Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: moot on May 05, 2009, 06:15:18 PM
-
thanks but no thanks - I'll take my DNR any day over "living" forever..
Why?
-
No idea. I'd rather live forever.
One in the fist, two in the bush, etc.
-
Are we talking biological immortality or life after death?
-
What's DNR?
-
Take a digital ISO snapshot of the human brain and virtually animate it. Can virtual consciousness exist?
-
What's DNR?
Depending on the context, it can stand either for Department of Natural Resources or Do Not Resuscitate.
In this case, I'm betting he's talking about the latter.
-
Take a digital ISO snapshot of the human brain and virtually animate it. Can virtual consciousness exist?
Down to quantum resolution?
Are we talking biological immortality or life after death?
Curing aging.
-
What's DNR?
Do Not Resuscitate
Doh, a little late I see
-
Curing aging.
And you called me a crackpot for wanting to live naturaly as an animal.
Do you have any idea how many births and deaths there are globaly every minute? You don't 'cure' age. You would destroy life.
Are you scared of death, moot?
-
Depending on the context, it can stand either for Department of Natural Resources or Do Not Resuscitate.
In this case, I'm betting he's talking about the latter.
In your avatar: Chamberlain?
I can't stand the life I'm living NOW, wtf would I want to live forever for?
-
one go around is enough for me...
-
Is that the extent of your argument, batfink?
-
Curing aging.
That would be nice, really nice, but it wouldn't mean living forever. We'd still die from decease or trauma (accidental or not). Without a naturally limited lifespan the human population would quickly outgrow this Earth and we would have to control the population with extraordinary means. I don't think it is justifiable to become biologically "immortal" at the expense of other people's lives. If "curing aging" is technologically feasible I certainly don't think humanity is ready for it.
Btw. wasn't it technological immortality that doomed the Cylons? ;)
-
It's just a title that puts the subject in a nutshell.
We'd still die from decease or trauma (accidental or not).
Ok. Just like now. No biggie.
Without a naturally limited lifespan the human population would quickly outgrow this Earth and we would have to control the population with extraordinary means.
Why would it have to be extraordinary? Why would the human population inevitably outgrow the earth?
I don't think it is justifiable to become biologically "immortal" at the expense of other people's lives.
Why is it at the expense of other people's lives?
If "curing aging" is technologically feasible I certainly don't think humanity is ready for it.
Why not?Btw. wasn't it technological immortality that doomed the Cylons? ;)
BSG sucks.
-
As a person who dealt with family needing machines to live. I would like a dnr in certain instances. It is not life if you have no brain funtion and need a machine to keep you going.
v1st
-
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.
-
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? :huh
-
Can you really not articulate it?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
We need a return to ancient virtue: dying well is more important than living a long time.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
That the same ridiculously large social programs we have today won't be all over this one?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?
I imagine such a treatment would be enormously complex and expensive. Health care for everyone is already an enormous drain...this on top of treating everything else? Would be folly to try.
BTW, there would be no "injustice" if you couldn't get it because you couldn't pay for it. Anytime anyone gets something for nothing, someone, somewhere, got nothing for something. That is injustice, at least when it is a product of compulsion. Not that there would not be social upheaval over this issue...we're really good at riots and other ultra melontery as a species...only it wouldn't be "justifiable" upheaval.
-
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.
It was hardly unreasonable to say we'd land on the moon in 1930. The basic way we did it had been conceived, in what, the 19th century? And probably could have been conceived by the Chinaman who invented the gunpowder rocket in the first place?
The cell though...that is a machine that still remains beyond anything we've ever built in complexity.
-
I imagine such a treatment would be enormously complex and expensive. Health care for everyone is already an enormous drain...this on top of treating everything else? Would be folly to try.
BTW, there would be no "injustice" if you couldn't get it because you couldn't pay for it. Anytime anyone gets something for nothing, someone, somewhere, got nothing for something. That is injustice, at least when it is a product of compulsion. Not that there would not be social upheaval over this issue...we're really good at riots and other ultra melontery as a species...only it wouldn't be "justifiable" upheaval.
The injustice would be governments that let dozens of millions of people die every year due to something that has a cure available. Why do you imagine that economies of scale wouldn't apply here? Why do you imagine that healthcare costs would increase when people would live healthier, longer, and population would fall?It was hardly unreasonable to say we'd land on the moon in 1930. The basic way we did it had been conceived, in what, the 19th century? And probably could have been conceived by the Chinaman who invented the gunpowder rocket in the first place?
The cell though...that is a machine that still remains beyond anything we've ever built in complexity.
Please show how adding 50 to 200 years to our lifespan in the next 50 years (is that the figures you're thinking of?) is definitely fantasy.
-
The injustice would be governments that let dozens of millions of people die every year due to something that has a cure available.
This is more of a sidepoint, but...
It is possible you will die soon and I could prevent this by putting time, money, and effort into improving your health. It is possible, yet if I don't do so, I am not negligent in my duties, I am not treating you unjustly. If I do choose to help you, that is going above and beyond, that is postively a "good deed".
But if I don't any resources of my own to help you, and decide to point a gun at someone else and compel them to give over some of their labor/resources to take care of you with, that IS injustice. In fact, that is a form of slavery.
-
I'm not demanding anything from you personally. I'm saying there's no difference from govt's distribution of collected taxpayer money into what serves the taxpayer best, right now, and into an eventual cure for aging. The same way it funds a cure for cancer, or alzheimer's or any other illness, or funds the FAA for pax's safety, and so on. The taxpayers give to the govt so that it provides health care, which a longer and healthier lifespan would be. The same way it directly or indirectly funded what brought us from medieval health to today's.
-
I feel like this argument is rather...moot...until we move closer to attaining this. Therefore I will apply a Tolkien reference here, as it holds roughly the same weight in terms of practicality.
In the world of middle earth, the "gift of men" is mortality. Only by knowing death is coming to greet them can men truely appreciate what is in front of them.
