Your not using religion as an arguement currently
You are just making fun of it because you dont belive in it.
Make fun of religion all you want in your mind. But dont do so in public.
And learn a few things about my religion before you want to use it as an arguement.
I know a LOT about the Big Three religions. Ask me anything Ill answer
ADDITION:
I know a LOT about the Big Three religions. Ask me anything Ill answer
There are two roads to attack this, rational and irrational.
Rational Thought: This would cause overcrowding.
This sort of treatment would not be cheap. It would be expensive to have such a procedure done on you so likely, only the rich would be able to do it, or only specific people the government wants to keep alive would be able to do it. You would be more likely to die from various diseases however, so you're not immortal. I will agree that a large number of people are not acceptable candidates for extended life, and honestly they shouldn't be allowed to live now. Another point I should make is, countries like the United States, where people could actually afford such a treatment, have a huge problem: TOO MUCH food. So much food is wasted that ironically this would actually help bring food prices down.
Irrational Thought: Assuming it WOULD cause overcrowding, this would lead to more pollution.
Assuming that anyone in the world could get this treatment, even poor Africans and people from the Middle East or other impoverished, these people are not going to add to the pollution problem. They can't afford cars. That is what makes this idea even more ridiculous, supposedly people who can't afford to pollute the world can afford to have their life extended. That is one of the most irrational conclusions I have ever heard.
Irrational Thought: People will be near invincible
As I have said already, you would be more likely to die from diseases which arise the longer you live.
Irrational Thoughts: There will be endless wars
Do you really think people that have been to war before enjoy seeing their nation go to war again? If anything this would decrease the chance of war, but as someone important (heh) once said, as long as their is man there will be wars. This would allow people the expierence to wonder if it's really worth going to war over something.
Irrational Thought: It's immoral.
No, you are an fbombtard. You most likely believe in something ridiculous, like the God of the Old Testament. It is absolutely beyond my capacity why you would desire the existence of an omnipotent, dishonest, mass murdering, hypocrite who supports slavery and despises his own creation.
Note: Fbombtard is my invention to preserve my meaning whilst not evading the censors.
No wars would just happen.. Because by the time we can extend life we can clone possibly lol.. And people are greedy..
And its the government that decides not the people ( Yay for democrazy! )
QUOTE(Sarah_K @ May 22 2006, 03:07 PM)
Random sampling of a large and varied subsection produces the same results..
UN stuff is of course compiled from censuses/police data around the world, from many countries...
back to transhumanism: yeah Echo, but birth control means it would not necessarily be bad. most likely there would be a waiting list if you wanted to have a child, to make sure the population didn't grow too much - either that or when people get bored they choose to die to make a place for a new person
[right][snapback]490959[/snapback][/right]
There could possibly be selective breeding programs as well. Only let the smart people reproduce. And then there could be nazism. And destruction of the geneticly retarded..
And then we could kill people with low IQ's!!!!
QUOTE(DarK @ May 25 2006, 10:43 AM)
And then there could be nazism. And destruction of the geneticly retarded..
And then we could kill people with low IQ's!!!!
[right][snapback]492544[/snapback][/right]
Is the extermination of idiocy REALLY such a bad thing?How about I come in your house and kill you? Because I belive your an idiot. And how do you determine some1 is a an idiot..
No matter how 'normal' the parents are there is always a change that the child will have some kind of defect
If we're talking about genetic modification, what is wrong with a selective breeding program?
People are supposed to die. You can get rid of all the diseases you want, but extending people's lives is rather stupid. I mean, most people do all of the things they need to do within the current maximum life span:, IE, the 120's. I see no reason why we should screw around with the absolute limit of genetic replication, it's more than likely going to cause adverse effects. Plus, do you really want people you absolutely can't stand living to 200+? Outliving people is fun, please don't ruin it.
Very interesting. Biological Engineering FTW!
On the 'Eternal Life' topic, I think it's generally a bad idea. For one thing, population will go up so fast... I think it should be made quite expensive at the very least. And that's just a few years life increase. Eternal Life should never be given.
Also, there shouldn't be 'Power Ups' that increase either your physical strength or the potential of your brain (not sure how it works). If that were to happen, what's the point of working out or training your brain?
If 'Troll-like regeneration' were to exist, no one would fear being shot or anything like that, and, again, population would go up.
And on the selective breeding topic... cruel but efficient.
Just remember this: once you open one door, there's another one behind it. Once you've started to push the envelope, what says you'e going to stop there?
Ever that downside of technology. Can't be helped.
QUOTE(Wilhelm @ May 29 2006, 02:08 PM)
Just remember this: once you open one door, there's another one behind it. Once you've started to push the envelope, what says you'e going to stop there?
[right][snapback]495162[/snapback][/right]
You mean the slippery slope argument? I think we're already on the slope, to be honest. I have nothing against it, so long as it's a gradual incline.
Who cares, we'll do it anyway regardless of how much the stupid jesusfreaks whine.
Jesusfreaks...? ( Using religion as an arguement? )
I agree, that insult wasn't really necessary.
Religion as an argument is inherently invalid for anyone not of the religion
QUOTE(Sarah_K @ May 30 2006, 05:06 PM)
Who cares, we'll do it anyway regardless of how much the stupid jesusfreaks whine.
[right][snapback]495803[/snapback][/right]
I would call that an insult to all people who belive in God. If I were you, I would edit this post, Sarah_K, or remove it before it starts a fight.
Your post above is amazingly ignorant, because you imply that insulting Jesus is an insult to all people who believe in a god...
Sarah if you insult the son of God in my religion and the prophet and our saviour..
What do you expect?
And you didnt directly insult Jesus
You said jesusfreaks ( Notice the S )
QUOTE(Sarah_K @ Jun 1 2006, 01:59 PM)
Your post above is amazingly ignorant, because you imply that insulting Jesus is an insult to all people who believe in a god...
[right][snapback]497204[/snapback][/right]
If you do not understand why did you insult people, atleast try to understand what you did wrong instead of defending the S**t that you wrote.
There are way too many fights breaking out on sen right now, people need tonotice that this is people opinion, no flaming is alowed on sen. If need be you can PM messages to people, but there is no need to attack someone in a topic, or things are going to have to change!
I know there's nothing wrong with what I said.
12yr-old DarK misses the point, I don't care if I insulted Christianity, like all religions it's founded upon baseless tripe and deserves all the disdain it gets.