Here are my two hopes for the future: ever extending lifespans and ever expanding civilization into space, neither without the other, as both enable each other, without over population.
@TheHumanDevelopment No, this means that we know the incoming problem and we're waiting until it ignites to solve it. We should know what we would do with that first. Also, a population that lives forever would mean that the majority of that population would NOT have renewing blood to take risks and change whatever things that get cemented because of tradition or whatever else.
@ShiroKage009 But at the same time it would mean faster progress in science. One day Stephen Hawkings is going die and then somebody his gonna have to come along and learn everything he did before being able to carry on his work, that wouldn't be necessary if he could just live forever. When we can stop the ageing process it will probably be only done to scientists and other intelligent people, so population control most likely won't be needed.
@oBLACKIECHANoo I think that Hawkings is not the only Physicist and that an emerging genius might be in the making as we speak.
Also, preserving the life of elite scientists only would be unethical as we are denying access to life-saving treatment from people in favor of others. What this will do is make everyone aspire to be an elite scientist depriving most other sectors of life from human resources.
@ShiroKage009 That would not be unethical. Those people are valuable to society, they are doing some of the most important work ever, having them live long enough to complete their work would be fine. Random people are not as important. And it wouldn't just be scientists, it would be any intelligent person eventually, so everyone would eventually become more educated and in a hundred years or so, alot of shitty jobs done by people will be automated, so no need for dumb people.
@oBLACKIECHANoo Wow, that's a really dangerous thing you're saying here. You can't measure the overall worth of a human being with just how smart we think they are. What if someone is really massively smart but chooses to be a skydiving coach, a musician or some other profession that does not directly seem to help the human race, what then? Do they get to live because they pass the immortality test? How about those that can just buy it? How about the angry public?
@ShiroKage009 I said anyone intelligent. It doesn't matter what they do, they would be accepted. And what about the angry public? Let them be angry, they wouldn't be accepted because they are stupid, they can not comprehend why keeping intelligent people alive is important.
@oBLACKIECHANoo If intelligent people chose to do nothing important, doesn't that defeat the purpose of keeping them alive, you know, to keep the advances rolling? Also, that "stupid" public of yours is the majority of people. I don't think that they will stand back and let it be so that immortality is monopolized. If anything, they will lash out out of vengeance.
@ShiroKage009 No, because no matter what job you do, being intelligent still helps society. It would basically be weeding out all the religious, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, racists, homophobes, and any other kind of moron.
@oBLACKIECHANoo Because there are no intelligent people who are racist, homophobic, holocaust-denying ... etc.
At least 7% of today's elite scientists are religious, and about 60% of those carrying graduate degrees are too. Add to that the fact that those "smart" people are living forever and you might have people depending on them for scientific advancement and this can become another type of "cult" in that no one wants to overrule those people.
I don't know how anyone could claim "this pill will give one immortality". I mean has he tried it?
Testing would take forever!
Life extension or a longer quality from life, putting the old age bit right at the last few years of life, would make great changes to the way we choose to live. Solving the greatest problem of all - overpopulation, will be easier because most will work together for a common cause. We are already overpopulated and it will get a lot worse, before it can get better.
first time i sort of disagree with dawkins. is there something inherently wrong about selfishness? isn't selfishness a primordial instinct that we have evolved to help us survive in this terribly hostile world?
@ngusumakofu1 I think what he's getting at is that while we are inherently selfish in an adaptive sort of way (and animalism does drive much of our behaviour) we also have higher cognitive functions that we must use in order to live responsibly. (I don't know if I've explained that correctly..ummm rape is a natural thing. However as intelligent beings we know it's a bad thing to do. Selfishness is a natural thing, but we've got to think about other people in the world too.)
@Tykilover You make a very good point but I just don't think that Dawkins or anyone else for that matter is in any position to judge anyone for their selfish/arrogant motives. Selfishness may not be the nicest thing in the world, agreed, but there is a huge chasm between selfishness and some other primeval instincts like rape. With rape, someone else's rights are being violated. That's why rape is criminal and selfishness is not in most if not all legal codes.
@ngusumakofu1 You confusing competition with selfishness. Selfishness is the more destructive form of competition, to the point that it may do more harm than good to a species.
