|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Then we have people like Peter Thiel, who are deeply interested in immortality and anything that reverse the aging process. And like science fictions, they found that "younger blood" can cause age reversing effects in some tests(the science is in question, but that never stopped billionaires).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/04/can-we-reverse-ageing-process-young-blood-older-people
Then we have the constant march of innovation making labor less valuable, which is the foundation of our economy. On a long enough time line, labor alone may not be sufficient to sustain someone in an economy. At that point we would need to rethink the way goverment relates to citizens who attempt to survive on labor alone. Privacy on the internet.
Prepare yourself for an ethically questionable 50 years or so. Our concept of what is acceptable will be outdated shortly. Prepare for your future as a grumpy old person.
|
I've always had a hunch that any hope of preventing aging is quackery. How do you make the human body last forever and not degrade?
Also I can't imagine the only purpose of reproduction is for the continuity of work. People want kids.
|
On August 17 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:
I've always had a hunch that any hope of preventing aging is quackery. How do you make the human body last forever and not degrade?
Also I can't imagine the only purpose of reproduction is for the continuity of work. People want kids.
There are deep rooted problems with any aspect of increased life span. Immortality is another problem all together. Our entire legal and economic system is based on the idea that you die and can't take things with you. And like all advances, it would be available to the wealthy first. It would be an issue that would need to be instantly addressed by governments.
Luckily we are a long way off from any of that happening.
|
On August 17 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:
I've always had a hunch that any hope of preventing aging is quackery. How do you make the human body last forever and not degrade?
Also I can't imagine the only purpose of reproduction is for the continuity of work. People want kids.
It's not quackery at all. We just need to understand more stuff, simply put. You know what else was quackery? Preventing infection. Imagine what preventing infection would sound like 1000 years ago. We didn't even know what a virus is, let alone that things were even capable of being that small.
If aging varies across species, that means it can be changed. It can likely be either stopped entirely or people can undergo some form of maintenance. The idea that we can't stop aging is quackery. We can do absolutely fucking anything if we budget enough hours and dollars. It'll take time, but I gaurantee you humans will stop aging eventually as a result of scientific breakthrough. It will likely also start with needing to be done with embryo modification.
And my point is that people should not have the right to simply want kids in an age where humans don't need to die. Children are a gross inefficiency in every society they occupy. We tend to them because we need them. People want kids because we are genetically supposed to. We're socially supposed to as well. My point is that once we can just stick with all the humans we've got, we massively accelerate human progress by being able to stop re-teaching things over and over.
|
You are getting into deep ethical issues when you put someones right to live forever over peoples rights to have children. That is a society destroying level of debate. Wars are fought over issues like that.
|
On August 17 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:
I've always had a hunch that any hope of preventing aging is quackery. How do you make the human body last forever and not degrade?
Also I can't imagine the only purpose of reproduction is for the continuity of work. People want kids.
Our body constantly replaces cells but there are limits to how often a cell can split before it degrades to much. The body has a substance that works with this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase).
If we could replace this substance then we could have cells that can keep replacing forever.
Tho this on its own will not be enough since not all cell types use this (the brain being a big one, if I remember correctly).
Its been a while since my biology classes so I could be remembering some things wrong but the basis to preventing physical aging is certainly possible in theory.
|
On August 17 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
You are getting into deep ethical issues when you put someones right to live forever over peoples rights to have children. That is a society destroying level of debate. Wars are fought over issues like that.
Its a war that will be fought regardless. It's not like we'll just never figure out aging, like its some kinda godly event. People are really underestimating how much progress we make how quickly. Aging research is well funded. It is ESPECIALLY well funded considering how little it currently delivers. As soon as things look even somewhat promising, it will skyrocket.
The way I see it is: If we know it will happen eventually, we should strive to get it done as soon as possible. We'll never avoid the problems associated with it, so let's just go for it.
|
On August 17 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
You are getting into deep ethical issues when you put someones right to live forever over peoples rights to have children. That is a society destroying level of debate. Wars are fought over issues like that.
But wars solve the issue with people living forever. ^.^
|
That brings in the topic of Trans-humanism.
|
People want kids because they love them and their brain is built to get joy out of them. I don't see the need to adopt a utilitarian stance just because we can stop aging. And I'm still skeptical that human parts aren't limited in duration.
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works.
|
On August 17 2016 01:46 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 01:42 Plansix wrote:
You are getting into deep ethical issues when you put someones right to live forever over peoples rights to have children. That is a society destroying level of debate. Wars are fought over issues like that. But wars solve the issue with people living forever. ^.^
That is the only plus side. But that war would be fought by the people who are promised they will be able to live forever once the war is over. The wealthy will have already secured that right and just want to make sure those who can't afford it don't breed to much.
This is the hellscape I see from this tech. Which is why we should be well into space and beyond before we get into that shit.
|
On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works.
This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then.
|
On August 17 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:
This is the hellscape I see from this tech. Which is why we should be well into space and beyond before we get into that shit.
Well... Getting to space should be our most pressing concern anyway. We have to get out our own weapons blast radius!
For ages the "radius of war" and our "effective strategic range" has expanded about as fast as our horizon on the map. But now we are stuck on this world, while the weaponry is still improving. Basically everyone can hit everyone, and the targets/nations are almost too small for the weapons we are fielding.
We again have to bring some distance between us, so we can clobber each other properly with all the tolls we have available.
|
On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then.
But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything.
|
Norway28806 Posts
I think if aging is solved before other societal issues, then other societal issues will never be solved. Bad ideas die out with the generation holding onto them, not because people suddenly stopped believing in them. I really think that if aging had been solved in the 1600s, we'd have a bunch of very old white people and slavery would still be a thing.
I mean, assassinations and revolutions could still happen, so I'm not saying that historical progress would stop for sure, but I don't think we'd turn into tranquil elves if we just stopped aging. Progress would slow down, the rich and powerful would care much more about preserving their wealth and power than about creating a positive legacy.. Sure, it sounds swell to be immortal-ish, but I'm really, really happy humans have never had that power.
|
On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then.
Yeah, but we can barely handle internet and social media and the internet. We are coming up against legitimate issues with how humans function when it comes to marketing and their ability to manipulate us. We were not designed to live forever. If you think the conflicts over religion are bad right now, they will seem petty in comparison to that conflict.
|
On August 17 2016 01:39 Mohdoo wrote:
And my point is that people should not have the right to simply want kids in an age where humans don't need to die. Children are a gross inefficiency in every society they occupy. We tend to them because we need them. People want kids because we are genetically supposed to. We're socially supposed to as well. My point is that once we can just stick with all the humans we've got, we massively accelerate human progress by being able to stop re-teaching things over and over.
Progress and efficiency are not some kind of ojective goals of life, they're just as inherently meaningless as emotional needs.
|
On August 17 2016 02:04 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 01:39 Mohdoo wrote:
And my point is that people should not have the right to simply want kids in an age where humans don't need to die. Children are a gross inefficiency in every society they occupy. We tend to them because we need them. People want kids because we are genetically supposed to. We're socially supposed to as well. My point is that once we can just stick with all the humans we've got, we massively accelerate human progress by being able to stop re-teaching things over and over. Progress and efficiency are not some kind of ojective goals of life, they're just as inherently meaningless as emotional needs.
The entire concept of progress is a construct anyways. That it is some linear path humanity is on that moves forward as a given speed.
|
On August 17 2016 01:53 Doodsmack wrote:
But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything.
Fortunately, it's not necessary for a single person to understand everything for advances to be made. Just that enough people all understand a little bit and can collaborate to move forward.
That's how science works right now anyway. Nobody comprehensively understands the field which they study, they all just understand the small area their work is focused on and advances are made through pooled knowledge and collective effort.
|
On August 17 2016 01:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2016 01:48 Doodsmack wrote:
Personally I think there are things that are too complex for humans to ever understand. The human brain being one. And just because we looked at an MRI of the frontal lobe doesn't mean we know how it works. This is absurdly short sighted. If you were born 1000 years ago, think about what things you would have said are unknowable. Now imagine a nuclear reactor. Now imagine wireless communication. Both of these ideas weren't even conceivable within the frameworks 1000 years ago. You are really seeing our current place in technological advancement as somehow distinct from 1000 years ago. If anything, we have MORE to do now than we did back then. But some things are more complex than others. The human brain is much more complex than nuclear reactors and wireless communication. It's probably short sighted to think our little evolved brain can understand everything.
This is a pretty arbitrary claim.
You are making the claim that we will never understand certain things because they're complicated and we don't currently understand them.
That has in no way stopped us before. The last 200 years of progress in the medical field alone is absolutely astounding and dwarfs the progress from the previous 10,000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
