59 replies to this topic

[Marios Kyriazis]

Many of us want to live an indefinite number of years and are not accepting the prospect of limiting our lifespan to a mere 80-100 years. But what makes you think that you deserve to live for centuries? Is it just selfishness? Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity? Is it fear of dying? Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever? I know my reason. What’s yours?

[mikeinnaples]

This is an extremely stupid question.

I am the end result of 1 of a few million oocytes that transformed into an ovum that was luckily released and fertilized by a single lucky, one in several billion, sperm. The combination itself, which was lucky enough to survive full term pregnancy and birth into the world free of defect and survive infancy and childhood to emerge as an adult. If that alone isn't enough merit to deserve to live indefinately, the simple fact that I am conscious and sentient IS, by itself, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I exist and I owe it to that very existence alone to continue to do so for as long as possible.

Like I said, stupid question.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 February 2011 - 03:24 PM.

[forever freedom]

Most people don't value life as much as it should be valued. Those who waste their lives, drifting with the wind and living life without any purpose or will for significance, should not have much of a claim on life everlasting. Let them die and fade away. If every human that has ever been born had a burning passion for life, we would have already achieved immortality a very long time ago.

Edited by forever freedom, 16 February 2011 - 04:20 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Most people don't value life as much as it should be valued. Those who waste their lives, drifting with the wind and living life without any purpose or will for significance, should not have much of a claim on life everlasting. Let them die and fade away.

Define wasting your life. Is drifting with the wind so bad if it leads to happiness and fullfillment? Significance for whom? Signfigance to others or personal signifigance?

How can you value life if you want to allow others to die and fade away? I will grant that there is exception, at least in the case of those who prevent others from living thier lives through murder or misdeed.

[Marios Kyriazis]

This is an extremely stupid question.

I am the end result of 1 of a few million oocytes that transformed into an ovum that was luckily released and fertilized by a single lucky, one in several billion, sperm. The combination itself, which was lucky enough to survive full term pregnancy and birth into the world free of defect and survive infancy and childhood to emerge as an adult. If that alone isn't enough merit to deserve to live indefinately, the simple fact that I am conscious and sentient IS, by itself, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I exist and I owe it to that very existence alone to continue to do so for as long as possible.

Like I said, stupid question.

Which one? I asked six. But it was flattering that you condescended to answer. In any case, if you don't like my posts (this and others) you don't need to reply to them. Just ignore them, like I do with yours.

[mikeinnaples]

Which one? I asked six. But it was flattering that you condescended to answer. In any case, if you don't like my posts (this and others) you don't need to reply to them. Just ignore them, like I do with yours.

The one in subject: "Do we have the right to become immortal?"

I fail to see where I stated that I didn't like your post. I obviously liked it well enough to respond it ...much like you liked mine well enough to respond to it rather than ignore it as you mentioned you do.

To me you have it all wrong. It shouldn't be about making a case for the 'right' to become immortal, but about the insanity involved with accepting the inevitability of death. Because of this, I think that the question asked in the subject line is stupid. There needs to be an entire pardigm shift in the way people think about existence and death, and making people justify thier 'right' to immortality, in my opinion, is counter productive to that.

[drus]

i personally believe that we have the moral right to live as long as we want to. this point is moot however, since we do not at present have the ability to do so. I also believe that we should have the right to end our life at any point of our choosing as well. (the problem with suicide, however, is that the act itself is contrary to our survival instinct while at the same time, at times viewed as a release or escape from suffering or undesirable and unchangeable life circumstances.) i wonder if humanity as a species still has some natural evolution ahead, or if we've hit our natural-physical evolutionary end? is it now up to us to affect our own evolution going forward? i believe that we atleast have a moral right (and perhaps responsibility) to explore this view point. anyhow, the entire human paradigm will have to change/evolve before any of this immortality stuff will ever have a chance of going mainstream.

[PWAIN]

Ask all the same questions again but this time substitute 80 to 100 years where ever you used the word indefinitely. There is no right to live as such, just what we arbitrarily make up. In one country, do X and you lose the right to live, in another country, do the same X and you are within your "rights".