LOL Dawkins isn't even a real biologist, He's an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, This question shoulc be for molecular and gene scientists aka the REAL scientists in the field of biology
@MsTrance1 Being an evolutionary biologist doesn't mean you are inherently ignorant of all other fields of biology. Every biologist knows more about any kind of biology than your average citizen. Dawkins is a man who has done his homework and he has absolute right to talk about these things. And for the record, I agree with what he said in this video.
@MsTrance1 No matter if that statement is true, Dawkins is still a biologist. Even though he may have the easiest branch of biology. A parallel to your statement is to laugh and say that math teachers are not math teachers because the teach in elementary school. Your logic is nonsensical.
@MsTrance1 I both read and understood your comment just fine. You ridiculed him in a stupid and nonsensical way, only showing the flaws of your thinking.
Please learn to ridicule someone with at least some reason and logic behind it before commenting, thank you.
@MsTrance1. Yeah... sure buddy. Saying Dawkins isn't a real biologist is the same thing as saying that Catholics aren't real Christians. Get real man! Come to think of it, molecular biology isn't that hard. It's not like it's "rocket science", or better yet Astrophysics. If you're going to insult a mans intelligence at least pick something that's a bit more challenging. They already cracked the human genome and made life in the lab. All you have left to work with are the scraps.
why would it be irresponsible? it blows my mind how this guy can spend so much time pretending to be an intellectual while constantly contradicting his worldview.
atheists have no claims to any ought other than "you ought to do what you want".
@anonazero Creating a method to live forever is completely irresponsible, do you not realise how overcrowded the planet is already? Imagine if we took away all the deaths in the world, but people continued to have children. The world population would balloon, food and water would dwindle and no one would live a happy life. As well as that, he isn't pretending to be an intellectual, he is one.
@anonazero They don't say that because of lack of space, they say it because of sustainability. I didn't know that until I took a class in it last semester.
@anonazero No, many people in the field of geography and sustainability. It's quite obvious if you just do some simple research. Open your eyes, read a book.
@anonazero Yes but that is physical overcrowding, what about a sustainable population, as surprising as it may sound, water can run out, and the more humans there are on the planet consuming it, the more likely it will run dry. The same goes for food and other resources such as oil. As well as that, even if none of that were true, if everyone was immortal, do you not understand how fast the population would boom. The population of the planet is increasing fast enough as it is, even with deaths.
@thejdcole water can run out. yeah, problem with that line of logic: MOST of the earth is covered with water.
secondly, i dont want people to be immortal in this life. that isn't my goal. this world is going to continue to fall apart until Christ comes back to restore creation. my only point was that this planet isn't overcroweded and won't be for a long time.
@Confusedfurry famine's got more to do with the luck of where you were born and live than overcrowding. There is enough food in the world for everyone it's just the distribution and accessibility of food is hugely imbalanced
@Confusedfurry i don't mean to offend you but thats the most illogical ignorant thing i've ever heard. i have leftover chicken parmesan my wife made... so the kid on the other side of the planet who has no one to take care of him who starves to death shouldn't starve to death... cause i have food... and nebraska has millions of acres of grain. riiiiiiiiight.
@funkyfranx as a software developer, electrical engineer, and theologian i do more thinking on a daily basis than you probably do all month (or year). thats not to be mean, its just the odds especially given your previous comments.
@anonazero the whole point is that we can't wait for 'christ' to come and save us , we have to live in the real world and deal with the problems ourselves
@shakka219 which is why we shouldn't be creating fictional problems. overpopulation is to the world as anorexia is to the adolescent girl in america. just because one person/region has an issue with it doesn't mean its an actual problem for the whole planet. there is plenty of food in other regions, the problem is localized overpopulation and localized poor asset management.
dont tell me the world is overpopulated, i live in texas.
@anonazero I agree that overpopulation isnt a problem in many areas for example where you live, but areas like africa and india because of overpopulation there are things like faminie etc , which is why we ourselves need to deal with these by helping our fellow man , I may not beleive in religion but at least it tells us to help thy neighbour as they are just as important as me , you or anyone else
@shakka219 the point is that overpopulation isn't the problem (as you've implicitely stated here). God said "be fruitful and multiply". He created a world that was supposed to be filled with life. make babies and feed em. doint have food? go somewhere that does have food. why can't you leave? oh... people... governments... oppression.
people are the problem but it aint that there's too many of em... its that a few have too much power.
