Sure, but why does it always have to be all or nothing? Eternity is obviously too long - for reasons you stated, but that doesn’t mean 70 to 100 years is enough.
People spend a lot of time denying things like evolution, climate change, and geologic processes because they can’t see them in a human lifetime. I think if our lives were a lot longer, there’d be a lot less of that. I suspect that a lot of political problems would find themselves some solutions if they were going to affect us down the road, not just some nebulous future generations. The entire workplace dynamic would change, too: even with a little bit of savings, we’d eventually get to the point where most of us would work when (and presumably on) what we want to, rather than because we have to.
Besides, it’d just be cool. There’s a mountain range off the west coast that will extend the coast another hundred miles or so in the next 15-50 million years. It kinda makes me sad that I know it’ll happen, but I’ll never see it. Sure, I’d be bored now and again–but I get bored now and again now. Somehow I always get over it.
The big problem is accidents. Another thread was talking about average human lifespan if you took all natural causes out of play–the “statistical” lifespan before you’d die in an accident is about 600 years, if I recall. That’s too short, and there’s only so much we can do about safety – maybe we could double or triple that number, but that’s not enough to let me see my mountains above the waterline.
What, in your opinion, would be? ‘Enough’ that is.
And once again, why would you think we wouldn’t be having this exact same argument if we lived to “enough”…whatever that may be.
Remember that people could also get disabilities… e.g. being paralysed or getting brain damage, or be in a lot of pain… the topic isn’t comfortable lives being too short… so a long life may involve a lot of suffering.
What would be the ideal lifespan that would maximize the happiness of people? And is it more or less than our current life expectancy.
Indefinite. Until I run out of things to do, lose the will to continue or the world becomes intolerable to live in.
I don’t really understand your argument. I mean, you could deliver that argument to a 20-year-old, unwillingly dying of some disease or other, saying “yeah, but would even 80 years be ‘enough’?” - but would you?
If the end of their nightmarish reign ends with a natural death surely dying at the age of 90 is better than dying at the age of 10,000?
Then what? Would you kill yourself? What about other people who would also become unhappy at that point yet think it is immoral to kill themselves? Also medical people think being suicidal usually involves mental illness and they’d hospitalize you and maybe put you on suicide watch.
Only people who are still alive complaint about life being too short. Nobody dead has a bad word to say about the length of their lives. And neither will you when you are dead. So get on with what you were doing before ya started your bellyaching.
I’d guess they’d get over that.
If not, they’ve got only themselves to blame. It’s a lot like keeping kosher in a world that has bacon in it: it’s a self-imposed decision for what those abstaining perceive as a greater good, and there’s nothing wrong with it so long as they choose it freely. But it shouldn’t be a reason for the rest of us not to have nice things.
And as far as suicide being a mental illness: sure, it is now, but if it were the only way to die, I’m sure the laws would change.
Often, though, it isn’t a mental illness, and laws against suicide and assisted suicide are changing now.
Being comfortable to commit suicide suggests there are no excessive consequences for it (e.g. hell) otherwise people would avoid suicide. There might also be a belief that any actions (murder, terrorism, etc) taken during suicide don’t have consequences in the afterlife. That would negatively affect the world.
OK. So it’s live for “as long as you feel like it.”
Indeed. You don’t understand my argument at all.
For if you did, you’d realize that “20 year old dying of disease” is meaningless in a world where you’d “live as long as you felt like it.” Could say the same thing to a 2075 year old.
Wouldn’t that be nice, if there was a correlation between the choices you make and your level of happiness?
This is sort of a weird question. Unless you were clinically depressed or suicidal, I think most people would prefer more life to less.
The average life expectancy for most modern countries is around 80 years. That becomes a lot shorter when you consider the first 20 or so is you growing into the sort of person you will become and the last 20 or so start to suck due to old age.
Also, you don’t get a lot of shots to try different things or recover from mistakes. Pick the wrong career, drop out of college, spend a few years in jail, accidently knock someone up, get divorced, miss your window for having kids, get hooked on alcohol or drugs. Any of these choices or mistakes can take years or even decades to change the trajectory of your life.
Then again, those choices and mistakes make you who you are.
I think it would be pretty cool if you could live hundreds of years and not just pick dozens of careers or hobbies, but master them as well. Or see generations of offspring progressing over the centuries. Or just be a bum on a beach for a decade before you decide to go be a successful lawyer or something.
I think a lot of unhappiness comes from thinking you made the wrong choice. But what if you had time to try many choices?
Of course, all this presumes that you basically maintain the physical body and mind of a healthy 20-40 year old over the millennia.
Like I said in the OP, it is not about youth being too short - for this thought experiment it would be very likely that the body and mind would become frail over time.
My grandma wants to die and be united with her husband in Heaven. She is sick of the loneliness I think. Since she wants to die naturally I don’t think she is suicidal. Also my grandpa stated that he didn’t want to be revived medically. That means he doesn’t want his life artificially extended yet he isn’t clinically depressed or suicidal.
Atheists don’t believe in gods, that’s all ‘atheism’’ is.
Personally I think life spent on other planets matters as much as that on earth.
If we didn’t live long enough it would be harder for science and literature, etc, to be created since it takes a few years for a human to be educated enough to contribute to that.
If life was a lot longer I think it would be less likely for marriages to be life-long - well unless they were arranged marriages and people just put up with them.
Also like I said, the reigns of tyrants would often be longer if lifespans were longer.
If lifespans were a lot longer than suicide would be more widespread and like I mentioned that could result in more murder-suicides.
So the length of the lifespan would affect things.
Really? Us atheists have believed that for quite a while, really, and it hasn’t negatively affected the world. In fact, I’d argue that it’s the folks who dobelieve in hell and afterlife virgins and suchlike that have negatively affected the world.