| a)I understand it's a technical question. But as with every technical question, we have to ask what the changes will be on society. b)Mortality gives way to other minds to step forward like Stephen Hawking and others. Would have been such a good thing to have an immortal Isaac Newton for a millennia? Would have he realised the the laws of physics outside of earth's standards. Could have an immortal Einstein refine his theories and change his mistakes and adapt to newer findings?
Could have had a Stephen Hawking any chance to share his knowledge beside immortal Einsteins and Newtons? c)It is a discussion about who deserves it. As for expensive treatments which aren't affordable by anyone in our society right now. We all now this. These treatments or solutions won't be free of charge. Only the rich will afford it. You know, money talks... d)It's not only mortality that binds us to earth. It's our whole biological build up. Which fits only the life on earth. What about the warp drive, worm holes, etc... These aren't good enough for humanity to reach for the stars? e)Also we don't have any clue about what effects it will have on the human body to live on another planet. f)It is silly to say that evolution has stopped for the human race. We are biological creatures which can adapt to its surrounding as any other. But having immortality and not producing offsprings will actually lead to an evolutionary dead end. Having no genetic mutation will prevent the species to create natural immunity against diseases etc... g)I only wanted to point out that maybe it is not the best thing to cheat death. It is natural. It's not a disease. Stop treating it like one. As I said. As we are concerned about A.I., so should we concerned about this as well. Logic dictates to examine a possible solution from every angle as possible. Not to put ourselves and the whole humanity into a dead end. |
b) that's just an ignorant way of thinking. similar to the poster below who wouldn't want to live with an older generation of people because of their ignorance - which just shows his ignorance; it's not up to you or us to decide how long people should live or playing out 'what if' scenarios and wondering if humanity is better off because somebody died. it's pointless
c) any technology that is available to rich people becomes with the progress of time more affordable and available to the masses
d) if you die before you reach the next solar system, what's the point of starting the flight? see the fermi paradox and the great filter. mortality could be one of the great filters for interstellar expansion
e) that's... completely besides the point of this discussion
f) we are currently at the state quite complacent and well-adjusted to our environment. no big hardships, no predators - we're the dinosaurs now. what different strain of the homo sapiens would have to evolve now randomly to surpass the current strain? dinosaurs didn't evolve into highly intelligent beings, although they've been around millions of years
g) that's a complacent and dangerous "it's always been this way". cells stopping to reproduce themselves are a malfunction, and it can be technically solved; the same way as we can repair robots, machines or other electronics
mostly fears, complacency and wrong assumptions. taken into account, but not useful as they act as distractions and take attention from the topic - which was the technological hurdles of fixing the human robot