Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

apart112358 t1_j3lbdg6 wrote

Yes, aging is finally being recognized as a disease.

People will continue to die.

Diseases, accidents, violence and many things will still kill people. But it doesn't just happen anymore .So everyone can decide for themselves* whether they want to live longer.

*For me it's okay if you want to continue living or if you want to die.

Only one thing isn't ok: If you try to dictate it to others. No life- or deathsharia.

Nobody has to live, nobody has to die, the choice is yours.

37

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3ld248 wrote

I like your reasoning here!

I tried arguing about the declaration of aging as a disease with my private circle. EVERY single person said they are against immortality and EVERY single one said the reason for that was that „life would become boring at some point when one is immortal“.

How do people even know that? None of them has tried it out.

I am very sure that I will have possibilities to learn new abilities and do new research forever if I had the chance. The universe is so big and fascinating…

Yet even my close friends, very rebellious and humanist people I hand-picked personally, making sure no feudalist or regressionist mindset would be allowed around me, would vote against declaring death and ageing as disease. No matter if they harm OTHERS, like you and me, by that.

10

Ortus14 t1_j3lhmuv wrote

Those people are forgetting that our brain naturally forgets things. So a million years from now you can re-watch a show you already saw and still be entertained. Hell, a million years from now you could date the same man/woman and you'll both have completely forgotten and think you're dating for the first time.

We could augment our brain so it doesn't forget as much but that would be a choice, and for those who don't want to get bored, forgetting is wonderous.

On the other point, it doesn't matter what your friends think, the world health organization and other organizations who's opinions allow anti-aging funding, have classified aging as a disease.

11

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3lp5rv wrote

Thank you! Yes, forgetting is important for us even to learn properly! Very good argument.

3

Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ldiwh wrote

It’s cognitive dissonance, understand their perspective from a neurological perspective. In the presence of a threat to our own lives we have 3 responses: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. If we cannot fight death we try to run away from it, if we cannot run away from it we freeze and accept it. Their limbic systems see death as a threat that they cannot fight or run away from so they activate the freeze response in which the cortex or logical part of their brains rationalize it in a way in which they can accept it. However if the cure for aging was in front of them I almost guarantee all of them would take it in an instant.

8

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3lp2fs wrote

Thank you! Your explanation helps. Despite psychology being my trade, I have sadly close to no inborn “natural” empathy. What you said makes a lot of sense.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3o3jzp wrote

That's cringe. Some people don't wanna live forever, no need for all the psycho babble nonsense with no actual meaning or thought within it past your shallow consideration of you think sounds sexy to spout. Ugh imagine saying not wanting to live forever is because of a freeze response to existential dread of death. Perhaps it is, but the way you say it with such certainty is so cringe, giving psycho analysis onto people you don't know. You're certainly not as smart as you think you might be to give such my friend. Lol

−5

rushmc1 t1_j3nw3c3 wrote

The lack of imagination many people have is staggering. All they can conceive of is their current life, forever.

2

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3oashi wrote

Very true. The sad thing is that they often try to force others to give up hope and creativity too (luckily here my friends in real life don’t make this mistake). The modern approach to society propagated by mainstream solidifies this and helps the victims to stay victims while they think they are winning… Thank you 🙏

2

Icy-FROG t1_j3o3q7z wrote

Well yes human existence and experience doesn't give much towards imagination of things past our scope. I doubt you're all that imaginative yourself.

−3

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3oadv9 wrote

I have seen you post here twice, so I decided the topic must be important for you (hence making you one of those with a chance of using their inferior meat machines in their skulls). Then I tried to feel some pity for you, was somewhat successful and looked into your other posts.

Have seen you like Warhammer 40k. Is it a source of inspiration for your imagination?

If yes, I suggest “Gaunt’s Ghosts” series if you haven’t read it already. It could give you back some hope in humanity and help you overcome your depression and anger issues.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3pvj99 wrote

My god the way you speak is so cringe. You clearly have a bit of intelligence, but play into it so much so as to sound so much smarter. "Hence making you one of those with a chance of using their inferior meat machines in their skulls", absolute cringe.

And no i possess no anger issues nor depression in regards to you nor anyother. I only cringe at the elevated sense of self many who frequent this sub seem to have.

I believe in humanity just as much as i am disgusted by it. I believe in my self just as i am also disgusted by my self, life isn't a line of single mono emotional states or perspectives. I cringe and i laugh. Hohoho

0

Icy-FROG t1_j3o2x0f wrote

Cringe. You not your friends. "Very rebellious and humanist people i hand picked personally, making sure no feudalist or regressionist mindset would be allowed around me" So what now buddy, your beautiful friends don't agree with you, what now, gonna whine about it and find others that will agree with you to have new friends? The way you talk about your friends is cringe.

