3 ms·

Is there a threshold of years when the wish to live for X years change from normal to irrationally ego driven? Or are you asserting that any wish to live is irr

by NhanH 9y ago

Is there a threshold of years when the wish to live for X years change from normal to irrationally ego driven? Or are you asserting that any wish to live is irrationally ego driven? Is there a quanlitative or kind difference, under your view, for someone wishing to live 50, 500 or 5000 years? Or to put it in plain words and as I can't find a way to make it less confusing: why isn't your position equivalent to advocating for everyone to kill themselves (or at the least, not caring at all whether they live or die)

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Humans have natural lifespans. We've had very few people live to be older than 120. There's no reason to not naturally extend your life if you can, but I'm not sure we'll find that experience all that enjoyable as individuals (or it will require a disconnect to do so) and it isn't obvious there is any benefit to society from it (imagine Howard Hughes still directing his empire from his hotel penthouse today). It's a natural ego driven thing to want to survive, but it is still driven by ego.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- NhanH 9y ago
  Natural lifespan is a bit of a misnomer to describe our current lifespan though, seeing all the thing modern medicine does. I didn't realize how much biopsy would creep me out until I have it done, not to mention all kind of surgeries we do nowadays.
- 3131s 9y ago
  I really don't understand your point either. Imagine Srinivasa Ramanujan living to be 500 years old rather than 32, or Leonardo Da Vinci still being alive today -- their contributions to society would be immense. We've been seeking to and succeeding at extending our natural lifespans since forever. The only sensible argument against it is that the planet would eventually be overcrowded, assuming we don't become interplanetary any time soon.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Most people aren't da Vinci and even if they were there's no guarantee (or likelihood) those artists could do that for any extended period of time. Picasso was Picasso because he was not da Vinci (well and a million other reasons, but just a comparison). Maybe da Vinci gets stuck in his views and doesn't have anything to offer as of 1900 except a shell of himself. Or, maybe da Vinci gets really bored after 300 years. What else does he have to prove? What I'm trying to say is that all progress has occurred within our now millenia old system of relatively short lifespans. It means that within 150 years, societies can completely change because new individuals and experiences have to take over. Even the ancients saw death as a kind of leveler. We all die, even the mighty don't get to take anything with them. Does that happen if we change that equation? Maybe it doesn't matter because people are good at adapting, but there's still a possibility it isn't all sunshine.

by NhanH 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Humans have natural lifespans. We've had very few people live to be older than 120. There's no reason to not naturally extend your life if you can, but I'm not sure we'll find that experience all that enjoyable as individuals (or it will require a disconnect to do so) and it isn't obvious there is any benefit to society from it (imagine Howard Hughes still directing his empire from his hotel penthouse today). It's a natural ego driven thing to want to survive, but it is still driven by ego.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
NhanH 9y ago
Natural lifespan is a bit of a misnomer to describe our current lifespan though, seeing all the thing modern medicine does. I didn't realize how much biopsy would creep me out until I have it done, not to mention all kind of surgeries we do nowadays.
3131s 9y ago
I really don't understand your point either. Imagine Srinivasa Ramanujan living to be 500 years old rather than 32, or Leonardo Da Vinci still being alive today -- their contributions to society would be immense. We've been seeking to and succeeding at extending our natural lifespans since forever. The only sensible argument against it is that the planet would eventually be overcrowded, assuming we don't become interplanetary any time soon.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Most people aren't da Vinci and even if they were there's no guarantee (or likelihood) those artists could do that for any extended period of time. Picasso was Picasso because he was not da Vinci (well and a million other reasons, but just a comparison). Maybe da Vinci gets stuck in his views and doesn't have anything to offer as of 1900 except a shell of himself. Or, maybe da Vinci gets really bored after 300 years. What else does he have to prove? What I'm trying to say is that all progress has occurred within our now millenia old system of relatively short lifespans. It means that within 150 years, societies can completely change because new individuals and experiences have to take over. Even the ancients saw death as a kind of leveler. We all die, even the mighty don't get to take anything with them. Does that happen if we change that equation? Maybe it doesn't matter because people are good at adapting, but there's still a possibility it isn't all sunshine.