-
I'll take immortality, I spent and will keep on spending my life working on improving myself. I came a long way and learn many skills. This is what being alive means, it saddens me that all that will be lost when I die. Plus, a lifetime is not enought for all the stauff I have left to learn. :cry
-
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.
agreed :aok
I think Iain M Banks has it pretty much nailed for long term human development (if you havent read any of his culture novels you should :)) that is; gross genetic manipulation to banish disease and the effects of ageing (and for enhancement), memory backups for reinstatement after catastrophic accidents (ie death). combine that with effectively unlimited resources via technology and you get the situation where humans live for several hundred years and chose to check out when they've seen and done everything they want to, ie they get bored.
-
agreed :aok
I think Iain M Banks has it pretty much nailed for long term human development (if you havent read any of his culture novels you should :)) that is; gross genetic manipulation to banish disease and the effects of ageing (and for enhancement), memory backups for reinstatement after catastrophic accidents (ie death). combine that with effectively unlimited resources via technology and you get the situation where humans live for several hundred years and chose to check out when they've seen and done everything they want to, ie they get bored.
Add swordfights to that and I'm in... :aok
-
The same way it directly or indirectly funded what brought us from medieval health to today's.
From Medieval medicine today?
For the most part, it was always some scientist/doctor/heretic who wanted to solve puzzles/make money/make a name for himself who invented the treatments. Rich bastiges who wanted to live forever are what funded it.
-
I for one, am going to live to 200, or die trying! :noid
No sense in worrying about life, no one gets out alive anyway. :)
-
Is that the extent of your argument, batfink?
Is that the extent of your answer to my question? I geuss you are scared of death.
-
I don't recall who said it, but it was someone smart. :D
"The secret to eternal life is to live worth remembering."
-
I feel like this argument is rather...moot...until we move closer to attaining this. Therefore I will apply a Tolkien reference here, as it holds roughly the same weight in terms of practicality.
In the world of middle earth, the "gift of men" is mortality. Only by knowing death is coming to greet them can men truely appreciate what is in front of them.
Moot counterpoint, since you wouldn't be immortal, and death would be that much more costly to someone who'd lived for whole centuries.For the most part, it was always some scientist/doctor/heretic who wanted to solve puzzles/make money/make a name for himself who invented the treatments. Rich bastiges who wanted to live forever are what funded it.
That's irrelevant.I imagine such a treatment would be enormously complex and expensive. Health care for everyone is already an enormous drain...this on top of treating everything else? Would be folly to try.
So I guess this is the only concrete argument to hinge your opposition on.
Is that the extent of your answer to my question? I geuss you are scared of death.
Thanks for contributing. Bye now.
-
And you called me a crackpot for wanting to live naturaly as an animal.
Do you have any idea how many births and deaths there are globaly every minute? You don't 'cure' age. You would destroy life.
Are you scared of death, moot?
I'm pretty sure everyone is.
-
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.
You can stow your bruised sense of honor because that's not what I meant. I mean when the 1st world actually needs a natural resource that we're not self sufficient of we will take it from someone. We prefer to pay for it, but not much of course; be it copper or diamonds or rubber or coffee or ... oil. We will corrupt governments, overthrow governments, support terrorists/rebels, keep civil wars going in perpetuation if it keeps the price down, we will even invade other nations if need be (of course we will drape it in some honorable intent like "spreading democracy" or some such). History is rife with examples of this, going back as far as the Roman Empire and beyond.
If food become a scarce commodity in the 1st world we will take it from someone.
-
I'm pretty sure everyone is.
There's a difference between being afraid of dying and being afraid of death. Big difference.
-
I am not afraid of either.
Moot is your typical, bog-standard, modern intelectual. Knows alot of information, but has no hardship to curb his selfish desires. If you want to live forever you probably take life for granted. Wanting to live today is all that matters.
-
Anything to add on topic, miss Cleo?
-
I'm speaking as one who has lost two of his kids, so I know that clouds my thinking on things. On the bad days, one of the phrases that always comes to mind is "one day closer."
I have to believe I'll see them again, or I'd probably go off the cliff. Living forever would provide no comfort. I don't want to die before my time, but I have no interest in extending it just for the sake of more time in this life.
-
Hey Dan, I don't mean to pour salt in the wound. But basically you're saying you would be all for it, as far as you're concerned, if they were still here? You don't really see any reason to be for or against it outside of that concern?
-
Who the hell is miss cleo? I think you are heartless for even writing that last post, twisting someone's words to suit your ridiculous cause.
What else would you suggest changing about the past to sweeten imortality? How about our parents, grand parents, great-grandparents. Should we bring back every generation just so living forever is appealing to everyone?
The circle of life is about give and take. You cannot expect to just take indefinitely. For a start, if you were impervious to age you could clearly still be shot or set on fire or hit by a car. What you are suggesting is not only selfish but also full of loopholes for death to catch you out. Or life to make living unbearable.
It's funny, I have been writing a book about all this. I would share some of it with you, moot, only I fear I would never get anything in return from your type.
-
Moot, understand I'm not hostile, I'm doubtful, there is a difference.
Mech: Wanting to live longer isn't "greedy" per se. If I live 'till I'm 100 I've taken nothing from you. If I die tomorrow nothing has been given to you. A man's death is a great waste of a mind that thought and a heart that felt if there is no resolution to it.
-
If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life. I would say a man's mind is a great waste of life and death is all the resolution a lifeform should need. Consider the insect that hatches, matures, breeds then dies in the space of a day. That is perfection in life and evolution. Thinking that the longer we live the more life we have is false.
When I die I am going to ask to be fed to a tiger shark or something. That's selfish of me, but i would rather become part of something great and powerfull, near perfection of evolution, rather than worm food. That's the 'give' for the 'take' of being born. The take of living, of killing to eat. To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.
-
Who the hell is miss cleo? I think you are heartless for even writing that last post, twisting someone's words to suit your ridiculous cause.
Moot is your typical, bog-standard, modern intelectual. Knows alot of information, but has no hardship to curb his selfish desires.
