8 ms·

May I ask why we need to battle mortality? People tend to forget our body's limitations and that all the extra years add to the end, not in the middle. Not to m

May I ask why we need to battle mortality? People tend to forget our body's limitations and that all the extra years add to the end, not in the middle. Not to mention the implications it might have on reproduction. People wont want to have children and slowly our numbers will decline. Also this will bring up an issue depriving ourself's of new Isaac Newtons, Einsteins and all the other bright mind and great people who would have been born and now they aren't. We always forget that strength lies in diversity. And lastly, do we really want to give immortality to people who do not contribute anything to our society? How do we determine who is worth the while to live for hundreds of years? And how will we convince the other parts of society that this is beneficial for all of us? Too many questions on a human level which are ignored, or it looks like they are ignored... Instead of spending all our time in the shadow of mortality why not we just step out in the light and enjoy life in its brief moment and make the most of it? Don't get me wrong, I would like to live forever, but it might have greater risks for mankind then the benefits it holds.

biomimic 12y ago
Giving up is not an option.
- MrLeftHand 12y ago
  It's not about giving up. It is about looking at mortality as some kind of disease and not a common thing that happens to all living beings. As a human, I am afraid of death as the most of us. I like to toy with the idea living forever, or at least hundreds of years... But looking at our society now. As the average lifespan getting higher, more people stay in jobs longer as usual. The young wont have any jobs, because their parent will stay in the positions. In the end the old would have to sustain the young and soon after that, no one would want to have a child, because who needs another hungry mouth. Of course as the 1st world country citizens will afford living a longer life, 2nd and 3rd ones wont. This will create a massive gap between nations. Like we didn't have that already. And we don't know how the human mind could handle this anyway. Maybe you would go actually mad after 200 years of living. And as I said. The extra years always add up to the end. Maybe you live 200 years, but 2/3 of that is spent being old and useless. As highly appreciated and acknowledged people warn us about the ramifications of A.I., so we should be extremely cautious about banning death. To be honest I would be less afraid of A.I. as the consequences of immortality.
  - biomimic 12y ago
    There are two options: A) Live B) Die Choose your poison, however, living long enough to fight for a chance to change, defeat or restructure that poison, in whatever form it comes, is what I choose. Choice B) does not give you that option unless it's your understanding that: C) There is another option D) Choice A) will someday positively impact the reanimation of those who've selected Choice B). Choose wisely.
    - MrLeftHand 12y ago
      It is good to have someone living as long as possible who actually wants to make the world a better place. But, we all know who will be the ones actually benefiting from this. The ones who don't give a rats ass about anything, only selfishly living longer just to make more money, have more power. Hoarders who are rather a disease for humanity then being useful. In an ideal world it would be a fantastic thing. But we aren't living in one. We can try, but unless 90% of humanity stops acting like a maniac, it will divide humanity on another level. We can't cope with the fact properly, if our neighbour has a bigger car then ours. Imagine how people would cope with the fact, that some of us can live for hundreds of years. Immortality is a nice thing, but not until the minds are cleared, poverty, hunger, closed mindedness, are banished and humanity as a whole can act and decide without having constant internal struggles. Just look at the idiots who are against vaccinations, religious nut-jobs, greedy, selfish, maniac, egocentric, etc... All the beautiful traits of humanity. Do you want to give those power to live long, or maybe forever? Would you prevent new generation to blossom and create something new, by selfishly clinging to life and not letting go to give way for the change? It is a common thing that the older you are, the less you can change, or keep up with trends. And this is not only about are ageing bodies. We might have the risk to stop evolving. To stop innovating, exploring, etc... I advise to you to read "2br02b" from Kurt Vonnegut. A short story about our society perfecting immortality. It is very interesting. And to answer your question. I would probably choose 'A', even if I fear that it will have a very negative impact on humanity.
Perdition 12y ago
I find the idea of immortality horrifying. People would become ridiculously risk adverse because they could live forever as long as they didn't have an accident. Imagine the sort of repressive policies those voters would support in order to remove risk. I also think for society to evolve older generations need to die off. Peoples worldview becomes partially fixed in their youth, and for some it is entirely fixed in their youth. I wouldn't want to live with a bunch of geriatrics from the 1800's.
mastef 12y ago
a) mortality deprived us of the Isaac Newtons, Einsteins and all the other bright minds already b) why would there even be a discussion on 'who deserves' to be immortal? is there currently a discussion on who deserves to live based on what they contribute to society? crime would still be crime, and dealt with as it's always been dealt with c) let's distinguish between mortality based on aging and mortality based on other unforeseeable causes ( violence, accidents, etc. ) d) mortality currently binds us to our solar system, and humanities' possible ultimate demise e) we are at a stage where human evolution has stopped. the way to push it forward is now through our own means my question was rather related to the technical issue - as it is a technical issue. not if it's desireable or not; that's besides the point and has to be dealt with separately
- MrLeftHand 12y ago
  a)I understand it's a technical question. But as with every technical question, we have to ask what the changes will be on society. b)Mortality gives way to other minds to step forward like Stephen Hawking and others. Would have been such a good thing to have an immortal Isaac Newton for a millennia? Would have he realised the the laws of physics outside of earth's standards. Could have an immortal Einstein refine his theories and change his mistakes and adapt to newer findings? Could have had a Stephen Hawking any chance to share his knowledge beside immortal Einsteins and Newtons? c)It is a discussion about who deserves it. As for expensive treatments which aren't affordable by anyone in our society right now. We all now this. These treatments or solutions won't be free of charge. Only the rich will afford it. You know, money talks... d)It's not only mortality that binds us to earth. It's our whole biological build up. Which fits only the life on earth. What about the warp drive, worm holes, etc... These aren't good enough for humanity to reach for the stars? e)Also we don't have any clue about what effects it will have on the human body to live on another planet. f)It is silly to say that evolution has stopped for the human race. We are biological creatures which can adapt to its surrounding as any other. But having immortality and not producing offsprings will actually lead to an evolutionary dead end. Having no genetic mutation will prevent the species to create natural immunity against diseases etc... g)I only wanted to point out that maybe it is not the best thing to cheat death. It is natural. It's not a disease. Stop treating it like one. As I said. As we are concerned about A.I., so should we concerned about this as well. Logic dictates to examine a possible solution from every angle as possible. Not to put ourselves and the whole humanity into a dead end.

biomimic 12y ago

Giving up is not an option.

MrLeftHand 12y ago
It's not about giving up. It is about looking at mortality as some kind of disease and not a common thing that happens to all living beings. As a human, I am afraid of death as the most of us. I like to toy with the idea living forever, or at least hundreds of years... But looking at our society now. As the average lifespan getting higher, more people stay in jobs longer as usual. The young wont have any jobs, because their parent will stay in the positions. In the end the old would have to sustain the young and soon after that, no one would want to have a child, because who needs another hungry mouth. Of course as the 1st world country citizens will afford living a longer life, 2nd and 3rd ones wont. This will create a massive gap between nations. Like we didn't have that already. And we don't know how the human mind could handle this anyway. Maybe you would go actually mad after 200 years of living. And as I said. The extra years always add up to the end. Maybe you live 200 years, but 2/3 of that is spent being old and useless. As highly appreciated and acknowledged people warn us about the ramifications of A.I., so we should be extremely cautious about banning death. To be honest I would be less afraid of A.I. as the consequences of immortality.
- biomimic 12y ago
  There are two options: A) Live B) Die Choose your poison, however, living long enough to fight for a chance to change, defeat or restructure that poison, in whatever form it comes, is what I choose. Choice B) does not give you that option unless it's your understanding that: C) There is another option D) Choice A) will someday positively impact the reanimation of those who've selected Choice B). Choose wisely.
  - MrLeftHand 12y ago
    It is good to have someone living as long as possible who actually wants to make the world a better place. But, we all know who will be the ones actually benefiting from this. The ones who don't give a rats ass about anything, only selfishly living longer just to make more money, have more power. Hoarders who are rather a disease for humanity then being useful. In an ideal world it would be a fantastic thing. But we aren't living in one. We can try, but unless 90% of humanity stops acting like a maniac, it will divide humanity on another level. We can't cope with the fact properly, if our neighbour has a bigger car then ours. Imagine how people would cope with the fact, that some of us can live for hundreds of years. Immortality is a nice thing, but not until the minds are cleared, poverty, hunger, closed mindedness, are banished and humanity as a whole can act and decide without having constant internal struggles. Just look at the idiots who are against vaccinations, religious nut-jobs, greedy, selfish, maniac, egocentric, etc... All the beautiful traits of humanity. Do you want to give those power to live long, or maybe forever? Would you prevent new generation to blossom and create something new, by selfishly clinging to life and not letting go to give way for the change? It is a common thing that the older you are, the less you can change, or keep up with trends. And this is not only about are ageing bodies. We might have the risk to stop evolving. To stop innovating, exploring, etc... I advise to you to read "2br02b" from Kurt Vonnegut. A short story about our society perfecting immortality. It is very interesting. And to answer your question. I would probably choose 'A', even if I fear that it will have a very negative impact on humanity.