[Lazarus Long]

Many of us want to live an indefinite number of years and are not accepting the prospect of limiting our lifespan to a mere 80-100 years. But what makes you think that you deserve to live for centuries? Is it just selfishness? Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity? Is it fear of dying? Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever? I know my reason. What’s yours?

Since you would like a breakdown of parsed responses I think I can oblige. After all IMHO these are legitimate issues for people here to understand and address though our responses though the answers are not always going to be ones which everyone will agree upon.

1st But what makes you think that you deserve to live for centuries?
The point here is that the question is moot because the only valid judge for "being deserving to live for centuries" is the self and thus it is totally subjective. You may grant a moral authority that you interpret without tangible edict but that does not translate into an objective standard.

I have long argued the democratic transhumanist proposition that once developed all who desire this technology (and a whole slew of individually enhancing body/mind mods) should be allowed access. However I have a more serious concern regarding those who take life and might consider as punishment for a capital crime the denial of access to longevity as opposed to physical execution. Just as I might consider the scaled denial of access to enhancement a penalty consequence of sociopathic conduct.

This question is like the philosophical contemplation of the "meaning" of life, which can be reduced to "If why then why not."

2nd Is it just selfishness?
The short answer is no. It is love. The love of life and the joy and passion that comes with learning, doing, loving sharing, being and caring.

3rd Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity?
Yes, but that is irrelevant and anyway somewhat egotistical. I do not think that longevity should be bought by virtue of servitude to humanity. Service given is noble, service expected and demanded is servitude.

Having something to contribute to humanity neither validates nor invalidates your premise. Which BTW is implied in the 1st question: Even if this technology is possible, should we develop it? Because if we develop it how would we decide who is worthy of it?

Or is it your secret fear that such possibility will corrupt the moral man and make unworthy those chosen?

4th Is it fear of dying?
Yes and no. Only liars and fools deny a healthy fear of death. It is not only instinctive, such fear provides an advantage to an intelligent mind in weighing the consequence of action, or inaction.

However...

No, it is not the overarching reason to seek longevity. Loving life and all that comes with it apart from suffering is reason enough. To create, build, explore, to love, sing, appreciate, share, and care are all good reasons and each, reason enough and more important than fear. Fear is a crippling emotion in and of itself. Only in a balance with reason do we avoid panic and transcend our mortal being to the heroic, whether through our works, our deeds, inventions, or expressions.

It is by overcoming fear that we take our first baby like steps to immortality. Even suffering and pain can be appreciated or at least understood. Though I don't find myself capable of feeling love for them, neither do I hate the hard lessons that come with life; some through cloying sweetness and others by their poignant bitterness.

5th Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever?
No, but as I have already asserted, irrelevant. I consider the most humble and unknown of humanity, innocent of such desire, ignoble and ignorant of its possibility, so deserving.

6th I know my reason. What’s yours?
Well... I'll tell you; you show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Actually kind sir you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage, since to a great extent in my reply already I have outlined some of my raison d'etre. How about; to dance?

Or sail a lightship past Venus on the inbound loop to Mars?

Perhaps you only find justification through social purpose, so does the fact I love to teach matter?

Or that I might not only want to play with my grandchildren, but their grandchildren too?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 16 February 2011 - 09:50 PM.

[hivemind]

I don't need a right. What are rights? Who gives rights?

[Panther]

Bravo, Long.



mrszeta,

Deserve? I find it dangerous to ask imprecise questions. Do you mean, only those who match a societal standard should possess LE? Until humanity matures enough that each individual can police themselves, LE will likely be used for reward and punishment, so that may be your meaning. But it seems to me you're asking the wrong question. Perhaps better to ask, what should that standard be? But straying would be rude.

I deserve because I give more than I take. The problem with this, of course, is finding what are objectively positive and negative contributions. For example, I disagree with the vast majority of humanity on how the average person should behave. As to my reasons for desiring LE, simple. Death is a gamble.

[brokenportal]

Many of us want to live an indefinite number of years and are not accepting the prospect of limiting our lifespan to a mere 80-100 years. But what makes you think that you deserve to live for centuries? Is it just selfishness? Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity? Is it fear of dying? Do you think you are so important that you deserve to live forever? I know my reason. What’s yours?

