Maybe you’re right about that, although you’re stretching it a bit with the infant mortality argument.
Really? It was the chief method of population-control once upon a time, much like death by aging is now. They seem pretty analogous in most ways.
People were “selfish” back then to not want their infant babies die. People are the same sort of selfish now to not want to see their parents die.
Lack of death in both cases causes the same sorts of problems, but people adjust to problems. Fertility declined after infant mortality dropped—fertility per year will also be declined in people have their youthful years extended indefinitely.
Maybe you do think the latter but I think if immortality was discovered tomorrow it would be concentrated in the hands of a rich elite who judge their lives to be more important than the rest of ours. After a while it would be sold to those wealthy enough to afford it.
Do you understand that you just made two contradictory arguments—before you said there will be overpopulation, because it will be given to all. Now you say it will be given only to some (so there’s no problem of overpopulation), but these few will create an elite.
Those are two opposite problems—which one do you believe will be the actual case?
These people would control the world through the generations and decide their own world order.
How does that follow? In what way does medical immortality give these people greater powers of control than any current or medieval non-immortal dictator or monarchical dynasty?
Well actually I think you misunderstood me. The statement you’re basing your argument on is “Death isn’t a problem to be overcome it’s the natural conclusion to life.” I admit that I may have “imbued the word natural with moral weight”. However you are responding as if I had said “death is natural therefore it is desirable” which I did not and which would be a pretty meaningless statement to make. I merely used natural as an adjective, I could have used “inevitable” or “only” or many others instead. The adjective was obviously misplaced because it had unintended connotations in the context. I should have reread the comment more carefully.
In answer to your second point it depends when immortality was discovered. In the last example I said if the means to be immortal was discovered tomorrow. Obviously it is more likely that it would be discovered in hundreds or thousands of years when the world will probably be radically different to that of today. Therefore both are complete conjecture. Neither of us can know what the true impact on society would be. I think it will be negative for the reasons I’ve given, I’m not sure what your position is as you’ve not clearly stated it though I’m assuming you think the effects would be positive? It would be interesting to hear what your view s are.
Because they are able to maintain power for much longer. It is often when a dictator dies or is aging and infirm that their regimes are contested.
We don’t know what the true impact on society will be if medical immortality is discovered—but the thing is that the current impact on society of its lack is about 60 million deaths per year. A death toll of the scale of World War 2, every single year.
Can I condone such a death toll for reasons as uncertain as the fear of the possible formation of a immortal super-elite which will lead the rest of humanity to misery, or of the fear of overpopulation bringing misery, or of dictators lasting a bit longer in power than they otherwise would?
No, I can’t condone it. Yes, I’m sure lots of problems will arise if medical immortality is discovered. But as a rough calculation none of those problems is nearly certain enough to justify 60 million deaths per year in return. Your own calculations of this may be different.
--
As a sidenote your concept of just the elite becoming immortal isn’t an automatic dystopia either. If anything, I think that might make them a bit more responsible in evaluating the long-term consequences of their policies.
Really? It was the chief method of population-control once upon a time, much like death by aging is now. They seem pretty analogous in most ways.
People were “selfish” back then to not want their infant babies die. People are the same sort of selfish now to not want to see their parents die.
Lack of death in both cases causes the same sorts of problems, but people adjust to problems. Fertility declined after infant mortality dropped—fertility per year will also be declined in people have their youthful years extended indefinitely.
Do you understand that you just made two contradictory arguments—before you said there will be overpopulation, because it will be given to all. Now you say it will be given only to some (so there’s no problem of overpopulation), but these few will create an elite.
Those are two opposite problems—which one do you believe will be the actual case?
How does that follow? In what way does medical immortality give these people greater powers of control than any current or medieval non-immortal dictator or monarchical dynasty?
Well actually I think you misunderstood me. The statement you’re basing your argument on is “Death isn’t a problem to be overcome it’s the natural conclusion to life.” I admit that I may have “imbued the word natural with moral weight”. However you are responding as if I had said “death is natural therefore it is desirable” which I did not and which would be a pretty meaningless statement to make. I merely used natural as an adjective, I could have used “inevitable” or “only” or many others instead. The adjective was obviously misplaced because it had unintended connotations in the context. I should have reread the comment more carefully.
In answer to your second point it depends when immortality was discovered. In the last example I said if the means to be immortal was discovered tomorrow. Obviously it is more likely that it would be discovered in hundreds or thousands of years when the world will probably be radically different to that of today. Therefore both are complete conjecture. Neither of us can know what the true impact on society would be. I think it will be negative for the reasons I’ve given, I’m not sure what your position is as you’ve not clearly stated it though I’m assuming you think the effects would be positive? It would be interesting to hear what your view s are.
Because they are able to maintain power for much longer. It is often when a dictator dies or is aging and infirm that their regimes are contested.
We don’t know what the true impact on society will be if medical immortality is discovered—but the thing is that the current impact on society of its lack is about 60 million deaths per year. A death toll of the scale of World War 2, every single year.
Can I condone such a death toll for reasons as uncertain as the fear of the possible formation of a immortal super-elite which will lead the rest of humanity to misery, or of the fear of overpopulation bringing misery, or of dictators lasting a bit longer in power than they otherwise would?
No, I can’t condone it. Yes, I’m sure lots of problems will arise if medical immortality is discovered. But as a rough calculation none of those problems is nearly certain enough to justify 60 million deaths per year in return. Your own calculations of this may be different.
--
As a sidenote your concept of just the elite becoming immortal isn’t an automatic dystopia either. If anything, I think that might make them a bit more responsible in evaluating the long-term consequences of their policies.