61–70 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am 100% for a (more) healthy life. I have no interest in 'extending my lifespan' except for the 'few' extra years that the healthy life might bring.
You are free to kill yourself when you feel like you had enough. Just because you don't want to have the body of a thirty year old forever, that doesn't mean that you should subject others to the incredible suffering that old age brings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the countries with the best medical treatments available have below replacement birth rates.
But it takes a generation or two for parents to adapt to the new reality of children actually surviving into adulthood & living prosperous lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are free to kill yourself when you feel like you had enough. Just because you don't want to have the body of a thirty year old forever, that doesn't mean that you should subject others to the incredible suffering that old age brings.
We are not free to end our own life when you feel you had enough. There's laws for that. But yes, I'll reflect on my options whether or not I'll have that chemo when I'm in my sixties/seventies.
If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.
If we can cure aging, then overpopulation will become an even larger problem than it already is. I would propose to only make anti-aging treatments available to people who haven't procreated yet and on condition they get sterilised at the same time.
The rich and powerful would not allow this. They will be the first in line for anti againg treatment, and also they will be the first who can afford this. So prepare for some very old rich people ruling the planet who will live much longer than the serfs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be no thousand year journies. You’d be overtaken by the generation after which left in faster ships and arrived in half the time. Make the trip in a few decades or don’t bother making it at all.
Enter K-level thinking: What if we did send a ship on a thousand year journey, and learn more about building fast ships than if we hadn't? Such that the second ship we send, would be quicker than the first ship we'd have sent if we waited a few decades?
What makes people think we want to have them around any longer? To extend life is to decrease it's value. Simple economics tells us it's inflation. edit: I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it a lot better than me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3G9LOJZTmM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the main connections to longevity people usually miss in this whole "climate change" discussion is one of the main psychological reasons people don't take care of the environment in the first place: and it's arguably their lifespan. Everyone in the west knows that they will die at most ~100 years of age, and if you are basically not in some top percentile morality-wise (and also at that point in your life wher…
No the main psychological reason is that people are bad at rationally assessing risks. E.g. most fear flying more than driving. Then there's also other (more economical, but you could say that's caused by psychology as well) reasons, such as tragedy of the commons.
People fearing flying more than driving are not afraid of the relative chances of dying (which are low either way). They are afraid of the feeling and experience of spending long time in a falling plane knowing that you are going to die, being stuck in one seat and not being able to do anything about it. This does not happen when you are driving, if there is an accident, you usually either die instantly or in some rare cases receive some injuries, but at least then you can lie at the site of the accident and hope that medics will come. It's not the same as being stuck in a box for 10s of minutes knowing you are most likely about to crash to a painful death. You have to spend time in that experience, to feel it, in a completely hopeless state. That's why people afraid of flying, not because of some statistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the main psychological reason is that people are bad at rationally assessing risks. E.g. most fear flying more than driving. Then there's also other (more economical, but you could say that's caused by psychology as well) reasons, such as tragedy of the commons.
Perhaps a bit OT, but it is interesting that people keep bringing fear of flying as "irrational risk". People fearing flying more than driving are not afraid of the relative chances of dying (which are low either way). They are afraid of the feeling and experience of spending long time in a falling plane knowing that you are going to die, being stuck in one seat and not being able to do anything about it. This does n…