@anonazero yes you make a good point but in many places its not the case of corrupt governments maybe in places like zimbabwe or former iraq, but places like mali, parts of north africa , they dont have the resources to make money to leave so they cant leave their country's , and even if they did leave where would they go? 1st world countrys dont want anymore poor immagrants they have enough already . what people need to do is create economy and education in these countries,
@anonazero to helping someone out who is less fortunate than you, they havent chosen to be born there its not their fault why let them suffer when you can help them for as little as like £4 a month? I went to africa teaching english for 2 years and it was one of the most rewarding things I ever did, but maybe im wasting my breath you cant tell someone who is selfish not to be
@shakka219 Unfortunately thats the way the world works, those born in prosperous areas or tribes survive, those that don't die. It's random chance where you are born but you also have to remember that humans as a whole are still bound by animalistic way of thinking even if we try and deny it to ourselves.
@anonazero because it makes you part of something bigger , gives you fullfillment and satasfaction an also changes other peoples lives so they can experience as good lives as we have
@shakka219 you haven't answered the question, though. thats all arbitrary if you can't tell me why objectively it is a good thing to help people. the naturalistic worldview says that i should do what i want to do, not what is difficult or tedious. so again, why should i?
@shakka219 For only £4 per month? Fortunately, I would rather but a mcdonalds. Nobody gives a fuck about your pathetic charity, pretending you can change the world. Nobody with an IQ above 60 cares about africa, if they became rich, and had less deaths, wanna know what would happen? Population would grow even faster and natural resources would be used up faster too. It's sad that there is people so stupid that they think they can change that, HAHA, idealist retard.
@anonazero Yeah but the problem with that is... most of the water the earth is covered in is undrinkable. 97.5% is salt water, and we only have access to less than 1% of the fresh water available. As well as that, if you don't want people to be immortal in this life, then why did you have a problem with Dawkins saying the exact same thing?
@thejdcole there's this cool thing called the water cycle and we even have these cool things called "filters". we can take oily salt water and make drinking water from it.
dawkins has a flawed worldview and the rest of his points are in conflict with each other.
This would require an intense treatment and the places with highest birthrate are also known to be the poorest ones. Those intensive treatments would be given to the scientists running the tests themselves and people with enough money to afford such an expensive thing. The biggest changes would be less rich people and scientists dying- and by the time it got to the general population, birthrates may be several points lower.
This is one of the few subjects that I completely disagree with Dawkins on. I think his view here is quite old fashioned and is going to be seen as obsolete, if you don't see it that way already. Population is a trivial argument, people in first world nations who could afford such therapies hardly breed anyway. When you compare it against the economic costs of death, how a library burns when someone dies, it's quite a trivial complaint to point at overpopulation.
Eternal life would at some point lead to eternal torture unless you found a way to stop the aging process and the decline of immunesystem. Also how would eternal life seem if you for example got afflicted by arthritis or some othe lifelong disease? death is natural, and chasing immortality is like chasing a fairy tale.
Eternal life would at some point lead to eternal torture unless you found a way to stop the aging process and the decline of immunesystem. Also how would eternal life seem if you for example got afflicted by arthritis or some othe lifelong disease? death is natural, and chasing immortality is like chasing a fairy tale.
Living forever would suck. You'd have to grow tired of it at some point. I think that most people don't actually want to live forever, but rather live for a long enough time to experience everything they want to experience.
No one would be able to live forever, they may not die of old age, however disease or some sort of accident will inevitably occur, and the longer someone lives the higher this possibility will rise until it is an absolute certainty. Today people today live longer than they did 100 years ago. As as a result, people are giving birth later and later. It is worth considering that if people lived a thousand years, they may not feel the need to have a baby until they were well into there hundreds
Especially not given how the Earth is running out of readily available fuel and everyone is hoarding theirs, rather than 'wasting' it on space missions. So many space projects have been cancelled recently because of lack of funding (which is necessary for the obscene amounts of fuel they use).