:rofl You're so full of it.. Why don't you just start a new thread to argue this? Not only is it off topic and inaccurate, but it doesn't even make sense.If you want to live forever you probably take life for granted. Wanting to live today is all that matters.
Except for the last day. Then what matters? How is raising quality of life, health, and increasing lifespan taking life for granted and counter to living every day to its fullest? And I don't care about your book. Go start a separate thread for it, or pitch it to some newage spiritual porn peddler.If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life.
Show your math.I would say a man's mind is a great waste of life and death is all the resolution a lifeform should need.
Because you say so? Where's the argument? What's this "resolution" and "need" that you're talking about? Consider the insect that hatches, matures, breeds then dies in the space of a day. That is perfection in life and evolution.
Criteria?Thinking that the longer we live the more life we have is false.
How's that? When I die I am going to ask to be fed to a tiger shark or something. That's selfish of me, but i would rather become part of something great and powerfull, near perfection of evolution, rather than worm food.
Right, and everyone should live by this personal (nevermind nonsensical) obsession of yours. Because you say so.That's the 'give' for the 'take' of being born. The take of living, of killing to eat. To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.
Show the math for this tally.
-
If you live to 100 sure, well done! If you live to 10,000 then you have used far more than your fair share of life.
There is no "shares" of life. If I were a genetic freak who lived to be 1,000 years old, it would no more take away some part of *your*life or anyone else's life than a redwood tree does by living for several thousand years. If you think I'm eating part of *your* food or breathing some of *your* air, well then I'm already doing it.
To return that to another creature is noble. To live forever, constantly consuming, is evil.
Well...see the avatar. :devil I think I could "live" with being evil and eternal, so to speak. I'd also consider doing the undead thing, *if* I didn't have to dress like gay prostitute/Rennfaire attendee while drinking the blood of the living to extend my own life (Even for immortality some prices are too high....) :D
-
To live is to consume life.
-
Anthropomorphic psychobabble.
-
Fish consumption
Fish consumption has undergone major changes in the past four decades. World apparent per capita fish consumption has been increasing steadily, from an average of 9.9 kg in the 1960s to 11.5 kg in the 1970s, 12.5 kg in the 1980s, 14.4 kg in the 1990s and reaching 16.4 kg in 2005. However, this increase has not been uniform across regions. In the last three decades, per capita fish supply has remained almost static in SSA. In contrast, it has risen dramatically in East Asia (mainly in China) and in the Near East/North Africa region. China has accounted for most of the world growth; its estimated share of world fish production increased from 21 percent in 1994 to 35 percent in 2005, when Chinese per capita fish supply was about 26.1 kg. If China is excluded, per capita fish supply is about 14.0 kg, slightly higher than the average values of the mid-1990s, and lower than the maximum levels registered in the 1980s (14.6 kg). Preliminary estimates for 2006 indicate a slight increase in global per capita fish supply to about 16.7 kg.
The global increase in fish consumption tallies with trends in food consumption in general. Per capita food consumption has been rising in the last few decades. Nutritional standards have shown positive long-term trends, with worldwide increases in the average global calorie supply per person and in the quantity of proteins per person. However, many countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies, and major inequalities exist in access to food, mainly owing to very weak economic growth and rapid population expansion (Box 4). The majority of undernourished people in the world live in Asia and the Pacific, with the highest prevalence of undernourishment found in SSA.
Just...fish. Were those fish not once alive and now dead? This is the most simple of things to understand moot, I dont see why you think writing long words covers your lack of comprehension.
-
Fish consumption
Just...fish. Were those fish not once alive and now dead? This is the most simple of things to understand moot, I dont see why you think writing long words covers your lack of comprehension.
You've just shown that we need to control population growth better/and or develop better technology for producing food, not that extending human life is an evil quest.
If extending life is evil because longer lived humans would use more resources over their lifetime, then the medical advances that have *already* greatly extended human life and reduced infant mortality must also be evil.
-
Extending human life?
The original question was about living forever, not adding 10 years to the average human lifespan.
'RE: living forever'
-
Like he said. The two have a corelation (today) but not causation. Growing slabs of meat in a lab could replace fish harvesting. Or fish populations could simply be better managed. Nothing to do with human lifespan. Anthropomorphic psychobabble is what your arguments boil down in this case and others before it.
Extending human life?
The original question was about living forever, not adding 10 years to the average human lifespan.
'RE: living forever'
It's just a title that puts the subject in a nutshell.
The curious thing here is hearing people's excuses for denouncing a cure for aging.
-
-
-
The circle of life is about give and take. You cannot expect to just take indefinitely. For a start, if you were impervious to age you could clearly still be shot or set on fire or hit by a car. What you are suggesting is not only selfish but also full of loopholes for death to catch you out. Or life to make living unbearable.
ignoring this little quote are we, herr moot?
-
I already answered it with a demand for clarification on your math which you "ignored".
1) Define "circle of life". Sounds like more of your fairy tales.
2) Show how increased lifespan "takes", how this inherently unbalances this cycle, and how it does so unethically or against our best interests.
3) If you'd read the thread you'd have seen it's only about curing aging, not making people death proof. Yes, you still die if you're stupid enough to cross the street without looking twice. You also die if you fail to keep proper hygiene. Or keep yourself in good health as anti-aging treatment would allow. There's probably ways to upload yourself, or clone yourself, but those are separate and less certain hypothesies, and not the point of the argument.
4) What's your criteria for "selfish" and how does living tally as exceptionally so?
5) What are these loopholes to curing aging? If that's not just a desperate grasping at straws. Of course not. :lol
6) - This is the only interesting argument. If you can back it up. Go ahead and skip the previous 5. Why would life be unbearable?
-
1) We eat chickens. Worms eat us. Chickens eat worms. Simple enough for you?
2) Increased lifespan and to 'cure' age. Very different. You understand what consumption means, so I wont insult your intelligence further by taking this question seriously. We play god enough already, humans make mistakes often.
3) I totaly despise your theory that age is something that needs a cure. Like AIDs or Cancer.