−1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3o95oa wrote

The philosophy of “cringe” is what allows them to brainwash you. But since you spend your time cringing, you probably don’t have time to realise it. Here some popular science that can help you get rid of your fears:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-scientific-underpinnings-and-impacts-of-shame/

My friends are allowed to disagree with me and know how I think of them and their ideas, I am very into open discussion.

Doesn’t seem that you give your friends the same chance. Try reading up on the philosophy of shame, on discourse and on the way those in power keep you leashed. Michel Foucault is a philosopher I would advise you to read but you are probably still in high school (“cringe” being kid speak of today) so it might be a bit too difficult. But here is an easy start:

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/shaming-culture-as-neoliberal-governmentality/

I don’t hate you, just in case you wonder. If I cared about you personally and had more emotions (and f^cks) to spare, I would feel pity, I guess. But I don’t want other young people to be influenced by your destructive way of thought and it’s for them that I post this information.

Have a good day, little one.

P.S. Praise the Omnissiah.

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3pvvpz wrote

Looooooool. All my meager meat computer can allow me to do is cringe in this case. Absolute cringe. Hohohohoho

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3q7gy7 wrote

I have done everything I was able to help you. If you are still mistaking my attempts to reach out to you and help as „an elevation of self“, you could as well try talking to a mirror instead of being on Reddit. Using it as an echo chamber is a waste of time. But oh well - I hope you read up on Foucault to free yourself from what the rich have done to you. Good luck with your cute trolling 😁 (and thank you for being very amusing! „Hohoho“ is hella cute 🎅)

1

Icy-FROG t1_j3vkx3z wrote

Nope no trolling just saying what i see. Don't know who these "rich" are but they Better have my money. Glad you appreciate the laugh. Good day, sir.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j3p4duk wrote

Pretty sure longevity would be incredibly expensive, causing only the hyper rich to get it. Why do people think this will be given for free? The peasants will die and the rich will live 1000 years laughing at us. It would be the most intense oppression. Im glad people die. Imagine Putin, Stalin, hitler, or any other oppressive person living forever. Oh also I’m a Christian and believe there is an after life.

I think they should push for the research, I love advancement. But if it ever did happen, it definitely wouldn’t be handed out, nor could you buy it at your local drug store. There wouldn’t be a financial incentive to sell it, they have a better chance of gain hoarding it for themselves

−1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3p9jv9 wrote

I think at some point it will be profitable to have people not going into pension and continue contributing for longer. Also Big Pharma will want to sell longevity to many people instead of a chosen few and hence the interests of super rich might conflict at this point.

You do have a point of course. I suspect longevity will be sold to the rich at first, just like it already is (there is age-fighting technology available to some part already, as well as better medical care than the usual human gets, but it’s not this big a difference yet). It will be a long process for it to be distributed somewhat more evenly, especially if we want the change to be global (many „first world country“ citizens living on welfare are already the super rich globally, I mean they HAVE welfare in the first place).

Not being Christian (Asatru is my way), I still accept the idea of afterlife, even of possible reincarnation. But I would prefer to learn and contribute more before I die, and if I could I would want to continue learning and contributing forever. Isn’t that what Christians are actually promised for good deeds and being believers in Christ, the immortal and happy life of mutual benevolence and love after the arrival of Judgement day? Maybe this very day is not far away now, just in a different, less metaphysical way?

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j3y120u wrote

With humans there will always be problems. Greater technology has never made evil go away, no reason to believe it will in the future. Also, christianity isnt about good deeds, at least not my version. Good deeds are a side effect of accepting jesus as your savior and following him. Living longer to commit more good deeds does not increase your chanses of heaven.

Contributing longer wouldnt matter, people are replaced by their children. No incentive to keep people alive. Reproducing populations are much easier to control as well. Think about how the public thinking has changed in just 10 years. This is 90% only with young people. If the founding fathers were still alive do you think there would be gun control, communistic ideas, transgenderism or any of the ideas gaining ground?

If I am a mega rich person, wanting control over the nation, giving me eternal life and everyone else limited lives would be the way to go.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j3y8x51 wrote

Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

sigh You might have misunderstood your Saviour. It’s exactly about the deeds and not about following him as a ruler blindly.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j46nnyo wrote

What you just quoted me is about doing exactly what he says, it doesn't say anything about doing good deeds. Doing exactly as someone says and calling them lord is following them blindly. Which as Christians we are supposed to do. Walk by faith not by sight

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j476fvb wrote

Do you read the Scripture? 🤨 Because Christ outlines pretty well what exactly humans should do. I mean, I am not Christian myself but I like the Bible, especially the New Testament, and actually read it. It’s a good behavioral code.

