Immortality

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!

How Voteth Thee?

Yea. People are free to do as they like. I may or may not choose to get a "treatment" myself, but it's for other people to decide for themselves.
1
14%
Yea. This is the moment humanity's been waiting for. After this one, I'm working on a bill to get this added to the universal healthcare package!
1
14%
Nay. This is a dangerous advance. Not only will it lead to strife, and class warfare, this would take us into territory man was not meant to enter.
3
43%
Yea, for some other reason.
1
14%
Nay, for some other reason.
1
14%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Immortality

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:59 am

The next in what I imagine will be a continuing series of polls.

Given recent research into the aging phenomenon - some even suggesting that the processes might be altogether prevented, it's at least a discussion worthy topic to consider immortality's effect on human society.

I'm sure plenty of you have asked, been asked, and answered the question on your behalf, but what about other people?

Say you're a Senator, or MP or whatever other legislative entity you choose, and before you is a bill to determine the legality of a medical process for ending aging illegal, do you vote Yea, or Nay?
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

User avatar
wigginboy
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am
First Joined: 0- 2-2004
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Postby wigginboy » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:03 am

It has always been the way of humans to want to preserve their longevity. Despite my belief that such a thing is not possible, if a 'fountain of youth' were to be discovered, I would be opposed to it's use. It is not natural for any living thing to last forever. if any one person were to be given this ability, that person would undoubtedly try everything in his power to kill himself after awhile. It would become much too lonely after a few centuries passed by for any individual to withstand being immortal. As for groups of people being immortal, I believe eventually this would lead to some sort of genocide of the mortal humans and eventually warfare between different groups of immortals would lead to destruction. This, of course, is given the option that immortal only means that one could not die by natural means. If, however, a person could be impervious to injury as well as natural causes, I would be opposed to a means of making them this way because this would mean that they could kill off the entire human race and no one could stop them. Not a good idea.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:42 am

I suspect the main reason people desire immortality is because they are afraid of death or dying. And I generally do not approve of people refusing to face their fears (hypocritical, I know, as I am deathly terrified of needles and actively avoid getting them whenever possible). We should not, though, encourage running from one's fears so much as learning to accept and live with them.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Right
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Postby Right » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:58 am

Well, if I'm a politician, I vote for the money. If they can't die, they don't ever stop paying taxes!
if a 'fountain of youth' were to be discovered, I would be opposed to it's use. It is not natural for any living thing to last forever. if any one person were to be given this ability, that person would undoubtedly try everything in his power to kill himself after awhile. It would become much too lonely after a few centuries passed by for any individual to withstand being immortal. As for groups of people being immortal, I believe eventually this would lead to some sort of genocide of the mortal humans and eventually warfare between different groups of immortals would lead to destruction.
What are your reasons for being opposed to its use? Let's see:
  • It is not natural for any living thing to last forever.
    People would try to kill themselves.
    Genocide.
#1: It is also " not natural" how we use antibiotics to kill infection. "Not natural" how artificial hearts keep people alive after they "should" be dead. Should we not utilize these medical advances as well?

#2: You seem to be presuming people should not have this right.

#3: I don't even know what steps you used to reach this conclusion.

Who are you to tell someone they can't do something, if it harms nobody else?

User avatar
lyons24000
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
Title: Darn Red Shells!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby lyons24000 » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:23 pm

This is interesting to me because it is much like what is common in the Commonwealth Saga by Peter F. Hamilton. (After the Ender's Series and the Mars Trilogy, this is my favorite series) They have the ability to every twenty or thirty years to undergo a treatment which will make them young again. Some of the main characters have lived for over a 1,500 years!

Like Right said, there are so many "unnatural" things that are commonly accepted (and many were against these now common things when they were first done) If this was actually done it would be up to each individual to utilize it or not.

I would have to vote in favor of it. There really isn't a valid reason to vote against it.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained

User avatar
wigginboy
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am
First Joined: 0- 2-2004
Location: Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Postby wigginboy » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:47 am

#1: It is also " not natural" how we use antibiotics to kill infection. "Not natural" how artificial hearts keep people alive after they "should" be dead. Should we not utilize these medical advances as well?

#2: You seem to be presuming people should not have this right.

#3: I don't even know what steps you used to reach this conclusion.

Who are you to tell someone they can't do something, if it harms nobody else?


1: This is another argument unto itself. Is it really a good thing to use antibiotics to treat infections? We have observed the use of antibiotics for a long time. We have seen how certain bugs have been fought off with antibiotics, only to have another strain pop up that is immune to the drug. This is, in many cases, counterproductive. This was observed recently with the H1N1 virus. We have all been vaccinated against the flu, many different strains in one shot, but what happens when the virus is transmitted between species? These are situations that are not planned for and can be disastrous. If you kill off all the bugs, what immunity do you have against new versions?

2: It is a personal opinion that people should value their lives and not selfishly try to end them. That said, it is not even alluded to in my comment that I do not believe anyone should have the right to kill themselves. I have personally been touched by suicide and feel it is a poor decision. My opinion, take it or leave it. All I said is that, given the opportunity to live forever, I believe many people would become desolate after living for years watching people live and die all around them and would likely try to take their own lives. Nowhere in my post did I say that I thought it was wrong to do so, only that it is a possibility.

3: Think about it. A group of people with the ability to live forever, versus a society doomed to die after only a century or so. It is not a stretch to infer that a race of people with immortal properties may eventually become greedy or arrogant and decide to kill off their mortal counterparts. I am not saying this is the only possibility, I am simply hypothesizing.

I am nobody to tell anybody what to do. I do not tell anybody what to do and expect nobody to tell me what to do. The question was, if you were an elected official faced with the decision to approve an agent of immortality, what would be your answer. Clearly, my answer was no and yours was yes. I gave my reasons and you gave yours; both are valid points. I did not attack your logic in asserting that, as a politician, you would be more interested in the money than the long-term effects on humanity. As is aforementioned, we both made our points as was asked of us in the original question. These are opinions and we are both entitled to them.

User avatar
elfprince13
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
Title: The Bombadil
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Postby elfprince13 » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:44 pm

I vote no on technical grounds. Not gonna happen. Also, overpopulation is a b****.
Vermont Sustainable Heating Initiative
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
Image

JeffersonSteelflex
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:43 am

Postby JeffersonSteelflex » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:08 am

I think the elephant in the room here is, "How do you decide what kind of person should qualify for immortality?" I'm sure we could all agree that someone like Hitler would not be a front runner. Hell, he wouldn't even be in the race. But then what traits disqualify someone from the opportunity. How do you decide between the righteous man and those whom the world is better off without? Ah internal conflict. Ain't it grand.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests