4 ms·
I disagree. There is an obsession with preserving life in our culture, at any cost. But everywhere else in the world (ie. for other animals) there is abundant e
by jkaunisv1 12y ago
I disagree. There is an obsession with preserving life in our culture, at any cost. But everywhere else in the world (ie. for other animals) there is abundant evidence that death is crucial to life. Without a tree dying, what would mushrooms feed on, where would insects make their homes, etc.? Didn't you watch the Lion King?
Would you rather have tens of billions living forever in socially stagnant, oppressive conditions, or a few billion living in gradually-improving conditions? Doesn't the quality of the life matter as much as the quantity?
To take the argument to an extreme, I would certainly rather live a hundred years of average contentment than a thousand years of being tortured by a sadist every day.
- orangecat 12y agoWould you rather have tens of billions living forever in socially stagnant, oppressive conditions, or a few billion living in gradually-improving conditions? This is a huge false dilemma. Doesn't the quality of the life matter as much as the quantity? Certainly. And the effects of aging are heavily detrimental to quality of life.
- jkaunisv1 12y agoWhy is it a false dilemma? I like your thought experiment of a world that doesn't suffer from aging but does have the social problems described above. But that's not the world we're in. I'd rather fix the social problems first because I think they'll get harder to solve if we get rid of aging first. Ask the next menial labourer you encounter (the person making your food, ringing up your groceries, or cleaning your hotel room) which of the following they'd prefer: A) A basic income* until they die around age 100 B) Eternal life in the same economic & social conditions they're in now Do you really think the majority would choose B? * I'm using basic income as a placeholder for an improved economic & social situation.