Look, while i do hope they don't make such a drug available (yet?) does not imply that i would take actions against it, i would just rather see us tackle the already existing problems in our world that have been in our reach for ages but still persist, such as famine & homeless people., but i suppose that we'll need to outgrow our need for personal gains and greed before that can happen.
I want those same things, i'd love to visit Mars and other worlds, i'd give an arm & a leg for it, in a manner speak, as would i love to solve world hunger and institute world peace.
It comes down to priorities, i would rather see us solve things like famines and such, things that are already in our reach, instead of pursuing immortality which in our current society would only benefit the super rich.
I consider the whole population, would you be morally ok with limiting the access to this drug to 1st world countries? Or would you limit it even further & forbid export? Would you be ok with it if it was only accessible to the richest people on this globe & politicians?
I don't agree with you, i have no vested interest in death, nor do i have a guilt complex, i however have moral issue's and practical issue's.
If you are going to consider death as a decease, is it morally acceptable to withhold treatment to less fortunate (read: poor) people? What with pensions? How will the religious react? If we can't even manage to feed everyone on this rock, should we even be continuing with pursuing immorality?
It's got nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome, i don't have a romanticized idea of death, nor do i believe in an afterlife, i however do believe we as a species are not ready for immortality.
There is actually overproduction of food in the western world due to subsidized farming, but the foods that we make to much of get wasted instead of put to use.
I've discussed the consequences of eternal existence with religious people before, and one thing i noticed is that a lot of people fail to understand how long eternal is. In my previous post i wasn't saying you'd be immune to violence or anything i was just trying to make the point that people often have problems imagining long periods of time (something i suspect is also the reason some people fail to grasp evolution)
I personally plan to become 150 years or older, but i realize that that is unlikely. And like you, i have issue's with people who think they can rape nature as they please.
English isn't my native tongue, so sometimes my posts do not reflect precisely what i mean, but i have moral and practical issue's and problems with such a drug that should be dealt with before we create such a drug, well, in my opinion anyway.
Well in the end it all comes down to perception, i see more problems created with such a drug then i see solved, i have moral & practical questions about it, and then there's still the matter of priorities, we have quite a lot of pressing problems that we still haven't solved even though we could if we wanted to.
What i would consider good is if we managed to actually evolve our society to the state that we are no longer motivated by personal gains and greed, and that we actually live in a peaceful world without starvation.
Once we get to that state, then we could consider defeating death, but until then, it'll only increase the inequities that exist in this world and cause even more conflicts.
Another issue is, let's say you manage to create a drug that stops aging without the nasty side effects of body wide cancerous growth or a failing brain, then what? Will you patent it, or release it to the public domain?
Assuming you develop it while working for a pharmaceutical company, it's likely to end up patented and the company will try to maximize profits, so the company might release it as a pill you have to take daily, or as a treatment that reverts aging, say turns an 80 year old body back into a 20 year old body,the pills might cost a dollar a pop, making it 365$ a year, or the treatment might cost 50000$ a time, till the patent runs out.
So here you have a treatment that comes at a price, is it morally acceptable to let a portion of the world die of because they can't afford the pills? Or if it's the other one, a treatment that costs 50000$, what if a couple only has enough money for one of them? Is that morally acceptable? And even if the drug only costs 1$ a day, you will still exclude millions of people to eternal youth.
What about export? Do you allow export of this drug to other countries? Would it be morally acceptable to export a drug to a dictatorial country letting their dictator live on for generations?
Other then the moral questions, what about the societal issue's? If you are essentially eternally young, do you still get to go on pension? Will you have to work forever?
But let's put those questions aside, how well will the brain cope with the increased amount of data you will accumulate? There is no reason to assume we can store an infinite amount of data, what happens when we reach that limit?
Of course, eternal life brings on a whole other problem as well, will the religious people accept the existence of such a drug, or will they do all they can to stop/destroy it? We've already seen how some people respond to simple science such as evolution, god knows (pun intended) how those will respond.
The bottom line for me is this, we aren't ready for eternal life, we as a species are still driven by greed and superstition and until we manage to outgrow that, we should focus on the more direct issue's at hand.
