• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Do we have a right to become immortal?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#31 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:02 AM

I'm just picturing a scenario where half the world's population that exists now is able to extend their lives for another 200 years, and half of them choose to have children, while the rate of population growth continues as it has over the last few hundred years. What the fuck are we going to do to be able to keep up with this? Will we be able to create unlimited clean fuel sources fast enough to avoid adding even greater a stress on our needs and further damaging health of the planet that would have already taken place without the growth in population that comes with advancements in life extesion? How about good sustainable food sources? What about a sustainable supply of clean water to support the population? Maybe we will make all the advancements necessary in a fairly short period of time to support the needs of the population. If the rate of advancement we are making now is any indication of the future rate of advancement, I think we would be in big fucking trouble in this scenario. Am I missing something here?

So, how the hell could any of you think that choosing to be immortal is, at this time, is totally unselfish? It's fucking absurd if you ask me. Wanting to be immortal is quite self absorbed and ego driven. Any of you that do not think so are in complete denial.

Now that I've expressed this, I will have to say that there is a big part of me that is self absorbed and driven heavily by ego. This in no way makes one a bad person void of virtuous qualities and upstanding character..ha ha, that's my ego talking.

#32 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:02 AM

I'm just picturing a scenario where half the world's population that exists now is able to extend their lives for another 200 years, and half of them choose to have children, while the rate of population growth continues as it has over the last few hundred years. What the fuck are we going to do to be able to keep up with this? Will we be able to create unlimited clean fuel sources fast enough to avoid adding even greater a stress on our needs and further damaging health of the planet that would have already taken place without the growth in population that comes with advancements in life extesion? How about good sustainable food sources? What about a sustainable supply of clean water to support the population? Maybe we will make all the advancements necessary in a fairly short period of time to support the needs of the population. If the rate of advancement we are making now is any indication of the future rate of advancement, I think we would be in big fucking trouble in this scenario. Am I missing something here?

So, how the hell could any of you think that choosing to be immortal is, at this time, is totally unselfish? It's fucking absurd if you ask me. Wanting to be immortal is quite self absorbed and ego driven. Any of you that do not think so are in complete denial.

Now that I've expressed this, I will have to say that there is a big part of me that is self absorbed and driven heavily by ego. This in no way makes one a bad person void of virtuous qualities and upstanding character..ha ha, that's my ego talking.

#33 Link

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 53
  • Location:Australia

Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:19 AM

I agree that it is selfish. But i would rather live with being selfish than be dead. If dying is noble then i guess.. i'm not noble. But i'm okay with that.

Having said that i think you drastically over estimate the impact of life extension technologies on world population pressures. There is no way that half the people alive today could afford life extension given that a quarter of the world's population live in extreme poverty. Life extension will be expensive, especially for the first generations to undertake it. Also consider that it will not be subsidised by government health care if it is deemed a luxury. The number of people who could afford it are maybe a couple of hundred million, if that.

You also need to remember that the places where people who are able to afford life extension are living are the countries with the lowest rates of growth. Generally less than 1%, and much of that growth comes from immigration. If overpopulation became a real issue in these countries then the government could simply tighten immigration.

Thirdly, the idea that people who undertake life extension would want to have more children is presumptuous. Reversing the aging process will not automatically restore fertility, especially in women. And if the government wanted they could easily impose a restriction on people having more children either after a certain number or a certain age.

There are also ways that a government could make immortalists "earn their place" rather than viewing them simply as another mouth to feed. If we are deemed physically fit as a result of life extension then perhaps you must return to work if necessary or perform volunteer work in your field of expertise to train and educate younger people, and that way contribute back to society in a positive way. I don't know just some food for thought.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 14 June 2011 - 07:05 PM

My post was more of a hypothetical than anything I though might be possible any time soon. You make some reasonable points though. As far as population growth goes, just take a look at all the popular cities/metropolitan areas where people want to live, they are fucking crowded as hell. There will be a strain, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. We will have to start building new cities. We will need more fuel sources, more money, more jobs. I just don't foresee the world changing fast enough in many ways(including economies) to be able to support and accomodate a major life extension advancement if it happens as soon as what we want it to.

There are also ways that a government could make immortalists "earn their place" rather than viewing them simply as another mouth to feed. If we are deemed physically fit as a result of life extension then perhaps you must return to work if necessary or perform volunteer work in your field of expertise to train and educate younger people, and that way contribute back to society in a positive way. I don't know just some food for thought.


I don't think it will be that easy to keep any person, immortalist or life extensionist, from being able to choose to have children and start a family. I really don't think some of you guys are being realistic about the ability for this world to adapt to what will be a major shift in the existence of life on earth.

Edited by MorganM, 14 June 2011 - 07:06 PM.


#35 Link

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 53
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 June 2011 - 12:38 PM

I guess i was sort of thinking of China's "one child policy" when i said that. Although granted i have no idea how they enforce it.

I also agree with you that life extension will bring unforeseen challenges. I guess what it boils down to is that i am a cynic. I don't think anyone is going to thank me for dying to make room for others and even if i did there would be someone else who would simply take my place and so any sacrifice i make for the greater good by dying would be statistically meaningless.

Basically, i am happy to do my part for the nation/planet/human race. Everything short of dying.

#36 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 15 June 2011 - 10:29 PM

I guess i was sort of thinking of China's "one child policy" when i said that. Although granted i have no idea how they enforce it.


There is a lot of loopholes and the policy is quite leaky anyway, in urban areas it is enforced more thoroughly than in rural ones, and the latter have some exempts from the general rule (this applies as well to people who are only children themselves, ethnic minorities and all non - Chinese citizens residing in China). You pay a fine proportional to your income during the year of the kid's birth, for each one above the quota, locally it sometimes gets a little more rough - Iron Fist Campaign. From what I read, it is thought that the policy has reached its goals and they're considering phasing it away in the next decade to counteract population aging.

Edited by chris w, 15 June 2011 - 10:30 PM.


#37 revenant

  • Guest
  • 306 posts
  • 94
  • Location:Norfolk, VA
  • NO

Posted 30 August 2011 - 04:06 AM

I do not fear death so much, just death from aging. So yes, it is selfishness. I am very curious what the future has to offer. In nature animals seldom suffer protracted infirmity and decline. Any self-respecting person has the right to avoid the pain of advanced age.

mrszeta, did you post your reasons?

#38 Link

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 53
  • Location:Australia

Posted 30 August 2011 - 07:23 AM

Yes, given the tone of mrszeta's original post i would like to hear his reasoning as to why believes he has earned a "right" to immortality.

#39 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 30 August 2011 - 07:02 PM

The dead have no woes, but its not the no woes we are after. We are in this for the love of life, the big picture of which can be summed up like this.

This question was posed to make people think, it wasnt posted antagonistically. As for having the right, if your alive, if your a chunk of matter, a piece of this universe that can do extraordinary things like think and imagine and create and design and build, then you have an obligation to try to keep that machine running if you can. You are doing the universe a disservice if you allow the complex machine that you are to die. In addition to all the things you can do, your a collection of data, a collection of snap shots, a road map through a specific trail of existence, a unique perspective, etc. It is as selfish to allow yourself to die as it would be to say, round up every copy of Plato's Dialogues and burn them.

Please add items you can think of in this list of the first thousand things to do before you die.

#40 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 31 August 2011 - 04:54 AM

Do we have a right to become immortal? I feel if it happens that we have extreme longevity, then it will happen--it really is not known if we will ever have anything like true immortality, it simply may not be possible. The longer we live though we can give back more to our community, to our society and also not lose our own knowledge. The elderly are usually wiser, we could gain new wisdoms as well.

#41 Tanatana

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 3
  • Location:home

Posted 01 September 2011 - 08:01 AM

Immortality is a right. There are only 2 true rights or entitlements bestowed to everything that exists. The first is the right to occupy the space you are in. The second is the right to fight for the space you are in should someone or something try to take your space away. We occupy the space we live in until we die. Anything or anyone that tries to kill us we must fight against to try to keep our space: )

Edited by Tanatana, 01 September 2011 - 08:01 AM.


#42 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 05 September 2011 - 03:57 AM

I'm just picturing a scenario where half the world's population that exists now is able to extend their lives for another 200 years, and half of them choose to have children, while the rate of population growth continues as it has over the last few hundred years. What the fuck are we going to do to be able to keep up with this?


