39 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

edit: edited it before any mod would...

Edited by sam988, 26 March 2008 - 04:56 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

People keep saying WHEN we reach a certain level of technology we'll be able to do anything we want likes is fact. It seems like all this emphasis on immortality technology, etc has turned into a religion of sorts. There is no certainty that we will reach the point where we can control everything on Earth. Besides, why should we? Nature works. Natural evolutin works. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Besides, knowing humanity we'd screw something up that shouldn't be tampered with.

The problem is that nature doesn't work. Sure, it's a good starting point for creating conscious beings but it doesn't give them the lives that they want for themselves. if a being wants to live forever and can do so without hurting others, then it should be immortal.

There's no certainty that immortality technology will work but it's worth shooting for (as long as we are extremely certain that it won't hurt others in the process).

[Grimm]

The problem is that nature doesn't work. Sure, it's a good starting point for creating conscious beings but it doesn't give them the lives that they want for themselves.

Nature does work. It has allowed life to flourish for millions of years. Organisms don't need to be perfect. They need to be good enough. And that's just too damn bad that people don't get everything they want. That is life. It isn't fair. Its the real world, not a fairytale where everything is perfect.

if a being wants to live forever and can do so without hurting others, then it should be immortal.

There's no certainty that immortality technology will work but it's worth shooting for (as long as we are extremely certain that it won't hurt others in the process).

Why?

As the rolling stones song goes," you can't always get what you want"

That's life! Accept it, live your life, and have a blast while you're here!

[JonesGuy]

If one enjoys the process of gaining technological enhancements, then I guess there's no reason for them to stop pushing.

[cyborgdreamer]

The problem is that nature doesn't work. Sure, it's a good starting point for creating conscious beings but it doesn't give them the lives that they want for themselves.

Nature does work. It has allowed life to flourish for millions of years. Organisms don't need to be perfect. They need to be good enough. And that's just too damn bad that people don't get everything they want. That is life. It isn't fair. Its the real world, not a fairytale where everything is perfect.

if a being wants to live forever and can do so without hurting others, then it should be immortal.

There's no certainty that immortality technology will work but it's worth shooting for (as long as we are extremely certain that it won't hurt others in the process).

Why?

As the rolling stones song goes," you can't always get what you want"

That's life! Accept it, live your life, and have a blast while you're here!

I'm not saying that we get what we want all of the time. (If we did, then there wouldn't be a problem.) I'm saying that we should always get what we want. That might not be possible but humanity can still use all of the tools at its disposal to get as close as we can.

[forever freedom]

Why?

As the rolling stones song goes," you can't always get what you want"

That's life! Accept it, live your life, and have a blast while you're here!

Why can't we get what we want? Why do we have to accept the status quo when the very nature of human beings (built by your so esteemed nature itself) is to defy whatever challenges lie ahead of us in our pursuit of making our lives better?

Edited by sam988, 28 March 2008 - 06:43 PM.

[neonnexus]

Is the desire for biological immortality selfish?

The personal pursuit for immortality could be considered selfish, however once one individual successfully achieves immortality it then opens up the possibility for reproducibility of the results for others. In other words it is the pursuit of the successful and reproducible science of immortality that immortalists seek. Once a proven science that is available to all, the collective desire of many individuals for immortality will likely be perceived as a human right, just like individuals today have a right to medical care (often a form of temporary life extension). I would consider it selfish to deny individuals of life saving medical care, I would also consider it selfish to deny any individual the choice of immortality once it is viable and available science. Both current medical sciences and future medical sciences including life extension and immortality do and will continue to prevent deaths that would have otherwise occurred naturally. Are these current "extensions" of life selfish? You’re free to opt out from them if you think so.

Edited by neonnexus, 02 April 2008 - 11:53 AM.

[JonesGuy]

I think you've forwarded an amazing insight, and it's a meme that I'd really like to be spread.

Of COURSE it's selfish to want biological immortality. Hell, it's selfish for me to want a burger for supper. I could be eating grain and shipping the savings to keep people alive in Africa.

But there are two types of economies: one economy is self-building. If you support that type of economy, it becomes stronger and stronger. The money we spend seeking personal immortality will actually INCREASE the ability of other people to afford it too. And that's a good thing. One can easily support economies which create more resources, and I think we have a moral obligation to partake of those economies. Of course, we still need wisdom.

The other economy is destructive, of course. If you partake of goods in that economy, there are less resources to go around and we might even see the destruction of resources. Ideally, we want to avoid dealing with such economies if possible.

[solbanger]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

Always the cheerful one. Ad absurdum, if everyone died, would you consider that it would
a ) contribute to your survival
b ) make it unlikely for you to survive more than a few more years (think : civilization collapse), and impossible to survive beyond 120 ?

My point is that people aren't just competitors, they can be partners and help you too. Especially if you share common objectives.

I agree. People aren't just competitors, they can be partners. But I also believe that the greatest threat to my own personal existence as an immortalists and the exploitation of the benefits of immortality (greater knowledge, capital, experience than the general population) would be threatened by other immortalists - less so than the shorter lived population.

Perhaps, but consider that 'short-lived' people will have less to lose by taking outrageous risks to acquire your advantages. Thought out clearly you would understand that your fears are irrelevant. You will face the same level of competition from society whether they are immortal or not.

For one thing societies work in cooperative circles. The people you directly compete against are also part of the network that props up the industry. So unless you plan on becoming some life stealing terrorist your immortalist counterparts will probably be a component in developing life extention advocacy. So at least from a life extention perspective you'll be targeting potential innovators, sources of wealth and orators, not to mention dissuading outsiders from participating. You seem to fear that the immortalists will become super-specialists with unbreakable relationships and wealth throughout the world. Well that state of eliteism already exists today. It's just passed through family members. True the acquisition of an immortal body is seen as an advantage that illcits envy, but I'd be more concerned with people experimenting with bio-upgrades that go beyond simple body restoration. Maybe you ought to go on a worldwise crusade blowing up people who are developing cyber suits or something. I'm sure you'll make some friends doing that.

True the end result of all cooperation is competition against some other entity. But that is as fundamental as the concept that the end result of life is death. Just keep defering it into the future until energy availability makes both a minor scratch.

[solbanger]

Your death contributes to my survival. This the sole reason I oppose immortality.

(edited by Matthias: full quote deleted)

I wonder what the deleted post was from this little prince?