livescience.com— several ethical and moral arguments that have cropped up in recent years as labs around the world aim at the dream of immortality, or at least to extend lives well beyond the century mark.
May 23, 2006View in Crawl 4
That is a theory I'd be willing to explore. Although, I was thinking today . . humans are the only species on Earth that depend upon a wide range of living things and a certain set of conditions. We've overcome this with knowledge though, our one natural gift is a large brain and we use it. Much like a flee has a natural gift for jumping and uses that to it's advantage.
Simple solution to the overpopulation problem, and disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this article's scenario? Don't let the stupid people pro-create.
Sage advice from the Iain Banks "Culture" novels: always remember where your "off" switches are. Corollary: if you don't control your own "off" switch, you're a slave to the first monkey to happen along and flip the toggle.
The ethical dilemmas of immortality are quite similar to the possible ethical dilemmasof a cancer cure. Just think about that for a moment. People who find ethical problems with things like life extension and so-called "immortality" should have their problems and leave the rest of us alone about it. The main problem I have with ethicists who tackle this issue is the absolute undeniable fact that they will take advantage of every technology that is developed for dual purpose, such as cures for cancer, degenerative disease, etc. But at thesame time, they will condemn those same technologies if used prophylactically to prevent such problems with the sole purpose of living a longer and healthier life.In other words, offer a cancer sure to an ethicist, and her ethics will most likelytake a seat behind her desire to survive, which is of course quite different than living longer.Right?Wrong.Actual immortality is something so far off, it's like having a debate aboutthe ethics of time travel.I also find many people concerned with life extension, cryogenics and theirilk are of the belief that life does not end in death. If you truly believe this,then just avoid the technologies. Why bother with the rest of us? Justdie and go to your afterlife of choice. Leave the rest of us alone. You'reout of the debate.
Quoting:>It would be interesting to see how other species evolve while we slow down in say..>5 or 6 thousand years. In order for evolution to take place, natural selection must happen which no longer does on a large scale in human society. Breeding and mutation are the precursors to evolution. Within the next 30-50 years genetic engineering/modification will take over, which might be considered a form of evolution if the definition also "evolves"
Evolution is long stopped for humans - or at least, the "natural" selection pressures are mostly species-introspectiveand have been for centuries. Also, as we go into the 21st century, genetic mutations are already sometimes scientifically deliberate and this is only due to increase. If anything, humanity is about to become far more wildly diverse than it ever has been. I could imagine gene hacking my kid to have wings, just for the cute factor. There's no reason to expect a long lived /intelligent/ species to be an evolutionary dead end.
theattacksMay 23, 2006Submitter
That is a theory I'd be willing to explore. Although, I was thinking today . . humans are the only species on Earth that depend upon a wide range of living things and a certain set of conditions. We've overcome this with knowledge though, our one natural gift is a large brain and we use it. Much like a flee has a natural gift for jumping and uses that to it's advantage.
djdoleMay 24, 2006
Simple solution to the overpopulation problem, and disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this article's scenario? Don't let the stupid people pro-create.
julianmorrisonMay 24, 2006
Sage advice from the Iain Banks "Culture" novels: always remember where your "off" switches are. Corollary: if you don't control your own "off" switch, you're a slave to the first monkey to happen along and flip the toggle.
kindrobotMay 25, 2006
The ethical dilemmas of immortality are quite similar to the possible ethical dilemmasof a cancer cure. Just think about that for a moment. People who find ethical problems with things like life extension and so-called "immortality" should have their problems and leave the rest of us alone about it. The main problem I have with ethicists who tackle this issue is the absolute undeniable fact that they will take advantage of every technology that is developed for dual purpose, such as cures for cancer, degenerative disease, etc. But at thesame time, they will condemn those same technologies if used prophylactically to prevent such problems with the sole purpose of living a longer and healthier life.In other words, offer a cancer sure to an ethicist, and her ethics will most likelytake a seat behind her desire to survive, which is of course quite different than living longer.Right?Wrong.Actual immortality is something so far off, it's like having a debate aboutthe ethics of time travel.I also find many people concerned with life extension, cryogenics and theirilk are of the belief that life does not end in death. If you truly believe this,then just avoid the technologies. Why bother with the rest of us? Justdie and go to your afterlife of choice. Leave the rest of us alone. You'reout of the debate.
stormistMay 25, 2006
Quoting:>It would be interesting to see how other species evolve while we slow down in say..>5 or 6 thousand years. In order for evolution to take place, natural selection must happen which no longer does on a large scale in human society. Breeding and mutation are the precursors to evolution. Within the next 30-50 years genetic engineering/modification will take over, which might be considered a form of evolution if the definition also "evolves"
julianmorrisonMay 25, 2006
Evolution is long stopped for humans - or at least, the "natural" selection pressures are mostly species-introspectiveand have been for centuries. Also, as we go into the 21st century, genetic mutations are already sometimes scientifically deliberate and this is only due to increase. If anything, humanity is about to become far more wildly diverse than it ever has been. I could imagine gene hacking my kid to have wings, just for the cute factor. There's no reason to expect a long lived /intelligent/ species to be an evolutionary dead end.
xsuiteDec 9, 2007
Try telling that to a horny teenager.