Look, i wouldn't mind to live to be a 150 years (random number pulled from arse), the fact is however, as far as i can see, mankind pretty much sucks.
We have overproduction of (subsidized) foods on one side, and starving people on the other side, we have like 5% of the world's population controlling 90% of the world's resources, and you want to add immortality to that list?
As long we as a species aren't able to actually live in a world that's at peace and where famine no longer exists, then we aren't ready.
Besides, i'd doubt the religious zealots would let this ever pass to human testing, they'd be crying that we're playing gods.
I'm not saying the natural order is good, but i do not consider mankind to be good as well, the fact that there are still people starving to death this very day is proof enough that we as a supposedly intelligent species still have a long way to go.
if i had more faith in mankind i wouldn't mind scientists doubling our average lifespan, but the way things are going, i'd rather they didn't.
What do you consider a necessary duration? And necessary for what? There is no objective purpose to life - people have to ascribe their own subjective meaning - whatever you think is necessary during your own life is you own subjective value judgement and doesn't apply to anyone else.
I say, let nature take it's course, there are more important issue's at hand then to postpone the death (whether or not this is permanent or not) of humans isn't one of them.
This is a potential problem, but it presumes that technology won't be able to keep up with demand. There is mounting economic pressure (which makes all the difference) to create a renewable infrastructure now. It's only a matter of time. The more people there are, the greater the pressure. People would be able to work for longer, and would be under less pressure to have kids early. There is a large degree of self-correction to the situation, but it's one of those difficult to predict scenarios, becuase it's such a collosal global game-changing event.
An intelligent species would focus on this issue prior to try & cook up an anti-aging drug.
This fear of death is not healthy, it prevents you to fully enjoy life itself, and that's a shame, because you only get one shot at it.
I honestly have never understood this attitude. People say it, but never give a reason. Why? You say you love life, so when would that change for you? At what point do you become effectively suicidal? Are you anticipating an afterlife?
The fact that life is finite is what makes it precious, it's why you should enjoy as much of it as you can, people often say 'i want to live forever', but they fail to contemplate what forever means, forever means you'll have experienced everything life has to offer an infinite number of times, basically, you'll end up bored out of your skull with nothing to look forward to.
death is the only thing that prevents humans from creating greater damage than they already do. death regulates us.
it would be nice if our culture was less afraid of death and started to accept it - it's natural and part of everything. not that one should kill himself or suffer, or things like that, but eventually we all do die. in other civilizations death was not something they would fear, and they would live more happily regarding this.
True, i don't want to be mourned when i finally get slammed into the furnace, i want my life to be celebrated with food & booze and music (heck, even get some hookers!), remember people for their life, not their death (unless it was a spectacular death).
Not because of long lives, but because of the stupidity and selfishness of many humans who don't think about the future.
So what do you propose? Having some sort of forum to decide who gets to live on & who gets to die?
Or limit the availability of the drug to the rich? The politicians? The famous?
Slippery rope....
Perhaps they should be working on a way to reduce the amount of successful births.
And how do you plan to do that? Go the China route & limit everyone to 1 child? Or will you be sterilizing people preventively?
Except if it wasn't a nightmare.
Imagine not growing old, ever, and then contemplate the fact that you can experience all possible experiences for an infinite number of times, it might take a while, but after some time you'll wish you died (the kicker would be off course if at this point you no longer can), the mind grows numb with boredom.
I don't consider this to make people to last forever, but 'unnecessarily long'.
Look, i love life, and hope to live to be old enough to see people colonize space, but I'm also realistic enough to know that current population growth is heading straight for disaster, we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food, our main energy source is finite (oil), and our climate seems to be going through changes (i don't care if they're man-made or not), putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me.
Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, while i do hope they don't make such a drug available (yet?) does not imply that i would take actions against it, i would just rather see us tackle the already existing problems in our world that have been in our reach for ages but still persist, such as famine & homeless people., but i suppose that we'll need to outgrow our need for personal gains and greed before that can happen.
