21–30 of 69 posts
I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
When we grow we gain experience. That experience shows as habits, perceptions, attitudes and thought trains that makes functioning in the society easy. We learn to see the world trough the past experience. All this turns from asset to liability when society where you live changes beyond the global parameters our cognition settles into.
In other words: Our 'mental posture at large' is path dependent and it gradually settles into some state and becomes less malleable over the years. We can still learn new things and change our thinking, but internalizing the changes becomes increasingly harder in the core level. We don't even want to try to change certain notions because our identity is tied to our 'core beliefs'.
Society where people (especially rich and powerful people) would live 200s would be some kind of dystopia of geriatric thinking. Young wold have to kill the old or stage revolutions from time to time.
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack of time, poor health and grief or hopelessness in the face of death. I also strongly believe that the epidemic of disastrous short-term thinking among us (particularly our 'leaders') is directly linked to the fact that each of us knows we're going to die all too soon.
I could meet you halfway and say that in our current form, we may not be ideally suited for significantly longer lifespans-- but we can change ourselves with drugs, technology and genetic engineering, so it would be a temporary problem.
The only paradise I believe is possible is one we create, and we cannot do it with this pathetically paltry handful of decades we're allotted.
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
What I suspect is true but obviously can't prove: Person with completely healthy brain at age 200 would not be well functioning human being in the society. When we grow we gain experience. That experience shows as habits, perceptions, attitudes and thought trains that makes functioning in the society easy. We learn to see the world trough the past experience. All this turns from asset to liability when society where…
What's with the contempt for rich people in debates like this? Being mad at rich people for living longer is no less silly than being mad at them for having cars, mobile phones, personal computers back in the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smithsonian magazine disagrees on the immortality of lobsters: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-listen-to-... Although, since they will eventually die of energy depletion from growing too large, if they actually stopped growing they might go on ... a lot longer?
> Although, since they will eventually die of energy depletion from growing too large, if they actually stopped growing they might go on ... a lot longer? If humans stopped ageing they'd go on a lot longer, too. But as long as they can't it's a hypothetical scenario in both cases.
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
What I suspect is true but obviously can't prove: Person with completely healthy brain at age 200 would not be well functioning human being in the society. When we grow we gain experience. That experience shows as habits, perceptions, attitudes and thought trains that makes functioning in the society easy. We learn to see the world trough the past experience. All this turns from asset to liability when society where…
Not only it is an inevitable fact of life, it (and death) is the single most important attribute of life. Especially in the case of humans aging and death limit the amount of damage one single person can do. I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to change. Just that it shouldn't.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I completely disagree with you. I would argue that the primary reasons people fail to better fulfill their potential are lack of time, poor health and grief or hopelessness in the face of death. I also strongly believe that the epidemic of disastrous short-term thinking among us (particularly our 'leaders') is directly linked to the fact that each of us knows we're going to die all to…
We have 7 billion people on this planet already and the last thing we need is for them to be living longer.
You can't fulfill your potential in 75 years? Why would that change if you had 150 years? Hopelessness in the face of death? I am 46 and that is not even in my thought process yet...
We don't need drugs, technology and genetic engineering to live longer. We need less poverty (better/fairer distribution of wealth), less disease, and less war for a better quality of life.
Who wants to be here in 100 years anyway? I don't want to live in a world of 20 billion people with little resources on a barley habitable world.