Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you know about metaethics?
Enough to say that only looking at risks is not an ethical way to approach ethics.
Any proof or is it a gut feeling or hot take?
Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
91–99 of 99 posts
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough to say that only looking at risks is not an ethical way to approach ethics.
Any proof or is it a gut feeling or hot take?
I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, feel free to do so in a more interesting way than your questions have been so far. Otherwise, it's probably best we stop here.
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any proof or is it a gut feeling or hot take?
I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, feel free to do so in a more interesting way than your questions have been so far. Otherwise, it's probably best we stop here.
The truth of reality is that it's not self-evident. Anyone saying otherwise has an agenda. It's pretty cut and dry. Self-evidence is a form of assumption making I have no time for. Thank you.
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#94Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, feel free to do so in a more interesting way than your questions have been so far. Otherwise, it's probably best we stop here.
The truth of reality is that it's not self-evident. Anyone saying otherwise has an agenda. It's pretty cut and dry. Self-evidence is a form of assumption making I have no time for. Thank you.
Any proof of all that, or is it a gut feeling or hot take?
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people would still die because of the passage of time , but would stay healthy? But if they stay healthy without any age-related conditions, what would they die of ? This whole idea that forced death is necessary is stupid. We need to let go of it.
People would still die in accidents, disasters and from disease, or war. Just not aging.
Yes, but then, firstly, that would be actually something you can influence by at least being more careful, and secondly, I've seen estimates that with aging removed, the average human lifespan would be around 1000 years. And 1000 years is quite a lot of time in terms of scientific progress. Just a reminder: electricity was very new just 150 years ago, yet it's essential for our current society.
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying that if clinical immortality is possible and you're asking "ethical questions" about doing it, what you're actually providing cover for is "we shouldn't give it to the poor" - which is as morally bankrupt a position as it ever was.
I was maybe being a little facetious. The moral question isn't important as much as how it will play out in practice. i.e., it will be available to the highest bidders, at first, and from then on, the best life extension will be available to those with the most money. It's only a matter of time before that sways the majority against the wealthy minority, and then pragmatism may dictate some concession to not as wealt…
TFA notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect we'll get a magical immortality switch that can just be turned on. More likely, various treatments will incrementally delay death for more and more elderly rich people. In less civilized nations, this process has already been underway for decades. [0]
"Governance at a global level" would put IP owners in charge of health care everywhere, which seems unlikely to increase egalitarianism in life expectancy.
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
People would still die in accidents, disasters and from disease, or war. Just not aging.
Yes, but then, firstly, that would be actually something you can influence by at least being more careful, and secondly, I've seen estimates that with aging removed, the average human lifespan would be around 1000 years. And 1000 years is quite a lot of time in terms of scientific progress. Just a reminder: electricity was very new just 150 years ago, yet it's essential for our current society.
I don't dispute anything you said, but I'm not sure what point you are making.
Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?
#99While I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap. Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.
> Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Have you heard of inheritance?
Inheritance does not sustain wealth.
> A staggering 70 percent of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation, with 90 percent losing it the generation after that.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth%3A-why-d...