It seems we're getting somewhere.
TianZi, on 9-Sep 2008, 03:27 AM, said:
What part of "This will be a world without children" don't you understand? De Gray's position here is clear to anyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse.
I don't think it's a matter of reading comprehension, but rather "obtuse" interpreation.
To me "The right to procreate will never be rated above the right of a currently living human being to continue living."
is a condition that must be reached before
the other two statements come into play. Just because you bolded the last sentence, doesn't mean it is not meant in the context mentioned before. Taking things out of context often produces meaningless statements.
That's the only interpretation that makes sense anyway, do you really think Aubrey is so reckless to root for enforcing sterilisation even before it becomes necessary. Certainly not as this could harm the mfoundation's public image, he will probably always mention the bolded condition.
No, he presents sterilisation as an ultima ratio. Even though it may be inevitable in the far future, which the statement you bolded implies.
What I've suggested is far less radical (and it presupposes defeating aging, so it's nothing applicable to today's situation, only a hypothetical future one).
We'd continue having plenty of children, and absolutely no one would be forced to be sterilized; the procedure would be an entirely voluntary one not likely to be sought until past the point in the
normal life span in which having children is safe [/u] (except pursuant to your very tortured interpretation of what it means to be "forced" to do something).
As long as the "voluntary sterilisation" (euphemism) is inevitably coupled with life extension procedures it is by no means voluntary. If however it is truely voluntary and you may, but not have to, be sterilised during the treatment then it is truely voluntary sterilisation. This is not a matter of opinion, it is strict logic.
Saying that I must be a sadist is bizarre, since this voluntary treatment should entail no physical pain, and even if it did, I certainly wouldn't take pleasure from it
(that's what being a "sadist" means, but again you have played fast and loose with the English language).
I know the defintion of a sadist and used it in the right context with that meaning in mind. I've even read Marquis de Sade's 120 days of sodom
and I'm pretty sure that guy can give people an idea what sadism means. The word "sadist" is pretty universal part of most languages (at least of all the 3 I can speak more or less well), so it cannot be my lack of understanding of the English language that you implied. Either you did not understand what I wrote or I did not make myself clear enough.
However, the point I made is of minor relevance now.
To build on my proposal, I think it would be reasonable to wait twenty five years or so after age rejuvenation treatments first become broadly available to the general public before taking the
course of action I've suggested, and see how population grows during that period. Obviously, not making people choose between sterilization and life extension would be ideal, if practicable. In
order to maximize the odds of escaping the inevitability of world overpopulation due to defeating aging, the nations of the world would immediately need to adopt strong economic incentives
encouraging very low birth rates. If at the end of this period, population is increasing in an unsustainable manner, something akin to the course I have proposed would have to be adopted.
Great. I wanted you to be more open minded towards alternatives all along. First the less radical plans - they may work - and before it is too late we'd need to adopt sterilisation, or something similar, as an ultima ratio. That's a good idea.
Perhaps I am too pessimistic, and humans are innately reasonable creatures; I doubt it.
I don't think they are reasonable either. However, they don't need to be reasonable to make right choices. Not reproducing for the 'survival of mankind' may be intuitive enough so that no reason is needed.
There was also a second point I wanted to make. As you did not object to it in your post, I'll assume that you agree. Those people who are reasonable, or at least act reasonable, i.e. those who naturally do not want to reproduce, don't need to be "forced", "convinced" or "subjected to" to sterilisation when they undergoe life extension treatments.
You don't need to throw thyphoid Mary into jail if she doesn't infect others, do you?
As far as colonizing other worlds goes, I think it's clearly very unlikely that we'll be able to shift significant portions of the Earth's population off planet in the near future
It clearly is not. Which is my opinion and I have stated it several times. Let's agree that we disagree, that's fine. My position still stands: SENS type approaches are not easier to implement than colonsing our solar system, or at least the moon.
If you want to discuss this issue further, let's both bring forth (evidence and fact based) arguments.
(and I can't imagine that as being anything but voluntary, if and when it happens), whereas I think it's likely we will have access to age rejuvenation treatments within the next 20 years.
And anyway, what good will this option do for those inhabitants of Earth who don't want to leave it, or the survival and health of Earth's ecosystem itself? What, you think gambling on the chance of
being able to escape a ship you've allowed to founder is good enough?! To me, your position is absolutely unethical and illogical.
The position, though it is not even one, as it is just an idea/a proposal, is neither unethical nor illogical. I promise I can find at least 100 million volunteers, including me. Certainly we'd not force anyone, incentives and man's inherent curiosity should be enough. People do not even need to live on another planet forever, they can be swapped out with other volunteers.
Neither is it gambling anything, as it is just one of the many solutions, that taken together are quite powerful.
My proposal probably doesn't go far enough to matching the challenge of overpopulation in a near-term scenario in which we have overcome aging. But as a practical matter, De Gray's solution
(which would apparently entail forced sterilization, and well in advance of any rejuvenation treatment) won't be practicable until we are at rope's end, so to speak, or humanity's mores have been
So be it. It is nothing but an ultima ratio. As long as it is not needed no one wants it to be enforced, because it would be extremly difficult to enforce in the near term and as such poses a threat to mankind in itself. We don't need to be at the rope's end, just close enough to see the end and meassures will be taken!