What you say shines kinda a bad light on Christianity.

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4eveu7 wrote

My point is not everyone who does good deeds is saved. You must accept jesus as your lord and savior and good deeds follow. If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself. Thats why the bible calls them fruits. They are not the tree, or the foundation. Jesus is. Regardless, It's good that you use the bible as a sort of code, i think its fantastic. But your missing out on the depth of what it truly is about.

I disagree, service of a greater good and moving the outlook away from self is exactly what everyone needs. Even if Jesus was some santa figure, it would still be preferable to the humanist view and trying to be good for the sake of doing good things. As the bible also says, if you build your house on sand then when a storm comes it wont last. Your good deeds do nothing when things really hit the fan.

1

AndromedaAnimated t1_j4fajv3 wrote

>If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself.

If you rephrase it like that it’s much better. In this case I would see you as having understood his teachings.

My point was not that you don’t need to believe in him as a Christian, but that merely believing but not doing what he says considering good deeds is not what he expects of his followers.

I am relieved to see that you were not trolling to give the Christians a bad image. Like I said, I have a different religion but I like Christians and their cool Son of God and don’t want anyone to shine a bad light on them.

Thank you for discussing it with me 👍🏻

Edit: to the „I disagree“ part of your post - what are you disagreeing with here? I don’t quite understand it. Probably with the Bible being „only“ a behavioral code? Well for Christians of course it is more! 😉

1

Accomplished_Box_907 t1_j4h6h4y wrote

Maybe I phrased it weird at first, but I appreciate that.

And I disagreed to the part that it was shining a bad light on Christians, but we've got that cleared up now.

Happy new year! If its not too late to say that lol

2

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3ln2xc wrote

Agreed, I'm pro immortalist technology and pro euthanasia.

I don't want a government that forces someone to live forever and I also don't want want a government that forces someone to die at a certain age.

4

apart112358 t1_j3lvl3h wrote

If you take the term euthanasia in its original meaning: a "good death," "nice death," or "good dying" from the point of view of the dying person and their loved ones, then that's okay for me.

Should someone want the treatment (even if only in old age) I would never refuse it. For me it would be like refusing a cancer therapy to a prisoner. For me, that would be unethical.

And yeah, no gov or a person or a ngo should force someone to take the treatment.

If we fight the disease via cell regeneration, it could be that our cells will eventually start to get sick again and treatment will be needed on an ongoing basis. This would mean that one can decide again and again.

1

The_Real_RM t1_j3lw58t wrote

I mean I doubt they'll kill you when your number is up, the insurance policy will simply not renew your immortality prescription once it surpassed a certain cost... depending on what policy you decide to buy...

1

SoylentRox t1_j3p4pzb wrote

>pro euthanasia

If you had a treatment for aging, most physical diseases and effective treatments for most psychiatric conditions, how can you allow euthanasia?

Any problem a person has - whether they feel they don't want to live anymore, or have a currently incurable condition - can be fixed. Maybe not now but since there's no aging they can wait however long it will take for a cure. And if they feel they don't want to live any more, you can connect up nanowires to deep inside their brain and or sensors, and there is probably a problem you will be able to detect with this level of technology.

Do you then just kill them, knowing their impulse to die is coming from broken circuitry in your brain you can fix? (or again, wait for a future cure).

Do you not even do the testing and just accept their wish to die without inserting the probes? You know there is probably a problem with their brain.

0

PhysicalChange100 t1_j3q1lvw wrote

Or maybe people are just different than you.

Doesn't mean there's something wrong with the CirCuitRy in their brain.

People have different desires and different perspectives, and philosophies in life. And they should have the freedom to pursue those things without an authoritarian telling them what to do.

3

SoylentRox t1_j3q1rto wrote

I am saying we keep em alive until we can check first. If there is nothing wrong with their brain sure, suicide away.

1

SoylentRox t1_j3p47dh wrote

>Only one thing isn't ok: If you try to dictate it to others. No life- or deathsharia.

Umm I'm sorry but it's stronger than that. If you run a country that prohibits your citizens from accessing aging medication, launching a lighting strike that slaughters your entire government - and any survivors we're going to hold a trial and execute for mass murder - is a perfectly reasonable moral tradeoff. It's perfectly fine to murder 100k people to save millions.

Once you have a treatment, every person with white hair we'll see like we saw concentration camp victims.

1