Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I personally don't want to see us live forever (I do still want that sexdoll) though. Population control would become a HUGE issue immediately, worse than it already is, and we have plenty of people already procreating who shouldn't be. Allowing them to live forever too? Hell no! I don't even think that I should live forever. And I consider myself to be higher up on the human food chain than a decent chunk of the population. Not everyone, of course, but I think I'm in the upper 25%. And I still don't consider myself worthy of living forever. People like Ghandi? Yes. Of course. But Joe-Bob down south who survives on welfare with the 5 kids he had through his sister? No. Feth that guy-sterilize his ass. Most of the drivers in NYC fall into the same category of "feth them".

Wouldnt it be better for us all to just die. After all the world only changes because we all die. Imagine if we started living forever in the 1800s. We probably would be living largely how they lived then, today. (assuming we where born). Plus then theres the issue of who decides who lives and who doesnt and so on. Is it really old joes fault he is the way he is? What if he has been looking for a job but he cant get one in his area? He cant afford to relocate for a better job so he is stuck. So many issues are made and none are really fixed.

It just seems complicated and brutal to selectively kill off populations some deem not worthy. After all its why the most hated man on earth is hated right?

Better for all to die, than a select group to die.

In 99.9999% of cases, I totally agree with you. Like I said, Ghandi is one of the few I'd say is worth it. Hell, I'm not worthy to live forever. Nor is anyone else here (I truly mean this with no offense to anyone on this site). My statement was not meant at all to piss anyone off (unless you're married to your sister, have 5 kids with her, and sucking up welfare all at the same time-then you should be insulted). It was meant to show the ridiculousness of allowing people to live forever.

Re reading that I can see what you you meant now haha. But why Ghandi? Who decides that he has a place in the world forever? I mean not everyone can be a Ghandi, so its in effect punishing people for not having some form of greatness thats rare and unique.

But yea i kind of get it. Anyways im sure there will be many who are jealous and immortal Ghandi will be shot again at some point anyways haha.

Ghandi because of how much he pushed for love and peace. The amount of effort he put in, with how much he went through. He was mostly just an example. Martin Luthor King would be on that list too. But yeah, as you can tell, my suggestion of a list would be teeny tiny.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont believe this. Ever since the 40s we are told in the near future something will happen. I remember reading a science article from the 60s that talked about Bio Spheres capable of sustaining life on mars will be around in 20 years. We should have run out of fuel by now many times over.

True. But there's also the tendency of things to take forever, and appear to be getting absolutely nowhere, until all of a sudden things are happening faster than anyone could have ever predicted.

It's happening right now with solar panels, for instance.

BUT for the fun of it, if this does happen, I dont wanna be like the first computer is to a computer now. Will upgrades be plausible it will it be like most things where its easier and cheaper to just not bother with upgrades. Otherwise in 200 years I could have exhausts and chunks of flesh missing but still kicking while the newer kids have fancy hidden life keeping technology.

Also even if they make it in the next 50 years. I highly doubt we will get one. Chances are it will be crazy expensive for another length of time and then we have the problems of world populations and so on. So unless its slowly introduced with rapid changes I think it will be better if we just died for the overall benefit of the world.

Everything changes when the technology isn't just a disposable consumer item, but actually us.

Think of it this way - it's a lot easier to just make new people than to try and keep old ones alive. And yet we spend trillions of dollars each year trying to squeeze an extra few lives out of elderly people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Wouldnt it be better for us all to just die.

Maybe for human society as a whole, that's true. But it really sucks for each individual when he dies. And it's the individual's choice, made for his own benefit that defines decision making as a whole.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yeah, sure. Because iRobot totally didn't predict the consequences of artificially intelligent robots being used as slave labour.

And technically we already have robot blacksmiths...they're just relatively non intelligent automated production lines (e.g. automobile plants).

You really need to pick a better example: I, Robot kinda predicted that sentient robots would be everywhere and create a paradise for humanity (with the occasional minor 3 Laws hiccup that never actually ended in loss of life for anyone).

Swastakowey wrote:
Wouldnt it be better for us all to just die.


Maybe for human society as a whole, that's true. But it really sucks for each individual when he dies. And it's the individual's choice, made for his own benefit that defines decision making as a whole.


Ok well assuming its not a paid commodity and assuming everyone has equal access to it then yea I agree. But since chances are it will be company owned and sold for a high price and most of the world will not get that choice I think its only fair everyone dies. Unless of course everyone gets the choice.

Memorex =/= immortal.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ok well assuming its not a paid commodity and assuming everyone has equal access to it then yea I agree. But since chances are it will be company owned and sold for a high price and most of the world will not get that choice I think its only fair everyone dies. Unless of course everyone gets the choice.

Odds are it will be like all other medical services, which is something of a hybrid between a public good and a technology developed & owned for company profit.

