6 ms·

It’s sinful to fish and kill these ancient creatures up from the deep for minor scientific progress.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
derektank 8mo ago
They’re predatory scavengers that wouldn’t hesitate to eat you if it had the opportunity. I would much rather conduct biomedical research on sharks than mice or rats.
jaccola 8mo ago
Ah yes potentially getting us one step closer to immortality, hardly worth killing an animal! I mostly eat vegan because I do have a strong dislike of factory farming and the way animals are treated there. But killing animals is a fact of life and I think scientific progress is a very valid reason to do so. To put it in perspective, a lot of shark young will kill each other in the womb such that only the strongest is birthed. These animals eat other animals alive, etc.. etc.. My point being it is not like the option is between a rosy utopia or human-inflicted suffering.
- arter45 8mo ago
  I'm not against scientific research per se or living a bit more but... is immortality (or living for, say, 200 years or more) really something we should strive for? Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited. From politics (even absolute monarchs or dictators eventually die), to economics (think about retirement, for example), demographics (if everyone is immortal and everyone keeps having children, what happens?), even psychology ("everything passes"). Are we willing to throw these implications away? What would be the purpose?
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy. > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly.
    - arter45 8mo ago
      > Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy. Sure but is gerontocracy a good thing, then? I’m not against older people, but shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more. Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally. > > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly. Well ok, but even if you can’t die horribly (ignoring murders,…) you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons. Starving, rape, physical and psychological abuse, painful diseases even if non lethal,… still exist regardless of immortality. It’s not like immortal people are necessarily happy or good.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more I'm genuinely not seeing the problem. Longer lives means more productive lives. (A massive fraction of healthcare costs are related to obesity and aging. A minority of medicine is in trauma.) > Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally We don't have a path to entropy-defying immortality. Not aging doesn't mean literal immortality. > you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons The fact that you're levying this argument should seal the case. It's an argument that can be made against anything good.
        arter45 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

They’re predatory scavengers that wouldn’t hesitate to eat you if it had the opportunity. I would much rather conduct biomedical research on sharks than mice or rats.

jaccola 8mo ago

Ah yes potentially getting us one step closer to immortality, hardly worth killing an animal! I mostly eat vegan because I do have a strong dislike of factory farming and the way animals are treated there. But killing animals is a fact of life and I think scientific progress is a very valid reason to do so. To put it in perspective, a lot of shark young will kill each other in the womb such that only the strongest is birthed. These animals eat other animals alive, etc.. etc.. My point being it is not like the option is between a rosy utopia or human-inflicted suffering.

arter45 8mo ago
I'm not against scientific research per se or living a bit more but... is immortality (or living for, say, 200 years or more) really something we should strive for? Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited. From politics (even absolute monarchs or dictators eventually die), to economics (think about retirement, for example), demographics (if everyone is immortal and everyone keeps having children, what happens?), even psychology ("everything passes"). Are we willing to throw these implications away? What would be the purpose?
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy. > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly.
  - arter45 8mo ago
    > Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy. Sure but is gerontocracy a good thing, then? I’m not against older people, but shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more. Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally. > > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly. Well ok, but even if you can’t die horribly (ignoring murders,…) you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons. Starving, rape, physical and psychological abuse, painful diseases even if non lethal,… still exist regardless of immortality. It’s not like immortal people are necessarily happy or good.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more I'm genuinely not seeing the problem. Longer lives means more productive lives. (A massive fraction of healthcare costs are related to obesity and aging. A minority of medicine is in trauma.) > Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally We don't have a path to entropy-defying immortality. Not aging doesn't mean literal immortality. > you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons The fact that you're levying this argument should seal the case. It's an argument that can be made against anything good.
      - arter45 8mo ago