171 replies to this topic

[Danail Bulgaria]

Evidence?

 

Evidence for what?

 

That the transplantation technology works?

The evidence is, that the people with transplantation live longer, than those, who don't receive them. You can read that in every book of abdominal surgery and transplantation, and the official statistics in your country.

 

Evidence for that, the people need organs, that are ABSOLUTELY GENETICALLY IDENTICLE with the recepient?

Having a genetically close organ is a main problem in the transplantation today. There are lists of people, who are long waiting for a suitable organ to be found for them. Some of them die while waiting. I suppose, that you have heard this more than once. Look at medical books for transplantation about the necessity for the organ to be genetically close to the recepient.

 

Evidence that once we get an unlimited supply of genetically identical to ourselves organs, we will be able to transplant the damaged ones, whenever it is necessary?

This is to be seen in the (near) future. I know of no definite proof for that, simply there is no reason for it not to become true.

[Danail Bulgaria]

The idea of immortality is great, but not for everyone. We don't want every useless person to live forever.

 

Those who live forever should be great leaders, or scientists, or engineers, or great artists/musicians. These people could do wondrous things over the course of a thousand years. No need for Joe Shmoe at the gas station to be immortal though. He needs to make room for the next 20 billion people.

 

Religion is general against immortality for various reasons, but mainly because religion is obsessed with death. A true religious person works their whole life in order to improve their position in the afterlife. Many religious people want the apocalypse to occur so that God or allah can judge those deemed unworthy while the rest get to go to heaven. Immortality avoids this judgment that God is supposed to give you. Its stupid however, that's for sure.

 

They're also against cloning which is stupid. No idea why people are so butthurt about cloning. Wouldn't it be awesome to clone a human without a brain and extract their organs? Immortality is within reach at that point. Seems pretty win to me. All of the stupid ethics really get in the way though.

 

To be a great leader, or scientist, or engineer, or great artist/musician is not the only thing, that makes you useful for the society and for the human race. People, who are useful for the society and for the human race are those, who want to educate, to work, to create, improve things for the society, independently of the political situation, and the time period, that you look at. The useless are those, who don't educate. refuse to work, try to live on the back of the society, only want to get material help from the government for the entire their lives, without doing nothing in response. They are not only useless for the society, but are also dangerous for it, independent from the political situation and independent from the time period, that you look at. Nevertheless, a useful man or a useful woman for the society is some one, who has a high education for his/her time period, lets say an university education for our time period, wants to work, works in the moment, very often is doing a work, that needs advanced skills and advanced knowledge, thus this can be a scientist, engineer, artist or a musician, who is not great.

 

Don't the religious people have thought, at least one time in their life, that their religion can not be true? How about they prepare for the after life, then they die, and there is no afterlife after all? Will they be still this keen for the death?

 

 

I am also for the cloning. The perfection of the cloning will allow the human to multiply on the both ways - sexual and asexual, and thus to get a very strong advantage, compared with the other biological species, plus this will give the human race a new way of preventing the death of the human race.

[shadowhawk]

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 February 2015 - 08:56 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Religion is doing nothing for achieving biological immortality. It only hopes, that the soul is immortal.

[serp777]

 

The idea of immortality is great, but not for everyone. We don't want every useless person to live forever.

 

Those who live forever should be great leaders, or scientists, or engineers, or great artists/musicians. These people could do wondrous things over the course of a thousand years. No need for Joe Shmoe at the gas station to be immortal though. He needs to make room for the next 20 billion people.

 

Religion is general against immortality for various reasons, but mainly because religion is obsessed with death. A true religious person works their whole life in order to improve their position in the afterlife. Many religious people want the apocalypse to occur so that God or allah can judge those deemed unworthy while the rest get to go to heaven. Immortality avoids this judgment that God is supposed to give you. Its stupid however, that's for sure.

 

They're also against cloning which is stupid. No idea why people are so butthurt about cloning. Wouldn't it be awesome to clone a human without a brain and extract their organs? Immortality is within reach at that point. Seems pretty win to me. All of the stupid ethics really get in the way though.