This is a great question. It's the kind we need more discussion on around here to bring out more of the angles on this all and keep the discussions flowing. One of the most important things that we do around here is keep a dialog on as many angles as possible flowing for as much of the world as possible to engage in. So far that comes in the form of around 10,000 people registered with around 1 million unique viewers per year and growing. (with a developing goal of reaching a mainstream number of the world with in a 6 point 5 year plan)

There are many reasons we could want to live indefinitely. We dont have to want them all in their entirety, but we can. I do. I sum them all up in what I call "Existences Big 8, Big Picture Categories and Standalone Opportunities" or the Big 8 for short. We try to capture this spirit in other topics like "The first 1,000 things to do before you die."

It can entail selfishness, or fear, or the want to contribute but it doesnt have to. I think that it just simply involves the want to not want to waste some part or all of the chances presented by existence, which is summed up in that big 8. This reminds me of Victor Frankl's point from his experience in a ww11 concentration camp that those who tended to live longer, and live through it were those that had something that they wanted to get back to and complete.

This is also a big part of the reason why I think that a list like the big 8 is necessary. That is because, as amazing as it is, a lot of people just dont think about what it means to exist. They never look up from their nap, sandwich, job task and golf club long enough to seriously contemplate the reality that happenstance has thrust them into a seemingly infinite, mind blowing, panoramic, pandynamic set of incredible opportunities. Then also not in related contexts like that its looking likely that we dont get any more opportunities if we our shells go haywire.

When we realize these things, as more and more of the world realizes these things then I think that is a major part of the equation in getting more and more to come on board. Hence, the importance of keeping dialog like this flowing.

[Nimbus]

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

You mean like we deserve to live 80 years? Why not go back to caveman lifespan? If you're anything close to your avatar's age, you've already twice exhausted an average "natural" man's technologically-unaffected lifespan. How do you live with yourself?

Is it just selfishness?

Same deal on this one. Isn't it selfish to deny others a chance at more life and happiness because you deem one should deserve it by contributing something; that life is a privilege arbitrarily allowed by others? How does anything a man does in a normal sensible lifespan not ultimately boil down to selfishness? How does living necessarily subtract from someone else's life?

Do you think you have something to contribute to humanity?

What does that have to do with it?

Is it fear of dying?

No. It's love of living, and the astronomical possibilities that more time allows.

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

Same question, same answer - what does deserving have to do with it? This question sounds like there's something sinful about living. Why not be upfront about it instead of implying it?

What's yours?

Because I want the choice. Because 80 years isn't enough - in one month I can think of enough things to fill a 100+ years, and I haven't even lived a few centuries' worth of inspiration for future projects yet. I want to master painting, clock making, composing, a few different engineering disciplines, I want to have a grasp comparable to a PhD's on philosophy, history, and literature, I want to own a single seater warbird gutted to nothing but the bare propulsive essentials, I want to dive from space, I want to live for a dozen years in every meaningfully different place in the world including those not yet accessible today (e.g. underwater), I want to see other planets, other stars, other galaxies if possible. I want to know if not see for myself if there's something beyond the observable universe's expanse of uniformity (voids interspersed with galaxies and dust), to find out if there's other universes or some other russian doll paradigm. I want to design and build and test (from a safe distance wearing not too much and not too little protection) a sound system powerful enough to demolish a mountain range to the sound of Beethoven. I want to work at terraforming a planet from start to finish, not to pretend I was decisive in making it happen but to see it from A to Z and look back knowing part of that planet's mine even though I don't "own" it. If given a chance I want to build as big and intricate a thing as time and other means allow - even something as big as a planet. I want to see humanity stagnate for at least a few dozen thousand years before deciding I've had enough of it, and then a comparably long time on my own before I decide I've had enough of myself.... Because of a hundred+ other good reasons I don't recall off-hand.
Because I think man's potential is sorely underestimated under contemporary perspectives, like yours which sounds more tortuous than wholesome. I haven't yet read a single piece of speculation that realistically aggregates all potential developments for all relevant disciplines, instead of just taking one discipline and extrapolating it in vacuum. E.G. "we will have ultra smart AI" with no consideration for all other factors in every day life E.G. fashion, politics, economics, science, entertainment, etc. The mix of all these parts is greater their sum.


Because I think man will never be wholesome until the day men aren't in bondage of labor to each other as has been constant in history to date: to work not because a man loves to or chooses to, but because society can't tolerate one of its drones not "doing its part". Because technology should relatively soon (relative to Man's or even the planet's age) allow this kind of genuine independence, even if fraught with mutually destructive dangers

If the nation-states don't blow us all up (and again, if there is no Singularity), then eventually terrorism becomes an existential threat, the reductio ad absurdum example being when technology puts the ability to devastate continents at the fingertips of anyone having a bad hair day.

Especially ironic: that kind of dramatic destructive power in the hands of someone who like you, it seems, believes we don't deserve to be free of aging or don't deserve some other arbitrary "sacrilege".

Because I want to live long enough to see the day when I can get as far away as possible from people and their insanity. Like the insanity of seriously pretending they can dictate how long I deserve to live and love living, or that I inherently owe something to them or anyone or anything else.

Edited by Nimbus, 24 February 2011 - 01:07 AM.

[niner]

One of the major questions of our time, at least in America, is not 'do you deserve to live forever?', but rather 'do you deserve to live?' Period. We are arguing in today's politics about whether or not everyone deserves health care, or food, or housing. The view that appears to be in ascendancy says that you deserve whatever you can pay for, and if you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. For the time being, it looks like if you can afford to live forever, then you "deserve" it. Otherwise, * prepare to die.

(* My name is Inigo Montoya.)

[Nimbus]

One of the major questions of our time, at least in America, is not 'do you deserve to live forever?', but rather 'do you deserve to live?' Period. We are arguing in today's politics about whether or not everyone deserves health care, or food, or housing. The view that appears to be in ascendancy says that you deserve whatever you can pay for, and if you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. For the time being, it looks like if you can afford to live forever, then you "deserve" it. Otherwise, * prepare to die.

(* My name is Inigo Montoya.)

Politics indeed. Where is anyone arguing for euthanasia? I can turn your statement's implied meaning around - in American politics the arguments have gotten to be that you don't deserve that same kind of basic capital because others aren't working as hard and so should be rewarded for it with your earnings. </analogy> Because most of the stuff Americans "need" and take for granted is really luxury. You really can't seriously argue that expecting someone to earn a living, or even to merely stay alive, in America is unfeasible without constant oversight of government and help of others via taxes. Things have gotten a long way from small government and meritocratic culture.

If this is going to become a politics discussion, that tangent should have its own thread. The topic so far is on the fundamental ethics of being cured of aging. Not the technicalities of tax money management. The OP seems to argue that curing aging is inherently suspect ethically. It's a different and separate argument from exactly what one's livelihood should be once he/she's cured of aging.

Edited by Nimbus, 24 February 2011 - 12:39 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Nimbus and others who appear angry or upset by my topic's questions. These are questions, not statements. None of these questions have any bearing on my own opinion. Please avoid personal comments, they are not constructive.

[niner]

One of the major questions of our time, at least in America, is not 'do you deserve to live forever?', but rather 'do you deserve to live?' Period. We are arguing in today's politics about whether or not everyone deserves health care, or food, or housing. The view that appears to be in ascendancy says that you deserve whatever you can pay for, and if you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. For the time being, it looks like if you can afford to live forever, then you "deserve" it. Otherwise, * prepare to die.

(* My name is Inigo Montoya.)

Politics indeed. Where is anyone arguing for euthanasia? I can turn your statement's implied meaning around - in American politics the arguments have gotten to be that you don't deserve that same kind of basic capital because others aren't working as hard and so should be rewarded for it with your earnings. </analogy> Because most of the stuff Americans "need" and take for granted is really luxury. You really can't seriously argue that expecting someone to earn a living, or even to merely stay alive, in America is unfeasible without constant oversight of government and help of others via taxes. Things have gotten a long way from small government and meritocratic culture.