Perdition 12y ago

I find the idea of immortality horrifying. People would become ridiculously risk adverse because they could live forever as long as they didn't have an accident. Imagine the sort of repressive policies those voters would support in order to remove risk. I also think for society to evolve older generations need to die off. Peoples worldview becomes partially fixed in their youth, and for some it is entirely fixed in their youth. I wouldn't want to live with a bunch of geriatrics from the 1800's.

mastef 12y ago

a) mortality deprived us of the Isaac Newtons, Einsteins and all the other bright minds already b) why would there even be a discussion on 'who deserves' to be immortal? is there currently a discussion on who deserves to live based on what they contribute to society? crime would still be crime, and dealt with as it's always been dealt with c) let's distinguish between mortality based on aging and mortality based on other unforeseeable causes ( violence, accidents, etc. ) d) mortality currently binds us to our solar system, and humanities' possible ultimate demise e) we are at a stage where human evolution has stopped. the way to push it forward is now through our own means my question was rather related to the technical issue - as it is a technical issue. not if it's desireable or not; that's besides the point and has to be dealt with separately

MrLeftHand 12y ago
a)I understand it's a technical question. But as with every technical question, we have to ask what the changes will be on society. b)Mortality gives way to other minds to step forward like Stephen Hawking and others. Would have been such a good thing to have an immortal Isaac Newton for a millennia? Would have he realised the the laws of physics outside of earth's standards. Could have an immortal Einstein refine his theories and change his mistakes and adapt to newer findings? Could have had a Stephen Hawking any chance to share his knowledge beside immortal Einsteins and Newtons? c)It is a discussion about who deserves it. As for expensive treatments which aren't affordable by anyone in our society right now. We all now this. These treatments or solutions won't be free of charge. Only the rich will afford it. You know, money talks... d)It's not only mortality that binds us to earth. It's our whole biological build up. Which fits only the life on earth. What about the warp drive, worm holes, etc... These aren't good enough for humanity to reach for the stars? e)Also we don't have any clue about what effects it will have on the human body to live on another planet. f)It is silly to say that evolution has stopped for the human race. We are biological creatures which can adapt to its surrounding as any other. But having immortality and not producing offsprings will actually lead to an evolutionary dead end. Having no genetic mutation will prevent the species to create natural immunity against diseases etc... g)I only wanted to point out that maybe it is not the best thing to cheat death. It is natural. It's not a disease. Stop treating it like one. As I said. As we are concerned about A.I., so should we concerned about this as well. Logic dictates to examine a possible solution from every angle as possible. Not to put ourselves and the whole humanity into a dead end.