RE: If you could, would you live forever?
04-04-2013, 12:50 PM
Again, spoilered for page-stretchiness.
Show Content
Spoiler
By accepting immortality, one should also accept that things move on and that one should adjust. People are very well capable of adjusting: My grandma is 75 and she works with computers the way anyone else does.
The IQ gains. Heheh. I'm actually not that surprised.
Education today focuses on increasing intellectualism, and we are working together to also bring this to 3rd world countries. Education as it was focused on preparing children for reality, and work rather than being intelligent, and there was a lot of difference and apartheid back then.
I'm not saying I'm not glad that IQ displays a global avarage increase, I'm simply saying it is misleading.
Although I must say that educating people in an intellectual way also has them expect they get intellectual jobs. Currently there are too few people working in less-intellectual jobs, so the actual development is questionable.
About the eugenics. Yeah, I'm a supporter of the idea in the way I explained it. You can find it creepy if you want, but this also means that I myself should be discouraged to reproduce. I have certain weaker genes that caused me to have autism and possibly gluten intolerance.
If there were a large global group of people who also supported the idea, I would go ahead and don't have children, but just doing it myself without any supporters doesn't make much of a point.
Also notice how I use "discourage" rather than "disallow". Disallowing is bound to be rebelled upon and takes away free decision, which I am a supporter of. Discouraging people is bound to give some result, and raises global awareness, while it still respects everyone's opinions and free choice on the matter.
Also, eugenics is a far more humane solution to this problem than simply killing off all the people who are in any way weaker or less intelligent, which would have happened in nature.
(04-04-2013, 12:11 PM)MrGuy Wrote: »That argument really doesn't hold water based on IQ scores of the past several years (IQ is a flawed metric, but the fact that scores are going up certainly implies that things aren't being entirely fucked). Not to mention that morality and knowledge is ever-evolving and the 200-year-old brain you just mentioned will be a lot more resistant to change and gaining new information. Eventually your knowledge and opinions are going to be outdated simply by virtue of the fact that you can't keep up.Today we live on the most free Earth of all time. A free and liberal environment require a free and liberal mindset. Everyone is capable of that if they try hard enough. I feel like you are stereotyping older people as incapable of having this mindset, rather than, what I believe, that they simply choose not to.
As for the "follow most developments in society and adjust" thing, most people who are eighty, let alone two hundred, are kind of shitty at that. I do think a fair portion of this community is liberal and open-minded but I feel like it's a lot more complex than you make it out to be.
Also that argument's kind of eugenics-y and creepy.
By accepting immortality, one should also accept that things move on and that one should adjust. People are very well capable of adjusting: My grandma is 75 and she works with computers the way anyone else does.
The IQ gains. Heheh. I'm actually not that surprised.
Education today focuses on increasing intellectualism, and we are working together to also bring this to 3rd world countries. Education as it was focused on preparing children for reality, and work rather than being intelligent, and there was a lot of difference and apartheid back then.
I'm not saying I'm not glad that IQ displays a global avarage increase, I'm simply saying it is misleading.
Although I must say that educating people in an intellectual way also has them expect they get intellectual jobs. Currently there are too few people working in less-intellectual jobs, so the actual development is questionable.
About the eugenics. Yeah, I'm a supporter of the idea in the way I explained it. You can find it creepy if you want, but this also means that I myself should be discouraged to reproduce. I have certain weaker genes that caused me to have autism and possibly gluten intolerance.
If there were a large global group of people who also supported the idea, I would go ahead and don't have children, but just doing it myself without any supporters doesn't make much of a point.
Also notice how I use "discourage" rather than "disallow". Disallowing is bound to be rebelled upon and takes away free decision, which I am a supporter of. Discouraging people is bound to give some result, and raises global awareness, while it still respects everyone's opinions and free choice on the matter.
Also, eugenics is a far more humane solution to this problem than simply killing off all the people who are in any way weaker or less intelligent, which would have happened in nature.