First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A theoretical future scenario... Good or bad?
14265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Pennsylvania, US
Offline
Posted 2/14/13 , edited 2/14/13
If we have the means to support a population with a nearly nonexistent death rate, there is no reason why eternal youth shouldn't just be handed out, especially when any selection process is bound to be heavily flawed, and could very quickly become corrupted to promote the agendas of powerful and influential people. Having such a process is a terrible, terrible idea.

I also want to point out that by that point in time, genetic engineering should be more than advanced enough that everyone can have great intellectual potential, so the intelligence half of that selection process would be irrelevant anyway.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 2/15/13 , edited 2/15/13

Taurelion wrote:

If we have the means to support a population with a nearly nonexistent death rate, there is no reason why eternal youth shouldn't just be handed out, especially when any selection process is bound to be heavily flawed, and could very quickly become corrupted to promote the agendas of powerful and influential people. Having such a process is a terrible, terrible idea.

I also want to point out that by that point in time, genetic engineering should be more than advanced enough that everyone can have great intellectual potential, so the intelligence half of that selection process would be irrelevant anyway.


But then again, it is highly unlikely that we will have the means to support a population with nearly nonexistent death rate, as there is still scarcity or resources. That is, unless we put reproduction on a halt, or at least put harsh restrictions on it.
Some scientists expects immortality to come before 2050. The propability of the problem of scarcity being solved until then is slim at best.

Although the selection process being heavily flawed and easily corruptable is a very valid point indeed...
14265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Pennsylvania, US
Offline
Posted 2/15/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Taurelion wrote:

If we have the means to support a population with a nearly nonexistent death rate, there is no reason why eternal youth shouldn't just be handed out, especially when any selection process is bound to be heavily flawed, and could very quickly become corrupted to promote the agendas of powerful and influential people. Having such a process is a terrible, terrible idea.

I also want to point out that by that point in time, genetic engineering should be more than advanced enough that everyone can have great intellectual potential, so the intelligence half of that selection process would be irrelevant anyway.


But then again, it is highly unlikely that we will have the means to support a population with nearly nonexistent death rate, as there is still scarcity or resources. That is, unless we put reproduction on a halt, or at least put harsh restrictions on it.
Some scientists expects immortality to come before 2050. The propability of the problem of scarcity being solved until then is slim at best.

Although the selection process being heavily flawed and easily corruptable is a very valid point indeed...

Yeah, at present it definitely looks as though immortality will be solved first, which presents some serious problems. But I expect scarcity will probably disappear before the end of the century as well; between 3d printing and nanotechnology, production of food and shelter should become insanely efficient in the not-too-distant future.
Wihl 
16637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
L5
Offline
Posted 2/22/13
Most science fiction writers who tackled this idea of long life came up with a few surprising results at least to me at the time. Economic stagnation as there will never be any wealth passing though inheritance and those who own stuff at the start become perpetual owners. Permanent copyright as the authors never die, so the arts, particularly new music will die off after a while. Lack of evolution of ideas and most everything else. I don't see it as a good future. The old will never move out of the way of the young.

As for those who cause " the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit happening today that goes on in the world" (OP), they will be with you forever.

Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/2/13

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).


I hope the world comes to an explosive end before that happens. Eternal life is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper and it's only in a real life application involving the human factor that you realize it's a superbly bad idea.


Of course, not content to display your ignorance of science, you try to expand your area of incompetence by speaking of thing of which you know little of, Political Economy and Philosophy for example. The first claim, that Eternal Life is a superbly bad idea when you consider the human factor, is completely unfounded, and I would assume you know it, given that you give no reason for its being a bad idea. But, that is not the my main objection, my main objection is that you declare that 'Socialism is a superbly bad idea given the human factor', also unfounded, and directly contrary to the realities of the world. Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others. In effect, it is the extension of the idea of Democracy to Economics- rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism, we should, instead, embrace a more democratic approach to the management of business and to the workers under Socialism. This, of course, can be easily derided as 'Utopian', until you realise that this has actually been done, in several places, the Kibbutzim of Israel, the experiments in Nordic Europe, in Spain under the CNT during the Civil War and the Mondragon Corp. Having said all this, how does it feel to be intellectually flayed continually?


LMAO!!!! Seems like we have a philosophy major here who has nothing better to do than....flaunt his degree online on forums because no one in real life cares about it.
Awwww :(

I swear your ramble was SO boring I had to force myself to finish it because this is literally what it sounded like----- The tree is not a bug, thus bugs cannot be trees, bla bla bla , you know that I know that you know what I know----it's drawn out and redundant.

That apart,your pride in bashing her and asking her what it feels to be "intellectually flayed continually" while your argument isn't even of much significance is just disgusting.

She just made a statement, didn't back it up. No need for you to get all up over your head, screaming "NO REASONS STATED---YOU'RE IGNORANT".

Bottom line is, what she means is that these ideas sound great in theory but when taken and enforced in real life they do not work out.

The end.
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 5/2/13 , edited 5/2/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


Trust me, the people handing out this "privilege" will be the most corrupted ones.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/3/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:

Trust me, the people handing out this "privilege" will be the most corrupted ones.


Hey, leave Philosophers alone. One of the father's of physics was a philosopher. What was it that Aristotle said?

"Objects in motion slow down because they became tired." and that's after a great deal of philosophizing! :sweatingbullets:

It was minds like Aristotle that would motivate greater minds (Isaac Newton) to develop physics, mathematics and other hard sciences. Great things come from humble beginnings after all and there's nothing more humbling than being completely fucking wrong.



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/3/13 , edited 5/3/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:



LMAO!!!! Seems like we have a philosophy major here who has nothing better to do than....flaunt his degree online on forums because no one in real life cares about it.
Awwww :(


Only I am not a philosophy major- though I suppose it is far better to flaunt one's knowledge than to proudly proclaim ignorance and hatred of wisdom.


