The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The main problem I have with living forever is that if the cure for death were invented fifteen years ago, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms would 100% still be in office. Sometimes generations just have to die off before we can do the work.
It's not just racist politicians, either. As the quite dead Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
I don't want to die, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of the human race so my ass can sit around and play video games for the next couple of millennia.
The main problem I have with living forever is that if the cure for death were invented fifteen years ago, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms would 100% still be in office. Sometimes generations just have to die off before we can do the work.
It's not just racist politicians, either. As the quite dead Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
I don't want to die, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of the human race so my ass can sit around and play video games for the next couple of millennia.
I'd rather live forever and spend a thousand years fixing all the problems that causes than die in 80 years because that's more convenient. This might seem a bit selfish. And it is. And I don't care because I don't want to die.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Things getting better because older generations die off is a myth
It's a combination of things. It doesn't help if the older generation has convinced the younger generation to have very similar views. It's only if the younger generation has a progressive plan of action AND the older people in power retire, are politically defeated, or die that things improve.
Edit: Obviously the older generation in power changing their mind would also be a solution.
Thinking that your generation has it together and the older generation needs to die off so things can change is just a slacktivist way of smoking your own pole. It ignores the history of fighters for social rights, the amount of intolerance among your own generation, and also the number of times that societies have backslid through history. Like man, MAN! There was some great LGBT research in pre-Nazi Germany that we wouldn't see anything like again for decades!
Plus if you have the technology to live forever, you probably have the technology to allow someone to not lose as much of the ability to change your mind as you get older as we normally do.
I just watched the dragon tyrant video and that reaper one and both were terrible
Like they annoyed me the same way condescending atheist videos do
It's just stunningly self-absorbed to think that you're uncovering the eyes of the sheeple by suggesting that everyone being immortal and living in utopia could be... good?
And all we have to do is all agree to prioritize the life-extending efforts that will definitely lead to a utopia despite nothing at all suggesting that is a likely result. And incidentally it will save this person from having to deal with the existential crisis we all must face but that's not the point at all.
Everyone wants to be raptured, it doesn't really rate as an insight.
Edit: Like fuck, to look at the ways people deal with the incalculable grief of death and be like "Oh so they're in a better place now? So you've bought into the propaganda?" is fucking wild
durandal4532 on
We're all in this together
+2
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
You seem to assume that somebody approaching the idea that dying is bad and immortality would be good as something most people would probably accept. This is not necessarily the case. And to someone who holds the position that immortality would be a good thing we should be working towards, people who don't think physical immortality would be good and/or believe in an afterlife and think that dying is what we're supposed to do to get to another world can be a hindrance to that goal. After all, why would people who assume that while sad and tragic for many, death is ultimately a right and righteous thing want to spend a lot of effort preventing it indefinitely?
I admit I haven't seen either video, but is it like, directly addressed to people who have recently lost loved ones? Or is it supposed to be played at funerals? If not, why the outrage at the audacity of someone to say "So hey, maybe dying is actually exactly as shitty as it seems and we should be doing more about stopping it from happening than consoling ourselves with the idea that it ultimately leads to a good outcome." You don't have to agree with this position, but you don't have to treat as an inherently insulting or offensive position to take.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
darunia106J-bob in gamesDeath MountainRegistered Userregular
I'm just wondering why we assume that whatever procedure that keeps death at Bay would be free for everyone? It would probably be ridiculously expensive and exclusively only for the most wealthy (at least in America).
I'm just wondering why we assume that whatever procedure that keeps death at Bay would be free for everyone? It would probably be ridiculously expensive and exclusively only for the most wealthy (at least in America).
The wisdom is that
a) there wouldn't be a single magic bullet injection or pill or procedure that would "beat death" but rather a collection of maintenance treatments that indefinitely extend life. A reasonable evolution of current medical practice creating treatments similar to a regular visit to the dentist or trip to the clinic to get some antibiotics and these treatments would become mundane as the aforementioned procedures have
b) a democratic society wouldn't stand for only a certain percentage of the population having access to these treatments, realizing that when "healthcare" means never having to die it instantly becomes the single most important campaigning point such that a candidate that promised it for everyone would easily get the majority vote
c) the economy of scale producing and performing these treatments would very quickly lower the cost of them to a point where they would be eminently affordable to the aforementioned governments
Put simply, if the technology to indefinitely extend life became available, it would become so important to society that it would need to be free for everyone. If the 1% had access to it and denied access to the 99%, they would quickly realize that never getting sick is for shit when the guillotine is knocking down your door.
I'm just wondering why we assume that whatever procedure that keeps death at Bay would be free for everyone? It would probably be ridiculously expensive and exclusively only for the most wealthy (at least in America).
The wisdom is that
a) there wouldn't be a single magic bullet injection or pill or procedure that would "beat death" but rather a collection of maintenance treatments that indefinitely extend life. A reasonable evolution of current medical practice creating treatments similar to a regular visit to the dentist or trip to the clinic to get some antibiotics and these treatments would become mundane as the aforementioned procedures have
b) a democratic society wouldn't stand for only a certain percentage of the population having access to these treatments, realizing that when "healthcare" means never having to die it instantly becomes the single most important campaigning point such that a candidate that promised it for everyone would easily get the majority vote
c) the economy of scale producing and performing these treatments would very quickly lower the cost of them to a point where they would be eminently affordable to the aforementioned governments
Put simply, if the technology to indefinitely extend life became available, it would become so important to society that it would need to be free for everyone. If the 1% had access to it and denied access to the 99%, they would quickly realize that never getting sick is for shit when the guillotine is knocking down your door.
You can already apply B&C to food, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare - yet many people are prevented from easy and free access to those things.
I think it is somewhat woefully naive to believe that an immortality treatment wouldn't be made artificially scarce and heavily controlled by those it benefits most.
Posts
but now I think hey, I live on our planet! I DON'T want the entire thing incinerated!
See, it's like the sun becoming a red giant is a hobgoblin...
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
Could Aliens Build A Rocket To Escape A Super Earth?
Actually we can outlive the universe!
omg yes!
The main problem I have with living forever is that if the cure for death were invented fifteen years ago, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms would 100% still be in office. Sometimes generations just have to die off before we can do the work.
It's not just racist politicians, either. As the quite dead Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
I don't want to die, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of the human race so my ass can sit around and play video games for the next couple of millennia.
I'd rather live forever and spend a thousand years fixing all the problems that causes than die in 80 years because that's more convenient. This might seem a bit selfish. And it is. And I don't care because I don't want to die.
Like they annoyed me the same way condescending atheist videos do
It's a combination of things. It doesn't help if the older generation has convinced the younger generation to have very similar views. It's only if the younger generation has a progressive plan of action AND the older people in power retire, are politically defeated, or die that things improve.
Edit: Obviously the older generation in power changing their mind would also be a solution.
the yeet heard 'round the world
I'd be ok with that kind of future.
the My Longest Yeah Boy Ever kid just yeah boy-ing for 85 years straight
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
I was disappointed there was no Mei vs Pyro duel.
That's cool.
That is clearly not the attitude of the Simpsons in general though.
Satans..... hints.....
It's just stunningly self-absorbed to think that you're uncovering the eyes of the sheeple by suggesting that everyone being immortal and living in utopia could be... good?
And all we have to do is all agree to prioritize the life-extending efforts that will definitely lead to a utopia despite nothing at all suggesting that is a likely result. And incidentally it will save this person from having to deal with the existential crisis we all must face but that's not the point at all.
Everyone wants to be raptured, it doesn't really rate as an insight.
Edit: Like fuck, to look at the ways people deal with the incalculable grief of death and be like "Oh so they're in a better place now? So you've bought into the propaganda?" is fucking wild
I admit I haven't seen either video, but is it like, directly addressed to people who have recently lost loved ones? Or is it supposed to be played at funerals? If not, why the outrage at the audacity of someone to say "So hey, maybe dying is actually exactly as shitty as it seems and we should be doing more about stopping it from happening than consoling ourselves with the idea that it ultimately leads to a good outcome." You don't have to agree with this position, but you don't have to treat as an inherently insulting or offensive position to take.
the first ever essays were written by a grouchy retired Frenchman and were mainly just him opining about stuff
youtube video essays are getting a little out of hand but "too opinionated" isn't at all one of the reasons
The wisdom is that
a) there wouldn't be a single magic bullet injection or pill or procedure that would "beat death" but rather a collection of maintenance treatments that indefinitely extend life. A reasonable evolution of current medical practice creating treatments similar to a regular visit to the dentist or trip to the clinic to get some antibiotics and these treatments would become mundane as the aforementioned procedures have
b) a democratic society wouldn't stand for only a certain percentage of the population having access to these treatments, realizing that when "healthcare" means never having to die it instantly becomes the single most important campaigning point such that a candidate that promised it for everyone would easily get the majority vote
c) the economy of scale producing and performing these treatments would very quickly lower the cost of them to a point where they would be eminently affordable to the aforementioned governments
Put simply, if the technology to indefinitely extend life became available, it would become so important to society that it would need to be free for everyone. If the 1% had access to it and denied access to the 99%, they would quickly realize that never getting sick is for shit when the guillotine is knocking down your door.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
You can already apply B&C to food, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare - yet many people are prevented from easy and free access to those things.
I think it is somewhat woefully naive to believe that an immortality treatment wouldn't be made artificially scarce and heavily controlled by those it benefits most.