5 ms·
we could preserve the lives of the next Newton, Einstein, or even some currently living scientific minds like Hawking No we couldn't, because its not up-to you
by twentysix 15y ago
we could preserve the lives of the next Newton, Einstein, or even some currently living scientific minds like Hawking
No we couldn't, because its not up-to you or anyone else to decide how long another person should live. How do you know if Newton or Einstein would have wanted to live longer?
If a choice was available to increase ones lifespan, the choice should lie with the individual.
Perhaps artificial intelligence is a much saner choice than immortality.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- haliax 15y agoI don't think he meant to imply the choice would lie with him, just that losing them would no longer be the only option.
- true_religion 15y agoI think quite the opposite. Everyone's lifespan should be increased at birth. Then once they're sentient adults, they can choose to reduce their lives to the so called 'natural' expectancy, or even below it if they wish.
- finnw 15y agoSo what would you do if their parents objected on religious grounds?
- zanny 15y agoUnder current US law suicide is illegal and so on so forth. Mainly because it is mental illness to want to end ones life in most cases, but mercy killing is also forbidden, so on so forth. And I do agree, people should have the choice to end their lives whenever they wish it. However, having the potential available for immortality means we don't need to have the upcoming intellectuals spend half their lives catching up to where the last generation died off at. If they don't want to, nobody forces them, but having the option means so much potential knowledge. And then we overpopulate the planet in a decade and everyone dies of starvation, global warming, or world war 3 nuking everything into oblivion due to the breakdown of society.