Um, space stations, space-based solar power, asteroid mining, greenhouse food production, hydroponics, genetically engineered fungus (just in case the sun is all paved up and we need to grow food in darkness), and all the other things I keep talking about. This solar system alone can support trillions of people!

I don't have a crystal ball, but some scientific / technological trends are rather obvious (unless sabotaged by governments, of course), and we are talking about very very long time-frames. Just think how far science has come in 200 years - and remember that the rate of change keeps accelerating! And I'm not saying that exponential growth can continue indefinitely, but fears of overpopulation are at least a few thousand years premature, and who knows what technology will be available by then.

The crisis that we're headed for in this century isn't overpopulation, but the very opposite - all industrialized countries already have negative fertility, and even the most backward countries will be there soon. A modern secular society loses half of its population with every generation! Instead of having "one child policies", which will soon be canceled for their complete economic irrationality, by the end of the 21st century governments might actually force people to have MORE children. Increasing lifespans, along with increased productivity / automation, is the only alternative.

The human race should really step on the gas pedal in this century, until we come up with the technology to live long, healthy, civilized lives - and all that requires from everyone is that they pull their economic and demographic weight. After that we can relax for a while - on giant space cities floating toward other stars, with holodecks and all.

#43 Marios Kyriazis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:27 PM

The longer we live though we can give back more to our community, to our society and also not lose our own knowledge. The elderly are usually wiser, we could gain new wisdoms as well.


I have argued that the more we interact with the community (the Global Brain) the more likely it becomes that we will live longer in the sense of Human Biological Immortality. See for example:

http://www.google.co...m8_1KXIhLhAPJ4A

This is because we become biologically valuable to the development of global intelligence

#44 neue regel

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 2
  • Location:1

Posted 09 September 2011 - 10:07 PM

I believe I have the full Rights to cherish my contemporary science's fruits like longevity. My responsibility is to spread that fruit of knowledge to my generation and try to be active in intellectual conversations.

#45 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 30 September 2011 - 08:31 PM

But what makes you think that you deserve to live for centuries?

I love living and I value my life - I never take unnecessary risks and I have a healthy lifestyle - I exercise, I eat healthy and mostly organic food, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs and I seldom drink. That alone sets me aside from many people at my age (24) or any age for that matter and I would think that it is reason alone of me to deserve to continue on living.


Is it just selfishness?

It is. But what of it ? It's not like the medical procedures to extend life will be free. I would still have to WORK to get treated.


Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity?

Depends on the way you look at it.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm an artist of many talents, in the past both had a somewhat equal standing, nowadays scientist definitely have a higher standing but if you study culture you'd see that still both science and art influence culture almost equally. In conclusion, I should have something to contribute even if it's just a little bit.

I don't specifically agree with this overly capitalist idea that you'd have to be distinguished to deserver extended life, after all life is not a privilege it is a right. Old age is just a disease and diseases get treated in hospitals regardless of social standing - as long as you have money or a health insurance (I think insurance companies will love it, imagine paying insurance for CENTURIES !).


Is it fear of dying?

Everyone is afraid of dying.


Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever?

I could be. And there is no empirical way of knowing unless I actually do live forever.
And again I disagree that only important people should be "blessed" with extended life.

#46 Maosef

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Scotland, UK

Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:18 PM

I have two justifications, but first I'm going to explain how I perceive rights and responsibilities.

Personally I don't believe human beings have rights and responsibilities. Sure we will have naturally(or/and socially) inherited if not rights and responsibilities, inclinations towards feeling entitled towards rights and a duty to fulfill certain responsibilities.i.e such as feeling the right not to be treated like crap by other people for their benefit, and responsibility to raise your kids well. These rights and responsibilities are not absolute and they are produced by the relative state of the society. The rights a society offers to it's inhabitants are what that society is capable of offering it's inhabitants and are therefore determined by the environment ( mainly economic and political conditions). Responsibilities are the activities encouraged within a society determined by the necessities, or wants, of that society. For example the society needs to be productive so it can offer a decent standard of living to the economically disabled, we have given them this right, therefore the economically capable are expected and by extension responsible to pay their way and contribute to society, an encouraged responsibility.