I swear your ramble was SO boring I had to force myself to finish it because this is literally what it sounded like----- The tree is not a bug, thus bugs cannot be trees, bla bla bla , you know that I know that you know what I know----it's drawn out and redundant.


Of course, of course, as Dionysus says in the Bacchae- 'wisdom sounds like gibberish to the ignorant.' If you are bored, it is no business of mine to entertain you- the raison d'être of those lulz cats is to entertain halfwits.


That apart,your pride in bashing her and asking her what it feels to be "intellectually flayed continually" while your argument isn't even of much significance is just disgusting.


Hello, Mr Pot, how's Kettle doing?

So, to set the matters straight, let's wiegh our respective crimes shall we?

Caesar Revived- Virtuperation, Anti-intellectualism, and complete irrelevance to the topic

My crime: Virtuperation

If I am 'disgusting', I wonder what that makes you.


She just made a statement, didn't back it up. No need for you to get all up over your head, screaming "NO REASONS STATED---YOU'RE IGNORANT".


Of course, spouting random unfounded bullshit should be accepted as a legitimate argument, and a sure sign of wisdom.


Bottom line is, what she means is that these ideas sound great in theory but when taken and enforced in real life they do not work out.

The end.


The bottom line is that her claims that these thing 'sound great in theory but fail in practice' is completely unfounded bullshit, like your entire post because there is absolutely no evidence for her claims.

I can claim that there are invisible unicorns and fairies living in my garden, and that would be just as founded as your claims that this fails in practice.

But such is the preversity of the illogical- I wouldn't have even bothered to deal with this libellous drivel if not for its over-the-top anti-intellectualism.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/3/13 , edited 5/3/13

VeniVidiVici- wrote:

Trust me, the people handing out this "privilege" will be the most corrupted ones.


Hey, leave Philosophers alone. One of the father's of physics was a philosopher. What was it that Aristotle said?

"Objects in motion slow down because they became tired." and that's after a great deal of philosophizing! :sweatingbullets:

It was minds like Aristotle that would motivate greater minds (Isaac Newton) to develop physics, mathematics and other hard sciences. Great things come from humble beginnings after all and there's nothing more humbling than being completely fucking wrong.

To the thread creator: As far as the Theoretical topic it's as good as any other idea of a Utopian society. Meaning it's a terrible idea. Intelligence isn't so easily measured as you seem to think and your approach isn't as novel as you seem to believe. :P

We're only as strong as the weakest among us.



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/3/13

spacebat wrote:


VeniVidiVici- wrote:

Trust me, the people handing out this "privilege" will be the most corrupted ones.


Hey, leave Philosophers alone. One of the father's of physics was a philosopher. What was it that Aristotle said?

"Objects in motion slow down because they became tired." and that's after a great deal of philosophizing! :sweatingbullets:

It was minds like Aristotle that would motivate greater minds (Isaac Newton) to develop physics, mathematics and other hard sciences. Great things come from humble beginnings after all and there's nothing more humbling than being completely fucking wrong.

To the thread creator: As far as the Theoretical topic it's as good as any other idea of a Utopian society. Meaning it's a terrible idea. Intelligence isn't so easily measured as you seem to think and your approach isn't as novel as you seem to believe. :P

We're only as strong as the weakest among us.






I really don't understand why people insist that because it sounds all well theoretically, it must be a terrible idea.

1. Seems sound theoretically

2. Therefore, terrible.

What connects these two propositions?
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/3/13 , edited 5/3/13

longfenglim wrote:

I really don't understand why people insist that because it sounds all well theoretically, it must be a terrible idea.

1. Seems sound theoretically

2. Therefore, terrible.

What connects these two propositions?


It doesn't seem sound theoretically because it isn't a theory...it's a proposition. It's a utopian ideology.

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter....
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/3/13 , edited 5/3/13

spacebat wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I really don't understand why people insist that because it sounds all well theoretically, it must be a terrible idea.

1. Seems sound theoretically

2. Therefore, terrible.

What connects these two propositions?


It doesn't seem sound theoretically because it isn't a theory...it's a proposition. It's a utopian ideology.

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter....


'Utopian, ergo unsound' is not an improvement.

And if you wish to criticise me on those grounds, do not forget you used the word 'theoretical' as well in the same context.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/3/13 , edited 5/3/13

longfenglim wrote:

'Utopian, ergo unsound' is not an improvement.


You're just annoyed that i'm right and unwilling to participate in circuitous debate.

I used the term Theoretical to bait you... it works with your type.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/4/13 , edited 5/4/13

spacebat wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

'Utopian, ergo unsound' is not an improvement.


You're just annoyed that i'm right and unwilling to participate in circuitous debate.

I used the term Theoretical to bait you... it works with your type.


I am annoyed, not so much that you are right- seeing as your reasoning based upon unfounded bullshit at best- but not only do you admit to not providing to the discussion, you are proud to admit that you are only here to bait people for the fun of it- I believe that is called 'trolling'.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 5/5/13 , edited 5/5/13

spacebat
To the thread creator: As far as the Theoretical topic it's as good as any other idea of a Utopian society. Meaning it's a terrible idea. Intelligence isn't so easily measured as you seem to think and your approach isn't as novel as you seem to believe. :P

We're only as strong as the weakest among us.


Yeah, I've gotten at least a little bit wiser since the creation of this thread and I realize that such a thing wouldn't be possible. Both for the reason that, as others have pointed out, the people handing out this privilege would be incredibly corrupted, and for the reasons that you state.

I'm still pissed off that there is so much evil, egoism, greed and stupidity in the world, but such a scenario is just not the way to go for getting rid of those things...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.