February 18, 2007
Life as Cost/Benefit Analysis
I suspect this is an argument we'll be hearing more and more as this century unfolds:
"The potential scientific gains outweigh the objections."
No doubt liberals and libertarians will join together in arguing that women have a right to sell their own eggs. But as the scientific promises move ever closer to immortality, can there be any doubt that creating an international market for the seeds of life will prove to have borne much more insidious fruits?
Can someone explain to me why living longer, even at the expense of comfortable productivity is better than dying?
When does the population consumption due to sheer size and a longer life outstrip the ability of the population to process a shrinking supply of natural resource? And if it can mean a longer life for all, why does longevity represent better?
Are we just all motivated by fear of death? Or is it the fear of the afterlife? And if there is an afterlife, and therefore a God, I sure don't want to have to explain all the things we are doing to ourselves to have a longer life, or even just a healthier one.
Posted by: Polly at February 18, 2007 3:47 PMSince I firmly believe there is no God and no afterlife, I'd like to live forever as long as I could be assured a reasonable standard of living. And once my body went kaput, I want my brain engrams uploaded into the ether.
Posted by: Greg at February 19, 2007 1:07 PM