19 replies to this topic

[Luna]

It appears to me that the definition of selfish is a bit too loosely used when talking about living forever, never dying and immortality.

Isn't selfish is doing something just for yourself that may be against others? Doing things for yourself because of joy isn't selfish, it doesn't hurt anyone. Living forever isn't selfish, no one gets hurt from it, only benefits, and not just you.

Actually - being against life extension is SUPER selfish:
1. You force people into your opinion.
2. You hurt people, get them to die, suffer from disease and bad health and aging.
3. All of that just because of what you want things to be like.

Supporting life extension:
1. You benefit people's health.
2. You benefit the people's friends and family by keeping their loved ones healthy and alive.
3. You don't force anyone into it. (well maybe passively as with every technological progress, but the benefits outweigh that one )

Selfish argument is a complete fallacy.

Definition of selfish:

selfish [ˈsɛlfɪʃ] adj 1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc., esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others.

See, we are not selfish. We are concerneed with our own interest AND OTHERS. I want my mother to live forever, my father, even mom's boyfriend who is so horrible. My friends, my boyfriend and everyone. I don't want an advantage, I just want to never die and to live forever. I would love everyone to have that too, that already goes against of selfish. As I said - This will benefit everyone, not just me. Those who don't want it can choose against it, it doesn't give me an advantage over them or a benefit in their opinion cause they think death is good. It's not selfish - it is differing opinions.

[Pour_la_Science]

More than that, it's the definition of selfishness which is wrong. Everything is selfish.


And you can't prove the opposite :
Even Mother Theresa (though by some as the paragon of anti-selfishness and generosity) : When acting for the others, she's working in the sense of her cause, thence increasing her own happiness.
When you give something to someone, if you was raised by society to think that this act is good, you think you're acting in the good sense and increase your own happiness.

Edited by Pour_la_Science, 20 August 2010 - 10:15 AM.

[Luna]

But that's wrong, you are ignoring the part of the definition of selfishness saying "to your advantage over others or the exclusion of the interests of others".

And even if you ignore it, let's put it in relativity, it's still very low on the selfish scale and the ones against it are still way more selfish so my argument still stands.

Either way I beat the selfish argument here.

And I do think that even do the argument still stands in the relativity scale in where you consider everything as selfish, even Mother Theresa - your statement is wrong because you are ignoring the definition of selfish, at least half of it, as selfish isn't simply doing things for your benefit and interest, that's natural. Selfish is doing them to gain advantage over others, be above others, maybe even hurt others, exclude others from the benefit, which we do not do and neither did Mother Theresa according to the stories.

[JLL]

More than that, it's the definition of selfishness which is wrong. Everything is selfish.

If everything is selfish, and that is the definition of selfish, then the whole word become semantically meaningless and ceases to be a useful word.

No, everything is not selfish.

[chris w]

Yeah, perhaps what people really mean when they accuse an immortalist of selfishness is in fact more like some kind of blasphemous narcisism, along the lines - "why do you think you're so special to just want not having to die if everyone before you did ?". And I'd say that if this is the case, then yes I do feel like deserving not to die if it was possible but ( ideally ) everybody living does as well, it's not that I am so special, we are. I guess people tend to look for zero-sum game patterns too much and miss the fact there is an unharmfull type of narcisism as well as there is a harmful one("to the exclusion of interests of others ").

[niner]

Living forever isn't selfish, no one gets hurt from it

Well, that depends on your lifestyle and actions.

[Luna]

Living forever isn't selfish, no one gets hurt from it

Well, that depends on your lifestyle and actions.

You said it, you get hurt from your lifestyle and actions.. or someone else's. You can get hurt from that without living forever. Not very related.

You could say living forever could make you hurt longer, but again, it is the option to live forever, no one forces you.

Either way I am sure almost everyone in Imminst agrees that human society HAS to be improved.

[niner]

Living forever isn't selfish, no one gets hurt from it

Well, that depends on your lifestyle and actions.

You said it, you get hurt from your lifestyle and actions.. or someone else's. You can get hurt from that without living forever. Not very related.

You could say living forever could make you hurt longer, but again, it is the option to live forever, no one forces you.

Either way I am sure almost everyone in Imminst agrees that human society HAS to be improved.

I don't think I was very clear. What I meant was that depending on our lifestyle and actions, we might hurt others. This might be due to us having a negative impact on the environment, or imposing costs on society, or by helping to empower the governments of the countries that we live in, who might engage in actions that we don't support, but which nevertheless harm others. What you said about human society needing to be improved should take care of some of this, and technology will take care of some of it, such that our effect on the world should be a net positive. In that case, the longer we live, the better.

People are certain to bring up these arguments against immortality, so it's good to have thought about them.

[Pour_la_Science]

If everything is selfish, and that is the definition of selfish, then the whole word become semantically meaningless and ceases to be a useful word.

No, everything is not selfish.

You got my point! But not all the words are meaningless. Only all words defining (or trying to define) moral. and selfishness is a moral word.

And I do think that even do the argument still stands in the relativity scale in where you consider everything as selfish, even Mother Theresa - your statement is wrong because you are ignoring the definition of selfish, at least half of it, as selfish isn't simply doing things for your benefit and interest, that's natural. Selfish is doing them to gain advantage over others, be above others, maybe even hurt others, exclude others from the benefit, which we do not do and neither did Mother Theresa according to the stories.

Who's that? In some points of view, actions of Mother Theresa permitted to propagate Roman Catholic Church faith in the world. Some may think that this could have enormous/deadly consequences over others.
You can do what you want. If it's a moral question, all its definitions are meaningless. Only depending on the point of view.