 

To be a great leader, or scientist, or engineer, or great artist/musician is not the only thing, that makes you useful for the society and for the human race. People, who are useful for the society and for the human race are those, who want to educate, to work, to create, improve things for the society, independently of the political situation, and the time period, that you look at. The useless are those, who don't educate. refuse to work, try to live on the back of the society, only want to get material help from the government for the entire their lives, without doing nothing in response. They are not only useless for the society, but are also dangerous for it, independent from the political situation and independent from the time period, that you look at. Nevertheless, a useful man or a useful woman for the society is some one, who has a high education for his/her time period, lets say an university education for our time period, wants to work, works in the moment, very often is doing a work, that needs advanced skills and advanced knowledge, thus this can be a scientist, engineer, artist or a musician, who is not great.

 

Don't the religious people have thought, at least one time in their life, that their religion can not be true? How about they prepare for the after life, then they die, and there is no afterlife after all? Will they be still this keen for the death?

 

 

I am also for the cloning. The perfection of the cloning will allow the human to multiply on the both ways - sexual and asexual, and thus to get a very strong advantage, compared with the other biological species, plus this will give the human race a new way of preventing the death of the human race.

 

Sure, i didn't specify every useful person and every useful profession. I gave an example of a person who isn't worth being immortal, such as joe shmoe working at the gas station, or Jessica who has worked as a walmart cashier for 30 years.

 

A great professor, or a great economist, or a great doctor should absolutely receive immortality. The list I gave were just examples of people. Something like 95% of people are like Joe shmoe at the gas station though. Their jobs as a barista at star bucks simply aren't worth immortality because it would lead to overpopulation.

 

"Don't the religious people have thought, at least one time in their life, that their religion can not be true? How about they prepare for the after life, then they die, and there is no afterlife after all? Will they be still this keen for the death?"

 

I don't know, but religious people most likely aren't going to get answers about the afterlife from a book written in bronze age Palestine by very superstitious people. Religion is almost definitely not the tool for understanding what will happen when we die.

[serp777]

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

 

Yeah the intellectual elite are worthy. Religious leaders, however, are not worthy since they contribute nothing to society. Religious leaders consume quite a bit and waste people's time, convincing them that going to church or whatever will help them. Your analogy to hitler is false because no one is being actively killed. it would be stupid to give everyone immortality because then there would be rampant overpopulation.

 

With God there is no absolute morality either--early Christians were okay with slavery, genocide against the canaanites, the stoning of gays, the crusades, etc. The standards of secular society determine our morals, not an ancient book.

 

That's why religious people across the world have radically different moralities--because God doesn't give certain moral answers. It shows the fundamental unreliability of alleged religious moral superiority and justification.

[sthira]

The idea of immortality is great, but not for everyone. We don't want every useless person to live forever.

Those who live forever should be great leaders, or scientists, or engineers, or great artists/musicians.

Bob Marley woulda been 70 today. He should have been immortal.

"My music will go on forever. Maybe it's a fool say that, but when me know facts me can say facts. My music will go on forever." RIP Bob

[Danail Bulgaria]

To ask who is worthy enough to be immortal is a very difficult question. It is very simmilar to ask "Who deserves to die?"

 

If you ask me, in order to prevent the overpopulation you must not immortalize people, who multiply themselves uncontrollably. It is a hard decision, but it is better than to die the entire human race, because of the overpopulation death end scenario. You need people, that when being said: You must not have any more children from now on, they will follow it. Overpopulation is a problem of the uncontrolled birth rate, not a problem caused from living longer, or living forever. As I like to say, if you imagine, that all the people of the world become immortal right now, in this second, there will be no overpopulation if no child is born from this moment on. On the oposite - we are not immortal today, but we go to an inevitable overpopulation, due to uncontrolled birth rate.

 

People, who are not grat also can be useful for the society, including usual, not grat doctors, engineers, sportsman, scientists, and, @serp777 at this moment I don't see a reason why the majority of the religious people not to be immortal either. They are useful for rising the good will and the hope of the society, afterall.

[shadowhawk]

Religion is doing nothing for achieving biological immortality. It only hopes, that the soul is immortal.

This simply shows how little you understand religion.  Not true.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Alright. I hope, that the religion is doing something in order we to become biologically immortal. What exactly is it doing?

[shadowhawk]

 

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

 

Yeah the intellectual elite are worthy. Religious leaders, however, are not worthy since they contribute nothing to society. Religious leaders consume quite a bit and waste people's time, convincing them that going to church or whatever will help them. Your analogy to hitler is false because no one is being actively killed. it would be stupid to give everyone immortality because then there would be rampant overpopulation.

 

With God there is no absolute morality either--early Christians were okay with slavery, genocide against the canaanites, the stoning of gays, the crusades, etc. The standards of secular society determine our morals, not an ancient book.