4) Being alive is selfish. Unless you are motionless all day and kept alive by someone else, your every instinct and need is first and formost about maintaining the self in body and mind. Otherwise 'life' would not have happened at all. Multiply how much you have consumed, and how self contained you become when you see 500 years in the same body and mind? Or more?
5) There you go again. Two words. 'Cure' and 'Age' as if it is a perfectly natural idea. Age is to be embraced, treasured, fought against and then finally given in to total peace and death.
6) Who was the last person you loved deeply that suffered some way? I know it was not you, but maybe something can help you grasp what others live with every day.
Failing anything in your life that is full of pain and grief.....how about if someone attacks you tomorrow for your wallet and rips your face off. Burns you, punctures your eyes, burst your ear drums and breaks all your limbs. That is extreme of course, but worse things have happened to people and they survive.
Sure you could patch yourself up and make the best of it for the next 450 years. Maybe you are that strong. I am not.
I already answered it with a demand for clarification on your math which you "ignored".
I can imagine you having a very succesfull love life when you start using calculus to decide if you love someone or not. Maths is as pointless as time when it comes to the soul. You just would not understand.
-
There's a difference between being afraid of dying and being afraid of death. Big difference.
Can you explain, I think I might understand what you're refering to, but I might be on a different page.
Do you mean like, you're afraid of what's going to happen to you after you're dead? And you're afraid because you're dying?
I'd be scared no matter how you put it.
-
Everything would be scared if it knew it were dying. Not everything fears the fact that it must die.
-
Can you explain, I think I might understand what you're refering to, but I might be on a different page.
Do you mean like, you're afraid of what's going to happen to you after you're dead? And you're afraid because you're dying?
I'd be scared no matter how you put it.
Mechanic's got the gist of it. To broaden on that: Most people are afraid of dying, me included; it is seldom a pleasant experience, and leaving friends and family behind to fend for themselves can be heartbreaking. However the mere fact that my existence is limited and one day will end is not frightening to me. All living things must die.
-
In your avatar: Chamberlain?
Yeah.
Guy who never stopped going out of his way to do the right thing. Took on a job, took it seriously and worked to learn it instead of floating along like most other amateur officers. (During the winter encampment before campaign season got hold of an infantry tactics manual and ran a class in his tent.) Faced impossible situations and just sucked it up and did what had to be done.
An all around class act.
-
Too bad his name was sullied in another war by another Chamberlain.
-
The entire choice between DNR & living forever doesn't really match. Seems like it would be DNR or continue to live; then separately live normal aging lifespan or live forever.
Within the realm of reality ~ I'd DNR anyday over living only by machine. What's the point of living if you can't live?
Within the realm of fantasy ~ sure, if there was a 'live forever' aging cure ~ yeah, I'd do that. But I'd have to get a bigger garage. I'm a packrat. Imagine the clutter you can gather when you live forever!
-
Fish consumption
Just...fish. Were those fish not once alive and now dead? This is the most simple of things to understand moot, I dont see why you think writing long words covers your lack of comprehension.
Without major changes most commercial fisheries will collapse in the next 40 years or so. The United States has tougher controls than most other countries (just ask scotch), but most fish stocks are prey to an anything-goes mentality. With some exceptions, e.g. catfish, fish farming is rather disgusting. For example, farmed salmon is much higher in polychlorinated biphenyls (known carcinogen) and has higher concentrations of mercury than wild salmon.
So there's another reason why "curing" age is a problem. We haven't shown an inkling of the concern required for the care of our resources that would be required to extend life.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4la8Izrwea8
-
Living forever is way overrated. Always have some tard trying to remove your head with a broadsword.
"There can be only one". Blah, blah, blah. Bollocks.
-
I read somewhere that even if people were impervious to sickness and aging, the average person would only live to be about 350 before stepping out in front of a bus or getting in a car crash or something.
-
I had a patient that told me, "I don't have any fear of death, it is the dying itself I am afraid of."
Sort of echos my sentiment, I'm very curious to see what the after life is like but I'm not in any hurry to hasten the end.
I'm curious to meet people I never met in life, find the answers to all questions, and most of all to see what religion was the right path. I'm of the belief that I will be judged on how I lived my life and not whether I ate fish on Fridays.
edit: I wanted to add one thing, as painful as death can be both emotionally and physically, in some cases death is a beautiful thing and I would hate to see it eliminated.
-
edit: I wanted to add one thing, as painful as death can be both emotionally and physically, in some cases death is a beautiful thing and I would hate to see it eliminated.
The most beautiful acts of love that I've ever seen have almost all been as a result of death.
-
DNR all depends on the situation.
Young healthy person codes after a car wreck....Resuscitate away! So much to gain, so little to lose.
Old person with cancer spread all over...shouldn't probably EVER run a code. Odds of getting out of the hospital are pretty much zero even if the code blue "works" and you bring the patient back.
-
Hey Dan, I don't mean to pour salt in the wound. But basically you're saying you would be all for it, as far as you're concerned, if they were still here? You don't really see any reason to be for or against it outside of that concern?
I don't think I would be regardless. While I struggle with what I believe, I can't help but think there is something beyond this life, and that extending it forever, would somehow interfere with what comes next.
I have nothing to base that on, and as I said I wonder about it, but I haven't found a reason to write it off yet.
If I didn't believe there was something after this life, I'd be more inclined to support it.
-
Well, like I said, forever was just a convenient way to get the argument rolling. It might as well be forever, compared to lifespans today. It seems likely enough that if we can continuously or permanently un-age ourselves, you could be so lucky as to survive for a very long while. Whether long enough to see the day or mind uploading or any of that scifi stuff is speculative, but not that far fetched when you consider technological trends. You would still die from catastrophic injury, etc. The main point was to hear why people find changing the scale of lifespan by an order of magnitude so incredible or disagreable. I don't think it would make much difference, and then it'd be almost completely positive. Whatever comes next would still happen. Your life would be that much fuller and more valuable. Nothing would stop you from eventually deciding to turn aging back on and wither away.
