3 ms·

It's wild to think that aging is something that needs to be cured, and isn't a part of the natural human experience. I'm so tired of people trying to play the r

It's wild to think that aging is something that needs to be cured, and isn't a part of the natural human experience. I'm so tired of people trying to play the role of God, as well as people that cheer these sorts of things on.

sebzim4500 1mo ago
I hope you keep these horrible thoughts to yourself if you ever walk through a paediatric hospital
- tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
  Thinking that aging is a natural part of the human experience is a horrible thought? Please explain...
  - CaptWorld 29d ago
    Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
- BeetleB 29d ago
  What does a pediatric hospital have to do with aging...?
  - tsimionescu 28d ago
    The point is that the kind of horrendous diseases you see affecting babies are also, many of them, natural parts of the human experience, just as much as aging. And yet we all like the fact that pediatric hospitals exist to cure these natural diseases.
nutjob2 1mo ago
Most people want more life. For most people it's also the most terrifying part of "the natural human experience". If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?
- tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
  I assume you mean that dying is the most terrifying pat of the natural human experience. Also, I'm not sure why you infer that me thinking death is a natural part of life, means that I'm happy or eager to die. There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
  - dataking 29d ago
    > the most obvious being an ever-increasing population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
  - s7atic 29d ago
    Fertility rates are below replacement, which means that population sizes are convergent. A decreasing population is a more likely future scenario for many western countries, even if human lifespan was indefinite.
    - fxd 29d ago
      [dead]
    - defrost 29d ago
      Fertility rates are currently below replacement, there's no good reason to imagine they will always be that way, particularly after global population numbers peak and fall to, say, half or a quarter of their peak.
      - 29d ago
tintor 29d ago
Most of the kids in history died before age 5. Child mortality is very low now compared to the past, thanks to the modern medicine and technology. I am glad humanity "played God", and reduced this unnecessary child suffering.
- bigyabai 29d ago
  They didn't die of senescence.
  - bananaflag 29d ago
    The argument was that senescence is as natural as child mortality, and thus naturalness is not a reason not to fight against it.
    - bigyabai 29d ago
      I don't think that argument holds water? According to WHO, 8 in 10 neonatal deaths are caused by substandard care, not "natural" causes: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-mortality-under-5-years https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-morta... No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
      - tsimionescu 28d ago
        > No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years. So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.
deleted 29d ago
[deleted]
9763268964 29d ago
[dead]

sebzim4500 1mo ago

I hope you keep these horrible thoughts to yourself if you ever walk through a paediatric hospital

tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
Thinking that aging is a natural part of the human experience is a horrible thought? Please explain...
- CaptWorld 29d ago
  Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
BeetleB 29d ago
What does a pediatric hospital have to do with aging...?
- tsimionescu 28d ago
  The point is that the kind of horrendous diseases you see affecting babies are also, many of them, natural parts of the human experience, just as much as aging. And yet we all like the fact that pediatric hospitals exist to cure these natural diseases.

nutjob2 1mo ago

Most people want more life. For most people it's also the most terrifying part of "the natural human experience". If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?

tinfoilhatter 1mo ago
I assume you mean that dying is the most terrifying pat of the natural human experience. Also, I'm not sure why you infer that me thinking death is a natural part of life, means that I'm happy or eager to die. There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
- dataking 29d ago
  > the most obvious being an ever-increasing population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
- s7atic 29d ago
  Fertility rates are below replacement, which means that population sizes are convergent. A decreasing population is a more likely future scenario for many western countries, even if human lifespan was indefinite.
  - fxd 29d ago
    [dead]
  - defrost 29d ago
    Fertility rates are currently below replacement, there's no good reason to imagine they will always be that way, particularly after global population numbers peak and fall to, say, half or a quarter of their peak.
    - 29d ago

tintor 29d ago

Most of the kids in history died before age 5. Child mortality is very low now compared to the past, thanks to the modern medicine and technology. I am glad humanity "played God", and reduced this unnecessary child suffering.

bigyabai 29d ago
They didn't die of senescence.
- bananaflag 29d ago
  The argument was that senescence is as natural as child mortality, and thus naturalness is not a reason not to fight against it.
  - bigyabai 29d ago
    I don't think that argument holds water? According to WHO, 8 in 10 neonatal deaths are caused by substandard care, not "natural" causes: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-mortality-under-5-years https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-morta... No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
    - tsimionescu 28d ago
      > No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years. So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.

deleted 29d ago

[deleted]

9763268964 29d ago

[dead]