7 ms·
> Getting older and eventually dying is imho, what defines our humanity. Maybe, but is that a good thing? To simply "expire out of existence" is a big issue f
by Padding 12y ago
> Getting older and eventually dying is imho, what defines our humanity.
Maybe, but is that a good thing?
To simply "expire out of existence" is a big issue for "humanity". It's the main reason why there's no proper answer to "what's the meaning of life" - whatever you do during your 50/70/120/.. years of life you'll eventually end up just as dead as the guy right next to you. Congratulations!
Being immortal would allow us to get rid of crutches like religion and allow us to implement proper moral systems, since there would be tangible rewards to being "good" simply for "goodness' sake", since being good and being selfish would be identical - if you'll (eventually but reiably) suffer overpoputlation, pollution and even unemployment just as much as the next guy, you'll (eventually but, again, reiably) think twice about elbow tactics.
> Oh yeah, I really doubt this - I know a lot of older people and most of them would not want this trade in.
20? Maybe. but How about being in the body of a 30- or 40-year old again? I can't imagine any 70-year olds not wanting to have a more "hassle-free" body, all other things being equal.
> makes live unworthy
Talking about live being "unworthy" is a slippery slope, but there nevertheless is an argument to be made about quality vs quantity of life .
I don't have the reference (and the exact numbers) at hand, but in "Happiness Hypothesis" (the Book) the author mentions a survey where people got to express their preference between "living x years of life and then dying to some tragic accident" and "x+y years of life, but y years spent in a wheelchair, because of some tragic accident". The results were rather mixed with the shorter life being more popular choice.
And, by the end of the day, a chance at higher-quality life in exchange for possibly less total life is also why things like armed robberies exist (even if not every robber things of it like that beforehand). I'd also argue the same is true of people opting for high-risk jobs, but there's also a sense-of-duty aspect to them, so it's not quite as clear-cut there.
- Gurkenmaster 12y ago>20? Maybe. but How about being in the body of a 30- or 40-year old again? I can't imagine any 70-year olds not wanting to have a more "hassle-free" body, all other things being equal. Nobody is going to pay for your pension forever. Do you really want to spend your entire life working?
- gambiting 12y ago>>Nobody is going to pay for your pension forever. What? I don't know where you are from,but in EU state pensions are absolutely paid until death.
- Gurkenmaster 12y agoI live in germany but I tried to use common sense. In this scenario our society would be split into two groups if we pay pensions for eternity: Those who lived long enough to receive their pension. Their body turns 30 again thanks to breakthroughs in science. And those who never age beyond 30 and so they never get their pension. The first group effectively gets "basic income" and they probably own houses/apartments so their living costs are quite low. You can either let everyone have pensions or get rid of pensions.
- itsybitsycoder 12y agoNot a lot of people get pensions where I live anymore (or at least, not enough of one to live on comfortably). If you don't want to spend your entire life working, you could save for retirement, same as you (hopefully) do now. A lot of people plan their retirement so that they can live off the returns of their investments without touching the principal. If you do this, there's not much difference between retiring for 20 years versus 200.