Wind power certainly isn't going to get us to Mars.
I think that the current Health and Safety obsession that people should never die, ever, is, ironically, going to be the death of us.
I want the current composition of atoms in my body to remain there and continue to keep my consciousness alive. If you think that the prolongation of your life keeps other people from living you'd have to introduce a concept similiar to that of a soul, which Mr. Dawkins probably does not believe in. Since the person not born yet, doesn't exist yet, it's probably not missing out on much, so I don't think it's selfish to want to prolong one's life.
That's assuming that Time is a straight line, and that what happened yet isn't certain. And there's so little (none, actually) evidence about Time or fate/determinism that it is a matter of personal belief.
So if you want to live forever mate, have at it.
Do you really want to put up with the rest of humanity forever though? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think there's anyone I'd like to spend eternity with.
I can understand fully and agree with him fully..I worked with young mentally and physically disabled young adults for years,people who should have died in all seriousness at birth. But medicine kept them alive,not a full life,but a life. Why are medical staff doi it,selfish reasons on behalf of the family? cause its not in the intrest of the child..many of these children died in their early teens.. its not good to do it just because you can,leave nature to do what it does..
Immortal does not mean invulnerable. Once the world gets too overpopulated, the problem will solve itself. It won't be pretty, but it will be taken care of.
Dawkins, WTF mate? Regardless of immortality, the increase in birth rates will still be massive, and dare I say, over-populated. The clue is in the adding-up of all those dead people he mentioned.
I this guy was intelligent once, now he's just turned into an absolute dickhead, nothing more than a wind up merchant, but he's well educated so he gets away with it.
The truth of course is that religious people are simply scared of dying, or rather NOT BEING - it's just a collective panic attack. Why do these boring self obsessed jerks carry on with their empty headed scaredy cat whingeing ? Who cares except them whether they drone on in eternal life or not ? Death is the end, if it makes you shit yourself then too bad !!
@ysgol3 What? That makes no sense what so ever. Almost all religious people accept death because they "know" it's not the end. Kinda like you "know" it is the end. The people searching for man made immortality are generally not religious people and it would make more sense that THEY would more likely fear death, believing that its final. Your comment was just an empty and obviously malicious shot at religious people fueled by your own hatred, absent any real, logical thought. Strive to be better
I think it's not fear of not being that religious people are scared of, rather that their lives are pointless, and that they mean nothing to the universe. That they are an insignificant insect on a pinprick of a rock in the corner of the universe
I believe religion is a way to give life purpose, meaning, to find some sort of reason for life. Because its so hard, so painful, they need a reason to keep going.
You could say that atheists are stronger people for not being dependant on this.
Hell yea if I could make it so I dont get old and die I sure would. If after a few hundred thousand or a few million years I get bored, I can always kill myself.There is so much to see in the universe, ill never understand how people say they would get bored if they had that opportunity and would favour oblivion
Nick Bostrom says 90 percent of people who have ever lived is dead, Richard Dawkins says less than 50 percent of those who have ever lived is dead. I am confused. Who is right?
@wranglerwranglerwran Thats not what Dawkins said. He said because death rates have gone down (globally) so much, there are a lot more people alive right now than at any other point in history. So you would have to go back quite a long period of time (maybe even a few thousand years) to find enough dead people. He DIDN'T say 'every dead person ever'
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
@crapfacejoe goal #1 keep the planet around for another 100 years. After that, no I am not sure that they will find a way to simply stop the decomposition of cells and your body falling apart of old age. Plastic surgeory and things like that are simply asthetic mods, did hear about that fat cell freezing thing though. I suppose most anti aging products are for the skin. Something like that would have to target your whole body... what about the cognitive side of it? Possible, but not probable
@sr1129 I'm not talking about aesthetics, but biotech solutions to end the aging process once and for all. If they can grow complex organs like bladders, kidneys, lungs... in a lab today and successfully transplant them in patients, surely within 100 years they will conquer aging. I think once we've reached that point, the next scientific revolution will be to identify and understand consciousness so we can transfer it from an organic body to a non-organic form such as a robot.
