(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: The whole point of reproduction is so that the genes can survive.

Fixed.

In the future people will realize how awesome I am and I will be showered with awards such as multiple Nobel's and Turing awards.
Since it took people so much time to acknowledge my sheer awesomeness I will be awarded with the first Pool's award(They will name a new award call Pool's award given to people for sheer awesomeness).
In short, I will triumph and you will die.

(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 11:31 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Oh no, we'd be committing infanticide at record rates, or there would not be sufficient resources to sustain those who just stubbornly refuse to die and make way for new generations. This in turn would cause stagnation of our culture with stalled intellectual progress, art would become lifeless and boring, and then why would anyone want to go on living anyway?

The only way of avoiding the above scenario, short of sending billions of people to colonize the planet, or board a generation ship to the stars (a one-way journey in any case since there's no safe return to Earth gravity after a few years, so who wants to volunteer?) is to impose an arbitrary and mandatory cap on the human life-span. Ever see this movie?

---

---

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

Please go back and read that statement, read it again, and then if you still think it makes any more sense than suggesting the removal of water from a fish tank to make the fish evolve, then try and explain it concisely.

For fuck's sake, you don't need reproduction if everyone lives forever, and if it continues with a species made nearly immortal on a planet of 7 billion with limited resources to sustain them and there's already 6 billion too many, then either everyone dies, or a monstrous culture is created where only a select few can live. Be very fucking careful what you wish for!

(February 15, 2016 at 2:30 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

Please go back and read that statement, read it again, and then if you still think it makes any more sense than suggesting the removal of water from a fish tank to make the fish evolve, then try and explain it concisely.

Is this word salad supposed to mean anything?

Quote:For fuck's sake, you don't need reproduction if everyone lives forever, and if it continues with a species made nearly immortal on a planet of 7 billion with limited resources to sustain them and there's already 6 billion too many, then either everyone dies, or a monstrous culture is created where only a select few can live. Be very fucking careful what you wish for!

We're 7 billion and counting as it is. I don't see what your point is.

That's a false dilemma. No one needs to die and not only a select few need to live. I don't know how you reach those ridiculous conclusions.

Saying the word fuck over and over won't help your case, grasshopper. Hehe, you need to learn to control your emotions.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 2:30 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Please go back and read that statement, read it again, and then if you still think it makes any more sense than suggesting the removal of water from a fish tank to make the fish evolve, then try and explain it concisely.

Is this word salad supposed to mean anything?

Quote:For fuck's sake, you don't need reproduction if everyone lives forever, and if it continues with a species made nearly immortal on a planet of 7 billion with limited resources to sustain them and there's already 6 billion too many, then either everyone dies, or a monstrous culture is created where only a select few can live. Be very fucking careful what you wish for!

We're 7 billion and counting as it is. I don't see what your point is.

That's a false dilemma. No one needs to die and not only a select few need to live. I don't know how you reach those ridiculous conclusions.

Saying the word fuck over and over won't help your case, grasshopper. Hehe, you need to learn to control your emotions.

Word of advice, Birdbrain - snarking never made you appear any more intelligent, and it really doesn't this time! Nor does insulting people because they point out the fundamental problems of your fantastical ideas.

You're the one who launched this thread on a stupid premise, and now you should either play it out gracefully or walk away. Snapping your beak at people when your idea fails is not how anybody deserving of any respect behaves.

Maybe it's time they ban you again, and this time until you grow up.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:43 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 2:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Is this word salad supposed to mean anything?



We're 7 billion and counting as it is. I don't see what your point is.

That's a false dilemma. No one needs to die and not only a select few need to live. I don't know how you reach those ridiculous conclusions.

Saying the word fuck over and over won't help your case, grasshopper. Hehe, you need to learn to control your emotions.

Word of advice, Birdbrain - snarking never made you appear any more intelligent, and it really doesn't this time! Nor does insulting people because they point out the fundamental problems of your fantastical ideas.

You're the one who launched this thread on a stupid premise, and now you should either play it out gracefully or walk away. Snapping your beak at people when they point out the flaws is not how intelligent people behave!

All I'm hearing is complaints and accusations, nothing of substance in reply to my pointing out your false dilemma or any further elaboration on your previous claims. 

How did I insult you, exactly? Do you think you'll be able to win this argument by making unsupported claims and then backing them up with personal attacks on character rather than proper reasoning?

Quote:Maybe it's time they ban you again, and this time until you grow up.

This, right here, is demagoguery. I think the staff are perfectly capable of doing their jobs without your requesting that someone be banned. You have the report function for that.

You should be able to figure that out if you stop rattling off and think for once. I've had enough of this for one night.

So you're bailing now? I see. So if logic fails you, you make some noises, point some fingers, and then run. How shocking, I must say. I never saw that coming after I read your initial arguments on the matter./sarcasm

(February 14, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What will the future be like, do you think? What would you like it to be?

Just go crazy with it. This is supposed to be fun as well as serious.


I'll start.

Imagine people will live extremely long lives, centuries at least. Do you think this would change the way humans behave? Do you think it'll make us become more rational and less violent, on average(if it ever happens)?

Bold and red mine.

(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 11:31 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Oh no, we'd be committing infanticide at record rates, or there would not be sufficient resources to sustain those who just stubbornly refuse to die and make way for new generations. This in turn would cause stagnation of our culture with stalled intellectual progress, art would become lifeless and boring, and then why would anyone want to go on living anyway?

The only way of avoiding the above scenario, short of sending billions of people to colonize the planet, or board a generation ship to the stars (a one-way journey in any case since there's no safe return to Earth gravity after a few years, so who wants to volunteer?) is to impose an arbitrary and mandatory cap on the human life-span. Ever see this movie?

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Bold and red mine.

This is why people don't want to discuss anything with you. You specifically asked questions and then you turn around and insult people when they don't give you a correct answer. Why ask anyone what their thoughts are on what the future might look like if you are going to turn around and call their arguments irrational, ridiculous and baseless. You aren't perfect and you don't have all the correct answers.

FWIW when people ponder about the future it's ALL speculation. No one knows what it holds. Duh.

(February 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(February 14, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What will the future be like, do you think? What would you like it to be?

Just go crazy with it. This is supposed to be fun as well as serious.


I'll start.

Imagine people will live extremely long lives, centuries at least. Do you think this would change the way humans behave? Do you think it'll make us become more rational and less violent, on average(if it ever happens)?

Bold and red mine.

(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Bold and red mine.

This is why people don't want to discuss anything with you. You specifically asked questions and then you turn around and insult people when they don't give you a correct answer. Why ask anyone what their thoughts are on what the future might look like if you are going to turn around and call their arguments irrational, ridiculous and baseless. You aren't perfect and you don't have all the correct answers.

FWIW when people ponder about the future it's ALL speculation. No one knows what it holds. Duh.

Picking on someone's ideas and/or arguments is not the same as insulting them. This is a discussion forum. We're supposed to debate and discuss. The person involved specifically took issue with my scenario about the future and failed to provide one of his own instead. Are you suggesting I should agree with him simply because I made the thread?