Biotech and the end of dying

[Duke]

I disagree with this kind of logic. I know it was just a general comment and you probably didn't invest all your energy in picking the words.

And this also is not addressed at you Duke, it's just general. My impression is that a lot of people have this preconceived notion that the outer borders of our technological capacity will keep growing exponentially. And by that logic, at some point in the future we will have found a way to make car engines that use a dl per 100 miles. We'll have cars that can travel in a million kilometres an hour. We will eventually have 2000-core CPUs with two hundred billion gazillion gigahertz on them, and regular household PCs will have 14448gb ram. I can go on. It's a naive and silly way to think of technological advances. Just because we came from one point and advanced to another point, that doesn't mean we can keep advancing infinitely. Everything has its limits, also technology and the universe. Which is why I think this research will hit the point where we have identified the genes that are related to aging, but where all our attempts at controlling them have failed.

But a lot of these things have been realized. Back in, say, 1993, if you would say home PC's 15 years later would have hard disks the size of terrabytes, some folks would also laugh at you.

I remember back when VAG/Bugatti announced they were going to build a 1000hp/400 kmh car, everyone laughed and them and told them to gtfo. And they did it anyway.

I understand your point and your reasoning, though. And it's correct to some extent, when we look at the principle of diminutive returns.

Also, my first post (the one you replied to) wasn't meant to convey "I think'll within 30 years we'll be able to live half a millennium" either. What I meant with it is that it will take a long while before the science itself (whatever practical result it may have) could be properly put into use.

And "i think" or "i imagine" is all well and fluffy, but you and I are no scientists, are we? We're not the ones to judge.

You talked about the pitfall of thinking scientific gains will keep growing exponentially. Principally, you are correct. But I believe that thinking something is outright not possible is a much, much greater intellectual pitfall you want to avoid.

If you imagine a skin cell and all the atoms it consists of, and all the quarks that make up the nucleons of said atoms, and consider the fact that nucleons have a charge (or that a nucleon can behave in different ways depending on various factors, rather), then saying that "it's a gene" is a simplification of something that is larger than what we can understand. Considering this, I don't understand how a person can think we will be able to prolong life within X years. What is he basing his estimation on? It came from his ass.

This is just....are you high?

 

[S O F I]

Everything has its limits, also technology and the universe.

What do you base this opinion on?

As far as the universe goes, I thought it was uncertain whether the universe had a limit, as in was whether it was finite or not. Also, where is the evidence that "everything" has a limit?

 

[THEV1LL4N]

they could still get stabbed or shot or run over by a lorry.

 

[Jokerman]

they could still get stabbed or shot or run over by a lorry.

Not if they also have their skeleton bonded with Adamantium like Wolverine.

 

[ill-matic]

I am wholeheartedly opposed to any introduction of this, and I believe the resources being pumped into this should be re-directed to other areas.

1. The selective use of this will never work. Eventually, it would become a profitable enterprise, because a big percentage of the general public would want to live forever. The profitability of it would make it too sweet to just keep it "selective". So it will be whored out and abused, and eventually, shit will turn to pieces.

2. This is unnatural. Everything should have its due course. There is life, and there is death. I dont give a shit if Gandhi or whoever the fuck could have lived forever and brought peace to the world. It's unnatural. Secondly, it's too narrowminded to say something so ambigious with such conviction. The world would adapt to that technology, and humans will simply find another way to fuck themselves over

 

[Duke]

2. This is unnatural. Everything should have its due course. There is life, and there is death. I dont give a shit if Gandhi or whoever the fuck could have lived forever and brought peace to the world. It's unnatural. Secondly, it's too narrowminded to say something so ambigious with such conviction. The world would adapt to that technology, and humans will simply find another way to fuck themselves over

Chemotherapy is also unnatural.

 

[Jokerman]

This is unnatural. Everything should have its due course. There is life, and there is death.

So is saving someone’s life with by-pass heart surgery. Are you against that? How about using any kind of pharmaceutical for any reason? Ever take an aspirin or Tylenol for a headache? Do you walk everywhere you go, because cars and even bicycles are unnatural? Do you use any plastic for anything? Do you watch TV? Is the Internet you’re on natural? Unnatural is not an argument. It would have been unnatural to have helped Christopher Reeve walk again, or to use gene therapy to cure a genetic disease.

People tend to fear new possibilities. Opponents will throw out “unnatural” without thinking it through or trot out another favorite catch-phrase: “playing God.” But that’s the same thing as saying “unnatural.” Every time we take an antibiotic, we are “playing God.” Resuscitating a person whose heart has stopped may be “playing God” the first few times it’s done; afterward it becomes a standard part of emergency medical treatment, and we take it for granted. And since God doesn’t exist -- or may as well not, for all the good he does -- what we are doing is “playing Human.”

I believe there is no moral reason not to extend our life span as much as we can. And I want as many choices as I can get to do so. Accidents and violence will not disappear, of course. People will still be vulnerable to poor judgment, bad luck, and evil doers. But being against life extension by genetic manipulation would be like being against life extension by trying to eat properly and exercise. “Well, everyone shouldn’t eat properly, we’d be overcrowded.” You ever hear ppl talk like that? No. Being against this would be like being against people going to doctors when they are sick and want to prolong their lives by getting cured. Let’s stop medical research because it’s extending people’s lives. Let’s stop replacing knees, corneas, bones, hearts, kidneys, livers. It’s unnatural. No more dental implants to replace teeth, or fillings for that matter. Why don’t you cross a busy street with your eyes closed? Are you trying to prolong your life? Are you trying to play God? If it’s your time, it’s your time. If not, keep your eyes closed. God will protect you.

Listen. Those who want no part of this technology because they’re either ignorant or religious (as if that’s mutually exclusive) shouldn’t have any part of it. This world doesn’t need them living indefinitely. Natural Selection at work. See ya. Wouldn't want to be... Hey, I just thought of something. Jesus became immortal. That's unnatural. I think he was "playing God."

Rational people try to avoid death, unless they are so ill that they see death as preferable to life. Wanting to extend your life or live indefinitely is not selfishness, or greed, or megalomania, or any other manifestation of moral degradation. It’s nothing less than what we should expect. Life seeks life. Living organisms strive to continue living. Of course there will be issues to deal with, as there are with any advance. There will also be many benefits. It will allow us to grow wiser with experience. Learn more. Come up with new ideas and inventions. Develop technologies that can get us to the stars and populate other planets with our growing life-extended population. Force us to tackle the truly long-term problems that we face, like global warming, because now we will be around to see it in our lifetimes. The human race will end its adolescence and attain true adulthood at last. You can be part of it, or you can be "natural."

 

[Jokerman]

Chemotherapy is also unnatural.

Right point, bad choice. Chemo is toxic and no one should be using it. There are better alternatives.

 

[Casey]

So is saving someone’s life with by-pass heart surgery. Are you against that? How about using any kind of pharmaceutical for any reason? Ever take an aspirin or Tylenol for a headache? Do you walk everywhere you go, because cars and even bicycles are unnatural? Do you use any plastic for anything? Do you watch TV? Is the Internet you’re on natural? Unnatural is not an argument. It would have been unnatural to have helped Christopher Reeve walk again, or to use gene therapy to cure a genetic disease.

People tend to fear new possibilities. Opponents will throw out “unnatural” without thinking it through or trot out another favorite catch-phrase: “playing God.” But that’s the same thing as saying “unnatural.” Every time we take an antibiotic, we are “playing God.” Resuscitating a person whose heart has stopped may be “playing God” the first few times it’s done; afterward it becomes a standard part of emergency medical treatment, and we take it for granted. And since God doesn’t exist -- or may as well not, for all the good he does -- what we are doing is “playing Human.”

I believe there is no moral reason not to extend our life span as much as we can. And I want as many choices as I can get to do so. Accidents and violence will not disappear, of course. People will still be vulnerable to poor judgment, bad luck, and evil doers. But being against life extension by genetic manipulation would be like being against life extension by trying to eat properly and exercise. “Well, everyone shouldn’t eat properly, we’d be overcrowded.” You ever hear ppl talk like that? No. Being against this would be like being against people going to doctors when they are sick and want to prolong their lives by getting cured. Let’s stop medical research because it’s extending people’s lives. Let’s stop replacing knees, corneas, bones, hearts, kidneys, livers. It’s unnatural. No more dental implants to replace teeth, or fillings for that matter. Why don’t you cross a busy street with your eyes closed? Are you trying to prolong your life? Are you trying to play God? If it’s your time, it’s your time. If not, keep your eyes closed. God will protect you.