@crapfacejoe There are a couple I can think off. Why would anyone want to live forever?, is this technology like most things only going to be available to those with means?.And like Dawkins mentions if everyone or even just those who have the means to gain accsess live forever and continue to re populate why kind of strain does that put on a planet with an already overwhelming population.
@joshski85 If someone doesn't want to live forever, no one will force them... Like any other new tech, in the beginning it will be available to those with means, after which it will be commercialized. I would also assume 100 years from now the line between rich and poor would have been greatly diminished. Just look at the economic progress in the past 100 years... As far as finding space, earth is just the beginning, as time goes by colonization of other planets is inevitable.
@crapfacejoe I agree with you on everything apart from your opinion that the gap between the poor and the rich is decreasing I would argue the complete opposite it is increasing at a rate not seen before, the current ecconomic climate is a huge example of that and I can't see nothing but more of the same in the near future.
@joshski85 What I should have said is being poor today in developed nations is not what it used to mean 100 years ago... The developing world will also catch up in the next few decades. Furthermore, the definition of rich today can mean 200,000+, millionaire or billionaire, and when you look at the percentage of middle class it has risen significantly since the last century. Anyway, I'm sure in 100 years we would have a better medical system than today.
weeeeell, we in England brought our birth rates down, but then we let the millions of immigrants in who's average birth rate are around 5 kids per family LOL
I'm hoping for Deus Ex type augments. I don't want to live forever; just for a reaaaaaaaaaaaally long time. Oh and to be able to punch through walls. Thanks.
@TheDurationPlusFive Not necessarily, as most of the present-day projects aim at physical longevity, which, as Richard Dawkins points out, could be costly in the long-run, unless we start migrating to other worlds...
I think the solution is simple.If in the future it is possible to stop aging then this technology should not be made available to general public,we should just make it really expensive so only the uber rich could afford it because as "unnatural" or "wrong" it would be stop aging it would still be a breakthrough and we cannot just discard such a great scientific breakthrough.
@TheDurationPlusFive why would they be immortal "overlords" they would just be immortal and who knows maybe after 100 years he will run out of money and wont be able 2 buy more years like in that movie in time.
@anuragborn2rock Ummmmm no. Do as Richard Dawkins said and just reduce population growth. Besides if immortality was only available for the uber rich, there would be a riot. Not just any fucking riot, but a shit stomping mother fucking riot. How would "the 99%" when "the 1%" not only keep 30% of the world's wealth, but live forever. Insult + injury = shit stomping motherfucking riot.
@LeblueLegume Why would there be a riot?OK so u make the immortal technology so expensive that only the "uber" rich can buy it,not just any rich millionaire,but only billionaire like donald trump.If a billionaire wants to be immortal he would need 2 pay billions of dollars which in turn would be used by the government for development of the nation and people wont care if donald trump or bill gates live forever infact they will be happy.
@LeblueLegume really?i think donald's kinda cool and maybe some people will not like it if he lives forever but his living certainly wont make anyone's life hell,it would at most piss off some people and think of the billions of dollars the nation would get from him buying this technology,that money can be used to build hospitals bridges or for scientific advancement.Really this is the only way,the other way would be to discard the technology which would be a total waste.
@anuragborn2rock It might not be that big of a breakthrough after awhile - the high of even our most amazing technological achievements seems to fade fast. We take for granted technologies beyond the imagination of people 500 years ago and still bitch when our debit transactions are two seconds late in processing. How the hell are we going to stay sane for 1,000 years with that kind of mentality?
@squamish4244 We take our technological marvels for granted because we are so used to them so we dont marvel at it daily but things like computers and aircraft are still a breakthrough for humanity and immortality would be an even bigger breakthrough cuz not everyone in the future will use it,only the super rich will afford this technology so people will still die.Nobody will be like "dying,whats that?"
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
This is a cool problem , while I was thinking to see the possibilities of bringing back The Great people like Albert Einstein back from Dead.! lol...
pvnksarma 12 hours ago
WELL , WILL BE INTERGALACTIC WOULDN'T WE,COME ON DAWKINS !
mrmaxwellgeorge 19 hours ago
The problem with immortality is you will eventually get bored out of your mind.
