• 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
- - - - -

Should "immortality" really be available for everyone?

immortality racism homophobia sexism prejudice

  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#31 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 22 September 2015 - 07:28 PM

Is asking, "How am I going to make enough money to cover my cryonics?"

more fun than pontificating about mortality, overpopulation, morphing life forms?  No.

 

Does bouncing around these topics cover the cost of cryonics?  No.

Will some who had a lifetime to prepare for their cryonics & didn't because

their priorities were out of order, be bitter?  Probably.

 

FYI: discussing immortality is absurd according to current science,

to your great disappointment, this universe is limited to ~5B years...


  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#32 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 22 September 2015 - 08:25 PM

 

I didn't that, but...

 

There is no real immortality in this Universe, only rejuvenation.

 

Also, the Universe is very big, there is place for many people.

 

 

Lets name it "keep existing" instead of "being immortal".

 

Yet, noone can offer a better option for avoiding overpopulation.

 

Ok, I will explain it a bit more. "There is no real immortality" means that even in a post-LEV world, death rate will not be zero. It will be small, but not zero. So there is no need to forbid reproduction, only to maintain birth rate low enough and/or migration high enough to compensate for that death rate. I don't think that a post-LEV human will be interested in having hundreds of children in the milennia of his lifetime, and anyway, that is a long enough time period to make overpopulation discussions irrelevant by the development of space colonization.

 

And, of course, overpopulation is too much far in the future to be worried about it now. It's like being worried about what kind of nations there will be on Mars when we colonize it. Will there be tirannies or democracies? Who will pay for terraforming? Who cares now?

 

To begin with, I care much much much more about the 100,000 people that die of aging every single day NOW, including my relatives and friends, and me in some near future, than about any problem in XXV century, or even in XXII century. I find it extremely difficult to understand how some people think that future overpopulation is worse that today's situation.


Edited by Antonio2014, 22 September 2015 - 08:37 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#33 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 22 September 2015 - 08:42 PM

Is asking, "How am I going to make enough money to cover my cryonics?"

more fun than pontificating about mortality, overpopulation, morphing life forms?  No.

 

Does bouncing around these topics cover the cost of cryonics?  No.

Will some who had a lifetime to prepare for their cryonics & didn't because

their priorities were out of order, be bitter?  Probably.

 

I, for one, will choose Kriorus. It's the cheapest option now. (Mental note: I have to learn some Russian.)



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 23 September 2015 - 06:33 AM

 

What you are offering as options, @Antonio , are nice things, but they are futurisms. 

 

You are talking about things, that can't be done yet, like settling planets through space exploration, and making cities floating in the open space (the cosmos). 

 

If immortality happens soon, you will need a working, feasable, actual for the moment !!!! respomnse of the society in order to prevent the overpopulation, at least in the beginning, before these things to have happened. 

 

And this feasable, working at least for the beginning thing, that can be made today, in this very moment is my option :) 

No more children for those, who choose immortality. 

 

Your concerns about the immortals, who died from abnother things, instead of aging and diseases is completely repairable today with the cryopreservation of embryos. Today (2015) many healthy children are born and living today from such cryopreserved embryos. The death immortals :) need only to freeze several embryos in order to ensure, that if they die, they will leave an offspring, which offspring will be equal in number and immortal just like them. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is asking, "How am I going to make enough money to cover my cryonics?"

more fun than pontificating about mortality, overpopulation, morphing life forms?  No.

 

Does bouncing around these topics cover the cost of cryonics?  No.

Will some who had a lifetime to prepare for their cryonics & didn't because

their priorities were out of order, be bitter?  Probably.

 

FYI: discussing immortality is absurd according to current science,

to your great disappointment, this universe is limited to ~5B years...

 

Noone is asking this in this topic. If you want so much to ask these questions ask them in the cryonics section. 

 


  • Ill informed x 2

#35 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 24 September 2015 - 11:01 AM

You are talking about things, that can't be done yet, like settling planets through space exploration, and making cities floating in the open space (the cosmos).

 

Like indefinite life spans and overpopulation. So what?

 

If immortality happens soon, you will need a working, feasable, actual for the moment !!!!

Meec. Wrong.

 

http://www.maxlife.o...rpopulation.asp

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3192186/

 

And, again, we have a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH BIGGER problem now.

 



#36 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 24 September 2015 - 12:55 PM

"Like indefinite life spans and overpopulation. So what?"

 

Having already a working solution for comping with a serious proble, before the problem itself to have occured, is always better, and it is the correct way of coping with problems. 

 

 

Your strategy of fighting with the overpopulation problem is denying its existence. This is not the correct way of solving problems. This strategy only looses your time for finding real solutions.

 

 

https://www.google.b...MvrGxIMgSo5vF4=

 

 

The articles that you cite don't deny the population growth in case of immortality, they only postphone it. 

 

Citing from the ncbi article, that you point:

"Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only"

And they do that when calculating "less than 2 children on average"


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#37 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 24 September 2015 - 01:17 PM

P.S. 

 

What is the bigger problem now? 

 



#38 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 25 September 2015 - 07:49 AM

Didn't read? 100,000 people are killed every fucking day by a disease that every human being in the world has.

 

The same for the rest of my comments. You apparently didn't read anything.


  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#39 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 25 September 2015 - 10:23 AM

Yup, unfortunately not dying from aging is still not an option. 

 

This is kind of off-topic, by the way, 

 

The topic name is: "Should "immortality" really be available for everyone?

And my answer is, that it should be available only to those, who can control their birth rate, and can ensure, that from the moment they become immortal, they will not have more children. Otherwise there will be an overpopulation sooner or later. 

No matter if you talk about overpopulation of the current mortal human kind, or of the immortals in the (near) future, it is always a question of UNCONTROLLED birth rate and nothing else and nothing more. Remember that. 



#40 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 25 September 2015 - 09:38 PM

Like any medical advancement we should not let those who like to control others deny medical care to control beliefs. "You don't think right. so no magic life potent for you!"


  • Agree x 1

#41 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 29 September 2015 - 10:17 AM

Yup, unfortunately not dying from aging is still not an option. 

 

This is kind of off-topic, by the way, 

 

The topic name is: "Should "immortality" really be available for everyone?

And my answer is, that it should be available only to those, who can control their birth rate, and can ensure, that from the moment they become immortal, they will not have more children. Otherwise there will be an overpopulation sooner or later. 

No matter if you talk about overpopulation of the current mortal human kind, or of the immortals in the (near) future, it is always a question of UNCONTROLLED birth rate and nothing else and nothing more. Remember that. 

 

It's not off-topic at all. I was showing you that overpopulation doesn't matter at all for the next couple of centuries, so there is absolutely no need that we decide now how should be allowed to be immortal. Since you don't bother to read what I linked, I stop here.
 


  • Agree x 1

#42 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 29 September 2015 - 10:52 AM

How about after the next couple of centuries :)

 

And it is necessary to have at least one feasable decision of what to do. That will do the work at least until other solution(s) come out. And it is the best to have it before the problem to appear. As earlier before the probem as possible. 


Edited by seivtcho, 29 September 2015 - 10:55 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#43 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 30 September 2015 - 09:32 AM

Honestly, I can't understand you. Today, 100,000 people will die of old age, and so tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day... Why on earth should we, now, solve a hypothetical resource scarcity in XXV century before we solve the problem that 100,000 people are dying now every fucking day??


  • Good Point x 1

#44 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 30 September 2015 - 12:02 PM

Noone says you "Don't fight the aging". The opposite - search for technologies to fight the aging. 

 

You should find a solution for a problem earlier, because if you wait until the last moment, things may go wrong. Understood (finally)? :) 

 

 

P.S 

For those idiots, who continue to mark me ill informed. Finally stand forward and protect your claims, you useless machines for shits!!!!! 

 

And so :) 

 

My question is simple: 

Do you know of a better option for protecting overpopulation than the one I suggested, or not. 


  • Disagree x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1

#45 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:59 AM

No, you don't understand nothing at all and you are contradicting yourself. You are saying that, when we have antiaging therapies (and that will be centuries before we have overpopulation), we must restrict their use to only some people. You are preventing the solution of a real, present and terrible problem in order to "solve" a hypothetical, far future, less big problem. It's totally crazy.


Edited by Antonio2014, 01 October 2015 - 08:03 AM.

  • Good Point x 2

#46 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 01 October 2015 - 10:35 AM

Absolutely :) I am saying, that when we have antiaging therapies, we must restrict their use to only those people, who don't multiply uncontrollably, and thus can't turn into cancer cells for the entire human race :) 

 

And I am not preventing the developing of anything that fights the aging and the death. 

 


Edited by seivtcho, 01 October 2015 - 11:03 AM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2

#47 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 01 October 2015 - 09:18 PM

In the heat of passion you (OMG) had a baby.  No magic life pill for you!  

Remember having children is like cancer.  Our parents must have been carcinogenic.


Edited by shadowhawk, 01 October 2015 - 10:14 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#48 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 October 2015 - 09:38 PM

when we have antiaging therapies, we must restrict their use to only those people, who don't multiply uncontrollably

 

No, NO, NO!!!

One-baby-per-family China called.  They already have a dictator.

Rate of population growth lowering for 30+ years worldwide.

Answer = education.   :|o  :|o  :|o

More educated masses = lower or no population growth.

So stop squealing pontifications on a website read by (10).

 

:wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:  :wub:

Go to barrios & slums, teach thousands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 


Edited by Rib Jig, 01 October 2015 - 09:41 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#49 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 01 October 2015 - 11:27 PM

Absolutely :) I am saying, that when we have antiaging therapies, we must restrict their use to only those people, who don't multiply uncontrollably, and thus can't turn into cancer cells for the entire human race :) 

 

And I am not preventing the developing of anything that fights the aging and the death. 

 

So you want to kill millions of people for a hypothetical problem of resource scarcity in XXV century.... No comments.


  • like x 1

#50 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 02 October 2015 - 08:23 AM

The problem of you all is that you don't understand, that the society has to change in order to allow the immortals to exist. This change is its adaptation. The adaptation can be for a period of time, until the better solutions come in the practice. Nevertheless, the society has to have the power to adapt. If you have non-adapting society, you may consider your own genetic life line already death. In the immortal society you only will have to give the people a choice - immortal or with chiuldren. But this is until the better solutions arrive. After they arrive, the immortals will be able to have children again.

 

 

 

In the heat of passion you (OMG) had a baby. No magic life pill for you!

Remember having children is like cancer. Our parents must have been carcinogenic.

 

Yes, exactly :) If you are not conscious enough to control your "heat of passion" or not clever enough to prevent unwanted pregnancy, then you have to be stopped of being immortal, for not to cause overpopulation.

 

Want it or not, the uncontrolably birth rates of immortals are just like the cancer. The cancer cells are immortal, and they multiply uncontrollably. The result is undetected from the organism deadly threat, and in the late cases, the death is inevitabvle. If you allow the immortals to multiply uncontrollably, then it will happen the same, but with the human race :) And your parents were not cancerous, because they have not been immortal. I supose, that they are f***ing death now. And with their death they have restored the equilibrium. For the immortals is another topic.

 

 

> when we have antiaging therapies, we must restrict their use to only those people, who don't multiply uncontrollably

 

No, NO, NO!!!

One-baby-per-family China called. They already have a dictator.

Rate of population growth lowering for 30+ years worldwide.

Answer = education. :|o :|o :|o

More educated masses = lower or no population growth.

So stop squealing pontifications on a website read by (10).

 

:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:

Go to barrios & slums, teach thousands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Alright :) When the masses get educated and stop the uncontrollably growing of their number, then the immortality will be available to anyone. Until then the overpopulation in an immortal society has to be prevented. So, educate them, what are you waiting for :) That is a wonderfull solution. No immortality for the uncontrollably multiplying people will be the solution only if you by any occasion you fail to make them grow controllably :)

 

 

Absolutely :) I am saying, that when we have antiaging therapies, we must restrict their use to only those people, who don't multiply uncontrollably, and thus can't turn into cancer cells for the entire human race :) 

 

And I am not preventing the developing of anything that fights the aging and the death. 

 

So you want to kill millions of people for a hypothetical problem of resource scarcity in XXV century.... No comments.

 

 

Kill anyone? No.

Prevent anyone from uncontrollably growing of biomass - yes :)



#51 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2015 - 02:46 AM

All I can say is I want to be in charge of controlling the biomass.  How do you get in control and who makes up the rules?  I have a strange feeling this has been tried before and it does not work out so well for those not in control.  Europe has to many people don't you think.  How about India and China?  Harvest body parts for those who can control their passions so they can live longer.  If you slip up and get impregnateed we have spare parts!



#52 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 October 2015 - 02:54 AM

People, people people.

Get real.

Overpopulation resolvable by 2100.

Biggest threat to immortality, once established, may be accidental death...

Unless one can be in 2 places at one time:

a. in body

b. real time updating of one's being to jump drive

But if body is damaged, can one's "center of being" transfer instantly to jump drive &

then seamlessly from jump drive to suitable replacement body...???!!!

Regardless, real scientists & authoritative thinkers are the one's to look to for advice on this topic...


