Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

[Diogenes]

Apparently another mistake. Must not be paying attention today.

[Diogenes]

Mistake. Never mind.

[Diogenes]

Yes.. And we are not just talking about a non-aging long lived population. Given the ability to repair/replace damaged parts (organs, joints, etc.) is the ability to upgrade. At some point maybe whole body replacements; why keep fixing up the same old one when you can get a newer better model? Augmentations both physical and mental would crop up; the "old" would actually improve over time not just maintain status quo.

And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

[Diogenes]

There really isn't any legitimate argument against life extension.

I don't mind being in the minority here. It has been my lot in life. My user name would more accurately be "Cassandra" based on my life experiences.


Yes, there are legitimate arguments against life extension, but they must be considered from the vantage of someone regarding time in generations, rather than mere years.



In the past, humanity's only succor has often lain in the fact despots couldn't keep their advantage of power because old age always got them in the end.

[Diogenes]

Social Security?
How in the world will we afford it?

We do not afford it now. It is a fake system currently propped up financial gimmicks and illusion. I've seen estimates that the US owes 100 trillion in unfunded obligations, the bulk of which are the consequence of creating that social security system.

[Diogenes]

I foresee a future where compounded effects increase the socioeconomic divide (exponentially).
I pity the 'new-borns'...

That is another one of the arguments against it. The current system already has such a built in advantage for the wealthy vs people born out of advantage, and such a system would allow even more lopsided distribution of assets and resources.


Of course, I consider this just a temporary phase before they get around to the Devonian extinction aspect of the idea which I mentioned earlier.


I sh*t you not, there are quite a few "Gaia" worshipers out there in the lefty intellectual circles who already think wiping out the bulk of mankind is a pretty good idea.

[ladajo]

In other words the rejuvenated now "young" person would then continue to work and pay taxes;

And over time drive up the cost of everything, as they will have more to pay more. Being a new entry to this argument may reach a point where it is really a non-starter economically.

And this doesn't even get into the narcissistic "I know what is better for you" folks. Talk about empire and dynasty building. Oh my. Imagine a world where a Hillary, Putin, or Obama is always in charge. If you aren't in the circle of friends, I imagine your life expectancy could become dramatically short.

[paperburn1]

I see more of a Greek mythology type in into our life and society. The old rich immortals will keep developing technology and wealth until they appear as God's to the rest of us. Because we cannot afford the technological upgrades or even understand the technology that they will be using. Olympus rises again!

[Diogenes]

I see more of a Greek mythology type in into our life and society. The old rich immortals will keep developing technology and wealth until they appear as God's to the rest of us. Because we cannot afford the technological upgrades or even understand the technology that they will be using. Olympus rises again!

And do you remember from your Greek Mythology, what sort of scoundrels they were ?

[paperburn1]

[/url]https://forais.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/zeus.jpg[url][/url]

[williatw]

And my point is, "Thank God." It was a mercy to humanity that he couldn't live for 150 years.
What do you suppose happens when despots become immortal? How do you see that turning out well for the bulk of us?
And of course, who do you think will be in the most prime position to get this sort of immortality?

That is admittedly your strongest argument against life extension; no one wants an immortal Stalin. The point is that they would still be mortal; just not susceptible to old age per see.

Plenty of them die of old Age. Mao, for example. And he probably killed more people than any other. Can you imagine Mao still being alive? Or how about believing his own God-Hood bat-sh*t crazy Kim Jong Il? It's not so easy killing dictators, especially if they surround themselves with fellow Immortals who have a stake in their continued existence.

Mortality among despots can run pretty high, depends; your forgetting all those who covet their position/power. Obviously the more murderous ones tend to be the ones who rule the longest that's why we remember them. Bad as Mao was most of the people he killed would be dead by now anyway; dictator or no dictator, status quo says we all die by the billions. Is it really worth killing a 150,000 people a day just to get the rare murderous tyrants who richly deserve it? That is the question; not like we can't kill them without killing everyone.