Nagneto 1 day ago
The same pill that makes you live forever also makes you sterile. Don't like it? don't take the pill, problem solved.
probe26 1 day ago
but if we were immortal, we could fly to any other planet and go anywhere
utupoe111 1 day ago
Here are my two hopes for the future: ever extending lifespans and ever expanding civilization into space, neither without the other, as both enable each other, without over population.
MrBebopChamploo 2 days ago
first lets deal with becoming immortal then we can worry about over population...concentrate on the difficult task first.
TheHumanDevelopment 2 days ago
@TheHumanDevelopment No, this means that we know the incoming problem and we're waiting until it ignites to solve it. We should know what we would do with that first. Also, a population that lives forever would mean that the majority of that population would NOT have renewing blood to take risks and change whatever things that get cemented because of tradition or whatever else.
ShiroKage009 2 days ago
@ShiroKage009 But at the same time it would mean faster progress in science. One day Stephen Hawkings is going die and then somebody his gonna have to come along and learn everything he did before being able to carry on his work, that wouldn't be necessary if he could just live forever. When we can stop the ageing process it will probably be only done to scientists and other intelligent people, so population control most likely won't be needed.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 day ago
@oBLACKIECHANoo I think that Hawkings is not the only Physicist and that an emerging genius might be in the making as we speak.
Also, preserving the life of elite scientists only would be unethical as we are denying access to life-saving treatment from people in favor of others. What this will do is make everyone aspire to be an elite scientist depriving most other sectors of life from human resources.
ShiroKage009 1 day ago
@ShiroKage009 That would not be unethical. Those people are valuable to society, they are doing some of the most important work ever, having them live long enough to complete their work would be fine. Random people are not as important. And it wouldn't just be scientists, it would be any intelligent person eventually, so everyone would eventually become more educated and in a hundred years or so, alot of shitty jobs done by people will be automated, so no need for dumb people.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 day ago
@oBLACKIECHANoo Wow, that's a really dangerous thing you're saying here. You can't measure the overall worth of a human being with just how smart we think they are. What if someone is really massively smart but chooses to be a skydiving coach, a musician or some other profession that does not directly seem to help the human race, what then? Do they get to live because they pass the immortality test? How about those that can just buy it? How about the angry public?
ShiroKage009 1 day ago
@ShiroKage009 I said anyone intelligent. It doesn't matter what they do, they would be accepted. And what about the angry public? Let them be angry, they wouldn't be accepted because they are stupid, they can not comprehend why keeping intelligent people alive is important.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 day ago
@oBLACKIECHANoo If intelligent people chose to do nothing important, doesn't that defeat the purpose of keeping them alive, you know, to keep the advances rolling? Also, that "stupid" public of yours is the majority of people. I don't think that they will stand back and let it be so that immortality is monopolized. If anything, they will lash out out of vengeance.
ShiroKage009 1 day ago
@ShiroKage009 No, because no matter what job you do, being intelligent still helps society. It would basically be weeding out all the religious, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, racists, homophobes, and any other kind of moron.
oBLACKIECHANoo 22 hours ago
@oBLACKIECHANoo Because there are no intelligent people who are racist, homophobic, holocaust-denying ... etc.
At least 7% of today's elite scientists are religious, and about 60% of those carrying graduate degrees are too. Add to that the fact that those "smart" people are living forever and you might have people depending on them for scientific advancement and this can become another type of "cult" in that no one wants to overrule those people.
ShiroKage009 20 hours ago
Earth is overcrowded. I just cant be bothered to waste my time arguing with people who will not change their mind. Distraction successful.
Confusedfurry 4 days ago
I don't know how anyone could claim "this pill will give one immortality". I mean has he tried it?
Testing would take forever!
Life extension or a longer quality from life, putting the old age bit right at the last few years of life, would make great changes to the way we choose to live. Solving the greatest problem of all - overpopulation, will be easier because most will work together for a common cause. We are already overpopulated and it will get a lot worse, before it can get better.