If this is going to become a politics discussion, that tangent should have its own thread. The topic so far is on the fundamental ethics of being cured of aging. Not the technicalities of tax money management. The OP seems to argue that curing aging is inherently suspect ethically. It's a different and separate argument from exactly what one's livelihood should be once he/she's cured of aging.

Euthanasia? Without antiaging, you will eventually die. Antiaging treatments are not going to be free. What I'm saying is that one way we decide what you "deserve" is by the size of your bank balance. If you can pay for it, then you "deserve" it. That is one model for answering the question, and is popular in today's America. If you are a socialist, then you might think that people "deserve" things they can't pay for. By the looks of it, there are a lot of socialists around here, though the place usually seems to be something of a hotbed of libertarianism. Strange bedfellows, I guess. I think it's a good question.

Edited by niner, 24 February 2011 - 09:47 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

If you can pay for it, then you "deserve" it. That is one model for answering the question, and is popular in today's America. If you are a socialist, then you might think that people "deserve" things they can't pay for.

To me, deserving life and being able to pay for it are two seperate things.

Once treatments are available in the future, it will be a long time after inception before it becomes affordable for the general populace... or will it? Once a working treatment is available, denying access to it will be viewed by many as being sentenced to the horrible fate of aging and death. This is definitely true for those who have not received it. Wars have been fought over food, clean water, and other resources in the past (oil) ....resources that basically allow a person to live or live comfortably. Like any technology, it will become ubiquitous in more advanced nations first before trickling it way into the developing world. Denial *will* eventually lead to social disorder, civil war, or war as the issue quite literally is a matter of life and death. It may simply be cheaper and/or a form of self preservation to provide the technology to the masses rather than risk an upset in the order of things due to unrest. A breakthrough of this magnitude would completely change the world and denying access due to inability to pay may not be viable. Money is worthless when the society using it falls apart.

[Nimbus]

Nimbus and others who appear angry or upset by my topic's questions. These are questions, not statements. None of these questions have any bearing on my own opinion. Please avoid personal comments, they are not constructive.

I'll be one of the last guys to be upset. Can't get to know someone and read their intentions (e.g. asking leading questions to spur on discussion VS leading because personally invested) after just a dozen back and forths. Hit & miss, live & learn..

One of the major questions of our time, at least in America, is not 'do you deserve to live forever?', but rather 'do you deserve to live?' Period. We are arguing in today's politics about whether or not everyone deserves health care, or food, or housing. The view that appears to be in ascendancy says that you deserve whatever you can pay for, and if you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. For the time being, it looks like if you can afford to live forever, then you "deserve" it. Otherwise, * prepare to die.

(* My name is Inigo Montoya.)

Politics indeed. Where is anyone arguing for euthanasia? I can turn your statement's implied meaning around - in American politics the arguments have gotten to be that you don't deserve that same kind of basic capital because others aren't working as hard and so should be rewarded for it with your earnings. </analogy> Because most of the stuff Americans "need" and take for granted is really luxury. You really can't seriously argue that expecting someone to earn a living, or even to merely stay alive, in America is unfeasible without constant oversight of government and help of others via taxes. Things have gotten a long way from small government and meritocratic culture.

If this is going to become a politics discussion, that tangent should have its own thread. The topic so far is on the fundamental ethics of being cured of aging. Not the technicalities of tax money management. The OP seems to argue that curing aging is inherently suspect ethically. It's a different and separate argument from exactly what one's livelihood should be once he/she's cured of aging.

Euthanasia? Without antiaging, you will eventually die. Antiaging treatments are not going to be free. What I'm saying is that one way we decide what you "deserve" is by the size of your bank balance. If you can pay for it, then you "deserve" it. That is one model for answering the question, and is popular in today's America. If you are a socialist, then you might think that people "deserve" things they can't pay for. By the looks of it, there are a lot of socialists around here, though the place usually seems to be something of a hotbed of libertarianism. Strange bedfellows, I guess. I think it's a good question.

I must've misread your last reply, and can't tell what you're getting at if this last one's a clarification of previous.

Edited by Nimbus, 25 February 2011 - 11:59 PM.

[niner]

One of the major questions of our time, at least in America, is not 'do you deserve to live forever?', but rather 'do you deserve to live?' Period. We are arguing in today's politics about whether or not everyone deserves health care, or food, or housing. The view that appears to be in ascendancy says that you deserve whatever you can pay for, and if you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it. For the time being, it looks like if you can afford to live forever, then you "deserve" it. Otherwise, * prepare to die.

(* My name is Inigo Montoya.)

Politics indeed. Where is anyone arguing for euthanasia? I can turn your statement's implied meaning around - in American politics the arguments have gotten to be that you don't deserve that same kind of basic capital because others aren't working as hard and so should be rewarded for it with your earnings. </analogy> Because most of the stuff Americans "need" and take for granted is really luxury. You really can't seriously argue that expecting someone to earn a living, or even to merely stay alive, in America is unfeasible without constant oversight of government and help of others via taxes. Things have gotten a long way from small government and meritocratic culture.

If this is going to become a politics discussion, that tangent should have its own thread. The topic so far is on the fundamental ethics of being cured of aging. Not the technicalities of tax money management. The OP seems to argue that curing aging is inherently suspect ethically. It's a different and separate argument from exactly what one's livelihood should beonce he/she's cured of aging.

Euthanasia? Without antiaging, you will eventually die. Antiaging treatments are not going to be free. What I'm saying is that one way we decide what you "deserve" is by the size of your bank balance. If you can pay for it, then you "deserve" it. That is one model for answering the question, and is popular in today's America. If you are a socialist, then you might think that people "deserve" things they can't pay for. By the looks of it, there are a lot of socialists around here, though the place usually seems to be something of a hotbed of libertarianism. Strange bedfellows, I guess. I think it's a good question.

I must've misread your last reply, and can't tell what you're getting at if this last one's a clarification of previous.

The whole question of "deserving" life extension, or life at all, for that matter, is being asked because life extension treatments and the very act of living on Earth incur costs that must be born by someone. For each of us, a whole lot of people do a whole lot of work in order to provide the things that we need to live our lives. We use up limited resources, preventing their use by someone else. Someone has to create something of value to exchange for these goods. So the question to me boils down to: Am I, over my lifetime, a net producer of value or a net consumer of value? If I'm a net consumer of value, a parasite, if you will, how do I justify my existence? Why should you, as a putative net producer of value, subsidize me? I don't see how we can separate a "right to life" from the question of who pays for that life. In nature, life isn't free. Every animal fends for himself, or it doesn't survive. We can certainly decide as a society that we will pay for every fertilized ovum to live forever, but if we can't pay the price for that decision, then our society will ultimately not survive.

[Nimbus]

Alright there's a lot of different things at play. I'll pick the one to start with that I think offers the best counter-argument:

. In nature, life isn't free. Every animal fends for himself, or it doesn't survive. We can certainly decide as a society that we will pay for every fertilized ovum to live forever, but if we can't pay the price for that decision, then our society will ultimately not survive.

Forever is a long time. If we can lock people up in closed cycle life support systems, there's already an airtight dynamic at work. Next piece of the puzzle is efficient enough recycling, so that humans' output in that closed life support ecosystem is wasted as little as possible... etc.
I think technology can make it so that humans are in homeostatis of sorts with nature. I think that technology is relatively imminent. I don't think that the scarcity argument against basically unchecked right-to-live and right-to-reproduce is significant unless we have some general technological plateau coming up, or reproduction accelerates in the near future, or some other pretty extreme scenario happens e.g. some global cataclysm that leaves global population and reproduction mostly intact but kicks technology back on the order of hundred years.

It's not so far off technologically that we're able to colonize off-planet. Given some energy source and manufacturing and recycling tech that's like what we've got on R&D roadmaps right now, I think the scarcity argument's a non-issue. Yes, you have to convince the other guy in your resource pool that you're fairly using it up. There's no actual "right", there's only a basic common ground of agreement motivated by the common concern that the other guy won't deal with you aggressively (or vice versa) if he deems you're a threat to his survival or whatever fundamental criteria he observes.

