Immortality
- Thread starter zazazuzu
- Start date
The future differences between them will be several orders of magnitude larger. If you are at 9, you may get to 10. If you are at 9 you won't get to 10 trillion trillions.
This doesn't change the fact that you already need a solution to this problem.
Trying to show that your proposed solution to the problem of little Mike hitting little John with a playdough is to equip little Mike with a flamethrower, just allow for some classes against use of violence in between. If you want the flamethrower at least don't make it about solving stuff or preventing consequences.
H4run
Deity
This is true, but Kyriakos point is that when this problem will be escalated to the extreme and unimaginable level
At which point there will literally be no turning back.
Maybe. But by all appearances the problem of wealth concentration is happening brutally faster than age-delaying science. You need a solution to the wealth-concentration problem, regardless. And you'll need it asap.
H4run
Deity
Reading the previous post by Jung I think death is useful after all, it's acts as a tourniquet to such problem. When we able to maintain longer or say immortal life and it will be first (or forever) the luxury for the rich, it will results the exacerbated wealth concentration problem, maybe culminated to what Kyriakos demonstrated.
So immortality perhaps not a good idea at all if we see from the larger picture
Last edited:
What if a more fair/balanced wealth concentration means there will be fewer people giving money to fund research into immortality? I am sure you wouldn't want that. Maybe in such a case we should rework the entire fabric of society to make it focus into a hypothetical impossible future where immortality is real but doesn't lead to hell for the vast majority of the population. (just be mindful to not overdo it, ie at the expense of pipe-dreams for immortality happening, cause that is priority number one).
@hobbsyoyo , given you liked that line, i wrote this now for an informal flash fiction contest (themed; about an advertisement). It isn't anything serious, but you might enjoy it 
Besides, i wouldn't have bothered writing it without your comment about the line.
Besides, i wouldn't have bothered writing it without your comment about the line.Spoiler :
Last edited:
With respect, you already implicitly believe in the permanent division from the haves and have nots. All of the offshoots of the Abrahamic faiths already believe in immortality.
I don't even 'believe' in Immortality, since I don't think it's achievable in any real sense.
Kyr: there's no 'research into immortality'. There's the stepwise tackling of conditions that afflict everyone. As I said, the problem you describe already exists. You keep pretending that I'm in favour of the problem. No. I need your help on that one too. There are many problems, and if the solution to one problem aggravates another, it means we need more help and not less. Or, more imagination rather than this hand-wringing pretending that it's best that people suffer
The idea of "it's best for people to decay over decades" might work if it Thanos-snapped away the worms and gods problem. But it's not. The slide into senility and decay hurts the poor more than the rich.
H4run
Deity
I will let you have that El Machienae 
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Not really true. We'd need far more oomph to protect the Earth from the sun going red giant than we would to, in principle, attain some form of "immortality". After the sun does go red giant, pretty much anything humanity has done to Earth is likely irrelevant. I suppose we might have a way to alter Earth's orbit by then, it's a long way off...but there would remain the problem of energy after that.
We have numerous issues to solve before then though, or we won't make it as a species to the point where we could even try to influence Earth's fate.
H4run
Deity
That is definitely right in that context of course, in this case I'm talking about the calamity that is near to us, like pollution, waste problem (plastic, chemical waste, etc), nature exploitation, rapid amount of human settlements expansion without proper city plan, sounds like trivial issue but the impact is deathly and it is much closer than we expect, hence immortality is pretty pointless when we can be pretty screw up in near future, don't you think so?
Last edited:
Yes, as I said, there is no immortality. All that exists is concerted effort to push back on the diseases associated with aging. People act as if this comes from the same budget as the resources required to save our planet, but it's not really that. Given that there are certain types of consumption that are speeding ecological destruction, I would propose that people trim those consumptions from their budget in order to provide money in ways that create the solutions.
I'm not the villain here, trying to fund research into Alzheimer's. It's the person buying a hamburger, while typing that research into Alzheimer's is less important than preventing ecological destruction
I'm not the villain here, trying to fund research into Alzheimer's. It's the person buying a hamburger, while typing that research into Alzheimer's is less important than preventing ecological destruction
H4run
Deity
I think to fund a research on Alzheimer or to fund a research on the substitute of plastic that is equally cheaper and recyclable to the environment are not an either this or that option.
However if we must chose either one of it in some scenario, the fact that the research for a nature friendly substitute of plastic will be both benefits in preserving the general ecology and humanity at large (all age). However to research into Alzheimer only benefit the humanity in a specific segment of population. My choice will be quite obvious.
Sometime human not only too narcissistic as an individual, but also as a society, funnily, it is our own anthropocentrism that will be the one who destroy us in the end.
Okay, but I'm not sure I actually believe you. We will see how much of your donation purse goes to funding Environmental Research. And we will see if you forego helping old people in order to fun to that research instead.
We can do many things at once, is my point, and also that the funding should be coming from people's hedonism budget. And not by complaining about other things that are helping people
We can do many things at once, is my point, and also that the funding should be coming from people's hedonism budget. And not by complaining about other things that are helping people
H4run
Deity
Well that's a realization from what I see recently, I'm not telling you that I'm a good example of people who engage in environmental activism, heck I even maybe wrote my previous post as a self introspection than a self declaration. I'm just stating what I think is true.
also mine if you read my previous post
I don't know when I'm complaining about people putting an effort to cure Alzheimer, Cancer, or any other ailments, I'm just stating immortality is not a good idea because death serves a function, that doesn't means vis-a-vis I'm against people or institution that putting an effort on the development of modern medicine (or whatever it's), I'm just simply saying "the quest to search for peaches of immortality are not worth seeking, because perhaps the peach that we are seeking, if it's even exist, are not worth to eat" I come to realization of that idea during my dialog with Kyriakos.
Last edited:
