Should we end aging?

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Should we end aging?

Post #1

Post by Neatras »

Over the course of history, death has been made a component of cultures, religions, ideas, and values. It has provoked astounding arguments, and those who take advantage of death's allure/terror continue to profit, coercing entire populations to just accept that death is an integral part of life.

But should we put an end to aging, the most vital component that makes death itself "inevitable"? Should research into halting the aging process, or even artificially prolonging/protecting human life beyond the projected lifespan currently in existence, continue? Is it right to give people the option to potentially live indefinitely? Or should we stop it, accepting death as a natural part of life that we should not erase?

I bring this as a case for how perceptions of death lead to illogical choices and ultimately triumphant achievements.

[Youtube][/Youtube]

I believe we should overcome death in its entirety through scientific and technological means. I believe we should not leave it up to a vague notion that there might be an afterlife to sustain our hopes as we go into the void. I want the life I can grasp with my own hands, and I will always fight for the side that gives individuals the opportunity to see tomorrow.

puddleglum
Sage
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
Contact:

Post #2

Post by puddleglum »

Death entered the world as a result of human sin. As long as we are sinners we will die. We might be able to prolong our lives but we can never prevent death.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Post #3

Post by Overcomer »

I sometimes think it's the young and healthy who are so interested in prolonging life for as long as possible. Those of us who are older, who have seen our parents and aunts and uncles suffer, and who have suffered ourselves, ask the question -- will there be quality of life? It's one thing to keep someone alive when the quality of their life is good. But why make someone live a few extra years if it just means a few extra years of pain and suffering?

Let me be perfectly clear: I do NOT agree with euthanasia. That's murder, pure and simple. But we keep people alive artificially with machines and treatments and medications when sometimes it would be best to just let them go naturally.

As for overcoming death entirely, Jesus did that when he died and rose again. And those who know him as Lord and Saviour will overcome death because of and through him. That's the way to overcome death. Trust him, not scientists.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #4

Post by Neatras »

Overcomer wrote: That's the way to overcome death. Trust him, not scientists.
No, you're embracing death because somebody somewhere told you you'll be alive afterwards. I will not trust nonsense like that. I will not embrace death the way you do.

I have the mentality of someone who could, without hesitation, conscript myself for a million years of life, or even longer. I would gladly prolong my life through technological means as long as possible to enjoy my life here. That's something you've given up on, and you are someone I will never emulate.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #5

Post by bluethread »

Neatras wrote:
Overcomer wrote: That's the way to overcome death. Trust him, not scientists.
No, you're embracing death because somebody somewhere told you you'll be alive afterwards. I will not trust nonsense like that. I will not embrace death the way you do.

I have the mentality of someone who could, without hesitation, conscript myself for a million years of life, or even longer. I would gladly prolong my life through technological means as long as possible to enjoy my life here. That's something you've given up on, and you are someone I will never emulate.

Even if there is no afterlife, I would agree with overcomer in that there ia no free lunch. Every single medical advance has been accompanied by "side effects". The scientific, legal and business interests have shifted the focus from patient based treatment to statistic based treatment. Those interests focus on the forest and not the trees. That is appropriate from their prespectives. However, though the fact that the forest may have fewer incidents of specific infestations, as one looks at the older trees there are less and less with no or few infestations. So, there may be success in reducing the incidents of specific diseases, the incidents of all disease does not change. In addition, pharmaceutical, surgical, bionic and now genetic treatments effect changes in he nature of the human experience. So, the really important question is, if we choose to extend human life, what kind of life will that be?

jgh7

Post #6

Post by jgh7 »

I'll grant a hypothetical. Let's say in the most simplest terms, scientists found the gene for aging, and changed it so we don't age and thus live forever. In addition, they've cured every single disease.

Is this unethical? In my own mind, no. The bible doesn't go into this to the best of my knowledge since it states we're all going to die. But for the sake of entertaining this hypothetical, I don't see wrong in it (unless extremely unethical things are done to achieve it, but I'm not going to complicate the hypothetical that way).

Edit: Ofcourse a whole new can of worms is opened up with overpopulation. But maybe we could colonize other planets, or be placed in matrix-style tube farms to save space and live entirely in a virtual reality world and used as human batteries.

Post Reply