 

That's why religious people across the world have radically different moralities--because God doesn't give certain moral answers. It shows the fundamental unreliability of alleged religious moral superiority and justification.

 

Without getting into details, atheists have killed more people than any other group so they are not worthy.  This is really starting to sound like Hitler.  No Jews!

[Danail Bulgaria]

You also sound like Hitler, lol. No atheists!

[shadowhawk]

Alright. I hope, that the religion is doing something in order we to become biologically immortal. What exactly is it doing?

Christians are pro life in thousands of ways.  Not only the intellectual elite but all humans are worthy of life.  There are ethical issues in life research that separate us from the values expressed in the above posts.  We consider them pro death.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Seems that Christians promote adult stem cells research. But it is not enough. The adult stem cells can give us only simple organs, without the correct microstructure, and adequate blood supply. Cloning for organs has to become moral too.

[shadowhawk]

You also sound like Hitler, lol. No atheists!

 

I was only showing how  horrible the quoted post was.  Which Nazi gets to choose who lives.
 

Seems that Christians promote adult stem cells research. But it is not enough. The adult stem cells can give us only simple organs, without the correct microstructure, and adequate blood supply. Cloning for organs has to become moral too.

 

 

It depends on who you kill to get them.
 

[Danail Bulgaria]

If you immortalize all the people, who can't control their birth rates, and further immortalize their offsprings, how will you prevent overpopulation?

 

Is there a cloning of organs, that to be moral for the religion? Maybe the human organs grown in animals?

[serp777]

 

 

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

 

Yeah the intellectual elite are worthy. Religious leaders, however, are not worthy since they contribute nothing to society. Religious leaders consume quite a bit and waste people's time, convincing them that going to church or whatever will help them. Your analogy to hitler is false because no one is being actively killed. it would be stupid to give everyone immortality because then there would be rampant overpopulation.

 

With God there is no absolute morality either--early Christians were okay with slavery, genocide against the canaanites, the stoning of gays, the crusades, etc. The standards of secular society determine our morals, not an ancient book.

 

That's why religious people across the world have radically different moralities--because God doesn't give certain moral answers. It shows the fundamental unreliability of alleged religious moral superiority and justification.

 

Without getting into details, atheists have killed more people than any other group so they are not worthy.  This is really starting to sound like Hitler.  No Jews!

 

 

So i guess you just concede your whole point against morality. LOL, your comparison to Hitler is so flawed and stupid that you're embarrassing yourself. In no way does this resemble the murder of millions of jews whatsoever. Of course you would rather doom the entire world to overpopulation and starvation because everyone needs immortality in order to be ethical. I guess you accept genocide against the entire world--that's your kind of reasoning that im just flipping back on you.

And you're not getting into details because you just made up that alleged statistic. There have been countless religious wars and killings due to religion.

 

There's also no such group as the "atheists" so your point makes no sense. its like saying: those who don't believe in the celestial teapot have killed more people than any other group, or those who don't believe in capitalism have killed more than any other group.

 

Also the catholic church supported Hitler anyways so your point is mostly moot. Hitler was also a Christian in his early years so you might blame his morality on a christian upbringing. It probably instilled a hatred of the jews ironically enough.

[shadowhawk]

If you immortalize all the people, who can't control their birth rates, and further immortalize their offsprings, how will you prevent overpopulation?

 

Is there a cloning of organs, that to be moral for the religion? Maybe the human organs grown in animals?

 

How about letting me decide.  I am as good as you.    You, because of your beliefs can pick up the garbage for us elites.  You also get to die.  Insane right?
 

[serp777]

 

If you immortalize all the people, who can't control their birth rates, and further immortalize their offsprings, how will you prevent overpopulation?

 

Is there a cloning of organs, that to be moral for the religion? Maybe the human organs grown in animals?

 

How about letting me decide.  I am as good as you.    You, because of your beliefs can pick up the garbage for us elites.  You also get to die.  Insane right?
 

 

 

So let the world drown in overpopulation because you think picking who gets to live and who follows the natural course of evolution is unethical. Thank Jesus you're not making the decisions/you're not a world leader. The actual world leaders would fortunately make decisions based on who has the most utilitarian value to society. Doctors, scientists, engineers, great artists, etc. I doubt you, online crusader for the Christian faith, would be apart of that group.

 

The misconception here is that you're implying that by letting some people be immortal you're killing everyone. Thats an extremely flimsy argument because giving everyone immortality leaders to overpopulation while giving nobody immortality makes humanity miss out on a great opportunity to preserve the best minds who can help society as much as possible. You're letting evolution take its natural course except for the best of society.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

 

Yeah the intellectual elite are worthy. Religious leaders, however, are not worthy since they contribute nothing to society. Religious leaders consume quite a bit and waste people's time, convincing them that going to church or whatever will help them. Your analogy to hitler is false because no one is being actively killed. it would be stupid to give everyone immortality because then there would be rampant overpopulation.

 

With God there is no absolute morality either--early Christians were okay with slavery, genocide against the canaanites, the stoning of gays, the crusades, etc. The standards of secular society determine our morals, not an ancient book.

 

That's why religious people across the world have radically different moralities--because God doesn't give certain moral answers. It shows the fundamental unreliability of alleged religious moral superiority and justification.

 

Without getting into details, atheists have killed more people than any other group so they are not worthy.  This is really starting to sound like Hitler.  No Jews!

 

 

So i guess you just concede your whole point against morality. LOL, your comparison to Hitler is so flawed and stupid that you're embarrassing yourself. In no way does this resemble the murder of millions of jews whatsoever. Of course you would rather doom the entire world to overpopulation and starvation because everyone needs immortality in order to be ethical. I guess you accept genocide against the entire world--that's your kind of reasoning that im just flipping back on you.

And you're not getting into details because you just made up that alleged statistic. There have been countless religious wars and killings due to religion.

 

There's also no such group as the "atheists" so your point makes no sense. its like saying: those who don't believe in the celestial teapot have killed more people than any other group, or those who don't believe in capitalism have killed more than any other group.

 

Also the catholic church supported Hitler anyways so your point is mostly moot. Hitler was also a Christian in his early years so you might blame his morality on a christian upbringing. It probably instilled a hatred of the jews ironically enough.

 

I don't accept your right to chose who lives or dies.  The big killers have been Atheist in ideology and belief.  We went through this in the topic, "Evidence for Atheism."  Sorry you are so ignorant of the history.  No atheists?  What bull but off topic.  Again ignorance.  If you want we can take this up again in the Evidence for Atheism topic.  There is an outline of the discussions there.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

Religion is not against immortality and in fact it is part of religion.  There are ethical issues in the above post, for example who gets to play Hitler and decide who lives and dies?  Who are the worthy, the intellectual elite.  Here we go again.  Stupid ethics.  Without God there is no morality.

 

Yeah the intellectual elite are worthy. Religious leaders, however, are not worthy since they contribute nothing to society. Religious leaders consume quite a bit and waste people's time, convincing them that going to church or whatever will help them. Your analogy to hitler is false because no one is being actively killed. it would be stupid to give everyone immortality because then there would be rampant overpopulation.

 

With God there is no absolute morality either--early Christians were okay with slavery, genocide against the canaanites, the stoning of gays, the crusades, etc. The standards of secular society determine our morals, not an ancient book.

 

That's why religious people across the world have radically different moralities--because God doesn't give certain moral answers. It shows the fundamental unreliability of alleged religious moral superiority and justification.

 

Without getting into details, atheists have killed more people than any other group so they are not worthy.  This is really starting to sound like Hitler.  No Jews!

 

 

So i guess you just concede your whole point against morality. LOL, your comparison to Hitler is so flawed and stupid that you're embarrassing yourself. In no way does this resemble the murder of millions of jews whatsoever. Of course you would rather doom the entire world to overpopulation and starvation because everyone needs immortality in order to be ethical. I guess you accept genocide against the entire world--that's your kind of reasoning that im just flipping back on you.

And you're not getting into details because you just made up that alleged statistic. There have been countless religious wars and killings due to religion.

 

There's also no such group as the "atheists" so your point makes no sense. its like saying: those who don't believe in the celestial teapot have killed more people than any other group, or those who don't believe in capitalism have killed more than any other group.

 

Also the catholic church supported Hitler anyways so your point is mostly moot. Hitler was also a Christian in his early years so you might blame his morality on a christian upbringing. It probably instilled a hatred of the jews ironically enough.

 

I don't accept your right to chose who lives or dies.  The big killers have been Atheist in ideology and belief.  We went through this in the topic, "Evidence for Atheism."  Sorry you are so ignorant of the history.  No atheists?  What bull but off topic.  Again ignorance.  If you want we can take this up again in the Evidence for Atheism topic.  There is an outline of the discussions there.

 

 

And i don't accept your right to determine that everyone or no one should get immortality. I don't accept your hypocritical and illogical "morality."
 

"Sorry you are so ignorant of the history"

A great irony. You have no clue what you're talking about. You clearly have no concept of the devastation of various religious wars and even the current religious strife. Your ignorance is without limit.

 

"No atheists?"

Its not a group, not that there aren't atheists. There isn't a group of A-fairy believers or a celestial teapot believers or a santa clause believers. You always make so many strawmans. Its stupid to classify people into a group based on what they do not believe. There would be an infinite number of groups.

Edited by serp777, 07 February 2015 - 01:12 AM.

[Soma]

A great professor, or a great economist, or a great doctor should absolutely receive immortality. The list I gave were just examples of people. Something like 95% of people are like Joe shmoe at the gas station though. Their jobs as a barista at star bucks simply aren't worth immortality ...

So, honestly where do you fit in right this moment?

[serp777]

 

A great professor, or a great economist, or a great doctor should absolutely receive immortality. The list I gave were just examples of people. Something like 95% of people are like Joe shmoe at the gas station though. Their jobs as a barista at star bucks simply aren't worth immortality ...

So, honestly where do you fit in right this moment?

 

 

Its not relevant to the argument. It would cause huge overpopulation problems if everyone was immortal and banning immortality entirely would be a waste of people who contribute the most to society.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Very often the trueth is between the 2 extremes. Maybe the best is to be immortal only those, who will not overpopulate the Earth.

[Soma]

Its not relevant to the argument. It would cause huge overpopulation problems if everyone was immortal and banning immortality entirely would be a waste of people who contribute the most to society.

With that being said, if these guidelines went into effect immediately, would you be among the elite 5% of eminent intellectuals worthy of life extension? Step outside of the theoretical argument for a moment and ponder the real world implications. What would be your fate?

Edited by Soma, 09 February 2015 - 03:50 PM.

[serp777]

 

Its not relevant to the argument. It would cause huge overpopulation problems if everyone was immortal and banning immortality entirely would be a waste of people who contribute the most to society.

With that being said, if these guidelines went into effect immediately, would you be among the elite 5% of eminent intellectuals worthy of life extension? Step outside of the theoretical argument for a moment and ponder the real world implications. What would be your fate?

 

 

Again, you're trying to ignore the relevant argument and logic here, and instead trying to imply that i have a bias which is driving me to this conclusion. Regardless of whether I have a bias or not, don't try and shift the discussion from the reasoning behind my position to some alleged bias I may or may not have. And as of yet I would not be apart of that group since i haven't graduated college yet, but I could possibly be apart of that group in the future as an engineer.

 

The real world implications here are that you wouldn't be able to control whether someone was immortal if they had enough money. Then some company maybe finds a cheap variant and sells it to everyone which leads to huge overpopulation and maybe heritable immortality as well. The fairest way would be to have strict government regulations and criminal penalties for violating laws regarding immortality, while selecting individuals for immortality based on merit and importance for society.

[cats_lover]

Again, you're trying to ignore the relevant argument and logic here, and instead trying to imply that i have a bias which is driving me to this conclusion. Regardless of whether I have a bias or not, don't try and shift the discussion from the reasoning behind my position to some alleged bias I may or may not have. And as of yet I would not be apart of that group since i haven't graduated college yet, but I could possibly be apart of that group in the future as an engineer.

 

The real world implications here are that you wouldn't be able to control whether someone was immortal if they had enough money. Then some company maybe finds a cheap variant and sells it to everyone which leads to huge overpopulation and maybe heritable immortality as well. The fairest way would be to have strict government regulations and criminal penalties for violating laws regarding immortality, while selecting individuals for immortality based on merit and importance for society.

 

 

If world economy does not change after the "discovery of immortality", we will need just a few engineers and many cheap undergraduate workers.

 

Maybe they can create a law where engineers can live forever (use the immortality treatment) and cheap workers dont... but this is not good for business of universities; so engineers must die... but low IQ undergraduate workers are so important for economy so they can live forever...
Because if they die... who knows... new ones can born with higher IQs...

Edited by cats_lover, 09 February 2015 - 07:37 PM.

