Living forever

[moot]

That's not the projected circumstances. You wouldn't experience as long a state of decrepitude as now.  Nothing would stop you from DNR or from refusing life extension treatment either.

[Die Hard]

Why would it have to be extraordinary?  Why would the human population inevitably outgrow the earth?
Why is it at the expense of other people's lives?

Do you really not understand that? 

[moot]

Can you really not articulate it?

[BnZs]

Okay, two things to consider.

1.Many industrialized nations are now actually near zero population growth.

2. People who can develop the technology to beat natural aging will have long since developed the technology to colonize space and have practically infinite resources to support human life.

However, I don't think we will beat aging or colonize space, human nature being what it is. Living forever as I am now would not be desirable. I'm young, healthy, and have a pretty good life btw,its just that I can see in myself the flaws in human nature, the "original sin" if you will that would make eternal life unbearable if one didn't have a *better* life to look forward to.

[Anaxogoras]

Human population already has a tendency to expand to the breaking point of resources, and mortality is the only significant downward pressure on that expansion.  Without mortality, even one child per couple would cause a cataclysmic population expansion.

[Die Hard]

Can you really not articulate it?

You really don't understand that if people stop dying we will overpopulate this planet (even faster than we already are)?

People won't stop having children without extraordinary measures.

Only the rich 1st worlders will have the education and means to profit from such technology. The poor 3rd worlders will not "live forever". If I live 10 normal lifespans I will consume the resources of 10 lives. Invariably the poor will suffer when the needs of the rich are not met; if an overpopulated 1st world grows hungry we will take from the 3rd world... Like we always have.

You can't see these extremely obvious ramifications of immortality?

[Die Hard]

However, I don't think we will beat aging or colonize space, human nature being what it is. Living forever as I am now would not be desirable. I'm young, healthy, and have a pretty good life btw,its just that I can see in myself the flaws in human nature, the "original sin" if you will that would make eternal life unbearable if one didn't have a *better* life to look forward to.

So you "look forward to" the "after life" simply because it would be nice?

[Anaxogoras]

We need a return to ancient virtue: dying well is more important than living a long time.

[BnZs]

So you "look forward to" the "after life" simply because it would be nice?

I look forward to it because without it existence is a cruel joke and the story of both the individual and humanity ends in despair, from nothing through nothing to nothing with no purpose and no final victory.

[Die Hard]

I look forward to it because without it existence is a cruel joke and the story of both the individual and humanity ends in despair, from nothing through nothing to nothing with no purpose and no final victory.

So your belief in the afterlife is nothing more, or substantive than wishful thinking? The mere fact that your life might be nothing more than it is now makes you believe there is more?

[BnZs]

Only the rich 1st worlders will have the education and means to profit from such technology. The poor 3rd worlders will not "live forever". If I live 10 normal lifespans I will consume the resources of 10 lives. Invariably the poor will suffer when the needs of the rich are not met; if an overpopulated 1st world grows hungry we will take from the 3rd world... Like we always have.

I think technological immortality is such a pipe-dream that I will not even bother addressing the ramifications of it...but "we have always taken from the 3rd world"? The same old BS line. If I eat 12 t-bone steaks a day I still have taken nothing from someone in Africa or certain parts Asia, the 99% of the world that could feed itself easily *if* it weren't for constant societal upheaval and/or awful governance. The argument about how the 1st world "steals" from 3rd world is always something along the lines of "Well, all the grain that fed out those cattle could have gone to making loaves of bread for 3rd world children..." Which is all well and good, except the 3rd world children do not have anything to give the 1st world farmer for his time and effort. If they did he would *happily* sell his grain to them, everyone's money being equally green.

So the implication is that those like me, who currently work in the hot sun, invest in equipment, bust my knuckles keeping said equipment running, worry over the little things and generally bust my bellybutton to make an uncertain profit, like the other 1-2% of this nation actually involved in food production, we should instead do all of this and then *give* our production away to those who have no means to compensate us for it. By Christ, I thought slavery had gone out of fashion. 

All of the foregoing of course ignores the fact that the 1st world *does* give to the 3rd world, albeit it tends to be a mess with the resources not going to those who need them because of...say it with me now...societal upheaval and awful governance. And obviously it is better to "teach a man to fish" than to give him a fish, but you can't teach fishing to someone who would rather garrote their neighbor with the fishing line.

[BnZs]

So your belief in the afterlife is nothing more, or substantive than wishful thinking? The mere fact that your life might be nothing more than it is now makes you believe there is more?

Buddy, don't take a tone with me. I can almost guarantee that I have looked into the abyss longer and deeper than you have.
 