Given tech that basically (e.g. everyone has their Mr Fusion, Drexler machine, etc) makes anyone independent, what justification is there for such a "right to be immortal" debate, other than academically?

That's one aspect. There's others, e.g. why set the line at immortal? Why not 50 years old? I don't find it credible, especially not due to pragmatic circumstances as above, if above's accurate technology-wise.

[niner]

Alright there's a lot of different things at play. I'll pick the one to start with that I think offers the best counter-argument:

. In nature, life isn't free. Every animal fends for himself, or it doesn't survive. We can certainly decide as a society that we will pay for every fertilized ovum to live forever, but if we can't pay the price for that decision, then our society will ultimately not survive.

Forever is a long time. If we can lock people up in closed cycle life support systems, there's already an airtight dynamic at work. Next piece of the puzzle is efficient enough recycling, so that humans' output in that closed life support ecosystem is wasted as little as possible... etc.
I think technology can make it so that humans are in homeostatis of sorts with nature. I think that technology is relatively imminent. I don't think that the scarcity argument against basically unchecked right-to-live and right-to-reproduce is significant unless we have some general technological plateau coming up, or reproduction accelerates in the near future, or some other pretty extreme scenario happens e.g. some global cataclysm that leaves global population and reproduction mostly intact but kicks technology back on the order of hundred years.

It's not so far off technologically that we're able to colonize off-planet. Given some energy source and manufacturing and recycling tech that's like what we've got on R&D roadmaps right now, I think the scarcity argument's a non-issue. Yes, you have to convince the other guy in your resource pool that you're fairly using it up. There's no actual "right", there's only a basic common ground of agreement motivated by the common concern that the other guy won't deal with you aggressively (or vice versa) if he deems you're a threat to his survival or whatever fundamental criteria he observes.

Given tech that basically (e.g. everyone has their Mr Fusion, Drexler machine, etc) makes anyone independent, what justification is there for such a "right to be immortal" debate, other than academically?

Well sure, if you want to postulate a world of infinite resources, then there are no practical concerns to get in the way. That world doesn't exist now, and isn't likely to exist in the very near future. To be more specific, I suspect that we will have a significant level of life extension technology before we live in a post-scarcity world. Given that, I think the question of whether or not everyone has a right to immortality is a good one. Declaring that everyone has a right to something that we don't have the resources to provide to everyone would seem to guarantee that rights will be violated.

That's one aspect. There's others, e.g. why set the line at immortal? Why not 50 years old? I don't find it credible, especially not due to pragmatic circumstances as above, if above's accurate technology-wise.

That's a big argument right now. Some people think that people should get free healthcare if they can't afford it, while others think that they should not be asked to pay for other peoples' healthcare. If the second group holds sway, then if one has an expensive disease, there will be no right to live at any age, unless one can come up with the money to pay for it.

[Nimbus]

You don't need infinite resources if you're recycling well enough. It's not an argument for total absence of practical concerns, just negligible, or at least nowhere near problematic. Curing aging isn't quite very near future and it's doubtful you'd need anything more sophisticated than correspondingly lower birth rate to accommodate agelessness, if curing aging happened today.

I suspect that we will have a significant level of life extension technology before we live in a post-scarcity world.

Agreed but see above.

Given that, I think the question of whether or not everyone has a right to immortality is a good one. Declaring that everyone has a right to something that we don't have the resources to provide to everyone would seem to guarantee that rights will be violated.

No "right" to kids if you go immortal. Where's the problem? On top of that, agelessness enables much wiser workforce. E.G. all those aerospace engineers "never" (compared to our career timescales) retire.

In fact the last sentence quoted above applies to the current healthcare "problem" already.

The Healthcare bit - I think it's completely overblown. There's plenty of resources to give people reasonable amounts of govt help. The problem is inefficiency, waste, corruption in the govt system. The bigger govt gets, the worse it'll be. Trying to fix it with yet more laws and more bureaucracy will only make it worse. The bureaucracy is growing to accommodate the needs of bureaucracy. Healthcare & co's a big argument because people don't exactly know how the govt works, how that healthcare sausage is made. Much like no single LHC scientist understands the functional parts of the LHC complex from A to Z. Ask him how to fix something and at best he will defer. At worst he'll do what laymen do WRT healthcare, welfare, etc: uninformed "solutions". A perfect opportunity for corrupt politicians to exploit.
All of this compounded by apathy and ignorance on the part of a lot of the public. Bread and circuses, etc.

