Biological immortality

@64: I can't answer that without derailing this thread, since it would extend to things beyond biological immortality. That's the problem I find with most people's predictions of the future. They often don't take into account factors that extend beyond what they focus on.

Let's just say that a combination of post-scarcity and people with far fewer limitations than us will be factors that go along with it.

If you want to talk more about the future, start a new thread or pm me.

So? People accepted absolute monarchy for a long time, but that doesn't make it right or something they should accept. Your argument is basically that how things are now is fine because it's been that way since the beginning. just because it's the status quo doesn't make it desirable or ideal. If we could theoretically avert death, why should we ever consider accepting it? At least not within one (normal) lifetime.

Disagree. I would choose immortality because I don't believe that I'll run out of interesting things to experience. Given that there are currently more books published each year than I can read in a year? And that's just one example off the top of my head. I doubt that an infinite lifespan would lead to boredom - at least, not more than I experience anyway.

To be honest, I find immortality itself to be horrible, not possible bad side effects caused by it There is nothing you can do to convince me its a good thing.

Quite like religious fundamentalists, nothing you can do to make them accept science.

I do not care what other cultures say is a pinnacle of life, nor do I care for so called benefits of old age.

If ever you say there's nothing that could be said to change your mind about something, you're limiting yourself and hurting yourself. Always, always be prepared to hear out an argument if it's even slightly reasonable for anyone to expect it of you (so I'm not asking you to listen to an argument for a cause when you're in the ER room or something.)

If you refuse to change your mind before you listen to what the other side wants to say, it's unreasonable of you to expect anyone to listen to you. You have to keep an open mind if you want others to listen to you. Be fair.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Really I would have no problem with having that could extend my life to about 250, but I still want to die fairly quickly and painlessly.

Also known as Achillesforever6 of Lordkat.com fame

@SM: If immortality is bad, then that must mean death is good, right?

So why isn't death good right now? Why, no offense intended, don't you kill yourself?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

While death is natural, part of life, scary, horrible, yadda yadda yadda, its doesn't make it automatically bad Its how you die. Besides, that way of thinking assumes that "If A is wrong, then opposite must be right!" way of thinking, world isn't black and white.

@Best of: I do listen the other arguments, I'm just pointing out that my opinion on this can't be changed even if they were right about the positive effects. Human society isn't really capable of handling radical changes like that very well and it would probably first lead to politicians, dictators and businessmen abusing it and keep themselves ruling the world as long as possible before people manage to overthrow them. If somehow every human becomes immortal, which isn't likely, it would lead into different shorts of problem. I'm saying that some of people here are being too optimistic about what would happen and themselves aren't considering the bad effects because they themselves are afraid of the death. But even if I'm wrong, I'm just pointing out that my opinion on this is so strong that it can't be changed. Which is also why immortality would cause stagnation, people are kind of stubborn at changing their opinions, so I would assume that opinions between 1000 year old ones and 500 year old ones would be rather different and probably cause more problems at some point.

In other words, I'm slightly insulted that you think I'm not willing to listen arguments. I wouldn't rather evoke godwin's law to explain how abhorrent I feel idea of humans being immortal Also, I'm kind of used to people never agreeing with me. Of course that might be just my self esteem talking, but recently it does feel like most people don't understand what I'm saying or aren't willing to try to understand what I mean.

edited 3rd Feb '12 7:56:46 PM by SpookyMask

I do not particularly care about the negative effects you have listed in your argument against immortality.

Then again, a guy like me becoming immortal is probably what you are scared of.

But yeah, in short: I find it that immortality has very bad side effects for the individuals and whether only rich people or everyone is immortal, the whole society and world too. But even without those side effects I find idea of humans being able to have it abhorrent. Of course, its possible that reason why I find it so abhorrent are the side effects and I haven't noticed that because of my emotional reaction, but I kind of doubt that.

^And to reply to you, I'm not sure whether it applies to you since you might be practicing A Darker Me trope, but basically yes, there is little problem with immortal sociopaths especially if that person happens to be CEO of company with rather unethical practices.

Really though, I find pretty much all companies evil and I don't really see other reason to stop being CEO of one except old age That or you get stressed too much, but if company is successful I rather doubt that.

edited 3rd Feb '12 8:15:25 PM by SpookyMask

Diagnosed sociopath, well, the Psychologist put it as Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Just let me say that I am not a scary person unless you judge based on the disorder alone.

And back on topic now.

Biological Immortality in 2045. I do have to wonder if the Republican Party would incorporate Anti-Immortality into their little agenda.

edited 3rd Feb '12 9:32:04 PM by NickTheSwing

Nah, I judge people only on stuff they have done. Being sociopath doesn't mean person is dangerous, I find it annoying how people seem to have that wrong picture in their heads.

@SM: I didn't meant to offend you; maybe I read your words too literally or missed some nuance.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Its not a problem, my grammar is bad anyway.

Yes...

...for the system we have now.

If you want immortality, you must be able to wholesale replace human civilization rapidly and without causing billions of deaths in the meantime. And if you can't, then too bad, no immortality for you.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Yes, because tropers have say in this! Don't we, gentlemen?

@Best Of: The term for SM's position that I would use is "a values statement," or more formally, "a first principle." He holds to his position because it's one of the principles he takes on faith as part of defining his moral system; pre-rationally (not irrationally; rationality doesn't enter into it one way or the other), he defines immortality as Bad And Wrong. Does that make more sense?

(SM, please correct me if I misread your statement.)

Well, isn't "I'll never approve of immortality" a rather a specific type of thing to have as an axiom?

Now, I know that sometimes, people take up a position and refuse to challenge it, and that is pretty much the definition of an axiom, but actually, you can challenge a fundamental assumption if it flies in the face of another, even more fundamental one.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Ramidel: Well, I wouldn't say it exactly like that, but basically yes. I wouldn't say immortality itself(Though I still wouldn't consider it good thing either, if organism would naturally be able to potentially live forever, its in short of a grey area for me, however I still believe that life ends eventually, so... Its kind of complicated) is bad and wrong, just humans being immortal or gaining ability to potentially make every human immortal.

I don't want to live for ever - the world would get fairly boring after the heat death. Unless we figure out how to prevent that.

Flyboy

And capitalism should be the one to give. With this I fail to see how people can go on saying capitalism works (not saying Flyboy said that, just something that people often say).

Spooky Mask

Then we should find ways to kick them out that doesn't rely on waiting them to die. Yay to the end of apathy!

Yes, dying as painlessly as possible is good. But I'm not afraid of a painful death, I just would greatly prefer to continue living.

Flyboy

The system cannot survive (biological) immortality (or widely used robotics) -> the system must change. And they must happen simultaneously.

edited 6th Feb '12 4:06:56 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Yes it should. But good luck with that, and enjoy the few million bodies you'll be making per country.

Yes, but not simultaneously. You'd need to shift the entire system and then introduce immortality. Otherwise you'll have the double-duty effects of a system now in total degrade and the violent (and they will be violent) attempts to replace the system wholesale.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Yes, it would be easier if the cultural/social/governmental change happened first, but people won't see the reason for it before we get the techs.

And to those saying that if only the rich get the treatment violent overthrowal by the masses will happen, the cynic in me answers: it'd be the same with immortality as it is with being rich atm. People would be convinced that if they work hard & all the other shit within the system they too can gain the treatment.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Which is why we hypothesized that the old guard elite would be overthrown, only to be replaced by a new guard elite based around the new technology.

Same old story, new paint job.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

"Biological Immortality" has nothing to do with stopping death from occurring. It's simply curing the disease called "aging". You can and would still die from other things, like cancer. Thinking about it from a philosophical "all things must die" perspective is quite a bad way to approach the question. All things would still die, due to the laws of probability. They just wouldn't die from old age.

edited 6th Feb '12 10:43:08 PM by Clarste