I want those same things, i'd love to visit Mars and other worlds, i'd give an arm & a leg for it, in a manner speak, as would i love to solve world hunger and institute world peace.
It comes down to priorities, i would rather see us solve things like famines and such, things that are already in our reach, instead of pursuing immortality which in our current society would only benefit the super rich.
I consider the whole population, would you be morally ok with limiting the access to this drug to 1st world countries? Or would you limit it even further & forbid export? Would you be ok with it if it was only accessible to the richest people on this globe & politicians?
I don't agree with you, i have no vested interest in death, nor do i have a guilt complex, i however have moral issue's and practical issue's.
If you are going to consider death as a decease, is it morally acceptable to withhold treatment to less fortunate (read: poor) people? What with pensions? How will the religious react? If we can't even manage to feed everyone on this rock, should we even be continuing with pursuing immorality?
It's got nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome, i don't have a romanticized idea of death, nor do i believe in an afterlife, i however do believe we as a species are not ready for immortality.
There is actually overproduction of food in the western world due to subsidized farming, but the foods that we make to much of get wasted instead of put to use.
There is a difference (for me) between prolonging life & disabling death.
Or people stop trying to get rich. As long as personal gains & greed drive us we'll have problems.
I've discussed the consequences of eternal existence with religious people before, and one thing i noticed is that a lot of people fail to understand how long eternal is. In my previous post i wasn't saying you'd be immune to violence or anything i was just trying to make the point that people often have problems imagining long periods of time (something i suspect is also the reason some people fail to grasp evolution)
I personally plan to become 150 years or older, but i realize that that is unlikely. And like you, i have issue's with people who think they can rape nature as they please.
English isn't my native tongue, so sometimes my posts do not reflect precisely what i mean, but i have moral and practical issue's and problems with such a drug that should be dealt with before we create such a drug, well, in my opinion anyway.
That bit about eternity is actually something i came to while discussing the possibility of an afterlife and how desirable such a thing would be.
But even living quietly is an experience.
Well in the end it all comes down to perception, i see more problems created with such a drug then i see solved, i have moral & practical questions about it, and then there's still the matter of priorities, we have quite a lot of pressing problems that we still haven't solved even though we could if we wanted to.
I seriously doubt that'll change much, people are shortsighted not only because of greed, but plain simply because we're stupid.
I would let you live regardless.
That i can agree with.
What i would consider good is if we managed to actually evolve our society to the state that we are no longer motivated by personal gains and greed, and that we actually live in a peaceful world without starvation.
Once we get to that state, then we could consider defeating death, but until then, it'll only increase the inequities that exist in this world and cause even more conflicts.
Another issue is, let's say you manage to create a drug that stops aging without the nasty side effects of body wide cancerous growth or a failing brain, then what? Will you patent it, or release it to the public domain?
Assuming you develop it while working for a pharmaceutical company, it's likely to end up patented and the company will try to maximize profits, so the company might release it as a pill you have to take daily, or as a treatment that reverts aging, say turns an 80 year old body back into a 20 year old body,the pills might cost a dollar a pop, making it 365$ a year, or the treatment might cost 50000$ a time, till the patent runs out.
So here you have a treatment that comes at a price, is it morally acceptable to let a portion of the world die of because they can't afford the pills? Or if it's the other one, a treatment that costs 50000$, what if a couple only has enough money for one of them? Is that morally acceptable? And even if the drug only costs 1$ a day, you will still exclude millions of people to eternal youth.
What about export? Do you allow export of this drug to other countries? Would it be morally acceptable to export a drug to a dictatorial country letting their dictator live on for generations?
Other then the moral questions, what about the societal issue's? If you are essentially eternally young, do you still get to go on pension? Will you have to work forever?
But let's put those questions aside, how well will the brain cope with the increased amount of data you will accumulate? There is no reason to assume we can store an infinite amount of data, what happens when we reach that limit?
Of course, eternal life brings on a whole other problem as well, will the religious people accept the existence of such a drug, or will they do all they can to stop/destroy it? We've already seen how some people respond to simple science such as evolution, god knows (pun intended) how those will respond.
