Arguing for Immortality

#1

Post by akanet » Tue, May 03, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#2

Post by reasonattlm » Tue, May 03, 2011, 10:48 PM UTC

"If you only had 20 minutes, what would you do to convince an intelligent (college educated or professional) audience of the significance of life extension beyond 120 years?"

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#3

Post by akanet » Tue, May 03, 2011, 10:54 PM UTC

reasonattlm wrote: post #2

Related: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/08/twenty-minutes-to... "If you only had 20 minutes, what would you do to convince an intelligent (college educated or professional) audience of the significance of life extension beyond 120 years?"

Neat, wish I had seen this sooner.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#4

Post by rblion » Tue, May 03, 2011, 10:59 PM UTC

My name means Immortal in Sanskrit. :)

If no one ever died, the world would overpopulate even faster. Death makes life possible. Death clears the old to make way for the new. In Hinduism and Buddhism, accepting death is a part of the path to enlightenment. Personally, I believe the body can die, but consciousness cannot...so we are already immortal, we just have to re-member it.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#5

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:07 PM UTC

reasonattlm wrote: post #2

Related: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/08/twenty-minutes-to... "If you only had 20 minutes, what would you do to convince an intelligent (college educated or professional) audience of the significance of life extension beyond 120 years?"

[deleted]

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#6

Post by rfrey » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:08 PM UTC

I don't consider myself a Mathusian... in fact I regularly use him as a strawman/punching bag when I'm flexing my poli-sci historical muscles over beer.

But the experiment has never been conducted with an immortal population, either, and his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#7

Post by michaelchisari » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:08 PM UTC

rblion wrote: post #4

My name means Immortal in Sanskrit. :) If no one ever died, the world would overpopulate even faster. Death makes life possible. Death clears the old to make way for the new. In Hinduism and Buddhism, accepting death is a part of the path to enlightenment. Personally, I believe the body can die, but consciousness cannot...so we are already immortal, we just have to re-member it.

If no one ever died, the world would overpopulate even faster.

If nobody ever died, the whole concept of procreation would change profoundly. With first world countries already in zero or negative population growth, creating an infinite lifespan would most likely further that trend.

And in any case, we're talking about longevity, not immortality. You can still get hit by a bus.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#8

Post by michaelchisari » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:09 PM UTC

rfrey wrote: post #6

I don't consider myself a Mathusian... in fact I regularly use him as a strawman/punching bag when I'm flexing my poli-sci historical muscles over beer. But the experiment has never been conducted with an immortal population, either, and his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around.

his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around.

Not if those 750 year olds are in no hurry to have kids.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#9

Post by ncarlson » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:10 PM UTC

rblion wrote: post #4

My name means Immortal in Sanskrit. :) If no one ever died, the world would overpopulate even faster. Death makes life possible. Death clears the old to make way for the new. In Hinduism and Buddhism, accepting death is a part of the path to enlightenment. Personally, I believe the body can die, but consciousness cannot...so we are already immortal, we just have to re-member it.

> overpopulate

Overpopulation is an idea based on scarcity. The technologies which enable immortality will also work to overcome scarcity.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#10

Post by akanet » Tue, May 03, 2011, 11:11 PM UTC

rfrey wrote: post #6

I don't consider myself a Mathusian... in fact I regularly use him as a strawman/punching bag when I'm flexing my poli-sci historical muscles over beer. But the experiment has never been conducted with an immortal population, either, and his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around.

I chose not to address societal implications of immortality not because they're not fascinating or relevant, but because people's immediate objections almost never have to do with "what happens to everyone else?"

That said I think the population will definitely level out when people realize they have literally forever to have kids and that infinite children are actually a total pain in the ass to care for.