Stopping aging would also have an effect on what I am saying. You would have a stagnant population, so, again, imagine the technology of today with the population of the year 1200.
Even stopping aging creates power unbalances. Who tells you that we would be able to kill Genghis Khan? Or what if we only suceeded after 10000 years?
(Lol the amount of dislikes on my first comment… It’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.)
Death strikes down the good and the bad alike. For every monster stopped, a saint also. Or perhaps it is ten monsters for every saint. Or ten saints for every monster. Who can say? Whence your assurance that it is better to slaughter a billion people every decade than risk the evil that they might do?
BTW, while accounts differ over how Genghis Khan died, he was in his late 60s. While 67 is not 37, he did not die of old age, and his empire outlived him anyway.
t’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.
Is that really the only reason you can think of that you got downvoted?
Your comment didn’t say there’s at least one downside to life extension. It said the downsides outweigh the upsides and it did not make a well-argued case that that was so.
edit: Instead of “well-argued” I originally had the word “convincing”. I changed it because a comment does not have to be convincing or correct to get upvotes (or at least to not get downvotes). In fact, I predict that a comment or post that summarized a lot of downsides people should consider when forming their opinions about life extension in a non-preachy “you guys are so wrong about this” sort of way would be highly upvoted.
But I don’t think we are discussing immortality—just stopping aging. Stopping aging won’t prevent someone from killing the next Genghis Khan.
You didn’t specify that in your post.
Stopping aging would also have an effect on what I am saying. You would have a stagnant population, so, again, imagine the technology of today with the population of the year 1200.
Even stopping aging creates power unbalances. Who tells you that we would be able to kill Genghis Khan? Or what if we only suceeded after 10000 years?
Today we’re discussing stopping aging, tomorrow we’ll be discussing physical invulnerability.
(Lol the amount of dislikes on my first comment… It’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.)
Death strikes down the good and the bad alike. For every monster stopped, a saint also. Or perhaps it is ten monsters for every saint. Or ten saints for every monster. Who can say? Whence your assurance that it is better to slaughter a billion people every decade than risk the evil that they might do?
BTW, while accounts differ over how Genghis Khan died, he was in his late 60s. While 67 is not 37, he did not die of old age, and his empire outlived him anyway.
Is that really the only reason you can think of that you got downvoted?
Your comment didn’t say there’s at least one downside to life extension. It said the downsides outweigh the upsides and it did not make a well-argued case that that was so.
edit: Instead of “well-argued” I originally had the word “convincing”. I changed it because a comment does not have to be convincing or correct to get upvotes (or at least to not get downvotes). In fact, I predict that a comment or post that summarized a lot of downsides people should consider when forming their opinions about life extension in a non-preachy “you guys are so wrong about this” sort of way would be highly upvoted.