The bottom line for me is this, we aren't ready for eternal life, we as a species are still driven by greed and superstition and until we manage to outgrow that, we should focus on the more direct issue's at hand.
Look, i wouldn't mind to live to be a 150 years (random number pulled from arse), the fact is however, as far as i can see, mankind pretty much sucks.
We have overproduction of (subsidized) foods on one side, and starving people on the other side, we have like 5% of the world's population controlling 90% of the world's resources, and you want to add immortality to that list?
As long we as a species aren't able to actually live in a world that's at peace and where famine no longer exists, then we aren't ready.
Besides, i'd doubt the religious zealots would let this ever pass to human testing, they'd be crying that we're playing gods.
I'm not saying the natural order is good, but i do not consider mankind to be good as well, the fact that there are still people starving to death this very day is proof enough that we as a supposedly intelligent species still have a long way to go.
if i had more faith in mankind i wouldn't mind scientists doubling our average lifespan, but the way things are going, i'd rather they didn't.
Most people don't even make it to die of old age, i just hope when i go, that i go fast (or on my own terms).
What do you consider a necessary duration? And necessary for what? There is no objective purpose to life - people have to ascribe their own subjective meaning - whatever you think is necessary during your own life is you own subjective value judgement and doesn't apply to anyone else.
I say, let nature take it's course, there are more important issue's at hand then to postpone the death (whether or not this is permanent or not) of humans isn't one of them.
This is a potential problem, but it presumes that technology won't be able to keep up with demand. There is mounting economic pressure (which makes all the difference) to create a renewable infrastructure now. It's only a matter of time. The more people there are, the greater the pressure. People would be able to work for longer, and would be under less pressure to have kids early. There is a large degree of self-correction to the situation, but it's one of those difficult to predict scenarios, becuase it's such a collosal global game-changing event.
An intelligent species would focus on this issue prior to try & cook up an anti-aging drug.
This fear of death is not healthy, it prevents you to fully enjoy life itself, and that's a shame, because you only get one shot at it.
I honestly have never understood this attitude. People say it, but never give a reason. Why? You say you love life, so when would that change for you? At what point do you become effectively suicidal? Are you anticipating an afterlife?
The fact that life is finite is what makes it precious, it's why you should enjoy as much of it as you can, people often say 'i want to live forever', but they fail to contemplate what forever means, forever means you'll have experienced everything life has to offer an infinite number of times, basically, you'll end up bored out of your skull with nothing to look forward to.
They were impatient
death is the only thing that prevents humans from creating greater damage than they already do. death regulates us.
it would be nice if our culture was less afraid of death and started to accept it - it's natural and part of everything. not that one should kill himself or suffer, or things like that, but eventually we all do die. in other civilizations death was not something they would fear, and they would live more happily regarding this.
True, i don't want to be mourned when i finally get slammed into the furnace, i want my life to be celebrated with food & booze and music (heck, even get some hookers!), remember people for their life, not their death (unless it was a spectacular death).
Not because of long lives, but because of the stupidity and selfishness of many humans who don't think about the future.
So what do you propose? Having some sort of forum to decide who gets to live on & who gets to die?
Or limit the availability of the drug to the rich? The politicians? The famous?
Slippery rope....
Perhaps they should be working on a way to reduce the amount of successful births.
And how do you plan to do that? Go the China route & limit everyone to 1 child? Or will you be sterilizing people preventively?
Except if it wasn't a nightmare.
Imagine not growing old, ever, and then contemplate the fact that you can experience all possible experiences for an infinite number of times, it might take a while, but after some time you'll wish you died (the kicker would be off course if at this point you no longer can), the mind grows numb with boredom.
:D You just made my monday ;)
I don't consider this to make people to last forever, but 'unnecessarily long'.
Look, i love life, and hope to live to be old enough to see people colonize space, but I'm also realistic enough to know that current population growth is heading straight for disaster, we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food, our main energy source is finite (oil), and our climate seems to be going through changes (i don't care if they're man-made or not), putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me.
Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare.