FairFriend
Member
The first one, not doubt
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should we end aging forever? - Kurzgesagt
- Thread starter Litan
- Start date
The first one, not doubt
pureplayin2
Member
No. The planet cannot even sustain the current population and you want the population to balloon more than projected. That is a straight line to the end of humanity. In most of our lifetimes we are going to see resource wars starting, granted it will be near the end of our life, but we will most likely see it none the less. We as a species are not ready to end aging just yet or ever. I will even go as far as saying we should be slowing down cancer research and other research for deadly diseases because all they do is keep life around longer when our species and the planet need less of that and some form of sustainability before we attempt to extend life in anyway.
(I'm really busy today so I will try to come back to this thread for further discussion. I'm usually really busy lately and never get a chance to revisit threads after I leave a comment or two.)
(I'm really busy today so I will try to come back to this thread for further discussion. I'm usually really busy lately and never get a chance to revisit threads after I leave a comment or two.)
Wowfunhappy
Member
Every person gets a choice. You can either not age and not have children, or age but also have children. You can't have both.
So if the poor have to die, the rich should have to as well? While I agree that we should work towards everyone having access to the best medical care possible, this seems like an odd reaction imo.
See, I think that if people knew they were going to live longer lives, they would be more concerned with the environment and sustainability.
(Also, if we have the technology to stop aging, I'd imagine we'd also be able to seriously consider colonizing Mars, and possibly other planets.)
So if the poor have to die, the rich should have to as well? While I agree that we should work towards everyone having access to the best medical care possible, this seems like an odd reaction imo.
See, I think that if people knew they were going to live longer lives, they would be more concerned with the environment and sustainability.
(Also, if we have the technology to stop aging, I'd imagine we'd also be able to seriously consider colonizing Mars, and possibly other planets.)
Meant to die? By whom?
Were most of us 'meant' to die at childbirth or before adulthood? Or meant to die before the age of 30?
Can you imagine if all the tyrants and assholes in history could have lived to 80, like we can now?
User Name Here
Member
Exactly.
Who cares what we were "meant to"? We were never "meant to" have medicine or the Internet or a whole lot of other thing. Just because we originally evolved in a certain way doesn't mean we have to live that way.
I do agree that there should be caution about these advancements benefitting only a small segment of the population, but just because it is "natural" for people's bodies to deteriorate at a certain age doesn't mean that's something we shouldn't try to fix.
SchLosSraTTe
Neo Member
I think we should do it if we can. I personally believe that we are capable to deal with the problems resulting from Immortality.
One of my favorite youtubers Isaac Arthur has 2 Videos about it where he goes a little more in depth about the consequenses.
You should check them out :
Life Extension by Isaac Arthur
Transhumanism and Immortality by Isaac Arthur
One of my favorite youtubers Isaac Arthur has 2 Videos about it where he goes a little more in depth about the consequenses.
You should check them out :
Life Extension by Isaac Arthur
Transhumanism and Immortality by Isaac Arthur
Phrozenflame500
Member
There would be a ton of uncomfortable questions we would have to answer about society, such as those related to assisted suicide, reproductive rights and overpopulation, perpetual positions of socioeconomic status, age discrimination, cultural stagnation, and probably many more.
But on the other hand, I mean...
I'd really love to live forever.
But on the other hand, I mean...
I'd really love to live forever.
This kind of misanthropy is not productive.
I strongly believe in the value of our planet, nature, and the environment, but it is us humans who give those things value. And just as it is in our moral interest to protect the world we live in, it is in our moral interest to protect those around us.
My grandfather will probably soon die of cancer. He has lived a long, successful, and happy life. And you know what? It's still fucking appalling that he has to suffer through this agony. Because he deserves better, as does everyone else.
Firstly I apologize and didn't mean to sound insensitive. I was trying to convey that we're mortal creatures and that balance of life and death allows us to add value to living. I would love to had more time with my grandma but I know that something like this would not be made available to the common folk.
Maybe in a future where monetary things no longer matter but that's far off if at all possible.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Everything dies though.
PixelatedBookake
Junior Member
I feel that to be human is to die. If we end aging, who is to say when we die? Who is to stop people like Trump from becoming immortal? No thanks.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Unless you want In Time to be the future, no.
In general, hell no.
In general, hell no.
buttery fistful
Member
Yes, i would ideally like to die when i choose
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Yes.
There is no "meant to die" aspect to humanity; that's the purview of fantasy and religion, not reality, which has no inherent intelligence to intentionally design humans to die. We die because that's how it's worked to this day, not because something wills it so.
There is no "meant to die" aspect to humanity; that's the purview of fantasy and religion, not reality, which has no inherent intelligence to intentionally design humans to die. We die because that's how it's worked to this day, not because something wills it so.
fastford58
Member
Those of you pining for human rights and propping up social justice for all should be absolutely against this.
If you think the poor, or a good portion of minorities on this planet would be able to afford such a thing, you are mistaken. And if you think this would be a freebie to the planet, you are also mistaken. We don't even hand out cancer meds for free.
This technology would just lead to the eventual filtering of the human race until only the most powerful people were populating it.
Human beings as we currently stand could not navigate the ethical quagmire this tech would create. We can't even figure out the ethics of providing medicine to those who need it and can't afford it.
Genocide by proxy.
If you think the poor, or a good portion of minorities on this planet would be able to afford such a thing, you are mistaken. And if you think this would be a freebie to the planet, you are also mistaken. We don't even hand out cancer meds for free.
This technology would just lead to the eventual filtering of the human race until only the most powerful people were populating it.
Human beings as we currently stand could not navigate the ethical quagmire this tech would create. We can't even figure out the ethics of providing medicine to those who need it and can't afford it.
Genocide by proxy.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Or build orbitals and artificial alternatives.
Yup.
If we end aging and the death that comes with it, humanity literally becomes a cancer that chokes the world to death.
This. Now I would mind if it didn't overly elongate lifespans but meant you stayed healthy and young while you were alive. I mean aging and the crap that comes with it sucks but death is necessary unless you want to stop everything that doesn't die from breeding.
Or maybe slow down how fast we reproduce first. Either way we have to account for how to deal with limited resources and keeping population from getting even worse if you managed to do this.
And yeah, I'd like to see it available to all, not just a subset. Who already have a lot of power and this would add more. Hell, in a way they have more access to this already (better healthcare does mean longer lives).
I'm sorry I snapped at you. I think there is value in life with mortality. But mortality is only the end of the painful process of aging.
I guess I'm saying this because I don't think we will successfully become "immortal", at least not in my lifetime.
Lé Blade Runner
Member
I recommend everybody to read "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. Brilliant read and something that touches this subject.
With that said, I'm all in for the extension of disease-free, healthy lifespan. But immortality? No. Even if we could biologically achieve immortality, I think there is a limit to our brains' capacity to store experiences. As in - you live long enough, your mind starts to erase older memories to make room for newer ones. We'd still experience life within a certain time-span, since earlier events would be just as lost to us as the reality that existed before we were biologically born.
Apologies if I wasn't able to explain that in an understandable way, though.
This is a tricky subject, you see. On the other hand, I think we, as a modern society, have distanced ourselves a bit too far from the concept of death and decay. Heck, it's not only coded into the nature of biological life - it's coded into the very fabric of our universe. Entropy is a very real thing - it's the basic nature of energy to strive towards lower states of existence.
The current understanding of our universe tells us that there is a finite ( albeit very, very long ) amount of time. When the heat-death occurs, it's the end. Everything ends. So why fear it?
With that said, I'm all in for the extension of disease-free, healthy lifespan. But immortality? No. Even if we could biologically achieve immortality, I think there is a limit to our brains' capacity to store experiences. As in - you live long enough, your mind starts to erase older memories to make room for newer ones. We'd still experience life within a certain time-span, since earlier events would be just as lost to us as the reality that existed before we were biologically born.
Apologies if I wasn't able to explain that in an understandable way, though.
This is a tricky subject, you see. On the other hand, I think we, as a modern society, have distanced ourselves a bit too far from the concept of death and decay. Heck, it's not only coded into the nature of biological life - it's coded into the very fabric of our universe. Entropy is a very real thing - it's the basic nature of energy to strive towards lower states of existence.
The current understanding of our universe tells us that there is a finite ( albeit very, very long ) amount of time. When the heat-death occurs, it's the end. Everything ends. So why fear it?
Portugeezer
Member
How long would you work for? Who would pay for pensions?
Increasing the quality of health in old age would mean fewer medical costs and more people in the work force.
Master Of Illusion
Member
I'm willing to throw a few people under the bus for immortality, sure.
JustSomeone
Member
Humanity will learn how to reach and populate other planets long before medicine is advanced enough to achieve immortality,so it's not a problem
Phrozenflame500
Member
I actually feel like this might be one the easier issues to work out. Since effectively nobody would be elderly, there would be a significantly smaller dependency load and all public pension programs could be cut in favour of more typical welfare or redistribution programs.
Think about how regressive you would consider a person who lived a hundred years ago.
Now ask if you really want those people still running the world now.
Mortality is pretty innate to our conception of existence, but less metaphysically generational turnover is IMO a good thing.
Now ask if you really want those people still running the world now.
Mortality is pretty innate to our conception of existence, but less metaphysically generational turnover is IMO a good thing.
DrROBschiz
Member
If we end aging we need to start colonizing the stars
Or have less babies which... already happens naturally when societies progress to a certain point
Or have less babies which... already happens naturally when societies progress to a certain point
Acheteedo
Member
Good luck with that... Hope I'm not around to see that happen while I'm dying.
Fulminator
Member
yes
I mean, both of those are pretty much pipe dreams right now.
For now, we're stuck on this rock and we will die on this rock. All we can do is try to make that state of existence better and sustainable.
Lots of countries with universal healthcare that benefits all their citizens. Not every country is America. Look at Aids, which in my youth was what Cancer is today.Mortality rates has been steadily dropping thanks to better, more affordable treatments.
As for 'it will only ever be available to the rich.' People said the same thing about air travel, automobiles, the internet, any new amazing tech that's ever come along.
Dreamwriter
Member
We should end aging, and to solve the overpopulation/resources issue implement an annual televised tournament where people are randomly chosen to kill each other in a survival situation.
We would need to establish term limits for the Supreme Court.
As for overpopulation, I think that might take care of itself. I can't imagine an immortal population that isn't prosperous first. Such societies may have a population contraction. There would be less drive to have children as there would be no need to worry about legacy.
Could have a jobs problem if people aren't retiring from the workforce or dying as much.
As for overpopulation, I think that might take care of itself. I can't imagine an immortal population that isn't prosperous first. Such societies may have a population contraction. There would be less drive to have children as there would be no need to worry about legacy.
Could have a jobs problem if people aren't retiring from the workforce or dying as much.
schwabdizzle
Banned
I would be ok with dying at 70 years old if I could look like I am 25 for my entire life.
Logans Mum
No they do not need to expand their populations. The world needs fewer people, not more.
Tezzeractor
Member
My ultimate goal is to become an immortal electrivore. It would be amazing to cure death in our lifetime. There will be other problems, but to me, solving this one would make the others seem trivial.
Yeah I don't, for a second, believe humankind is up to the challenges we'd have to overcome for this not to end in a complete and utter disaster.
Overpopulation?
Resource scarcity?
Inequality?
Tribalism?
We should be happy if we were ever able to solve ONE of these problems. For a never aging populace we'd have to solve ALL of them.
Overpopulation?
Resource scarcity?
Inequality?
Tribalism?
We should be happy if we were ever able to solve ONE of these problems. For a never aging populace we'd have to solve ALL of them.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yes. We already do our best to rid ourselves of disease and injury. We can do more.
I think some should watch the video (and the CGP Grey one) first, it answers a lot of questions.
I'm absolutely for extending the healthy life span. Health care ist super costly because of the last few years. If we can make people healthy till to the very end, most costly treatments won't be needed anymore. And the amount of nurses would also shrink drastically.
I'm absolutely for extending the healthy life span. Health care ist super costly because of the last few years. If we can make people healthy till to the very end, most costly treatments won't be needed anymore. And the amount of nurses would also shrink drastically.
I think it rather should be controlled by a central power of politicians who use it to maintain power.