1)That is my take on what rights and responsibilities are, so I therefore view them as completely artificial social constructs, although definitely to the benefit of mankind. This means by my definition that rights and responsibilities are moral standards that sentient beings either individually or collectively self-apply, forcefully apply(monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny of the majority etc etc). As mentioned in the first paragraph we can only apply rights assuming we have environmental pre-requisites; you can only provide a right to shelter if you can afford to provide shelter(economic determinism). So I believe death to be horrible, wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, if it can be avoided it should be. If we can feasibly afford to avoid death indefinitely then I absolutely believe it should be a right not to die.

2)Now a more natural explanation of why I believe I have a right to live indefinitely(not to keen on the use of immortal). The difference between life and other constructs of matter is that we have the ability to perceive, self-direct(exclusive to sentience) and duplicate(although not perfectly, which is for the better =D) therefore I believe life to be the most capable construct of matter(that is the form of matter that has the highest capacity to change and also has the greatest influence on other forms of matter), for better or worse. I therefore see it as my right to exist, based on my superiority to all but my equals who also share this right and also my responsibility not to fuck it up, if there is such an outcome.

Not to big on the natural sciences, which is why it reads so awkwardly, so I'm less confident in the second justification although I believe it still holds up, but from my point of view I'm happy with my justifications.

Edited by Maosef, 26 October 2011 - 08:42 PM.


#47 Marios Kyriazis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 01 November 2011 - 05:35 PM

Your second point is relevant. We 'have the right' to live indefinitely because we are the most complex/intellectually sophisticated creaturtes in nature. As biology always goes from simple to complex, its aim is to increase complexity (in our case, intelligence) to the highest degree. This can best be achieved through indefinite lifespans and not through natural selection (aging, death).

#48 Verne

  • Guest
  • 102 posts
  • 45
  • Location:Australia

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:30 AM

No, we don't have a "right" to be immortal. It doesn't change the fact that I long for immortality anyway, while thousands upon thousands of people starve and suffer for no good reason. I'd still prefer they stay hungry so scientists can use any extra funding towards researching immortality.

I'm greedy like that, unfortunately.

#49 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 17 November 2011 - 02:47 PM

It is unlikely, should we stop aging, that we can also stop the inflation of the universe. So I doubt we have the capacity for immortality.

I believe the pursuit of merely life extension (say by 100-1000 years...such that the average lifespan is 200-1100 years) is reconcilable with the desire for the general welfare of our race. In other words, longevity is altruistic (in addition to being narcissistic...let none of us deny vanity is a large motivator of our desire for life extension).

I say life extension is charitable because we could all learn more and contribute more to the world. When an old man is in his 8th decade of life, he is exceptionally wise, yet largely destitute of power due to the nature of social organization and the duties of the younger generations.

If we could reproduce in our 8th decade, raise kids for 30 years, and live another 8 decades before finally going into poor health (so poor that we cannot work/think) for 1 decade...that would be HIGHLY beneficial for mankind, and I believe it would permit us the wisdom to stop a lot of suffering and harm. As it stands, we reproduce in our 2nd decade, raise kids for 2 decades, and have another 4 decades to twiddle away.

Edited by dasheenster, 17 November 2011 - 02:48 PM.

  • like x 1

#50 absent minded

  • Guest
  • 99 posts
  • 13

Posted 20 January 2012 - 05:17 AM

Maybe we'll all have the right if some Dexter-like mad genius would invent an airborne virus that could somehow alleviate excessive egoism for anyone who's suspectable. It's going to be quasi-hitler regime.

#51 jlb892

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Canada

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

I feel that there are some really interesting ideas touched upon by the questions postulated at the start of this thread, and that it has been largely hijacked by nitpickers and those wishing to discuss tangential issues. Being my first time on this forum I also felt this would be an interesting opportunity to outline some of my thoughts regarding immortality, using these questions as a jumping board. As such, my responses to mrszeta's questions:

What makes you think you deserve to live for centuries?

Curiosity more than anything. A desire to see how humanity copes with such a gift. To see evolution in progress. To see and do everything I may ever wish to and never have to worry that I don't have enough time.

Is it selfishness?