[bobdrake12]

It appears to me that the definition of selfish is a bit too loosely used when talking about living forever, never dying and immortality.

Isn't selfish is doing something just for yourself that may be against others? Doing things for yourself because of joy isn't selfish, it doesn't hurt anyone. Living forever isn't selfish, no one gets hurt from it, only benefits, and not just you.

Actually - being against life extension is SUPER selfish:
1. You force people into your opinion.
2. You hurt people, get them to die, suffer from disease and bad health and aging.
3. All of that just because of what you want things to be like.

Supporting life extension:
1. You benefit people's health.
2. You benefit the people's friends and family by keeping their loved ones healthy and alive.
3. You don't force anyone into it. (well maybe passively as with every technological progress, but the benefits outweigh that one )

Selfish argument is a complete fallacy.

Definition of selfish:

selfish [ˈsɛlfɪʃ] adj 1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc., esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others.

See, we are not selfish. We are concerneed with our own interest AND OTHERS. I want my mother to live forever, my father, even mom's boyfriend who is so horrible. My friends, my boyfriend and everyone. I don't want an advantage, I just want to never die and to live forever. I would love everyone to have that too, that already goes against of selfish. As I said - This will benefit everyone, not just me. Those who don't want it can choose against it, it doesn't give me an advantage over them or a benefit in their opinion cause they think death is good. It's not selfish - it is differing opinions.

Well said, Luna!

[bobdrake12]

Yeah, perhaps what people really mean when they accuse an immortalist of selfishness is in fact more like some kind of blasphemous narcisism, along the lines - "why do you think you're so special to just want not having to die if everyone before you did ?". And I'd say that if this is the case, then yes I do feel like deserving not to die if it was possible but ( ideally ) everybody living does as well, it's not that I am so special, we are. I guess people tend to look for zero-sum game patterns too much and miss the fact there is an unharmfull type of narcisism as well as there is a harmful one("to the exclusion of interests of others ").

Maybe, I am missing something, but I have yet to meet a person who doesn't want to live a healthier and longer life.

Perhaps, the only difference is whether others are willing to pay the price needed to live healthier and longer.

[Guest]

Of course life extension is selfish, its morally only slightly above murder:


1. Living a happy life and leaving this world to enter the gates of heaven is the natural way of life and the way god intended. Btw: why do you think that in heaven you will be LESS happy than on earth? You even will meet your relatives there!


2. By living forever you deny generations of children their right for life! You keep people - your own children! - in the state of not-living (obviously this means death).


3. Every sperm is sacred! We are required to go out and multiply.


4. According to the law of dimishing returns to life (which I made up in this very moment based in the law of dimishing utility to income), every additional year of life will only marginally increase your utility/happiness beyond the current level. But if you give birth to 2 children, their total lack of happiness will immediately change by a huge amount after their birth. So the total global happiness increases with every birth. Considering dead-weight losses I propose an ideal happiness equilibrium at lifespans of appr. 82 years for women and 79 years for men.


5. Yes, going out of the way of an incoming truck, so not to be smashed to death might be selfish. But a) you also do it so not to make your children and the truck driver unhappy, b) its common sens to avoid approaching trucks and c) immediate dangers to life are to be handled differently. Surely, not doing something about climate change is generally not seen as immoral as genozide.


6. You want money that otherwise would be spend to save little children in Africa and the Bronx to be spend on your life extensions research. If this isn't selfish we should revise the definition.


All you selfish ba*tard*, shame on you.

[Guest]

Also you merely are afraid of death/dying. Get over it you childish fools and behave as actual grown ups should.

Edited by TFC, 22 August 2010 - 08:25 PM.

[Luna]

[Luna]

But seriously TFC - I am not sure if this type of sarcasm will help when random people start reading a serious argument and see the thread ends going wild and weird.

[Elus]

I'm sorry, but this seriously made me lol. Are you a 4chan person, Luna?

[Luna]

Nope, my boyfriend is

[Reno]

I missed the joke. -_-

Guilt is a tool used by people when they want to discourage someone from a goal. I don't think it's selfish at all for a person to want to make the most out of their life. Actually, what type of person wouldn't want to enrich theirs and everyone else's life around them.

This has always been a saying that made me feel good when someone or something was discouraging me. High goals attract good company. I always knew that if I had a high enough goal, I would eventually run into someone who shared it.

[N.T.M.]

Selfishness implies self-oriented acts at the expense of others. Life extension cannot be considered selfish by any stretch.

[JJN]

Selfishness implies self-oriented acts at the expense of others. Life extension cannot be considered selfish by any stretch.

I'm not sure why this topic is in the religion section... it seems more a matter of ethics, which is a subsection of philosophy. It is a valid theological theme, though. I think the answers in regards to what God may want, or what religions would want, are very debatable. Personally I can't comment, as I follow beliefs based on objective reality only, and not beliefs based on illusion.

As for ethics, I do think about it a lot. In theory, maybe life extension itself is not inherently selfish. But the ethical debate may be framed in that should we divert research from areas that may give a person 5 more years of life now, so that another person would have a greater chance of a longer life later?

This doesn't talk to the subject of should we feed starving children instead, and so on. These things need to be addressed, very much, but it is a huge subject in itself. This is purely about medical and scientific research in regards to disease, and aging.

What I think about, and it is obvious to many, is that the answer is that a large % of people are dying from aging, not just acute diseases. They should have representation, in some proportionate form, in terms of research.

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 24 September 2010 - 03:39 AM.