1. Post #121
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,470 Posts
    And, just because you wouldn't die from age, Injury and sickness is still a major factor here.
    Yeah, and if it weren't for the entertainment the leading cause of death would be boredom!

    No kidding, but also different types of aggressions and wars claim a lot of lives, but obviously not enough to stop the human population from growing.

    Like you said people die for a reason, yeah well where's life there's death and if people can outlive death at some extent, so be it. Either way, we won't see the birth rates becoming stable not until at least 10 billion people on this planet

  2. Post #122
    Gold Member
    evilweazel's Avatar
    June 2009
    11,595 Posts
    Pretty cool, although life extension is a risky path to take, as individuals exist for longer, requiring more resources to keep them alive, a very dangerous game to play in a world that's already struggling to sustain it's existing population. But it's still good good to see that they're using it to find fixes for those afflictions that plague the elderly, as quality is more or less better than quantity 9 times out of 10, especially in terms of the life experience.

    If you want my honest opinion, life extension is a science born from the fear of death, as our species has yet to fully discover whether there's an eternal nonexistence ahead of us when we die, or if there's some kind of continuation. Instead of helping us overcome our fear of the end, life extension simply delays the inevitable, coddling us against the eternal darkness that likely awaits all living things at the end of their journey.

    What we should be doing is researching whether or not there's such a thing as an afterlife, and if we can't find one after our best efforts fail us, we work towards inventing one, a place where the consciousness can exist forever without fear of oblivion, and without any significant requirements to maintain it.

    But back on topic, it's nice to know that there are people who want to help improve the quality and overall length of human life, even if it requires more resources.
    We'll never know if there is an after life, never.

  3. Post #123
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Not necasserily, what makes you think these people would be unwilling to change what they believed? Many peoples lives have been ended before they got a chance to finish it.
    Human minds are shaped during childhood and adolescence. As we get older, we become less and less flexible in our way of thinking. There's a reason you always see old men complaining about the new generation's music, or clothes, it's because they're incapable of understanding and accepting new ideas and culture. A new mind, with a fresh perspective, can take all the information from the previous generation, and shape it's own ideas from it, something an older mind is almost completely incapable of doing.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  4. Post #124
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Yeah I'm agreeing with you dude, I support immortality, I'm just saying that not being around to enjoy your achievements isn't that bad, you can die happy knowing that billions upon billions of people will make use of whatever knowledge you find and release to the species.

    Edited:



    Closed minded view is closed minded.

    Why would scientific thought be blinded in anyway, it's totally impartial, it sees only results and avenues for the results to be achieved.
    I'm not saying that people shouldn't do anything because t hey might not live to see it, but I feel it is only fair that they should have a chance to see it.

  5. Post #125
    Gold Member
    RayDark's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,652 Posts
    Human minds are shaped during childhood and adolescence. As we get older, we become less and less flexible in our way of thinking. There's a reason you always see old men complaining about the new generation's music, or clothes, it's because they're incapable of understanding and accepting new ideas and culture.
    There are always ways around seemingly impossible challenges through scientific research.

  6. Post #126
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Human minds are shaped during childhood and adolescence. As we get older, we become less and less flexible in our way of thinking. There's a reason you always see old men complaining about the new generation's music, or clothes, it's because they're incapable of understanding and accepting new ideas and culture.
    Music and clothes are based entirely on personal preference with no real right or wrong answer as to which are good and bad. Science and other subjects like it however are based on finding factual evidence, with their usually only really being one right way to go about it.

  7. Post #127
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    There are always ways around seemingly impossible challenges through scientific research.
    But why do we need to when nature has already provided us with a perfectly reasonable solution? Death and reproduction are an excellent way to keep a population from stagnating.

    Music and clothes are based entirely on personal preference with no real right or wrong answer as to which are good and bad. Science and other subjects like it however are based on finding factual evidence, with their usually only really being one right way to go about it.
    Even scientific ideas can be victims of bias and prejudice. Scientists often scoff at new ideas as being too far out, or impossible, when they could infact be very reasonable in a younger person's mind.

  8. Post #128
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    But why do we need to when nature has already provided us with a perfectly reasonable solution? Death and reproduction are an excellent way to keep a population from stagnating.
    Death is not a reasonable solution and never has been. With that that logic applied the death penalty should also be used as an option when it comes to criminals.

  9. Post #129
    Gold Member
    bravehat's Avatar
    July 2007
    12,162 Posts
    Human minds are shaped during childhood and adolescence. As we get older, we become less and less flexible in our way of thinking. There's a reason you always see old men complaining about the new generation's music, or clothes, it's because they're incapable of understanding and accepting new ideas and culture. A new mind, with a fresh perspective, can take all the information from the previous generation, and shape it's own ideas from it, something an older mind is almost completely incapable of doing.
    I disagree, the mind is like a computer system, certain parts can be selectively wiped or altered, all it takes is desire.