An interesting excerpt from a book I read once made a very strong point to differentiate self-interest from selfishness. Self-interest is positive and inherent in every human being. Selfishness is that positive attribute warped when one's self-interest occurs at the expense of others. Groups form out of mutual self-interests. Tyrants form out of selfishness. So do I believe it is selfishness? Not necessarily, I would hope and I do believe that my personal source is self-interest more than anything.

Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity?

Even if I don't and there is no record of my existence that lasts longer than my living years upon this Earth I still believe that immortality would allow an escape from the self-destructive, time obsessed lifestyle our cultures currently espouse. By me not feeling as if I have a finite amount of time and I need to consume as much as possible as quickly as possible to be able to achieve all the goals I hope to within the brief span of a century I could focus more on contributing to humanity, and I would hope most people would feel the same way upon achieving an indefinite lifespan (I do dislike the term immortal, while it is technically correct far too many people confuse immortality with invulnerability).

Is it a fear of dying?

Repeating my previous sentence, immortality does not mean invulnerability. An immortal being is still subject to death, simply not death by aging. If I recall correctly last I checked roughly 9% of the population dies annually from accidents alone. We are still subject to death by what I refer to as the three D's: Disasters, Diseases and Design. Disasters include all accidents natural and man made. Diseases include illnesses independent of the aging process that would still afflict immortal individuals. Design includes death by acts of humans, be it suicide, euthanasia, murder, wars, etc. What immortality grants us is a reprieve from aging, which in my mind would be better described as a fear of time.

Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever?

I think this question is simply a rewording of the third question. Every human being is important in their own way with their own personal goals and ambitions, and in my mindset to truly self-actualize as individuals we need to remove as many impediments as possible from that journey, aging being one of them.

My reasons for wanting to be immortal?

I feel my answer can be best shared as that I don't know yet, but I would know after a few centuries upon this Earth, and it's that not knowing the answer that wills me to seek such a gift.

#52 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:35 PM

No, we don't have a "right" to be immortal. It doesn't change the fact that I long for immortality anyway, while thousands upon thousands of people starve and suffer for no good reason. I'd still prefer they stay hungry so scientists can use any extra funding towards researching immortality.

I'm greedy like that, unfortunately.


Why? What right is more basic core right than life? Then it seems it may be an even deeper right in that it seems like we might be able to make the case that it would be a violation of the universes rights to allow people to die if they could live indefinitely. Im not sure though, the kind of question that might help us figure that out is, do things like the original Mona Lisa have a "right" to not be spattered with paint, added to with paint, torn, etc?

As for letting others starve while you pursue indefinite life extension, from what I can see that is not greedy. They will eventually die of aging if you dont help eradicate it and so you are helping them to survive. They arent helping you though. It seems that it is altruistic of you to pursue indefinite life extension. If there are skirmishes during WWII but you helping to execute a plan to destroy Hitler then is it selfish of you to not help those people who are suffering and dying in those skirmishes and battles? Is it selfish of you to try to end the war by taking out Hitler?

#53 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 28 January 2012 - 03:01 AM

Why? What right is more basic core right than life? Then it seems it may be an even deeper right in that it seems like we might be able to make the case that it would be a violation of the universes rights to allow people to die if they could live indefinitely. Im not sure though, the kind of question that might help us figure that out is, do things like the original Mona Lisa have a "right" to not be spattered with paint, added to with paint, torn, etc?

As for letting others starve while you pursue indefinite life extension, from what I can see that is not greedy. They will eventually die of aging if you dont help eradicate it and so you are helping them to survive. They arent helping you though. It seems that it is altruistic of you to pursue indefinite life extension. If there are skirmishes during WWII but you helping to execute a plan to destroy Hitler then is it selfish of you to not help those people who are suffering and dying in those skirmishes and battles? Is it selfish of you to try to end the war by taking out Hitler?

A lot of people think we shouldn't tamper with nature in such profound ways. We should leave nature be to whatever fate it will, so they maintain.

If aging therapies behave anything like previous medicine, it will be a long time between when rich people are guinea pigs and when Africans have easy and affordable access. Arguably, one could support both immortality and African charities, but you would be spreading yourself thin, and, as you say, spending time helping someone who isn't helping you.

