantum Physics? Even the brilliant people get stuck at some point (as you alluded to), and fresh perspectives are needed to make progress. In addition, you don't get to pick who lives on and who doesn't. Think of all the people you would find to be very culturally backwards that would still be alive and hold a lot of power. Getting to choose to live longer = good. I'm not trying to argue against that. I'm just trying to point out the benefits that natural death provides to society, because these benefits are something I personally plan to think carefully about as the choice to live longer and longer becomes an option.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Think of all the people you would find to be very culturally backwards Is the assumption that each generation is better than the last?
    - imranq 10y ago
      Hopefully if the previous generation paid it forward. And as long we are talking about scientists, Feynman said this in his speech: "The ideas I wish to describe are old ideas. There is practically nothing that I am going to say tonight that could not easily have been said by philosophers of the seventeenth century. Why repeat all this? Because there are new generations born every day. Because there are great ideas developed in the history of man, and these ideas do not last unless they are passed purposely and clearly from generation to generation."
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > Where would we be if Newton and Einstein were still alive? Or you could also point on the other end of the spectrum ? What if Attila or Stalin were still alive? Would that be a good thing for humanity ?
  - ashark 10y ago

by panic 10y ago

Razengan 10y ago

> When our cells don't die, that's called cancer. No. No, when cells multiply uncontrollably, that's called cancer. So, right now, in fact it's unchecked population growth that's much more akin to a cancer, than any hypothetical immortality. As for unnecessary (or less important) things taking up resources; how many people do you know who have had their appendix and gallbladder taken out?

metaphorm 10y ago
the appendix and gallbladder are non-vital organs but they still perform useful functions. unchecked population growth is indeed a problem, what impact do you suppose it will have on the population when people keep living longer and longer, and a few of them are essentially undying? in your comment, are you meaning to speak metaphorically or am I reading into it too much. the symbolic reading of your words suggests that certain people might have the status of a gallbladder. did you mean to imply that?
- Razengan 10y ago
  The organs remark was bonus snark, but yes: we will have to address unchecked population growth sooner or later, because lifespans will – should – continue to rise as well anyway, thanks to advances in medicine and hygiene, unless something goes terribly wrong in some area.

hwillis 10y ago

Luckily this problem has been solved in high brow science fiction: http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Near_Death_Star http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Near_Death_Star In all seriousness I find that to be an unconvincing argument; isn't it better to have that choice rather than let it be made for us? Where would we be if Newton and Einstein were still alive? The only argument for aging I've ever liked is that culture just can't really advance without it- old people (on the whole! many older people are fantastic and very progressive) eventually seem to stop catching up to the rest of society. But still, it seems like insufficient reason to let brilliant people die.

dontreact 10y ago
As an example, wasn't Einstein a strong opponent to some of the weirder conclusions that would later be drawn by Quantum Physics? Even the brilliant people get stuck at some point (as you alluded to), and fresh perspectives are needed to make progress. In addition, you don't get to pick who lives on and who doesn't. Think of all the people you would find to be very culturally backwards that would still be alive and hold a lot of power. Getting to choose to live longer = good. I'm not trying to argue against that. I'm just trying to point out the benefits that natural death provides to society, because these benefits are something I personally plan to think carefully about as the choice to live longer and longer becomes an option.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Think of all the people you would find to be very culturally backwards Is the assumption that each generation is better than the last?
  - imranq 10y ago
    Hopefully if the previous generation paid it forward. And as long we are talking about scientists, Feynman said this in his speech: "The ideas I wish to describe are old ideas. There is practically nothing that I am going to say tonight that could not easily have been said by philosophers of the seventeenth century. Why repeat all this? Because there are new generations born every day. Because there are great ideas developed in the history of man, and these ideas do not last unless they are passed purposely and clearly from generation to generation."
ekianjo 10y ago
> Where would we be if Newton and Einstein were still alive? Or you could also point on the other end of the spectrum ? What if Attila or Stalin were still alive? Would that be a good thing for humanity ?
- ashark 10y ago