  10. Post #130
    Gold Member
    RayDark's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,652 Posts
    But why do we need to when nature has already provided us with a perfectly reasonable solution? Death and reproduction are an excellent way to keep a population from stagnating.



    Even scientific ideas can be victims of bias and prejudice. Scientists often scoff at new ideas as being too far out, or impossible, when they could infact be very reasonable in a younger person's mind.
    Because FUCK nature. If I, and the majority of the only sentient species on this planet want immortality, so help us fucking god we will have it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  11. Post #131
    hello.jpg
    not_Morph53's Avatar
    September 2007
    4,310 Posts
    I hope they reverse aging, I want to be sperm again.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Funny Funny x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #132
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Death is not a reasonable solution and never has been. With that attitude the death penalty should also be allowed.
    Now, see, that's your opinion from a very moral perspective, based on value of individual human life. My perspective is based around the importance of the species, a more logical view point, but less moral. I see death as a good thing, keeping the species alive through new generations, you see death as a tragic thing, because of the loss of unique and valuable human minds and experiences.

    Honestly, I can't decide which of us is really right here. I guess it all depends on what you value.

  13. Post #133
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Now, see, that's your opinion from a very moral perspective, based on value of individual human life. My perspective is based around the importance of the species, a more logical view point, but less moral. I see death as a good thing, keeping the species alive through new generations, you see death as a tragic thing, because of the loss of unique and valuable human minds and experiences.

    Honestly, I can't decide which of us is really right here. I guess it all depends on what you value.
    Morals are the only thing that keeps humanity from falling apart. If everything was done based on logic the world would be a very oppressive place.

  14. Post #134
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Morals are the only thing that keeps humanity from falling apart. If everything was done based on logic the world would be a very oppressive place.
    But if everybody thought with logic, instead of morals, the concept of the world being oppressive wouldn't even exist. People would just accept it as how the world is. They would probably think a world based around morals would be incredibly strange, and pointless.

    Likewise, a logical world is offensive to moral people like us because that's how our world works. It's what we're used to.

    Neither world is more right or wrong than the other. Like I say, it's all a matter of perspective.

  15. Post #135
    Gold Member
    bravehat's Avatar
    July 2007
    12,162 Posts
    Now, see, that's your opinion from a very moral perspective, based on value of individual human life. My perspective is based around the importance of the species, a more logical view point, but less moral. I see death as a good thing, keeping the species alive through new generations, you see death as a tragic thing, because of the loss of unique and valuable human minds and experiences.

    Honestly, I can't decide which of us is really right here. I guess it all depends on what you value.
    Death is tragic on an individual basis, but a flash in the pan on a species wide view.

    IT'S ABOUT THE FUCKING PERSPECTIVE AND BOTH OF YOU HAVE THE WRONG ONE!

  16. Post #136
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Death is tragic on an individual basis, but a flash in the pan on a species wide view.

    IT'S ABOUT THE FUCKING PERSPECTIVE AND BOTH OF YOU HAVE THE WRONG ONE!
    I don't see how somebody can have a wrong perspective. That's a pretty awful thing to say.

  17. Post #137
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    All we'd end up with is a bunch of backwards minded old men who can't see past their own ideology and prejudice. There would never be any new ideas, new culture, or new ways of seeing the world. We'd stagnate.
    Its true that people dont like to change there ideas. but in a 100 years if science is seen as the most important thing humanity has (which it is) people will update and change there mind on a regular basis as new data is presented
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  18. Post #138
    Gold Member
    RayDark's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,652 Posts
    I don't see how somebody can have a wrong perspective. That's a pretty awful thing to say.
    Religion can be considered the wrong perspective.

  19. Post #139
    Gold Member
    bravehat's Avatar
    July 2007
    12,162 Posts
    I don't see how somebody can have a wrong perspective. That's a pretty awful thing to say.
    They are, you are focusing on the species, abandoning the fact we are emotional creatures, that'll cause harm to those around you and if everyone was like that we would have our backs broken as a species.

    cargo focuses on the individual too much, forgetting that pride in our achievements is unnecessary, we need to push past that for the good of the species, same for greed.

  20. Post #140
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    But if everybody thought with logic, instead of morals, the concept of the world being oppressive wouldn't even exist. People would just accept it as how the world is. They would probably think a world based around morals would be incredibly strange, and pointless.

    Likewise, a logical world is offensive to moral people like us because that's how our world works. It's what we're used to.

    Like I say, it's all a matter of perspective.
    In a logical world genocide is a perfectly acceptable option to perfecting the human race. The fact of the matter is, we live in a morally run world that gives everyone the chance at having a life and are protected from those who might want to kill them.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  21. Post #141
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    SENS = SNES backwords.

    If you don't get it, you have no childhood.
    if you think thats funny, you're still in your childhood

  22. Post #142
    Dennab
    June 2010
    7,068 Posts
    But if everybody thought with logic, instead of morals, the concept of the world being oppressive wouldn't even exist. People would just accept it as how the world is. They would probably think a world based around morals would be incredibly strange, and pointless.

    Likewise, a logical world is offensive to moral people like us because that's how our world works. It's what we're used to.

    Neither world is more right or wrong than the other. Like I say, it's all a matter of perspective.
    A completely logical world would be BORING AS FUCK but also safe, very safe.

  23. Post #143
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Human minds are shaped during childhood and adolescence. As we get older, we become less and less flexible in our way of thinking. There's a reason you always see old men complaining about the new generation's music, or clothes, it's because they're incapable of understanding and accepting new ideas and culture. A new mind, with a fresh perspective, can take all the information from the previous generation, and shape it's own ideas from it, something an older mind is almost completely incapable of doing.
    strange I changed my views of the world extremely during my teens. thats why a lot of people become atheist after they stop being children

  24. Post #144
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Religion can be considered, the wrong perspective.
    I'm sure a religious person would disagree. Just how a moral person would disagree that human life is despensible, or how a logical person would disagree that the legacies of our current generation aren't important.

    In a logical world genocide is a perfectly acceptable option to perfecting the human race. The fact of the matter is, we live in a morally run world that gives everyone the chance at having a life and are protected from those who might want to kill them.
    The only reason morals are important in our society is because we have morals. If we never had morals in the first place, I'm sure everybody would agree that genocide is an acceptable way to improve the race, and there would be nothing wrong with it.

    Morals are simply a human concept. We protect each other because that's how we evolved. It kept us from getting killed by predators while we were still an infant species. But that doesn't mean they're a universal constant, and the only "right" way of looking at the world.

  25. Post #145
    Gold Member
    RayDark's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,652 Posts
    I'm sure a religious person would disagree. Just how a moral person would disagree that human life is despensible, or how a logical person would disagree that the legacies of our current generation aren't important.
    Actually, the legacies of our current generation, logically, would be preserved to teach this logical generation the do's and don'ts of our time. Logically, they'd want to learn more. Logically, they would preserve either us or our histories. Human life is not dispensable anymore, now that we have to opposing logics.
    The whole fucking thing paradoxes and implodes in the end. No morals, no logic. Morals, no logic.

    You could also argue that morals was the spawn of logic in it that every human needed equality and a chance.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  26. Post #146
    Gold Member
    Tinter's Avatar
    March 2008
    7,348 Posts
    http://www.cracked.com/article_18708...han-death.html

    I know it's a cracked article but it still holds some points though. Although 4 is invalid if everybody becomes immortal.

  27. Post #147
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    I'm sure a religious person would disagree. Just how a moral person would disagree that human life is despensible, or how a logical person would disagree that the legacies of our current generation aren't important.



    The only reason morals are important in our society is because we have morals. If we never had morals in the first place, I'm sure everybody would agree that genocide is an acceptable way to improve the race, and there would be nothing wrong with it.

    Morals are simply a human concept. We protect each other because that's how we evolved. But that doesn't mean they're a universal constant, and the only "right" way of looking at the world.
    Well no shit, that's like saying if we nobody ever owned cats, shops wouldn't sell cat food. The fact of the matter is we do have morals and we do own cats. Plus that fact that humans are practically programmed to want life would go against the idea of killing being fine.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  28. Post #148
    Gold Member
    Darkslicer's Avatar
    January 2006
    5,077 Posts
    This thread makes me sad :frown:

    Let's all just hope for the best and ways to increase life for 10-30 years (even if I doubt that) and do the best out of it, instead of argue'ing about morals, possibility on beeing "immortal" and all the other shit. I like this project and everybody who disagrees can go away and open an organisation like PETA against Life Extension.

  29. Post #149
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    Well no shit, that's like saying if we nobody ever owned cats, shops wouldn't sell cat food. The fact of the matter is we do have morals and we do own cats. Plus that fact that humans are practically programmed to want life would go against the idea of killing being fine.
    Yeah, but you were coming off as if a world without morals, only logic, would be "wrong". I'm saying it wouldn't be wrong, only different. There is no such thing as right and wrong in the universe, only our perspective of what's right and wrong.