#54 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:25 AM

Maybe we'll all have the right if some Dexter-like mad genius would invent an airborne virus that could somehow alleviate excessive egoism for anyone who's suspectable. It's going to be quasi-hitler regime.

My sci-fi fantasies are fulfilled. That is the most bad ass way to enlighten and pacify humans. This jazz begun by Socrates is, on the whole, ineffective.

#55 Metraphop

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Paris

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:18 AM

Hey Original Poster (mrszeta)
.

Curious! A lot of people have given their opinion, but you merely stated "I know mine." After having read this thread through, I'd be really curious to find out your own answers to your questions!

I'm paritcularly curious about the "what we have the right to do." If you could define what you meant by right, that would be fantastic. I'm just horribly curious -- no harm meant.

#56 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:33 PM

A lot of people think we shouldn't tamper with nature in such profound ways. We should leave nature be to whatever fate it will, so they maintain.


As we know, they need logical reasons for that. A lot of people are under the impression that using a word inherently provides the logic for it. It seems to me that when people use that argument, it falls into the same sort of category as, "You're stupid because you're fat." If those people received a heart bypass or a specific blood medication to prevent stroke, or a chemo for cancer removal, then I bet you they arent going to refer to it with a word like tamper anymore.

If aging therapies behave anything like previous medicine, it will be a long time between when rich people are guinea pigs and when Africans have easy and affordable access. Arguably, one could support both immortality and African charities, but you would be spreading yourself thin, and, as you say, spending time helping someone who isn't helping you.


Im not sure about the related argument of: if somebody wasnt really concerning themselves with much of anything, then would it be wrong to not help people in need? Im not sure, maybe, maybe not. What Im saying here though is, (and I think your getting at the same thing, Im just clarifying) by working on aging, we help them, but by working on solving their own hunger (actually many of them dont even seem to try to help themselves) they arent helping us. So how could the case be made that we should help them and us through aging, but that we are selfish if we dont also, in addition to that, help their hunger? So we have to help them twice while they help us once? How about, they be glad for what we do for them and rejoice when the lion of aging is removed from their camps?

We could also do both yes. I for example have given money to the United Way many times in the past. Come to think of it, contributing to a strong country that you live in, and at least advocating the solving of big problems like hunger, war, pollution, aging, really helps all of those problems a lot.

Something else that occurs to me here with "is it a right?" is the Ayn Rand quote, "the question isn't who is going to let me, the question is who is going to stop me." Does approaching it with that notion make it a right though? Im not sure yet, but I think there is a connection. Think about it this way for instance, on what grounds could a person insist that average, non destructive people dont have a right to their lives? Like, if you claim your life, then who could come along and logically claim, for what possible reason, that you can't claim your life? Another way of putting it seems to be, name a reason why your average non destructive persons life is not more important than their death. If there is none, and you want your life, then it seems that your life is your right.

#57 Marios Kyriazis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:13 PM

Hey Original Poster (mrszeta)
.

Curious! A lot of people have given their opinion, but you merely stated "I know mine." After having read this thread through, I'd be really curious to find out your own answers to your questions!

I'm paritcularly curious about the "what we have the right to do." If you could define what you meant by right, that would be fantastic. I'm just horribly curious -- no harm meant.


I happen to believe that those who somehow contribute to the global intelligence, must live longer. This is nothing to do with being selfish or self-important, far from it. It is a fact based on natural evolution. Nature has a general tendency to go from 'simple to complex' and as a consequence, anything that enhances this path is bound to be selected and reinforced. So people who are promoting the development of complexity and intelligence of humanity are more likely to be retained by evolutionary forces.

So if you,(like me), are always trying to expand your horizons, share your thoughts in a meaningful way, influence others who will then in turn influence others etc, come up with new concepts, aim for excellence, plant new ideas into the general 'consciousness' always ask 'why' and not accept easy answers, then yes, you have the 'right' (if not the duty) to live for as long as possible. As long as you aim for something higher and more complex, then you become of some value to the general evolutionary process and thus your death becomes illogical, uneccessary and pointless.

