If we found the cure for aging, healthy youthful life extension, how would different segments of society react? Would most religious people refuse, and most secular people take it? How would that change society in a hundred years, or a thousand? Would you take the red pill? 
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.You should check out the series "Altered Carbon" on Netflix, a great sci-fi series that tackles this issue. Conciousness can be downloaded and then uploaded into a new (or in some cars used) body or skin. The wealthy can afford to clone themselves while the neo-catholics refuse the process on religious grounds.
Graynotgrey
Level 5
Apr 5, 2018
0
It would destroy most of nature quicker as we openly populate too much. we are living longer making it even worse.
LeighShelton
Level 8
Apr 5, 2018
0
10,000,000,000 really. do you know all natural habitats and species are threatened now at 7 billion? you can disagree as that's just a personal choice. we are an infinite species on a finite planet. if Sir David Attenborough who has spent at least 60 years going around the planet looking at life on earth sais this you should wake up. everywhere I look towns and cities are getting bigger. long-term what the earth can deal with in human numbers is 2 billion. I don't see where you get your levelling off idea. there are different religions that don't believe in abortion. there are others who hate western peoples and happily breed away.
If it was free and there was enough for all, I suspect most older people would want to take it. Some religious groups might forbid it, but the members would probably sneak and take it anyway...nobody enjoys being old and sick.
birdingnut
Level 8
Apr 5, 2018
0
The wealthy would hoard it and the rest would die like normal.
The other divisions wouldn't matter.
And yes, I'd take it, why not?
WileEQuixote
Level 7
Apr 4, 2018
0
I really have no idea what anyone else would do, but I wouldn't do anything to change
the natural course of my life.
If it did change society, I am pretty sure I wouldn't want to have anything to do with
whatever 'new' version of society that would emerge.
I already find the attitudes toward aging, and "youthful life extension, to be extraordinarily
annoying and condescending.
KKGator
Level 9
Apr 4, 2018
1
@SpacemanSpiff Not particularly. I do, however, find the attitude towards those who don't wish to buy into that mindset as condescending and annoying. Not everyone is interested in it.
@SpacemanSpiff Understandable. I wouldn't dream of preventing anyone from exercising their individual right to choose whatever the hell they please. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, have at it.
@SpacemanSpiff I don't like the idea of it. There are too many possibilities for abuse and unintended consequences. I don't trust humanity to anything like that without screwing it up, and making things exponentially worse. I don't want any part of it.
@SpacemanSpiff Whether you take anything that doesn't coincide with your own opinions "seriously", or not, is wholly irrelevant to me. I answered your questions.
I don't hold the same belief in humanity that you do. I believe we will be the first species to drive ourselves to extinction. It's also the least we deserve. That's not pessimism either. That's reality, based entirely on human history.
We are over populating already. Maybe we should be looking at a "Logans Run" scenario. Everybody has an awesome but shorter life, noone suffers, no poverty, but we don't live as long.
Rugglesby
Level 8
Apr 4, 2018
0
@SpacemanSpiff Peter Ustinoff was brilliant
If we found a cure for aging as our society exists it would be exploited by the wealthy and denied the poor, so both the Clintons and the Trumps of our society might live forever, but the poor people would still suffer as always.
How would you ethically justify your own life extension over that of some poor child?
Davesnothere
Level 7
Apr 4, 2018
3
@SpacemanSpiff I disagree.
I think that first, the cost of invention itself would make the new procedure cost prohibitive, like all new medical procedures, a luxury for those with the best medical care.
Then within that group would be a sub group who would want to have control over it, which would cause a great deal of problems in society, perhaps even wars.
Insurance would not push for it as a profit making venture, as it would not eliminate disease or accident, only prolong natural life.
Then there would be an environmental movement stoutly aganst the idea, due to sheer population growth, if you make all the living live longer the population would swell beyond all control for a generation or more, and what is currently begining to self regulate would end, returning us to the model of the 1800's and early 1900's population growths.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.