I'll tell you what... I'll take my cure for aging against a contract that I don't have kids till I can prove self-sufficiency. Not a problem, personally, because I don't expect I'll be mature enough to do kids justice by being a good enough parent (a bar set extremely high IMO, but duly so) till about twice as long as we get to live today. Sounds a bit crazy... like gramps not being such great parents nowadays (grumpy, inflexible, etc), but I think those traits are artifacts of biological senescence. Growing decrepit, atrophied rather than flourishing.

I think the human brain is significantly sold short on a proper host body, as things stand now.

[drus]

now that i think about this a little more, i see the question as ridiculous, no personal offense meant to the OP. for starters, define 'right'. when i think of 'rights' i think of legal privledges bestowed upon a society/individual. however, i do think there are such things as 'moral rights'. do we have the right to become immortal? i can only address this question by asking another more fundamental question; "do we have the right to live"? the answer has to be 'yes', but imo not at the expense of moral responsibility.

[niner]

"do we have the right to live"? the answer has to be 'yes', but imo not at the expense of moral responsibility.

Does this mean I have a right to food, shelter, and healthcare? If so, who pays for those? What about our rights to the fruits of our own labors? Do we have a right to those? I think that if you postulate an absolute right to live, then one has to live in a socialist society. This might already be your choice; most humans are socialists to some extent- look at the popularity of social security and medicare in the US. We are, after all, social animals.

[mikeinnaples]

I think that if you postulate an absolute right to live, then one has to live in a socialist society.

I am not so sure I agree with this. This issue isnt a clear case of black and white.

Do we have to live in a socialistic society to have basic human rights? The freedom of thought? Freedom of speech? Hell, freedom itself? I think one can postulate for absolute basic human rights without advocating a socialistic society. Interesting discussion.

[niner]

I think that if you postulate an absolute right to live, then one has to live in a socialist society.

I am not so sure I agree with this. This issue isnt a clear case of black and white.

Do we have to live in a socialistic society to have basic human rights? The freedom of thought? Freedom of speech? Hell, freedom itself? I think one can postulate for absolute basic human rights without advocating a socialistic society. Interesting discussion.

We certainly wouldn't have to live in a socialist society to have rights that don't cost anything to exercise. Freedom of thought is free. Freedom of speech may or may not be free, depending on how many people you intend to reach with your message. It's just the expensive rights that would seem to require a socialist society. Otherwise, if you didn't have enough money to pay for the "right", then a rights violation would occur.

[A941]

Rights?

Who schould decide that?
God?
Nature?
The President?

Actually you dont have any rights as far as you, or another Person or group is not willing to gaurante/protect them.
Rights are made by majorities and their view of moral, or by force, mainly by the last one.

Moral is formed by the People (mostly stupid religious leaders with a big ego and a small mind), it can change like the weather.
Ethics are more universal and formed by reason.
So i dont see any ethical problems with a longer life.

[drus]

niner, yes i believe all people have the 'moral' right to food, shelter, and healthcare; or i should say more appropriately we all have the moral right to "reasonable and equal" access to those things, assuming of course we live in a truly free and just society. i wont get into a discussion about socialism because it has been my experience that very few people (if any at all) understand the true meaning of the term.

[Alex Libman]

This thread is precisely why the quest for longevity and immortality is only possible under a free market capitalist system, where individuals are the owners of their lives and have the (negative) Right to do whatever they wish with their property.

Any collectivist / socialist / theocratic / fascist / communist / democratic system would undermine this process, with power-hungry demagogues using jealousy and slave morality to justify their violence. With government control of health care, innovation would plummet in the name of equality, and the iron fist would exhaust itself trying to at least provide the bare minimum. In absence of competitive frame of reference, the public could even be convinced that computers becoming 20% faster between 1970 and 2010 is a great accomplishment.