#58 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

I happen to believe that those who somehow contribute to the global intelligence, must live longer. This is nothing to do with being selfish or self-important, far from it. It is a fact based on natural evolution. Nature has a general tendency to go from 'simple to complex' and as a consequence, anything that enhances this path is bound to be selected and reinforced. So people who are promoting the development of complexity and intelligence of humanity are more likely to be retained by evolutionary forces.

So if you,(like me), are always trying to expand your horizons, share your thoughts in a meaningful way, influence others who will then in turn influence others etc, come up with new concepts, aim for excellence, plant new ideas into the general 'consciousness' always ask 'why' and not accept easy answers, then yes, you have the 'right' (if not the duty) to live for as long as possible. As long as you aim for something higher and more complex, then you become of some value to the general evolutionary process and thus your death becomes illogical, uneccessary and pointless.

I could just as easily say that nature also has a tendency to go from "complex to simple", and as a consequence, a tendency to reinforce simplicity. Let's just compare Socrates to Aquinas, and it follows that nature can regress too, and that the rule of progress has at least one exception. I'll agree that resourceful rationality tends to be self-reinforcing, since it has better planning skills than un-resourceful irrationality. Put simply, humans have a better chance of passing innovations on to their great-great-great-great-grandchildren than chimps do. I don't think people will oppose new technology anymore than chimps opposed the use of coconuts as throwing weapons. They will use the new technology as soon as they realize it's useful.

I doubt you will find people who bet their careers on a radical belief that all progress is bad and the old way of life is good. But you will find people who think like this from time to time and who show shades of this belief. I've even pulled this kind of argument on my conservative, close-minded friends before just to mess with them and their 21st century value-system. I guess what I'm saying is everyone will agree with some sorts of progress, and condemn other sorts of progress. If you can convince hippies that the industrial revolution had some positives, and you can convince an old native American grandmother chief that modern medicine has its positives, kudos to you. Just like I would give kudos to a Christian who convinced an agnostic life extensionist to become careless about his health. All these are great achievements in power. Ethically, I refuse to say what is best.

Certainly you can imagine, large parts of the populous would object to your assumption that inquisitive people perform the greatest service to humanity. You might find some people who think that entertainers, or rescuers, or leaders perform the greatest service to humanity. I don't think everyone will agree that inquirers are the ultimate heros and the greatest sources of progress. You'll probably find lots of people who think inquirerers are simply uninfluential hippies, wasting their time asking questions on the lakeside or in their apartment. They might say you need to give up your worthless questioning and make way for future generations...that your pursuit of life extension is selfish. I'm not saying I agree with what these people would say, as I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I find these sorts of objections very difficult to respond to, and I hear them all the time from the layman in response to my "life extensionist" philosophy. All these disagreements, as well as inadequacies on EVERY side (including our side) make me skeptical about saying what is good/bad and right/wrong.

#59 Marios Kyriazis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:05 PM

When I say that nature tends to go from simple to complex, I mean that it is Biology that goes from simple to complex. Instead, Physics go from complex to simple, i.e a state of low potential energy and low uncertainty. So, we need to find a way to work together with biological principles in order to twart physics (entropy increase, gravity, friction).

Also, when I speak about the greatest service to humanity I mean humanity as a species and not individual humans. If a rescuer rescues a few people after an earthquake or from drowning, this has no real effect on our future as human species. What matters is not for all humans to be kept alive, but only those humans who are the fittest in their own particular niche will be able to survive. Our current niche is an environment of increasing technology and intellectual complexity (human and/or artificial).

#60 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,465 posts
  • 428
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:21 PM

Well, if we die in nuclear war and cockroaches become the most complex species on Earth, then your argument about biology always progressing loses water. With physics, it depends what direction you define to be negative potential. In either convention, you can have processes which go either direction in the potential gradient. Ie) a supernova explosion goes the opposite direction as a collapsing solar system.

If all that matters are the interests of the stronger race, then the best members of the race have always been fittest to their niche, and the problem of survival is not a problem since it is left to the struggle for existence. Also, can you argue that the longest-term stability must necessarily be found in technological races? What if these races are doomed to die in century-long bacteriological warfare, and only a few tribes on Greenland or Iceland will go without an interruption to their procreation? I agree it's a stretch, and I think your chances are best with a technologically advanced society, but there are people who strongly disagree with us.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users