On the other hand...the level of "debauchery and oppression" and plain old bat-shit craziness a thousand year old Hillary Clinton (or Madonna) would be capable of does give me pause; and I imagine they would be real good at dodging the assassin's bullet, and taking horrendous sadomasochistic revenge against the perpetrators if they somehow survived.

I am reminded of the misuse of anti-biotics causing superbugs. Hillary or Bill, would be a similarly virulent pathogen on a larger scale.

A good anti-body or decent vaccine would deal with that particular superbug; better than killing everyone just to be sure we get them. Look how their lives/reputations (the Clintons) are unraveling now in just one lifetime. Can't wait to hear Trump talking about the "Lolita express"; they may die ignominiously their reputation permanently destroyed; (like Bill Cosby). We are familiar with status quo so we rarely look objectively at what we have; we live a slow motion holocaust now, one where everyone dies good and bad wise and foolish deserving and undeserving.

[williatw]

More like a Devonian extinction. What use do the elite have for us breeders when machines will eventually be able to serve them better?

Would the "immortal" elites really be ready to risk the wrath of the "breeders" if their plan to exterminate us fails? They literally have everything to lose (their quasi-immortal) lives if we win and nothing really much practical to gain by wiping us all out. Easier to follow a slow patient plan of giving immortality to the breeders over time and watching their fecundity fade away, just as it is now among those groups with the longest life expectancy. Like the demographic collapse happening in Europe now. An "immortal" doesn't need to take big risks like that, easier to get what they want on the slow plan; after all they have the time. And again is it really worth killing 150,000 people a day just to supposedly make sure they don't? And even if "immortality" is never invented, the Gaia worshiping ruling "elites" you speak of could try to wipe us out with their drone/robotic/cyborg military (or some kind of germ like the movie the 12 monkeys) anyway.

[Betruger]

And my point is, "Thank God." It was a mercy to humanity that he couldn't live for 150 years.

It's a moot point. Caligula today would get in a bitch fight with Hillary or Hussein and fail just as bad at Ruling The World ™
It's no mercy to humanity that curing aging is delayed day after day, tens of thousands of needless deaths at a time.

What do you suppose happens when despots become immortal?

They crack down on dissent; thence relegated to whispers over coffee and... end-to-end encrypted chat. AKA they fail because too many people worldwide know better already, and ultimately do something about it. What happens when a genocidal maniac takes power? He bootstraps a world war, goes on a rampage the history books never forget, AKA sets a precedent. That's what history is. Caligula is history, so is Hitler, and so will Hillary even if she does make it to the day aging is cured. Because sooner than/or later technology will make it so you don't depend on "govt" the way we have historically.
SPQR isn't 21st century Earth.

How do you see that turning out well for the bulk of us?

Better, even if worse at first. Time being on our side is just as elementary as our bulk being the true root of the electoral problem AKA bad policies from bad politicians.

And of course, who do you think will be in the most prime position to get this sort of immortality?

Who do you think voted for so many govt handouts? How is that bulk of a popular vote going to be less keen on therapies to keep them alive? Politicians will live and die by their electoral sword. Many things will have to change. Good riddance to anything that keeps us dying needlessly. Including sociopolitics/culture that perpetuated the pro-aging trance, like rot from within.

It's not so easy killing dictators, especially if they surround themselves with fellow Immortals who have a stake in their continued existence.

So what. Move somewhere else. What scenario do you have in mind, exactly, where Mao or Hitler takes the White House or any other G7 state? We've had world wars over less.

[cambrian explosion]

More like a Devonian extinction. What use do the elite have for us breeders when machines will eventually be able to serve them better?

== Deus ex machina.

There really isn't any legitimate argument against life extension.

Yes, there are legitimate arguments against life extension, but they must be considered from the vantage of someone regarding time in generations, rather than mere years.
In the past, humanity's only succor has often lain in the fact despots couldn't keep their advantage of power because old age always got them in the end.

No, they died because they weren't immortal. Curing aging will not make them immortal. You say to think in new paradigms and then argue in old ones. If Mao is ageless, so is every other "ruler", and variously bulk-ish entourages and electorates. Do ya really think that stiff upper lip attitude woulda been lesser for it had they had antiaging therapies?