I personally find it contradictive to say life is sacred, and yet forsake opportunity to extend it a couple hundred years. The universe looks like it will go on for a thousand thousand thousand years yet. Living a thousand years would still be just a drop in the bucket. Living till the universe ends in as much as trillions of years from now would still be nothing compared to eternity, if that's what's beyond. There's no mutual exclusivity between staying alive until the end of the universe and the humility of being just a mere human being living in 3D space during what might be equivalent to one planck time in some greater multiverse scheme of things.
-
So there's another reason why "curing" age is a problem. We haven't shown an inkling of the concern required for the care of our resources that would be required to extend life.
Lab-grown meat, lab-grown x, lab-grown y. etc. Second, people would be more mindful of their ecological footprint if they had to live longer.
-
I'm curious to meet people I never met in life, find the answers to all questions, and most of all to see what religion was the right path.
What makes you believe that will happen?
-
Lab-grown meat, lab-grown x, lab-grown y. etc. Second, people would be more mindful of their ecological footprint if they had to live longer.
You're definitely not a Michel Pollan fan. :lol
-
I'm curious how it makes sense that people having to live longer with any poop they curl where they eat would make them less rather than more environmentally careful. Compared to today's throw-away consuming status quo for "someone else" to later deal with.
As for Pollan. Who cares. Lab-grown meat is just a way to alleviate the pressure on natural sources, e.g. in the third world. Feed those people so they break thru the floor of poverty and establish proper organic whatever as they wish. Nothing makes synthetic and organic foods mutually exclusive. Lab grown food is a boon for space settlement too.
-
Lab-grown meat, lab-grown x, lab-grown y. etc. Second, people would be more mindful of their ecological footprint if they had to live longer.
I don't think so. Most people are very selfish and don't really care about other people's problems.
-
As for Pollan. Who cares. Lab-grown meat is just a way to alleviate the pressure on natural sources, e.g. in the third world. Feed those people so they break thru the floor of poverty and establish proper organic whatever as they wish. Nothing makes synthetic and organic foods mutually exclusive. Lab grown food is a boon for space settlement too.
Nothing but the accepted definition of organic. Anyway, Pollan's arguments about food go way beyond what's organic and what's not, and limiting him to that scope would be an unjust dismissal of what he has to say. I normally don't like people who tell me how to live my life, but that he prepared a meal for the Omnivores Dilemma where he grew, gathered, or killed all the ingredients himself is just cool. :) Half the hippies in Berkeley probably hate him for praising the way other cultures consume meat.
-
DH - How does that make your point? Selfishness would give more incentive to keep their environment clean, not less.
Anax, I'm frankly not hot on reading up on that guy or getting caught up in another semantics game. Organic/synthetic, and what Pollan has to say: can give the gist of why it's pertinent and important?
-
I'm going to completely fail at giving you an accurate picture of what he says... But the gist might be that, empirically, traditional foods and eating habits are more healthy than the American diet that's based on the industrial food chain. Traditional foods are not just vegetables grown in real dirt, but also includes things like beef that was grass fed on open range, instead of corn-based feed in an industrial farm. He criticizes selecting food based on advertised nutritional information, claims of low fat this or that, vitamin-enriched, etc. Recently he refers to the dominant view of nutrition as "nutritionism," that a healthy diet can be found by analyzing all of the components of what you eat in terms of vitamins, fats, minerals, fiber, etc. Basically, if it comes in a box with a label that says how good it is for you, don't eat it.
Since you're in a agreement that "curing" death would require scientific advances in food production in order to support the increased population, I thought I'd throw it out there that the scientific advances in food production we already have are partly responsible for the degradation of American diet quality.
-
Yeah american foods are full of appetizers and processed goods are less digestible. The consumer is undescerning and the suppliers capitalize on it. Same as with the media. No accountability for quality because the consumer buys it anyway. I don't see how this means lab grown meat, GMOs, etc wouldn't help with an eventual overpopulation. If you can't feed your kids, don't have em. No one's held responsible for your getting pregnant but you. I don't see how this is exceptional.
I don't agree that no aging would mean a permanent, unregulated growth in population. The increase in lifespan doesn't look like it's going to be any real surge. It's going to be very gradual. Plenty of lead time for politicians to get a handle on it. One thing that's for sure is that people will easily back its mass production with their tax money. It's not going to be a rich man's luxury for more than a short while.
-
DH - How does that make your point? Selfishness would give more incentive to keep their environment clean, not less.
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be my problem.
-
You would poop where you eat. Ok. Carbon Credit schemes would just coerce you into conforming.
-
You would poop where you eat. Ok. Carbon Credit schemes would just coerce you into conforming.
First of all, no I don't poop where I eat. Secondly "carbon credit" schemes have no effect on food consumption what so ever. What does "carbon credit" have to do with anything?
-
It's the same. Overpopulation would be a problem for a variety of reasons, and there'd be artificial schemes like the carbon credit thing, like China's imposed 1 child (or 2 or whatever) policy, to keep a lid on it. Some government regulation of your lifespan/birth ratio. And again I don't see how overpopulation will happen in the first place. Not when the standards of living will keep rising and demographics are already peaking.
-
It will never happen. The only reason it works in China is because the Chinese live under a dictatorship. In a western democracy any government that tries to regulate the right of free people to have children will not survive the next election. Right now the birth rate of western nations are around the 2 per 1000 mark. That's 2 successful births per 1000 women per year. That will increase at an insane rate if the average life span was increased to 350 years. A woman now is fertile for about 30 years out of a life span of 80-ish. At the age of 45 87% of women are infertile. A biologically immortal woman will be fertile (and young) for about 330 years (right up to the point where she is killed in an accident at 350), and once the kids are grown up and have left home, she will probably want more children. A biologically immortal person is in his 20's forever, and with the sexual desires and drive of a 20 year old. The population would increase explosively.
-
When we were created, we were to live forever, death was a punishment for sin...
I would expound, but I don't wish to be banned, for a discussion about living forever pushes the boundaries on "religious" topics.
-
When we were created, we were to live forever, death was a punishment for sin...
I would expound, but I don't wish to be banned, for a discussion about living forever pushes the boundaries on "religious" topics.
The topic does not push the boundaries of the forum rules unless you turn it into a religious debate ... which you just did.
-
Like I said.. Excessive birth rate = no govt-regulated anti-aging treatment.
Immortal 20 year old hormones aren't a problem thanks to that extraordinary thing called contraception.
-
Young people want children, especially women. Old people want grandchildren. Everybody wants children ... even GAY people want children. After their children have grown up an immortal woman would want more children, and even more after that, until the end of time (or at least the end of her life).
-
Excessive birth rate = no govt regulated aging treatment.
-
Excessive birth rate = no govt regulated aging treatment.
Government regulation = new government next election = no regulation. Duh! :huh
-
That's unrealistic. The stronger force would be people's demand for their right to the 'fountain of youth', and they'll back regulation of sustainable birth rate to allow them that longer lifespan, the same way they back carbon credits and other global warming preventive measures "for the greater good", even without solid proof that it's required and is actually effective.
Excessive pollution/fuel waste = govt regulation. Do you expect that the oil shortage and outrage of not being able to buy SUVs can be fixed by just voting in a new govt come next election?
Anyway, this argument's stupid and beside the point. A cure for aging would trump everything else. The vast majority of people would back it. It'll happen. If people can stand for something flimsy like carbon credits, they can stand for reduced birth rates in exchange for longer life. Quality over quantity.
-
That's unrealistic. The stronger force would be people's demand for their right to the 'fountain of youth', and they'll back regulation of sustainable birth rate to allow them that longer lifespan, the same way they back carbon credits and other global warming preventive measures "for the greater good", even without solid proof that it's required and is actually effective.
Excessive pollution/fuel waste = govt regulation. Do you expect that the oil shortage and outrage of not being able to buy SUVs can be fixed by just voting in a new govt come next election?
Anyway, this argument's stupid and beside the point. A cure for aging would trump everything else. The vast majority of people would back it. It'll happen. If people can stand for something flimsy like carbon credits, they can stand for reduced birth rates in exchange for longer life. Quality over quantity.
I totally believe they are going to cure "aging" when they do, they will make every one who wants to benefit from "there" technology,accept a chip under there skin,at first it will be voluntarily, then it will be Mandatory.
they can give the "chip" to my cold dead body.
-
Young people want children, especially women. Old people want grandchildren. Everybody wants children ... even GAY people want children. After their children have grown up an immortal woman would want more children, and even more after that, until the end of time (or at least the end of her life).
Really? Then why are certain well-off populations not even breeding in replacement numbers? It would seem like a lot of people DON'T have children when they have the technology available to avoid it. Even more seem to have one or two and then decide they don't care to repeat the experiment.
I think we tiptoe around this fact because everyone like to say "I love kids" "Children are our future" "My kids are the most fulfilling part of my life" "OF COURSE you were a planned child...". But then when you get down to brass tacks, contraceptive technology available with little or no stigma drastically reduces birthrates, thus many, many people really do *not* love the "normal" course of having children, which for most of history was the *unavoidable* course.
-
Ink - Why the chip?
-
Really? Then why are certain well-off populations not even breeding in replacement numbers? It would seem like a lot of people DON'T have children when they have the technology available to avoid it. Even more seem to have one or two and then decide they don't care to repeat the experiment.
If you look at Europe as an example you'll see that whilst Europe's average birthrate is only 1.5 it is the countries that are not well-off that are suffering from birthrate stagnation. The countries that are well-off are at or around 2; last year France led Europe in birthrates with with 2.02 children on average born to every woman in 2008, up from 1.98 in 2007. Every time there is an economic and/or social upturn there has also been a baby-boom. When things are perceived as being good and improving people are having more children. I think obtaining everlasting good health and youth falls under that category.
-
That's unrealistic. The stronger force would be people's demand for their right to the 'fountain of youth', and they'll back regulation of sustainable birth rate to allow them that longer lifespan, the same way they back carbon credits and other global warming preventive measures "for the greater good", even without solid proof that it's required and is actually effective.
No, they'll back the first party to give them both immortality and freedom to have children. Also you're mistaken with regard to the popular support of carbon credits; most people just think it is silly, but because it does not affect them directly it is not something they deem important enough to change their vote on. The prospect of everlasting life, and the prospect of losing the right to bare children will have a tremendous impact on their lives and will certainly be the most important election topic come next election. People will want both, and in a democracy people will get it. The party that tries to limit either will be committing political suicide.
-
Excessive pollution/fuel waste = govt regulation. Do you expect that the oil shortage and outrage of not being able to buy SUVs can be fixed by just voting in a new govt come next election?
What do you mean? Last time I checked there was no government ban on SUV's. What regulation?
-
Considering how much life sucks now, why would you want to extend it indefinitely?
And similarly, if people can manage to screw the world up this much with a normal life span, how much worse off would we be if they had the time to get really good at it?
Personally, I'm all for a 21 year grace period on retroactive birth control.
-
Alright, agree to disagree I guess.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Oct_1/ai_79052844/
I don't really care about this aspect, it's academic. My argument stands, aging treatment is coming and will get the lion's share of taxpayer support as soon as people see it's a real prospect. The only thing I care to argue about are reasons for rejecting it after any overpopulation, because even if one does happen, it'll be put under control sooner than later. Voting for a govt that allows birth rate to balloon to the point that you and your kids will starve yourselves by allowing you and everyone else to have them like a population of locusts sarving itself by over-breeding makes zero sense to me.
As it is, the average person looks forward to the first 20 years of his life under parental/schooling bondage, the next 30 under work's, and everything after that under the bane of decrepitude. That people overall would mostly choose this regime instead of having kids much later once they're well off and have lived for themselves is unrealistic. That governments would allow e.g. destitute third world populations to eradicate their aging while still in excessive birth mode makes no sense at all either. As it is, Africa's still pretty much starved and left to tear itself apart, even though there's enough wealth in the rest of the world to lift them out of it. Why? "Because it's a poop hole". And all of a sudden the rest of the world will go in there and remove aging? I don't buy it. Not before they've had their fill and then some, first. That it's better to let dozens of millions of people die every year than give them the choice to decide for themselves, I don't buy either.The party that tries to limit either will be committing political suicide.