Listen. Those who want no part of this technology because they’re either ignorant or religious (as if that’s mutually exclusive) shouldn’t have any part of it. This world doesn’t need them living indefinitely. Natural Selection at work. See ya. Wouldn't want to be... Hey, I just thought of something. Jesus became immortal. That's unnatural. I think he was "playing God."

Rational people try to avoid death, unless they are so ill that they see death as preferable to life. Wanting to extend your life or live indefinitely is not selfishness, or greed, or megalomania, or any other manifestation of moral degradation. It’s nothing less than what we should expect. Life seeks life. Living organisms strive to continue living. Of course there will be issues to deal with, as there are with any advance. There will also be many benefits. It will allow us to grow wiser with experience. Learn more. Come up with new ideas and inventions. Develop technologies that can get us to the stars and populate other planets with our growing life-extended population. Force us to tackle the truly long-term problems that we face, like global warming, because now we will be around to see it in our lifetimes. The human race will end its adolescence and attain true adulthood at last. You can be part of it, or you can be "natural."

Have I ever told you how much I love you?

Seriously this is like the best fucking thing that's ever been written on this board.

Major, major props.

 

[Jokerman]

Have I ever told you how much I love you?

Seriously this is like the best fucking thing that's ever been written on this board.

Major, major props.

Thanks. I heart you too.

This is a big part of my studies and life goal. To live as long as I can as healthy as I can. Then ultimately not to be immortal in a body but to transcend both life and death. And be my own Jesus. "Follow me," Jesus said.

 

[Duke]

Right point, bad choice. Chemo is toxic and no one should be using it. There are better alternatives.

Smartass.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Not if they also have their skeleton bonded with Adamantium like Wolverine.

suffocate?

 

[Prize Gotti]

So if someone like Gandhi, Einstein, Martin Luther King (if hypothetically had not been murdered) had the opportunity to increase their life span, you'd be against it?

For some one who doesn't believe in god, you fail to see the real purpose of life, the ultimate goal that we all live for.

 

[S O F I]

^You fail to see that death isn't our purpose, but the end-result of life.

 

[Casey]

^You fail to see that death isn't our purpose, but the end-result of life.

Bingo!

Gotti if you think death is the "real purpose of life" and the "ultimate goal".....well I just don't even know where to begin with that one.

The purpose of existing is to ultimately NOT exist? What kind of logic is that?

I really do feel sorry for people that believe in afterlifes, there being something after death, all that bullshit. Most of them will waste their lives away thinking that they're just in some sort of stage before they reach a better one. Garbage.

Death isn't even a real thing. It's the absence of life that once existed. Just as dark does not exist as it is just the absence of light.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

i didnt know we were playing a game of bingo.

casey, when will you resume thanking my posts?

 

[Shadows]

i didnt know we were playing a game of bingo.

casey, when will you resume thanking my posts?

When you can deep throat 8 inches.

Bingo!

Gotti if you think death is the "real purpose of life" and the "ultimate goal".....well I just don't even know where to begin with that one.

The purpose of existing is to ultimately NOT exist? What kind of logic is that?

I really do feel sorry for people that believe in afterlifes, there being something after death, all that bullshit. Most of them will waste their lives away thinking that they're just in some sort of stage before they reach a better one. Garbage.

Death isn't even a real thing. It's the absence of life that once existed. Just as dark does not exist as it is just the absence of light.

Um, I think people who are religous think that the purpose of life is to ultimately have a better one through the soul in the after life. Not to not exist...

But I get your point.

 

[ill-matic]

there is no purpose to life. the only purpose that exists is one which we individually apply to it.

as a whole, there's no purpose.

 

[S O F I]

Um, I think people who are religous think that the purpose of life is to ultimately have a better one through the soul in the after life. Not to not exist...

But I get your point.

haha yeah, by his post, you would think religious folk just sit around waiting to die. But it's actually the "fear" of the after-life (between heaven and hell) that theoretically encourages them to live "righteously" and which should for them be fulfilling as well.

as a whole, there's no purpose.

What does this mean?

 

[Prize Gotti]

The purpose of existing is to ultimately NOT exist? What kind of logic is that?

Because its the only logic that has any validation. Nothing in "life" is a certainty, just a choice, the only thing we can't choose and is a certainty is death. It may not sound fun, but there is no proof that there is any other reason to be alive, just opinions.

Dunno why you started talking about the afterlife though, unrelated to my philosophy.