(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!
Mr. Hanky loves you!