The people that have both and use it irresponsibly commits suicide, so there's no interest in arguing it.
Considering how much life sucks now, why would you want to extend it indefinitely?
Ok, so your life sucks and you don't think 300 years would be enough to un-suck it. People probably said the same thing back when the average lifespan was 55. What could people possibly want with 15 extra years? We're "supposed to die" at 55! It's unimaginable (implying impossible) to live to 75! Suit yourself. Less for you, more for me. The way aging research is going, reliably living to 120 isn't going to be in decrepitude for the last 20-40 years as now. You won't get a 20 year boost in one go but more like once every few years so again, you don't have to live indefinitely. You only have to want one more year or three. No one's forced to keep living if their life sucks. If you manage to make it suck with (all things being equal) 20 more years of earning before a well deserved retirement. Even today people cling on to dear life even in decrepitude. That people on the whole would reject it, if you (e.g.) had your treatment once a year at 25 and from then age 1 year every 5, I just don't buy.
And similarly, if people can manage to screw the world up this much with a normal life span, how much worse off would we be if they had the time to get really good at it?
Another doomsday prediction with no argument to support it. Why would people who get to live longer, and potentially repeal aging indefinitely, spoil it for themselves? We're going to get better at clean industry, not worse. If you have figures to show that the per capita pollution is worse and harder to process today compared to early industrial times, let's see em. The paradigm would shift to clean (enough) living, one way or another. One country would be lucid and responsible enough to implement it, and the quality of life difference would start the domino effect. This is all speculating though. The only really interesting argument is the personal debate on why you'd choose or refuse to live that much longer.
Personally, I'm all for a 21 year grace period on retroactive birth control.
:rolleyes:
-
Personally, I'm all for a 21 year grace period on retroactive birth control.
This comes to my mind...
(http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg)
-
Voting for a govt that allows birth rate to balloon to the point that you and your kids will starve yourselves by allowing you and everyone else to have them like a population of locusts sarving itself by over-breeding makes zero sense to me.
Who said most people (i.e. voters) have any sense? People are selfish and will overwhelmingly vote accordingly. The starving part comes later, far beyond the attention span of your average Joe, and the 1st world nation are the last to suffer.
The people that have both and use it irresponsibly commits suicide, so there's no interest in arguing it.
No, they commit mass murder first.
When the 1st world goes hungry we will take whatever we need from the 3rd world who has no defense against our military and technologically superiority. And we won't care one bit; why? Because we, the enlightened western societies are wonderful, friendly people as long as our bellies are full and our toys are working. But take away our creature comforts, deprive us of food, security, put our lives in jeopardy and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people become as nasty and as violent as the most blood thirsty savage.
Shielded from the brutality by our media corporations and governments we won't care when we murder the 3rd world; we'll even convince ourselves that we're doing them a favor by "spreading democracy" or "bringing stability to the region" or some other fake high ideal. The western world is already dependent on food imports from the 3rd world, and when the shortage gets critical we won't care about the suffering of others... Not one bit.
-
Whatever.
-
Exactly, you (maybe we) dont care. Point settled.
-
Where did I say that?
-
Well, like I said, forever was just a convenient way to get the argument rolling. It might as well be forever, compared to lifespans today. It seems likely enough that if we can continuously or permanently un-age ourselves, you could be so lucky as to survive for a very long while. Whether long enough to see the day or mind uploading or any of that scifi stuff is speculative, but not that far fetched when you consider technological trends. You would still die from catastrophic injury, etc. The main point was to hear why people find changing the scale of lifespan by an order of magnitude so incredible or disagreable. I don't think it would make much difference, and then it'd be almost completely positive. Whatever comes next would still happen. Your life would be that much fuller and more valuable. Nothing would stop you from eventually deciding to turn aging back on and wither away.
I personally find it contradictive to say life is sacred, and yet forsake opportunity to extend it a couple hundred years. The universe looks like it will go on for a thousand thousand thousand years yet. Living a thousand years would still be just a drop in the bucket. Living till the universe ends in as much as trillions of years from now would still be nothing compared to eternity, if that's what's beyond. There's no mutual exclusivity between staying alive until the end of the universe and the humility of being just a mere human being living in 3D space during what might be equivalent to one planck time in some greater multiverse scheme of things.
But we are continually extending life. When my wife was in Liberia volunteering at one of their hospitals, she talked about how living past their 40s wasn't expected there because of the poor health care, lack of food, etc. I guess I took the question to mean an all or nothing live forever or not. In the end it comes down to quality of life too I suppose.
-
Thanks Dan. The technicalities aren't really interesting to discuss. Like arguing whether global warming or UFOs are real. It's the outlook on such a life that's interesting.
-
Ink - Why the chip?
the "V-chip" it is a tracking device, and will have your whole life on it, criminal and medical.
-
Mechanic's got the gist of it. To broaden on that: Most people are afraid of dying, me included; it is seldom a pleasant experience, and leaving friends and family behind to fend for themselves can be heartbreaking. However the mere fact that my existence is limited and one day will end is not frightening to me. All living things must die.
ohh, okay. I get what you're thinking. It still scares me too much anyways to think about it.
-
When the 1st world goes hungry we will take whatever we need from the 3rd world who has no defense against our military and technologically superiority. And we won't care one bit; why? Because we, the enlightened western societies are wonderful, friendly people as long as our bellies are full and our toys are working. But take away our creature comforts, deprive us of food, security, put our lives in jeopardy and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people become as nasty and as violent as the most blood thirsty savage.
Shielded from the brutality by our media corporations and governments we won't care when we murder the 3rd world; we'll even convince ourselves that we're doing them a favor by "spreading democracy" or "bringing stability to the region" or some other fake high ideal. The western world is already dependent on food imports from the 3rd world, and when the shortage gets critical we won't care about the suffering of others... Not one bit.
