6 ms·

- Not allowing people to live longer than is otherwise natural is not the same as killing. The problem with this argument is that it is not clear what is a "na

by chr1 8y ago

- Not allowing people to live longer than is otherwise natural is not the same as killing. The problem with this argument is that it is not clear what is a "natural way". By that logic one can argue that letting half of the children to die before reaching 5 years, and not spending money on accessibility infrastructure is good, because the natural way is for all these people to die. The only logical solution is to accept, that not allowing life extension, because one wants to get specific distribution of people in society, or because a corporation wants to get money for copyrighted drug, is murder. > - Societies today are allowed to kill some people for some greater good via the death penalty. In more civilised parts of world (e.g. Europe, Russia, Mexico, some states in USA:) death penalty is not allowed. And in general the fact that something is allowed in many places is not a good argument for it being ok, since from history we know many widely accepted things that are considered abhorrent now. > - Having to leave your planet because you're being "pushed out" is not what I'd call an incentive or good Having to leave your planet (and explore underworld) because there is a law that forbids you to get resources required to sustain your life, is way worse than young people looking for better place to leave going somewhere else. It's actually the most natural things for all living beings as most of the young always have to leave their place of birth, and find a better place to live. I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity in topics like this, but it mainly comes from not knowing the tradeoffs a technology like this will introduce. But if life extension doesn't make people less smart, societies that disallow life extension will lose, because people simply will run from there to societies that allow life extension.

close04 8y ago
> By that logic There's no logic in the conclusions you're reaching or the arguments you're using. It's very clear what "natural" means: the limits of what nature can achieve without artificial help. And while you could argue that an all natural human would live to be 70 not 80 years old I'm finding it hard to believe you can find a natural way for a human not to die or even to live to 150. Hence "natural". Is it clearer now? I think I only defined it for you 3 times so... How many examples of individuals in nature that never die can you mention? You're giving me examples of "societies" and "spending money" to contradict my "natural" argument? Try to grasp the concept: all life on Earth has a natural cycle to maintain a balance between life created and life ended. All your examples are completely besides the point. They are NOT natural, they are human constructs. If you put bacteria in a Petri dish they will multiply and die (natural), they will not spend money on infrastructure (unnatural). While we're doing unnatural things like saving a kid from dying at 5, we don't really change that balance in a significant way. It simply means a person doesn't have to try 10-15 times to get one successor. Queen Anne had at least 17-18 pregnancies [0]. Take a gander on how many survived infancy? One (1). Do you honestly think she would have had 18 children with modern medicine being able to save the first 2 or 3? Helping an individual get past infancy is not that unnatural. Kids and animals do it all the time. Now you tell me how many immortal people you know? > In more civilised parts of world [...] death penalty is not allowed And yet most of today's population lives in societies that allow it. And you still somehow believe that being banned from using artificial methods of prolonging your life past any human in history is like killing you. Do you also feel that anyone refusing to give up an organ for transplant is basically killing a patient? Is wearing a condom like killing a kid? This is the "logic" you used. The "incentive" to explore the planets is the same as getting kicked out of your house by squatters is an incentive to find a better house. As long as not all people can use the life elixir and only the unfortunate get "incentivised" to go explore living in a cave on Mars I guess that argument flops. The subjectivity here comes from the fact that you seem to make up arguments on the fly. You expect to get some magic explanation on a forum instead of reading a book. And you're willing to skew the definition of "logic" to death so you can claim "natural cycle of life" and "paying money for infrastructure" are in some unimaginable way in the same category of "natural things". Offering humans immortality is a guarantee that you will create a few Gods (people that simply manage to accumulate so much power they are Gods) and a whole world of shadows. [0] http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen-annes-18-pregnancies-47524 http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen...

by chr1 8y ago

close04 8y ago

> By that logic There's no logic in the conclusions you're reaching or the arguments you're using. It's very clear what "natural" means: the limits of what nature can achieve without artificial help. And while you could argue that an all natural human would live to be 70 not 80 years old I'm finding it hard to believe you can find a natural way for a human not to die or even to live to 150. Hence "natural". Is it clearer now? I think I only defined it for you 3 times so... How many examples of individuals in nature that never die can you mention? You're giving me examples of "societies" and "spending money" to contradict my "natural" argument? Try to grasp the concept: all life on Earth has a natural cycle to maintain a balance between life created and life ended. All your examples are completely besides the point. They are NOT natural, they are human constructs. If you put bacteria in a Petri dish they will multiply and die (natural), they will not spend money on infrastructure (unnatural). While we're doing unnatural things like saving a kid from dying at 5, we don't really change that balance in a significant way. It simply means a person doesn't have to try 10-15 times to get one successor. Queen Anne had at least 17-18 pregnancies [0]. Take a gander on how many survived infancy? One (1). Do you honestly think she would have had 18 children with modern medicine being able to save the first 2 or 3? Helping an individual get past infancy is not that unnatural. Kids and animals do it all the time. Now you tell me how many immortal people you know? > In more civilised parts of world [...] death penalty is not allowed And yet most of today's population lives in societies that allow it. And you still somehow believe that being banned from using artificial methods of prolonging your life past any human in history is like killing you. Do you also feel that anyone refusing to give up an organ for transplant is basically killing a patient? Is wearing a condom like killing a kid? This is the "logic" you used. The "incentive" to explore the planets is the same as getting kicked out of your house by squatters is an incentive to find a better house. As long as not all people can use the life elixir and only the unfortunate get "incentivised" to go explore living in a cave on Mars I guess that argument flops. The subjectivity here comes from the fact that you seem to make up arguments on the fly. You expect to get some magic explanation on a forum instead of reading a book. And you're willing to skew the definition of "logic" to death so you can claim "natural cycle of life" and "paying money for infrastructure" are in some unimaginable way in the same category of "natural things". Offering humans immortality is a guarantee that you will create a few Gods (people that simply manage to accumulate so much power they are Gods) and a whole world of shadows. [0] http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen-annes-18-pregnancies-47524 http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen...