Exhuminator wrote:Overload wrote:Do you really want to become terminally ill? And when?
I don't mind dying some day, within the average non-genetically altered human life span. I don't prefer death to be via a painful terminal illness necessarily. If it were so, then so be it. When do I die? When it is time I suppose. And that time is not mine to decide, unless I blow my own brains out or opt to pull the plug via a living will. Even if I could artificially live 500 years, who's to say that at year 480, I wouldn't die an accidental death, one totally devoid of biological detriment? Outside planned suicide "when" is not really a feasible goal.
If you had the choice between getting Alzheimer's, cancer, heart-disease or remaining healthy, you'd take that treatment, just as you take existing medicines when you need them. This is not so much about living a long time as it is remaining healthy. We have a tendency to extrapolate linearly and get uncomfortable when there's not a clearly defined end. We should look at our lives not as a story, but as an ongoing experience.
If we can make it to 500, then the limit is going to be undefined, indefinite, so a lot of people will be living for thousands of years. Even so, I'd rather die at 480 than 80. I'm not sure what your point is with this.
You keep making a distinction between natural and artificial. It's a meaningless one. Everything we do is natural, as we're products of nature. It'd be unnatural for us
not to strive to improve our condition. It's what we do. It's what we've always done. It's what we'll continue to do.
Exhuminator wrote:
Overload wrote:I'd say that we all know aging is horrible from the time we're children, but systematically bludgeon the thought to the depths of our minds as we grow older, because it's too painful.
When you say "we all know aging is horrible" you speak too broadly. "We" is too inclusive, because "we" do not all "know" that.
I think it's obvious to most children, when they witness their family die, that aging is bad. By the time we're adults, we've become numb to it. It's also partly a limit of our limited minds, which evolved to deal with more immediate threats, but not so much for long-term ones, because we didn't live very long until relatively recently. This is why people will get up in arms about ISIS, which is never going to be a serious threat to the US, while living a lifestyle that'll end in heart disease. I look at aging like a gun with a very long barrel. The bullet takes a while to reach you, but it's no less a direct threat to your life. It's also objectively a huge financial drain, and the largest cause of death, comprising 100k of the 150k deaths per day.
Exhuminator wrote:
Some think that oncoming death is frightening, therefore this life as we know it should be artificially prolonged. Some think that an aging body is a terrible thing. Some of us do not think either are true, due to philosophy, spiritualism, or religion.
I'd prefer to continue existing, and I'm not afraid to admit that. Admitting that we'd like to live sets us up for disappointment, so we prefer not to get our hopes up in the first place. Aging is a senseless agent of death that kills indiscriminately. It's utterly meaningless. Evil. If you won't fight for yourself, fight for your kids/family. Even if you believe in an afterlife, what's the harm of living this one for as long as you can? Learning as much as you can? Experiencing the cosmos to its fullest?
Exhuminator wrote:
You personally seem to be an atheist-materialist, and if that is indeed the case, than it's totally understandable why you'd want to live for as long as possible, in the younger body you have now, in the existence you know now. And I won't argue against your own personal belief, it is yours rightfully so.
But I will say there are many who do not share that point of view. Myself being one of them. As such, I'm totally okay with living as long as my human vessel naturally allows, disregarding anti-aging gene therapy to ward off cellular degradation.
[/quote]
I'm a fan of Occam's Razor. Some believe in a biblical afterlife, others believe that we're in a simulation of some kind. Neither are provable, so I prefer to live as if this is the only life I'll get. I view these beliefs as stories created to help us cope with the bleakness of our human condition, and evidence that we do want to continue living.
People were denying the possibility of human flight until the very day it was done, because it's not natural, humans aren't meant to fly. We've transcended our natural bounds. We're nature reinventing itself.
When SENS was just starting up around 15 years ago, it was written off, mocked. Since then, the research advisory board has grown considerably, even including some of those that originally were against it. We're also seeing other organizations popping up, like Bioviva, the CEO of which, 4 months ago, injected herself with a gene therapy. The tides are turning, and as soon as the first treatments are available to the public, all the naysayers will be in line with everyone else.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
I've gotta ask, did you watch the video I linked to in the OP?
Also, here's a debate that recently happened on the subject, great listen regardless of your position:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debate ... ong-enough