Look at it this way. It is unknown and unknowable. You can believe and teach an afterlife or "you rot in a box" and no one has anyway of truly knowing who is correct. But consider that what people believe about death has ramifications for life, because man alone animals must live with the past and future, as well as the present.

BTW, being callous does not equal being strong. Millions being too distracted by inconsequential things to ponder the big things/purpose/ends of life does not equal millions having internal peace. 

[moot]

1.Many industrialized nations are now actually near zero population growth.

You're implying that...?

2. People who can develop the technology to beat natural aging will have long since developed the technology to colonize space and have practically infinite resources to support human life.

Why would it happen in that sequence, specifically, in a few brief examples? 

However, I don't think we will beat aging or colonize space, human nature being what it is.

Fine, we nuke ourselves. Nothing to argue in that dead end.  The curious thing here is hearing people's excuses for denouncing a cure for aging. 

Living forever as I am now would not be desirable. I'm young, healthy, and have a pretty good life btw,its just that I can see in myself the flaws in human nature, the "original sin" if you will that would make eternal life unbearable if one didn't have a *better* life to look forward to.

So you couldn't live with yourself as you are now.  Why would (say) 500 years not be enough for you to allow you to make yourself a better life?

Human population already has a tendency to expand to the breaking point of resources, and mortality is the only significant downward pressure on that expansion.

IIRC the first world countries are already pas that peak. People would still die from train wrecks and terrorism (assuming that hasn't changed), etc. Technological progress increases the available resources, increases efficiency, and economics correspondingly adjust supply and demand.  How do you justify that a world population past the growth peak, with enlarged resource bases, increased efficiency, and that's made of people who've had longer to learn and therefore have higher skills on average, would run out of control demographically?  Speaking of which, such an increased lifespan would go a long way to help space development, rather than not.

 Without mortality, even one child per couple would cause a cataclysmic population expansion.

Mortality would still be there, just not from aging.  Or not for (for the sake of argument) a couple hundred years.  People wouldn't have as many kids as often. e.g. Life would be more valuable, when you have a couple centuries (invested in the past, to look forward to in the future) at stake rather than a couple decades.

You really don't understand that if people stop dying we will overpopulate this planet (even faster than we already are)?

I addressed this above in reply to Anax.  I understand and can entertain what you're saying, but want you to articulate exactly why I should agree.

People won't stop having children without extraordinary measures.

Why wouldn't dictators in the third world cap them the same way China's done in the past?  Why would people spoil their increased lifespan for themselves by having kids?  But fine, extraordinary measures.  If that's what happens, why is it such a big deal as to make ridding ourselves of aging unattractive?  Can you reasonably argue that once it's possible, there won't be a push to make it accessible for everyone?  That the same ridiculously large social programs we have today won't be all over this one?

Only the rich 1st worlders will have the education and means to profit from such technology. The poor 3rd worlders will not "live forever". If I live 10 normal lifespans I will consume the resources of 10 lives. Invariably the poor will suffer when the needs of the rich are not met; if an overpopulated 1st world grows hungry we will take from the 3rd world... Like we always have.

Why?  How do you see governments not making this available to everyone?  How would such a huge portion of the human population stand for such an injustice?  Explain this to me.  "Like we always have" sounds like pessimism.

You can't see these extremely obvious ramifications of immortality?

I can see them (again I'm talking about centuries long lifespans if not indefinite, not immortality) and am curious why they're denounced as negative, or why people would even oppose them.  You want to die after a couple decades, that's fine, no one's stopping you. 

We need a return to ancient virtue: dying well is more important than living a long time.

Can you explain why they're mutually exclusive, why living a long time would lead people to die less well rather than better?

I think technological immortality is such a pipe-dream

Sounds like demonstrating this is child's play. Can you?

[BnZs]

I'm pointing out that many 1st world populations are static/shrinking.

Sounds like demonstrating this is child's play. Can you?

Well, its been the #1 desire of humanity for thousands of years...airplanes, moon-landing, still no fountain of youth.

EDIT: I'm not a Luddite in regards to medical advances or anything...I just think 100 years or so of healthy active life is a more realistic goal.

[moot]

Ok... So back in 1950 or 1930 it was unreasonable to say that we'd soon land on the moon, but not after 1969.  Is that what you're saying?  That it's unreasonable to say we'll cure aging, until we do? Thousands of years of snail paced tech progress and millions of years of cognitive development outweigh 200 years of scientific advance?  Is that the argument?

Your edit - That's how it'll happen at first, but there's no reason to stop there, that I can see.