Scaryest thing I've read in a while. Mostly because, as much as I'd like to deny it, it's most definitely true.
-
1st world technology is the only thing that has ever allowed anyone to live at any level *other* than the savage.
If it really ever comes down to fighting for survival, and the 1st world has the technological edge to take what it needs and win, then you should praise God for that fact, not decry it. Just between you and me, being the lion is better than being the gazelle.
Furthermore, Westerners are entirely soft-hearted AND soft-headed enough to spend their blood and money for the "betterment" of recalitrants who would at best still be at the late Neolithic level without the West.
Ah hell, Kipling said it better than I can:
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
And boys right here in 2009 *still* getting maimed in Iraq for that crapulent Quixotic quest, while people sit at home and laud the savage.
Who said most people (i.e. voters) have any sense? People are selfish and will overwhelmingly vote accordingly. The starving part comes later, far beyond the attention span of your average Joe, and the 1st world nation are the last to suffer.
No, they commit mass murder first.
When the 1st world goes hungry we will take whatever we need from the 3rd world who has no defense against our military and technologically superiority. And we won't care one bit; why? Because we, the enlightened western societies are wonderful, friendly people as long as our bellies are full and our toys are working. But take away our creature comforts, deprive us of food, security, put our lives in jeopardy and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people become as nasty and as violent as the most blood thirsty savage.
Shielded from the brutality by our media corporations and governments we won't care when we murder the 3rd world; we'll even convince ourselves that we're doing them a favor by "spreading democracy" or "bringing stability to the region" or some other fake high ideal. The western world is already dependent on food imports from the 3rd world, and when the shortage gets critical we won't care about the suffering of others... Not one bit.
-
BnZs, while running the risk of turning this into a political debate, Iraq was not invaded to benefit the Iraqis. Iraq was invaded for our own benefit (not to steal their oil, but to make it available and at an affordable price), and our media corporations and government are shielding us from the brutality. The media is even prohibited from showing pictures of American caskets returning from Iraq/Afghanistan. Imagine that: Media censorship in America, the "Bastion of Liberty".
If we are willing to invade a nation just to keep our SUVs running, imagine what we'll be willing to do when food prices rocket and people start going hungry.
-
The Iraq war makes absolutely no sense as "blood for oil". The blood to oil ratio is thus to far is exceedingly poor. Billions of barrels of oil could have been bought with the money we've poured into Iraq. I would be RELIEVED if we had really gone to Iraq to seize oil, like Vikings ransacking a monastery for golden chalices and candlesticks, because it would mean our government isn't quite as evil, idiotic, and insane as it really is. :frown:
BnZs, while running the risk of turning this into a political debate, Iraq was not invaded to benefit the Iraqis. Iraq was invaded for our own benefit (not to steal their oil, but to make it available and at an affordable price), and our media corporations and government are shielding us from the brutality. The media is even prohibited from showing pictures of American caskets returning from Iraq/Afghanistan. Imagine that: Media censorship in America, the "Bastion of Liberty".
If we are willing to invade a nation just to keep our SUVs running, imagine what we'll be willing to do when food prices rocket and people start going hungry.
-
The Iraq war makes absolutely no sense as "blood for oil". The blood to oil ratio is thus to far is exceedingly poor.
You're right of course. However, I don't think the current situation is anything like what was planned. There were many reasons for invading Iraq, but when asked why Iraq and not North Korea Mr. Wolfowitz answered "the country swims on a sea of oil", and that should make it clear to anyone what the overriding reason was.
But let's not continue this line of discussion, lest we invoke the wrath of Skuzzy.
-
Billions of barrels of oil could have been bought with the money we've poured into Iraq.
No sane government would hand over billions of dollars to their enemy when shooting them costs the price of a bullet.
:noid
-
Who said most people (i.e. voters) have any sense? People are selfish and will overwhelmingly vote accordingly. The starving part comes later, far beyond the attention span of your average Joe, and the 1st world nation are the last to suffer.
No, they commit mass murder first.
When the 1st world goes hungry we will take whatever we need from the 3rd world who has no defense against our military and technologically superiority. And we won't care one bit; why? Because we, the enlightened western societies are wonderful, friendly people as long as our bellies are full and our toys are working. But take away our creature comforts, deprive us of food, security, put our lives in jeopardy and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people become as nasty and as violent as the most blood thirsty savage.
Shielded from the brutality by our media corporations and governments we won't care when we murder the 3rd world; we'll even convince ourselves that we're doing them a favor by "spreading democracy" or "bringing stability to the region" or some other fake high ideal. The western world is already dependent on food imports from the 3rd world, and when the shortage gets critical we won't care about the suffering of others... Not one bit.
The sad part is there is truth in this. Last night about 4 in the morning I was feeding my little guy Matthew. My wife brought him home from Liberia where she found him in a closet where he'd been abandoned. She was volunteering as a nurse at the hospital there. He'd fallen asleep and I was looking at him and was overwhelmed a bit by how beautiful he is despite his crooked little upper lip. He'd been born with a bi-lateral cleft pallet and lip and his birth parents couldn't care for him.
He makes me think about this stuff a lot though. He's such a spark of life, and such a gift, yet we don't really have much desire to do anything about the rest of those little sparks out there dying around the world for lack of food. They're not our responsibility or so we say. As much as I'd like to be able to say we're doing our part with giving Matthew a chance, it does make me feel more responsible for the others out there. We do for the most part sit around fat dumb and happy not thinking about the rest of us.
It did remind me that we need to find a way to feed, educate and give everyone a chance at a good life before we can really talk about extending our much. I don't know that the world really wants to do that however.
-
That's been my impression too, when I came back to north america after 4 years in the third world. Seeing people with so many untapped resources available, (this is gonna sound bigotted but take it for what it's worth..) kids wasting their time aimlessly walking around with pants around their knees and the whole goth self-mutilation thing, people bickering and fussing over the tritest most inane things.. Just disgusting. In the distasteful sense, not physically ill.
-
Yeah, it puts things in perspective.