TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
My thesis is that death is something that should be fought, and can be defeated. All human deaths have a cause, and each of those causes is fundamentally solvable. It requires a deliberate effort, but that effort is a worthy one.
Conquering the blight of involuntary death. It is a worthy endeavor.
I'm in this boat. As an atheist it's my only choice if I want to continue having experiences.
I suppose I wouldn't care about dying after doing so, but I'd rather not. I'm well aware that if we solve we'd be pulling off an extreme statistical improbability, but it's worth a shot. Failing that, might as well enjoy the time available as much as possible.
I fear that a lack of natural death will result in tyranny, complete exhaustion of the world's resources, and mass natural mortality being replaced by mass murder.
I find most of these doubtful. Immortality would alter societal patterns drastically, but we already have tyranny and I see no reason to anticipate particular spikes in mass murder beyond what we already get with occasional wars.
When it comes to resource consumption, we must solve that as a species regardless of whether we manage to solve aging or we get an identical result marginally later on geologic time scales.
If we're not off the planet or tech gods we'll eventually get roasted by the Sun. If we clear that hurdle immortality would buy us a lot of time, heat death of the universe is a long way away.
Last edited: