[xvector]

Longevity is a worthwhile goal for striving for. It is horrific that beings with hopes, dreams, and loves are forced to die and lose everything they have ever had, doomed to an eternity of the black void of nonexistence. That should be a choice.

I for one am thrilled that society is starting to view death as something we might be able to one day defeat, rather than the resigned acceptance that has reigned throughout the history of our species.

[libertine]

That's a very egocentric view of the whole endeavor of life.

Part of the game is the renewal process of it.

If for once find it way more creepy to have centennial billionaires that are hoarding land and resources, because they have the illusion that things belong to them, when in reality it was never theirs to begin with.

[xvector]

> to have centennial billionaires

All technologies are expensive at first. To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd. The riots would collapse society.

Technology becomes affordable over time.

> Part of the game is the renewal process of it.

There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.

--

Whether you agree with that or not, what's clear is that this stuff should be a choice. Who are you to tell someone that they shouldn't live as long as they want? It's their body.

[libertine]

>The riots would collapse society.

Except you're starting to see the first cracks of that, but we're just too busy to see it: when you have people willing to die for a chance of a better life, then you're not that far from it.

>To imply that longevity will not some day be available to all is absurd.

How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?

>There is no renewal process. There is only a permanent end. A void that you will never escape from.

Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death. The only void is the space you leave and that will eventually be filled up, and that's ok.

[xvector]

> How can you say that when longevity isn't available to all in the current days?

Because technology inevitably becomes cheaper. Your smartphone did not exist 20 years ago, and 15 years ago only the rich could afford it. Today the whole world has one. Such is the way of technology.

> Of course there's a renewal process, old habits, vices, skewed and biased perspectives of the world are all flushed and reset with death.

Let's say people lived forever. Would killing them at 80 years be justifiable because "we need to flush out their ways of life?"

Humanity can progress without death. It might be slower, even glacial, but that is completely irrelevant because you will experience more net progress in the end.

[inkblotuniverse]

Don't call it renewal, call it rot. Some things, we let rot. We shouldn't let people rot.

[libertine]

Some people call it stasis, when you're in equilibrium with the system you're in.

[inkblotuniverse]

People call things a lot of things. People die because of disequilibria in their bodies, because their own internal systems come undone. I care more about the internal systems of humans that break and murder non-sentient cells, than the external systems of nature that break and murder things that can scream.

[lariater]

The problem IMO is that average person would want to live longer as long as they can still eat pizza, drink beer, sit all day and not work out much.

I mean there is decent research on calorie restriction. Of course the huge problem with calorie restriction is the eating less part.