4 ms·

I know my words are probably going to sound quite harsh, and I realize that there will be people who will take offense, still this is my opinion on the matter,

by SCHiM 11y ago

I know my words are probably going to sound quite harsh, and I realize that there will be people who will take offense, still this is my opinion on the matter, and this being the Internet you're obliged to read and then ignore it ;p To me it seems that choosing whether or not to live is a very personal choice, arguably the most personal choice you can make. Not wanting to contribute to a goal another might have is fine, nobody should be forcing you to contribute to anti-aging research or experimentation. However I don't think you should have a say in whether or not another ends/extends his or her life. It follows that you aren't allowed to forbid research into this area either, you might think it immoral, dangerous or distasteful, but it's not your choice to make. There are a lot of arguments against changing what people think of as the 'natural order'. Various people are concerned that it will lead to overpopulation, perhaps it will. Perhaps when it gets really bad wars and/or famine will break out. Nature doing its 'job'. Perhaps it's selfish of me, but given the choice between inventing a 'cure' for aging (that I can then subsequently use) and dying when 'my time has come'. I'll pick the cure for sure. I do care about the consequences, just not enough to stop me from producing and using said cure. And I think that goes for many people. Only they're afraid to make that point and/or follow through with what they are actually advocating. Why else would you prefer dying of old age, to not dying at all? If you truly think it's better to die of aging, and thereby preventing <insert horrible future> why don't you just decide to end yourself, and leave others be?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rfrey 11y ago
I agree with everything you said, but the last sentence isn't as well thought out as the rest. People who see dire consequences to reversing aging can't make a difference by suicide; it's only in the aggregate that there is disaster or averted disaster. It's like saying to someone who thinks carbon emissions will heat the planet and doom our species: "If you think that, sell your car and leave the rest of us alone".
pekk 11y ago
Whether I should have a say depends on what the costs are, who pays them and who benefits. Given that there are so many causes of death, and each one is so hard to avoid, we could spend unlimited resources trying in vain to stamp out death for good, at the opportunity cost of much better returns on other things we could do to make life better for humans other than just the wealthiest people who have so few problems that mortality is their highest priority. Right now and in any plausible future scenario there is simply not a choice "whether or not to live." Everyone dies eventually, merely making modern healthcare available is too hard for us to do worldwide and people (poor brown people "somewhere else") are still being crippled by polio, for example. Rather than telling people you disagree with to commit suicide, it would help if you understood that what you are asking for is a fantasy and that it is problematic to accept literally any cost to other humans in its pursuit.
- M8 11y ago
  In that case the ethical problem is already there: most 1-st world countries subsidise own poor people (including single mothers) to have extra children that they cannot afford. France is even legally prosecuting casual paternity tests - raising someone else's child is just another form of wellfare. I guess I can spend whatever is left of my post tax money on making myself live longer.

by SCHiM 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rfrey 11y ago

I agree with everything you said, but the last sentence isn't as well thought out as the rest. People who see dire consequences to reversing aging can't make a difference by suicide; it's only in the aggregate that there is disaster or averted disaster. It's like saying to someone who thinks carbon emissions will heat the planet and doom our species: "If you think that, sell your car and leave the rest of us alone".

pekk 11y ago

Whether I should have a say depends on what the costs are, who pays them and who benefits. Given that there are so many causes of death, and each one is so hard to avoid, we could spend unlimited resources trying in vain to stamp out death for good, at the opportunity cost of much better returns on other things we could do to make life better for humans other than just the wealthiest people who have so few problems that mortality is their highest priority. Right now and in any plausible future scenario there is simply not a choice "whether or not to live." Everyone dies eventually, merely making modern healthcare available is too hard for us to do worldwide and people (poor brown people "somewhere else") are still being crippled by polio, for example. Rather than telling people you disagree with to commit suicide, it would help if you understood that what you are asking for is a fantasy and that it is problematic to accept literally any cost to other humans in its pursuit.

M8 11y ago
In that case the ethical problem is already there: most 1-st world countries subsidise own poor people (including single mothers) to have extra children that they cannot afford. France is even legally prosecuting casual paternity tests - raising someone else's child is just another form of wellfare. I guess I can spend whatever is left of my post tax money on making myself live longer.