|
|
|
|
|
by UnquietTinkerer
4047 days ago
|
|
But what would happen if we actually succeeded in preventing aging and death? Death is, as far as I can tell, not an accident or some kind of cosmic tragedy. It's the constant, forced renewal that makes biological and social evolution possible. Of course I'd love to live more than a paltry few decades, and I'm desperately afraid of losing my loved ones someday. But to just end death - assuming we had the means - would be robbing our descendants of their birthright and put the brakes on the main force for human adaptation. I honestly believe that the death of individuals serves a key role in the health of our species as a whole. |
|
Death is an accident: it's the result of an evolutionary process that selects for reproduction but pointedly not for longevity.
And we've already curtailed many of the large-scale forces of evolution, for the better. We go to great lengths to help people survive who would have simply died if born mere hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. Would you let them die for being "unfit", so that evolution works more efficiently?
If the cure was available within your lifetime, in reality rather than in a hypothetical, would you really choose not to take it? Why? What would you possibly have to gain by doing so? You mentioned not wanting to lose your loved ones; presumably they wouldn't want to lose you either.
But if you feel so strongly about dying, nobody's stopping you. I certainly don't think it's sensible to force anyone to accept a cure for mortality. On the other hand, attempting to prevent others from creating and using such a cure would be tantamount to mass murder.
Please, think very carefully about the implications of what you're advocating before repeating the romanticisms that have sprung up around death. Death is bad. Aging kills a hundred thousand people a day, and other causes kill another fifty thousand. Let's make it stop, and the sooner the better.