Also, whether or not you or anyone thinks it is fair is irrelevant. Technology and change marches on because it offers something individuals desire. We can identify negative or unfair consequences and try to minimise them, but we can't just decide something is unfair and stop it - that simply doesn't work.

Well if its anything like the technology that can somewhat cure deaf people, my grandparents cannot afford it. Nor is if offered or anything. Granted its new ish, but still I highly doubt it will be easily available for a long long time (if ever at this rate). So while the lucky few deaf persons can experience hearing before they die, the vast majority of the deaf community I know (all of them actually) will die hearing nothing. Chances are this will be the case with immortal technology too.

Im not saying you are wrong, but you responded to me saying it would be better if we all just died. Im saying this is the best way, while you are saying it technically is but it isnt?

Which is fine I guess. I just dont think it will be this great big thing everyone think it will be. If it is this great big thing, chances are it wont in our time. While I know if there is profit involved it wont be dropped or made fair I do however think its the best thing to do. Or simply not create it in the first place.

Plus what I think is fair does not mean I think it will happen. I already said it would happen for the rich first, I also said most people would miss out. So i dont really know why you are telling me what I know already.

Or am I confused...

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im not saying you are wrong, but you responded to me saying it would be better if we all just died. Im saying this is the best way, while you are saying it technically is but it isnt?

I'm saying that the best overall way doesn't matter. All that matters is what will actually happen, and in this case if this technology becomes available then people will start using it because they don't want to die. Whether that's better or not for society is a nice question to ask, but not one that'll dictate what will actually happen.

I understand that, I thought I made it clear throughout my posts. I just put forward my opinion on how it should be handled, not how it would be handled. As an average person my opinion rarely matters.

If it ever happens, as I said earlier it will start off for the rich and go on from there. I also said it would cause many issues and blah blah. I dont get why you are telling me this when I agreed from the very start?

 Swastakowey wrote:
As an average person my opinion rarely matters.

If it ever happens, as I said earlier it will start off for the rich and go on from there. I also said it would cause many issues and blah blah. I dont get why you are telling me this when I agreed from the very start?

I don't we agreed on that much. To he honest this has been kind of a strange conversation to try and follow.

Yea man, im gonna leave it there and say, yes your right. because im sure what I have said you have said.. the difference being I put my opinion forward, which we both know will never happen.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well if its anything like the technology that can somewhat cure deaf people, my grandparents cannot afford it. Nor is if offered or anything. Granted its new ish, but still I highly doubt it will be easily available for a long long time (if ever at this rate). So while the lucky few deaf persons can experience hearing before they die, the vast majority of the deaf community I know (all of them actually) will die hearing nothing.

So, following your posts in here, are you... of the belief that no one should get access to this deafness improving technology?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well if its anything like the technology that can somewhat cure deaf people, my grandparents cannot afford it. Nor is if offered or anything. Granted its new ish, but still I highly doubt it will be easily available for a long long time (if ever at this rate). So while the lucky few deaf persons can experience hearing before they die, the vast majority of the deaf community I know (all of them actually) will die hearing nothing.

So, following your posts in here, are you... of the belief that no one should get access to this deafness improving technology?

No. I dont think some should get it over others. Which is currently the case. While I dont blame the ones that can afford it to get it, I do think its unfair and far from ideal that only those that can afford it should get it.

So, do you feel that until the procedure is available to everyone, it should be available to no one?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So, do you feel that until the procedure is available to everyone, it should be available to no one?

Why isnt it available to everyone? I mean I have given a lot of money to the deaf society charity but I dont see them working towards getting them available to everyone. A lot of deaf people never even heard of this device until I showed them. Which is odd given it can change their lives in ways we cant imagine.

I mean, I know things take time, but its been tested and tried. If it where a new cell phone they would be releasing it to the general population pretty damn quick by now. As mentioned before though its not getting anywhere without generating profit.

So there should be a point, where it stops being a test phase and starts being a thing that clearly works and continues to work, it should be attempted to be made available as soon as possible.

I know its not a perfect world, and things take time. But I feel something as life changing as curing deafness should be pressed out.

But to answer the question, no it shouldnt be all or none. But it should be systematic at the very least. At the moment its selective. Which "should" be avoided at all costs.

I will become one with the machine.

I will transcend the limits of my weak, fallible flesh.

Women of iron and steel will bow before me as a God wrought in living metal.

And then, I will subject mankind to pr0n which humanity is not yet prepared for. (outside Japan)

....and they have been saying they are on the cusp of curing Type I diabetes for the last 20+ years. I'll believe it when I see it.

Edit: Regarding Deafness. There are many people in the Deaf Community that feel it doesn't need to be cured, the same way having red hair doesn't need to be "cured".