  30. Post #150
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Yeah, but you were coming off as if a world without morals, only logic, would be "wrong". I'm saying it wouldn't be wrong, only different. There is no such thing as right and wrong in the universe, only our perspective of what's right and wrong.
    But in our world of morals it is bad, and should be seen as bad.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  31. Post #151
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    http://www.cracked.com/article_18708...han-death.html

    I know it's a cracked article but it still holds some points though. Although 4 is invalid if everybody becomes immortal.
    5. doesnt because with science there kind of either be no evolution or you can change your body to match the new humans
    3. its better to have to go throw something twice then it is to have not be able to do anything at all. not to mention science will always make something new
    2. everyone else will also be imortal with you
    1. in the far future your mind will not be in just one body.
    all these only count if your the only person who is imortal
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  32. Post #152
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    But in our world of morals it is bad, and should be seen as bad.
    Yeah, but it's open to change. That's why it's important that we have new generations as frequently as we do, so we can have new perspectives. Human kind is great because it's flexible, the fact that we die and are reborn every 100 years is an important aspect of that.

  33. Post #153
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Yeah, but it's open to change. That's why it's important that we have new generations as frequently as we do, so we can have new perspectives on right and wrong.
    thats what science is for. you dont have to keep the same opinion all your life. many people change there minds about things when new information is there

  34. Post #154
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Yeah, but it's open to change. That's why it's important that we have new generations as frequently as we do, so we can have new perspectives.
    No, as soon as you go into a logically run world the little people get stamped on, we need morals to keep a fair society.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  35. Post #155
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    No, as soon as you go into a logically run world the little people get stamped on, we need morals to keep a fair society.
    Once again you're speaking from a biased viewpoint. In a logical world, little people get stamped on. This sounds terrible in a moral world, but in a logical world it would be okay. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it because the little people would understand, that logically, they're only a small part of an even bigger picture. They wouldn't have morals to make it morally objectionable.

    I'm not trying to advocate that one or the other is better, but you can't make claims about a logically run world when your life is defined by morals. It just doesn't work.

  36. Post #156
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,047 Posts
    Once again you're speaking from a biased viewpoint. In a logical world, little people get stamped on. This sounds terrible in a moral world, but in a logical world it would be okay. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it because the little people would understand, that logically, they're only a small part of an even bigger picture.
    I disagree, since there tend to be more little people than big, and the ones who get the short straw tend to want fairness, eventually people would bring back morals no matter what way you go around it.

  37. Post #157
    Gold Member
    RayDark's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,652 Posts
    Once again you're speaking from a biased viewpoint. In a logical world, little people get stamped on. This sounds terrible in a moral world, but in a logical world it would be okay. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it because the little people would understand, that logically, they're only a small part of an even bigger picture. They wouldn't have morals to make it morally objectionable.

    I'm not trying to advocate that one or the other is better, but you can't make claims about a logically run world when your life is defined by morals. It just doesn't work.
    We do not understand what a logical society would do because we are not a totally logic-based society, we are a mixture of logic and morals. Morality is what makes us human, and the next step, is immortality.

  38. Post #158
    SM0K3 B4N4N4's Avatar
    March 2008
    1,574 Posts
    That's like saying grass is a disease because it spreads all over the earth. Humans spreading through out the galaxy(ies?) would make the galaxy more awesome, not destroy it.
    We will have to use resources like a bitch to keep an exponentially growing population that doesn't die for a long time alive and comfortable and will have to move new people to new planets every century and eventually every generation, and people can't adapt to new environments that quickly and tend to get sentimental. I have nothing against living for a couple hundred years, maybe even 300 but once you start getting into the thousands you start to run into a large amount of problems.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  39. Post #159
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    and thats why people decide to not have children. I think by the time we become completely immortal we would not really want to have sex or babies

  40. Post #160
    Gold Member
    Pythagoras's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,059 Posts
    We will have to use resources like a bitch to keep an exponentially growing population that doesn't die for a long time alive and comfortable and will have to move new people to new planets every century and eventually every generation, and people can't adapt to new environments that quickly and tend to get sentimental. I have nothing against living for a couple hundred years, maybe even 300 but once you start getting into the thousands you start to run into a large amount of problems.
    Exactly. A human who has lived hundreds of years on earth, and now needs to leave to go live on other planets is going to have a far harder time adapting than a newborn would who's only experience is of the new world.

    thats what science is for. you dont have to keep the same opinion all your life. many people change there minds about things when new information is there
    But people do keep their opinions. The human mind starts to get terrible at adapting to new concepts later in life. There's so much information, that the brain simply can't process anything that doesn't fit into their view of the world. Right now, a human couldn't possibly understand the concept of a fourth dimension in any sort of tangible way, but perhaps someday there will be generations who have had to work with the fourth dimension in everything they do, and it will become a part of how their brain works.

    Likewise, and older person today couldn't possibly understand how to use a computer as well as somebody who has used one since childhood.