immortality is closer than you think

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by shacro, Nov 26, 2017.

?

do you think it's a good idea to give people immortality

  1. yes

    27.3%
  2. no

    54.5%
  3. yes and no

    18.2%
  1. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    Ok. Let's just say "screw it" and make everyone immortal and see how it goes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Or, ban the immortality as we banned human cloning. Which will inevitably result in people abusing this technology.

    I'm pretty sure both options will not end well.

    p.s. people are not abusing cloning only because it has distinct limitations. Immortality is a whole another deal, it's been sought after since humanity beginning. We won't be able to just ban it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    Wait. So your "solution" to make a better world is to ... give it to a Chosen Few?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    No, but steer the evolution to the path which will allow a more efficient increase in the average life quality.
    We've been steering the evolution all along since the medicine was invented, why not up the game? First of all it's highly unlikely we'll have true immortality, but more likely just increase the lifespan significantly, maybe several times of the current average lifespan. Second, we are already facing the consequences of over population.

    So assuming we invent this "immortality", let's face our options:

    1. Colonize other planets, give immortality to everyone.
    2. Give immortality to everyone, but impose strict population growth control
    3. Give immortality to the chosen few
    4. Forfeit the idea of immortality and ban it.

    But as I said, it's unlikely we'll be able to ban it, so it'll go back to option 3, but with more disastrous results, or we'll need to kill all the scientists involved and wipe out all the research data to prevent immortality from ever happening.
    I don't know how much of this is true, but I heard that soon anyone will be able to use CRISPR genome editing in their basement to mess with genes as they like. I assume "immortality" will also involve genome editing, so it's likely this technology will become impossible to contain once it's open to the public.

    So, option 4 is out, ok? And we assume that we can't colonize mars yet when it happens, so option 1 is out too. And what do we have left?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    Yes. It worked so well for Germany.

    I mean, making a master race by choking off those who do not qualify is literally what you're proposing.


    Because - and this may not be important to you - we were making our own choices, not having some Worthiness council decide for us who got what.
     
  8. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    I'm literally proposing the same as you - to make our own choices and select the best course of actions. And I listed the options which I think we will face should we invent the technology to make people immortal.
    If there's some other options which I do not see, I will be only happy to be wrong.

    Note that immortality will most likely be the biggest change humanity has ever faced, we won't be able to just sweep it under the carpet.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  9. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    It worked very well with antibiotics, which is literally steering the evolution our own way.
    Well, at least until antibiotic-resistant bacteria kill us all.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    We don't have a Worthiness Council to decide who gets antibiotics and who does not, so as to steer the human race - as a whole - toward a Master Race selected as defined by the council.
     
  11. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    I do not endorse any sort of racial or national discrimination. But I do endorse the idea of preferring some individuals over others, based on their behavior, values they hold, intellectual qualities, e.t.c, without looking at their race or origin.
    As the more extreme example, I do not think that a cold-blooded murderer is worth anything as a human being and should have the same privileges as people who value life. Or people who crush kittens and puppies on camera for fun. Have you seen those? Can you say those people are your equal?
    If you're going to compare me with Hitler for this, so be it, but you'd be wrong.

    I've seen too much stupid and cruelty in this life to care equally for every human, too much people harming themselves out of their own ignorance.

    And besides, I'm not a fan of this, but we already have Worthiness Council in place right now, and their leader's name is Donald Trump.

    And once again, if you wish, let's give our hypothetical immortality to everyone (and I mean everyone, because no one wants to die), and let's not take away the joy of having as much children as they want from anyone. Then, let's just watch the world burn. Or, do you think people will decide against having babies on their own, or come up with a virtually unlimited source of renewable energy, and will learn to synthesize unlimited amounts of food?

    Well, that is too much "if"s.

    Guess it's a good thing I'm not the one making the calls, huh
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  12. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    Yes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    I'm all ears for other solutions.
    Couple of hundreds of years from now, when the air will become unbreathable, oceans unable to support plankton population, and we'll go full Fallout style, I won't be around to say "told you so".
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    You've listed all criminals. Criminals are a definable group to which we can assign privileges.
    They answer to the law. The law does not decide whether this person or that person are smart enough or nice enough or philanthropic enough to warrant special treatment.

    Speak for yourself, Yank.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is just zany.

    "When we get immortality, lets just give it to a few. Not a gift to mankind - no that would set the world on fire. Let's divide the world into privileged and worthless. How could that possibly go wrong?"
     
  15. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    And I won't be around to hear whoever will be carrying your torch for you
    They will gather at the polluted seashore in full regalia, gasmask, biohazard suits with emergency filtered water containers full, ready for a long day

    One will turn to the other, lock gasmask together and say, and I quote "We should have listened to Andrew256"

    The other says "Are you mad? We never would never have been in "The Chosen"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    I see your point. But, what I'm trying to say, it's quite possible that we will be forced to choose the lesser evil. I just hope I'm wrong.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    We don't decide to give life-saving medicine to just those we want to live a long life.

    To calculatingly withhold quality-of-life advancements from certain people is the act of a monster.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    We do that now. In Oregon, for example, their state healthcare system decides where to draw the line on treatments. Treatments that make it under the line get funded, treatments over the line do not.

    Pretty much every healthcare plan out there will withhold quality of life treatments from certain people.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    But on what criteria? An individual's worth to society?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Well, that sort of happens automatically in many cases using money as a criteria. The rich can afford the treatment and the poor can't.

    In the case of Oregon they go by treatment, not the person. So they deny some treatments to everyone and allow other treatments to everyone.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,743
    Right. I'm not suggesting there aren't treatments withheld (for a host of reasons), and I'm not denying there isn't a selection process. (Even organ recipients are selected based on their qualifications, such as whether they're likely to be a repeat abuser.) Nor am I denying that money almost always affords access to expensive treatments.

    Simply the idea that people would get selected for their worthiness in some way other than medically.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    1) Educate all women (biggest factor in reduced birthrate is education level of women.)
    2) Encourage/incentivize/require people to delay giving birth for the first time (reduces birthrate AND uses evolution to extend average human lifetimes)
    3) Make implanted birth control mandatory AND give out the antidote for free to whoever asks for it. (greatly reduces birthrate)
     
  23. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    But is it not what we have with the current economic system in most countries? People make an effort to educate themselves, learn in-demand skills, getting hired and receive payment for their work. In other words, they have a certain worth to the economic system, and the system pays them with resources (money) depending on how much they worth. People who have less useful skills (or not intent on working as hard), earn less money, therefore they are worth less than those who earn more. Not as a person of course, but as an element of the system. Then there's unemployed, who's in the eyes of economics are worth even less.

    Yes, in many countries there's some form of wellfare in place, a certain level of guaranteed healthcare, and we're doing experiments on universal basic income, so we try to improve things, but people without money (without useful skills for the society) are denied life-saving healthcare everyday. So what now, we are all monsters?

    Why do you think this happens? Because it is physically impossible to give the same level of healthcare to everyone. And immortality is basically a healthcare program, a very advanced one.

    I agree, this will certainly help. I just hope immortality will be just as simple as swallowing a pill or making an injection, and not having to undergo insanely expensive procedures once a year similar to cancer treatment or some multiple-stage operation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018

Share This Page