(December 14, 2015 at 4:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 4:34 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I would imagine the fucktards who wouldn't get that rearing a child in that world would be paramount to killing that same child, plus some other number of people due to lack of resources, would need to be forcibly castrated, jailed, or the person who would fuck them would need to be held responsible. And in a world where you don't die, a life sentece would be a pretty good deterrent. A death sentence though? Don't even get me started.

Shit, I'd have to become a republican I think.

So...you'd have, in effect, decided that you and your generation were or should be the last to be born, and would indeed begin a dystopian program of castration and incarceration? Good for you.  Remind me never to put you in charge of anything.

You'd have us die, generation after generation, with no end in sight, just so more generations can go through the same hell over and over again.

Yes, I would rather have it that one generation was the last one given that it would stick around forever. Any sensible person would. Try and make a case against it and maybe you'll see how you're missing the point.

@ Amine The viewpoints just expressed by Premier Peng...are those the viewpoints that you would ensconce as humanity's very last word on the subject?  Do you want that to live forever...with no chance that a newer generation would ever call bullshit? That's the sort of stagnation I was referring to, right there..in black and white.

Back to you, Peng.  Personally, my life isn 't hell, nor will my death be hell...and I would rather solve those problems which we already have the means and tools to solve..such as those hells of starvation...than exacerbate them or force your castration party.  Yes, absolutely. If we ever -do- figure out immortality, I'd probably plead with the authorities that be to deny it to you, on the basis of what you've just wrote.

You're missing the point entirely. Thus I feel the need to talk about bullshit that won't even get that far.

But, yes, basically. You fail to choose the lesser of two evils, so to put it. Because you're close-minded and can't think realistically about the world. You're an intellectual and moral coward and you're doing nothing but lagging the debate.

A global pogrom against children, forced castration and imprisonment.........is somehow the lesser of two evils?  Strange...since people seem to be more than willing to voluntarily give up their lives in order to prevent precisely that, and far less than that.

I have a talent for making the crazies say crazy shit, I think.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @ Amine The viewpoints just expressed by Premier Peng...are those the viewpoints that you would ensconce as humanity's very last word on the subject?  Do you want that to live forever...with no chance that a newer generation would ever call bullshit?  That's the sort of stagnation I was referring to, right there..in black and white.

Back to you, Peng.  Personally, my life isn 't hell, nor will my death be hell...and I would rather solve those problems which we already have the means and tools to solve..such as those hells of starvation...than exacerbate them or force your castration party.  Yes, absolutely.  If we ever -do- figure out immortality, I'd probably plead with the authorities that be to deny it to you, on the basis of what you've just wrote.

Now that shows how much I intimidate you. And that's your problem, not mine.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Amine Wrote: Why would we think that? Why wouldn't we think the opposite, or neither? Are we to believe that knowing they will die makes people more productive to make the most of their time? One could just as easily make the argument that it makes them apathetic to make changes in the world they will never get to benefit from.

Take a look at science, just as one example.  It's rare to find the proponents of a theory among the camp of those who later overturn it with a new theory.  Old eyes breed old answers.  Somebody new comes along and takes the establishment, kicking and screaming, to a place closer approximating the truth.  I don't know whether or not someone believes (or wants you to believe) that mortality makes us more productive, I don't think so, in any case.   

Who said there wouldn't be new people? Also, theoretically if we had the technology to cure aging we would probably also understand the neurophysical basis of the sort of openmindedness young people have. We've barely begun to tap into that sort of thing. There are *certain* sources of creativity out there that happen to be highly illegal to even research most of the time. It's at least a starting point. Problems tend to have solutions.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: What is the alternative? You would rather let people die of old age when they have the cure to ageing or overpopulate the planet so that them or others starve just so they can make some babies who would have to go under that exact same process?

When you talk about those things, think about the context you're talking about them in.

Yes, I would rather just let it be as nature intended. Die of old age and make room for new life.

Okay let's ignore the fallacy and run with that. What's the right age? You don't seem to be denying that the technology might be possible, so let's assume it is. You get to look and feel and physically be as young as a 25 year old indefinitely. How old will you be when you decide to commit suicide? Or will you simply go the Amish route and refrain from taking a medicine that will keep you healthy and young and let yourself age naturally? If that's the case, are you already the sort of person who refrains from taking health measures?

(December 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A global pogrom against children, forced castration and imprisonment.........is somehow the lesser of two evils?  Strange...since people seem to be more than willing to voluntarily give up their lives in order to prevent precisely that, and far less than that.

The alternative being that for every one child brought into that kind of world, a group of people starve to death eventually.

Are you just pretending to be that obtuse, or are you really that undeserving of even debating with me?

Amine, you seem to be getting into slippery slope territory.

Just because I think eventually dying and making room for new life is crucial and essential to the natural order of our world, doesn't mean I think that refraining from wearing glasses is.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Now that shows how much I intimidate you. And that's your problem, not mine.

It shows that I have a smidgeon of an attribute that has eluded you, and, to my mind..is intrinsic to what we are.  Compassion.  No one who could suggest such a thing deserves to live for eternity at the expense of all other life.  

@ Amine..who said that? Peng did, that's who.  My cheif concern is precisely that there -would- be new people.  That's why I can't see immortality as a desirable thing until we have some plan (that doesn't involve the fuhrer's suggestions) for dealing with the exponential burden.  We've got alot on our plate as is.

So women are allowed to have an abortion, and we agree on that.

But if we talk about an unborn child, who only exists as an idea, and who would most definitely be the death of many other people because of his being another mouth to feed in a world that can only provide for so many at a time, you're suddenly more Christian than the Pope.