Devonian extinction

Did your Devonian ancestor also divine Homo Sapiens and Jimi Hendrix, Adolf Hitler and the bullet that eventually made it into that pistol in his bunker (SENS woulda saved him for sure, LOL!), Einstein and Newton, Gordon Moore and Elon Musk, Nyan Cat and Graphene, etc? No? Then why would either your pet fav scriptures or your own personal crystal ball fare any different?
If you think curing aging or the human species surviving a post-aging world is impossible, you have a bad case of anthropocentrism. Man is not special. The cosmos doesn't care if we live 1 or 99 centuries. Or if our policies are made for aging or post-aging geopolitics. The cosmos is an infinitely large blank canvas and you insist we should paint one handed, monochrome, with a time limit. You sound like your own depiction of Gaians. Like there's something oh-so special and unique about us, as we are now.
Like dying at 100 is sacred. It's as morbid as in Logan's Run.

Well yeah. Now I remember. You argued so hard against anything "not natural". So no surprise if that fetish doesn't serve you, were aging cured and the human species diverged. Given a choice, you choose for people to die rather than live. You'd rather humanity forever gaze at its navel in some hellish sysyphean cycle of "natural" unengineered generations than let it tackle yet another growing pain, another challenge to improve itself.

Tens of thousands condemned and lost every day for the sake of navel gazing a few dozen years at a time on some puny blue dot in the middle of nowhere. To engineer is human and our own biology is no forbidden fruit.

[Betruger]

In other words the rejuvenated now "young" person would then continue to work and pay taxes;

And over time drive up the cost of everything, as they will have more to pay more. Being a new entry to this argument may reach a point where it is really a non-starter economically.

And this doesn't even get into the narcissistic "I know what is better for you" folks. Talk about empire and dynasty building. Oh my. Imagine a world where a Hillary, Putin, or Obama is always in charge. If you aren't in the circle of friends, I imagine your life expectancy could become dramatically short.

I reckon these challenges are to us as building the USA was to the FF and whoever tried and failed before them. The difference would be that we'd have time on our side.

It's not like no one state or sufficiently rich individual will ever try and eventually succeed. If it's unavoidable, then we should get ready and ideally make the best of it, rather than cling to old "proven" status quos. Until we actually try, we won't know for sure.

[Diogenes]

Mortality among despots can run pretty high, depends; your forgetting all those who covet their position/power. Obviously the more murderous ones tend to be the ones who rule the longest that's why we remember them. Bad as Mao was most of the people he killed would be dead by now anyway;

That is small consolation to the people who died before their time and in such grisly misery in many cases. I think we all believe that people should receive a fair chance of living at least a natural life span, if they can.

dictator or no dictator, status quo says we all die by the billions. Is it really worth killing a 150,000 people a day just to get the rare murderous tyrants who richly deserve it? That is the question; not like we can't kill them without killing everyone.

Do not mistake me. I would very much like to live a long healthy life, but as my Colombian friend said when we asked why he left; "Colombia is a very Beautiful Garden, but Into every Garden, God puts a snake."


I just wonder if the benefits will be worth the horrors. I'm not saying they won't, i'm saying "I don't know if they will be." I can see several possibilities for this thing going bad.

A good anti-body or decent vaccine would deal with that particular superbug; better than killing everyone just to be sure we get them. Look how their lives/reputations (the Clintons) are unraveling now in just one lifetime. Can't wait to hear Trump talking about the "Lolita express"; they may die ignominiously their reputation permanently destroyed; (like Bill Cosby).

My position vis a vis Trump and Hillary is "I guess", and "H3ll No!"

We are familiar with status quo so we rarely look objectively at what we have; we live a slow motion holocaust now, one where everyone dies good and bad wise and foolish deserving and undeserving.

This may sound silly, but one of the things I have always found to be terrible is the fact that so many unwanted children are created because people can't stop behaving like animals rather than intelligent beings. Is it not better to prevent the creation of unwanted life than to kill it?


Oh, and I just recently learned that a "burst of light" occurs every time a Human being is created. How symbolic is that?