Perhaps it is, but that’s one confusing train of thought right there.
It is also the exact same type of argument as “Man was not meant to fly, if he were, he would have wings.”
Fallicious logic.
We need death. The world is crowded enough as it is. If nobody died of old age, eventually starvation would take its place. Unless resources become infinite, lifespans may not.
Did you not even bother to read the whole thread?
The end of a movie is part of the movie. It’s designed to end at some point. So is human life.
Why should we invest in death-reversing technology that might not even work, just because some humans can’t deal with their fear of death? I do think that’s selfish. We have a finite amount of resources with which to conduct medical research. I would rather see those resources going to help people whose lives will be cut short by disease, instead of fulfilling the dreams of would-be Lazarus Longs.
Why is the thought of non-existence so horrifying? Can you remember a time before you were born? Are you terrified of that oblivion? And if not, why are you afraid to go back to it?
If man didn’t die, man would have overrun the planet long ago. Food resources would have been exhausted long ago. Man would have turned on each other with a ferocity not ever seen before, fighting and killing in greater numbers than have ever occurred over limited and dwindling resources, long ago.
If we "conquered " death today, and no one were to die from natural causes, the same would eventually happen, maybe as soon as 2-3 generations. Soylent Green wouldn’t be a Charlton Heston movie, it would be the world we invented by conquering death without stopping the renewal of life. We do not live in a magical utopia where people will choose the best path for the long term growth of the race.
Let’s play with some numbers (simplified for illustrative purposes):
Current population = 6,000,000
Assume growth rate = 5%
Generation = 25 years
In 200 years, population would be over 8.4 billion.
Now let’s remove death by old age and assume growth rate is 50% (people will still die violently and accidentally)
In 200 years, population would be over 102.5 billion
Do you think we could provide food, shelter and energy for 102 billion people? Long before we reached 102 billion, people would turn upon each other and cull the population. And that doesn’t really solve the problem of death, just death by old age.
I guess I should call myself Prometheus.
No, human life isn’t “Designed” to die. It is just imperfect, so it does.
Your other points don’t make sense either. We have a finite amout of resources do we? Do you even know anything about biolgoical research? One leads to the other. In searching for the cause of death, we are discovering the causes of diseases. There is a finite amount of research funds, but the two are synonomous, so there is not loss of funds.
For one, I am not terrified of death. Secondly, I am not into life extending research so I can be one of the “few” Lazarus longs. I am into life extension for everybody that wants it. Which will be most of the world. Even yourself.
Then end of the internet will be part of my post.
Ever hear of slippery slope? You’re just full of falacies today. Want to spin another yarn? How about I make assumptions too:
Man will conquer old age and live to be a Millenia. As the trend today shows, prosperity tends to limit the number of offspring couples have, and this will hold true. Reproduction will drop, but not be elimiated, and accidental deaths will keep the population below 8 billion. People will care more about themselves and each other because of the extreme long lives they live, and technology will make anybody have the ability to pursue intellectual goals. Science will boom and the other planets will be colonized.
See, I can talk about my ass and make wild assumptions too. Yay. Now care to actually debate the points? Instead of wild claims about solyent green and wars?
Err that should be talk out my ass, not about. 
Anyhow, debate about this is fun and all, but longevity research is going to contiune. It is a 10 ton frieght train and it has built up momentum and isn’t going to be stopped easily. Mans desire for survival is too strong, and there are a growing number of people that are starting to realize that 70 years isn’t enough. Whether you like that thought or not, it is becoming a new paradigm.
Just as those that hated the idea of flying and how unnatural it was, it happened anyhow. I wonder if it made them bitter?
Why should invest money in disease-curing technology that might not work just because some people can’t deal with their fear of death?
That’s just a silly question. The answer is your awareness of your existence.
This is too funny! What have you brought mankind? Certainly not fire. Perhaps the fires of pessimism, but certainly not hope.
Your wild assumptions betray human nature. Keep the population below 8 billion? We’ve grown by over 2 billion in the 4 decades I’ve been around, with death as it is. As a race, we’re not smart enough to have enough foresight, once eliminating death (a gain for those currently alive) to see the deleterious effects on future generations. Man is constantly making short-sighted decisions; it foolish to the extreme to think that an advent of immortality would change our ways that before the ill effects took place. Pie-in-the-sky thinking that as we move towards immortality, we’ll be smart enough not to overpopulate the world and not end up in a hell of our own making is the “talking about [one’s] ass and making wild assumptions.” That’s not who we are today. That’s not who we’ll be in the next generation, nor probably in any generation those currently alive will see.
Whatever elixir of life science may peddle (and I don’t expect one in my own lifetime), I will not partake. I accept mortality. I’m not going to invite him over for holiday dinner, but neither will I cower in fear of death.
I wouldn’t open Pandora’s Box, either.
Well, that was my wifes doing. You know how women always try to place some of the blame on their husbands right?
Yes, but look at how birth rates are decreasing in the industrialized nations. Look at where the biggest population centers are, and compare them to the growth in the US. It will be a long time indeed before those nations get immortality, even if we recieved it tommorow. That work will be next on the list, developing it comes first.
And what do you know about human nature. You look at trends, and still ignore trends that more closely fit our scenario. Now you make wild claims about human nature. Is it human nature to have less kids as prosperity increases. Perhaps that only means that the harder and shorter your life is, the more likely you are to have an abundance of offspring.
To take both sides for a minute: you’re correct, but the human population is supposed to peak fairly soon, around the middle to latter part of this century. I forget what the estimates of that population size are. More than 8 billion, for sure, maybe 10.
Are all other animals on Earth also imperfect? Are plants and fungi imperfect? They all die too. Stars and entire galaxies fizzle out eventually, given enough time. The universe itself is going to die someday. It’s called entropy–the steady deterioration of a society, system, or organism towards a state of decay and disorder. Who are we (as in the human race) to stop entropy?
I’m all in favor of life extension as long as it’s not to ridiculous lengths, like a millennium. But immortality is unnatural (and probably impossible too, I hope). It goes against scientific principles.
Epimetheus, I’ll concede that Pandora’s Box was your wife’s doing. I know all too well about being blamed for everything by the missus.
Interesting site. The complete opposite of another site posted by a Doper some time back arguing how easily the world could support vastly greater population. I wish I had known of this site at the time; while the other site effectively argued that we could feed, clothe and shelter double our current population, it ignored items like waste disposal, finite energy sources, finite job opportunities, and the minor fact that we actually share the planet with many other species.
The Sierra Club argues that US population, at current growth, will continue to grow until 2020 and then decline, due to population momentum, ignoring immigration. I can buy that; I certainly have neither the time nor inclination to refute all their numbers.
However, the Sierra Club’s site argues for my point:
‘Curing’ death in America will raise population growth. Births probably will diminish, but unless it reduces to a 1-for-1 with death, we will have population growth.
Longevity research will continue. I support research which will help people lead fuller, more active lives through to the end of their lifespan (110-120 years, per zev-Steinhardt). However, I am a ‘doom-and-gloom’ pessimist. I’m the type thinks that if I give the human race fire, they will then make flamethrowers and flaming weapons out of it, and then think that maybe they would have been off without fire.* I’ve got all kinds of doom and gloom scenarios, based on how widely available immortality would be. We talked about resource consumption. If it is very limited, then you have a nation, or a world, of haves and have nots. Does this fan the low smoldering resentment of the more numerous lower classes into a raging flame? If China finds immortality, does the US view this as a threat that needs to be addressed? And so on. I try to identify worst-case scenarios and want to solve for them before moving forward. Would I have done so about flight and moon walks? Who knows - before my time. I’ve welcomed the revolution of computers in the workplace; I’m old enough to remember manual cash registers, inventory tracking and having to research everything on microfiche. I support space travel and would like to see manned interplanetary expeditions (but I don’t know how to pay for it). I support nuclear energy, but would prefer to see it done safely rather than cheaply. I support research into other energy sources, especially theoretically infinite (solar, wind). I’m not head in the sand. I’m risk/reward. I think the risks of immortality far outweigh the rewards.
*The answer is no, because weapon development, even absent fire, would have occured, and fire had many more good benefits than evil - just wanted to remove my mythological wordsmithing from the debate.
do we need death or the cycle of life and death in Evolution?
do we still need Evolution when we have mastered Genetics?
This isn’t a ththeological/religious discussion, but…you have hit directly on how religions foist themselves off on people. They claim to have the solution to death.
Personally, I think optional immortality would be cool as could be. I’d like to regress physically about 20 years, then stay there until I decide to self-terminate. That would be wonderful.