3 ms·
Here's a question: If medical procedures were available to extend your life to 200+ years but to get the procedure you had to have never had children and would
by Digit-Al 5y ago
Here's a question: If medical procedures were available to extend your life to 200+ years but to get the procedure you had to have never had children and would have to allow yourself to be permanently and irreversibly sterilised, would you take the option?
Would you trade the chance to pass on your genes for the chance to live personally for an extended period?
- chaorace 5y agoThis is a thought provoking question, certainly, but it also makes the basic assumption that the person you're asking already plans to have kids (and is not already a parent) I'm set on not having children for moral reasons, so your question becomes a no-brainer for me. On that note... I wonder what people who already have children would think of this "deal"? On the one hand, they've already made their babies, but... on the other hand, they may be disinclined to outlive their children.
- Digit-Al 5y agoWell obviously for those who don't want children the question is not difficult to answer. I'd like to hear from those who have children or who want children whether they think it's fair that you can only extend your life by a couple of hundred years at the expense of passing on your genes or being a parent. I guess adoption could still be an option. I just think that if one wants to continue using the worlds resources for a very extended period of time then one should not be allowed to produce children. I think there are many good reasons for this. One example: many youngsters today are already struggling to afford anywhere to live with wealthier grandparents and parents owning more and more property. They are often stuck living with their parents well into their 30's or older. Imagine being stuck living with your parents for 200 years lol.