Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #121
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
-
-
We'll never know if there is an after life, never.
-
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'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.
-
There are always ways around seemingly impossible challenges through scientific research.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I disagree, the mind is like a computer system, certain parts can be selectively wiped or altered, all it takes is desire.
-
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.
-
I hope they reverse aging, I want to be sperm again.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Religion can be considered the wrong perspective.
-
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.
-
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.
-
if you think thats funny, you're still in your childhood
-
A completely logical world would be BORING AS FUCK but also safe, very safe.
-
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
-
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. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
Disagree x 1
Dumb x 1
Agree x 2
Funny x 2