[serp777]

 

Again, you're trying to ignore the relevant argument and logic here, and instead trying to imply that i have a bias which is driving me to this conclusion. Regardless of whether I have a bias or not, don't try and shift the discussion from the reasoning behind my position to some alleged bias I may or may not have. And as of yet I would not be apart of that group since i haven't graduated college yet, but I could possibly be apart of that group in the future as an engineer.

 

The real world implications here are that you wouldn't be able to control whether someone was immortal if they had enough money. Then some company maybe finds a cheap variant and sells it to everyone which leads to huge overpopulation and maybe heritable immortality as well. The fairest way would be to have strict government regulations and criminal penalties for violating laws regarding immortality, while selecting individuals for immortality based on merit and importance for society.

 

 

If world economy does not change after the "discovery of immortality", we will need just a few engineers and many cheap undergraduate workers.

 

Maybe they can create a law where engineers can live forever (use the immortality treatment) and cheap workers dont... but this is not good for business of universities; so engineers must die... but low IQ undergraduate workers are so important for economy so they can live forever...
Because if they die... who knows... new ones can born with higher IQs...

 

 

Huh? Engineers are in demand. Its easy to find jobs and internships; they're basically offered on silver platter. That's also why engineers are also paid a lot. A plethora of engineers would be able to eventually replace cheap undergraduate workers with even cheaper automated systems; for instance replacing long shoreman with an automated dock, or replacing accountants with an expert system. The benefits for business are immense because technology doesn't require health benefits, increasing minimum wage, the chance of a lawsuit, sleep, lunch breaks, and so on. At some point market forces and the decreasing price of technology will make it economically favorable.  Engineers and scientists will be the last to be replaced by technology because advanced artificial intelligence and creativity is one of the most difficult problems in CS.

 

And in what way will immortality hurt university business? It will make careers in medicine, science, mathematics, engineering, etc more attractive therefore increasing enrollment.  Its only going to be good for universities.

 

"Because if they die... who knows... new ones can born with higher IQs..."

That's not true at all.

[cats_lover]

Huh? Engineers are in demand. Its easy to find jobs and internships; they're basically offered on silver platter. That's also why engineers are also paid a lot. A plethora of engineers would be able to eventually replace cheap undergraduate workers with even cheaper automated systems; for instance replacing long shoreman with an automated dock, or replacing accountants with an expert system. The benefits for business are immense because technology doesn't require health benefits, increasing minimum wage, the chance of a lawsuit, sleep, lunch breaks, and so on. At some point market forces and the decreasing price of technology will make it economically favorable.  Engineers and scientists will be the last to be replaced by technology because advanced artificial intelligence and creativity is one of the most difficult problems in CS.

 

And in what way will immortality hurt university business? It will make careers in medicine, science, mathematics, engineering, etc more attractive therefore increasing enrollment.  Its only going to be good for universities.

 

"Because if they die... who knows... new ones can born with higher IQs..."

That's not true at all.

 

 

Your theory is based in a perfect future world and a perfect future economy, actually the existence of immortality is going to hit hard into the world economy and there will be no guarantees; engineers are in demand but remain employees, usually work for businessmen who are unable to graduate in engineering but are skillful with business (or have enough money to be more "important" than an engineer within the parameters of economy). Businessmen are the alpha male of the capitalist world and if anyone will be able to live forever will they.

Engineers earn more money because of market, but hollywood actors earn more; actors (for example) cannot build a bridge or save a life but earn more money than doctors and engineers; is this rational? It is not? This is called capitalism... why you think the world is going to become rational and all this will change when immortality is discovered?

***By the way, I have my degree in sports science but now im also studying engineering in college

Edited by cats_lover, 09 February 2015 - 08:22 PM.

[Soma]

...i haven't graduated college yet...

You thoroughly answered the question.

...but I could possibly be apart of that group in the future as an engineer.

No, sorry. I asked where you are NOW. A potential future wouldn't be grounds one's reprieve. Anyone could use this excuse, whether or not they are correct. And this is a shame because potential isn't always easy to identify. Albert Einstein dropped out of college and was working a dead-end menial job. In accordance with your stipulations, he wouldn't have made the cut during that period in his life.

I hope you understand the point that I am making. Thus far, it seems that you don't. Life isn't as simple and clear cut as you are making it out to be. And you yourself are clearly on the outside looking in, on the basis of your own stipulations. Sorry, you don't make the grade.

Edited by Soma, 09 February 2015 - 08:49 PM.