Edited by Rib Jig, 03 October 2015 - 02:55 AM.


#53 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2015 - 03:06 AM

Oh the scientists can be the controllers.  Good idea except historically they have not done so well.  However that takes care of us who are not scientists.  We don't get to choose.  Who made up this rule?  Also, what is the"center of being?"


Edited by shadowhawk, 03 October 2015 - 03:09 AM.


#54 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 October 2015 - 03:13 AM

> historically they have not done so well.

 

Their various inventions made this forum possible.

I don't think instantly broadcasting "oral diarrhea" postings was their priority.

But carry on regardless...


  • Unfriendly x 1

#55 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2015 - 03:24 AM

Well Nazi Germany was very scientific as was the Soviet Union.  I could list many such sources.  China is another example and we (the educated) abort hundreds of thousands.  Turn it over to the scientists?  No I want to control because I know what will happen.  Scientists are just like the rest of us, some good and some bad.



#56 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 October 2015 - 03:51 AM

Good gawd bloke.

This forum only allows me to correct you one more time today.

By & far, it were evil leaders, Hitler, etc., FORCING scientists...

Grabbing me hat...


Edited by Rib Jig, 03 October 2015 - 03:52 AM.


#57 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 03 October 2015 - 06:53 AM

All I can say is I want to be in charge of controlling the biomass. How do you get in control and who makes up the rules? I have a strange feeling this has been tried before and it does not work out so well for those not in control. Europe has to many people don't you think. How about India and China? Harvest body parts for those who can control their passions so they can live longer. If you slip up and get impregnateed we have spare parts!

 

Ofcourse there are ways to restrict the immortality technologiesonly to those, who are conscious enough not to multiply uncontrollably.

 

Once the people become immortal, which most probabbly will happen through stem cells, it will be a treatment, that has to be repeated. Those, who has fucked up and made a child, simply will be excluded from doing stem cells transplanted organ again. Genetic tests are good enough for drtermining who are the parents of an abandoned child.

 

There is also an easier way to establish control over the uncontrollably multiplying people. They, since having many children, live much poorly compared with the normal people in the same region. Keep the costs in the golden line, so that to be too high for the biomass and available for the people. This should be enough to prevent the formation of cancer in the society.

 

Third way is the repeatedly needed immortality technologies to be applied only to those parts of the population, who have a negative population growth.

 

There can be made combinations of the above, ofcourse.

 

Europe has not many people. The birth rated here fall down. Especially of the white race. Through birth control and self-consciousness, the white race in Europe has earned its right of being immortal. If you ask for China and India, they have parts of the population, that can control their birth rates, and a hudge uncontrollably multiplying biomass.That parts of the population, that cantrol their multiplication also has earned the right to be immortal. The same is valid for all of the countries, all over the world.

 

 

 

 

People, people people.

Get real.

Overpopulation resolvable by 2100.

Biggest threat to immortality, once established, may be accidental death...

Unless one can be in 2 places at one time:

a. in body

b. real time updating of one's being to jump drive

But if body is damaged, can one's "center of being" transfer instantly to jump drive &

then seamlessly from jump drive to suitable replacement body...???!!!

Regardless, real scientists & authoritative thinkers are the one's to look to for advice on this topic...

 

Who says, that the overpopulation is resolvable by 2100?

Overpopulation is hard to be solved today, in the non immortal society, because of the same uncontrollably multiplying biomass.



#58 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 October 2015 - 04:02 PM

> the white race in Europe has earned its right of being immortal

 

Evidence Hitler escaped his bunker...

Moderator!!  Racism!!


  • Ill informed x 1

#59 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 03 October 2015 - 07:39 PM

No racism here, Rib Jig

 

 "If you ask for China and India, they have parts of the population, that can control their birth rates, and a hudge uncontrollably multiplying biomass.That parts of the population, that cantrol their multiplication also has earned the right to be immortal. The same is valid for all of the countries, all over the world."

 

 

 



#60 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2015 - 08:46 PM

Good gawd bloke.

This forum only allows me to correct you one more time today.

By & far, it were evil leaders, Hitler, etc., FORCING scientists...

Grabbing me hat...

You haven't corrected anything with  the nonsense that scientists are not just like the rest of us with bankrupt ethics and their fair share of cooks.  Tell me how did they become so enlightened that it is they that have the right to say who lives or dies when it comes to life extension.  Did they take some course at the university that made them philosopher kings.  Since populations  are going down, perhaps it is a moot point. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: immortality, racism, homophobia, sexism, prejudice

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users