EvolBob1 5 days ago
first time i sort of disagree with dawkins. is there something inherently wrong about selfishness? isn't selfishness a primordial instinct that we have evolved to help us survive in this terribly hostile world?
ngusumakofu1 6 days ago
@ngusumakofu1 i dont think he implied that theres something inherently wrong with selfishness
zombierobopirate 6 days ago
@ngusumakofu1 I think what he's getting at is that while we are inherently selfish in an adaptive sort of way (and animalism does drive much of our behaviour) we also have higher cognitive functions that we must use in order to live responsibly. (I don't know if I've explained that correctly..ummm rape is a natural thing. However as intelligent beings we know it's a bad thing to do. Selfishness is a natural thing, but we've got to think about other people in the world too.)
Tykilover 6 days ago
@Tykilover You make a very good point but I just don't think that Dawkins or anyone else for that matter is in any position to judge anyone for their selfish/arrogant motives. Selfishness may not be the nicest thing in the world, agreed, but there is a huge chasm between selfishness and some other primeval instincts like rape. With rape, someone else's rights are being violated. That's why rape is criminal and selfishness is not in most if not all legal codes.
ngusumakofu1 5 days ago
@ngusumakofu1 You confusing competition with selfishness. Selfishness is the more destructive form of competition, to the point that it may do more harm than good to a species.
Illier1 5 days ago
LOL Dawkins isn't even a real biologist, He's an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, This question shoulc be for molecular and gene scientists aka the REAL scientists in the field of biology
MsTrance1 6 days ago
@MsTrance1 Being an evolutionary biologist doesn't mean you are inherently ignorant of all other fields of biology. Every biologist knows more about any kind of biology than your average citizen. Dawkins is a man who has done his homework and he has absolute right to talk about these things. And for the record, I agree with what he said in this video.
Kuhlfurst 6 days ago
@Kuhlfurst im just saying, Im studying molec Bio in Uni and I make fun of Evbio and ESPECIALLY ecology students
MsTrance1 6 days ago
@MsTrance1 "LOL Dawkins isn't even a real biologist, He's an ecologist and evolutionary biologist".
Yeah, you can even hear it on the name that an evolutionary biologist is not a real biologist... wait, WHAT?!
LoverofLiszt 6 days ago
@LoverofLiszt ya they are like the Special class of the bio world, Such a easy discipline
MsTrance1 6 days ago
@MsTrance1 No matter if that statement is true, Dawkins is still a biologist. Even though he may have the easiest branch of biology. A parallel to your statement is to laugh and say that math teachers are not math teachers because the teach in elementary school. Your logic is nonsensical.
LoverofLiszt 6 days ago
@LoverofLiszt I never said his statement wasn't true, I was ridiculing him, please read and understand before commenting, thank you.
MsTrance1 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsTrance1 I both read and understood your comment just fine. You ridiculed him in a stupid and nonsensical way, only showing the flaws of your thinking.
Please learn to ridicule someone with at least some reason and logic behind it before commenting, thank you.
LoverofLiszt 5 days ago
@MsTrance1. Yeah... sure buddy. Saying Dawkins isn't a real biologist is the same thing as saying that Catholics aren't real Christians. Get real man! Come to think of it, molecular biology isn't that hard. It's not like it's "rocket science", or better yet Astrophysics. If you're going to insult a mans intelligence at least pick something that's a bit more challenging. They already cracked the human genome and made life in the lab. All you have left to work with are the scraps.
Elififa 5 days ago
Dawkins commenting on arrogance is like Archie Bunker commenting on bigotry.
uranatheisttwit 6 days ago
@uranatheisttwit How is he arrogant?
SgtPepperEverton 6 days ago
@SgtPepperEverton GoodGodA'mighty man!!
uranatheisttwit 6 days ago
@uranatheisttwit What?...
SgtPepperEverton 6 days ago
This was rather smallthink indeed.
slonamu 1 week ago
space...problem solved
StickyTank 1 week ago
@StickyTank Pretty hard to farm in space, at least now.
aluisious 1 week ago
@anonazero and clearly you've never been to Kenya.
Kickmeinmygroind 1 week ago
So if immortality came, we would have to make changes in our system. Is that all?
BronzeOrwin 1 week ago
Regeneration treatments (aka a theoretical Immortality Pill or what-not) will come with a mandatory sterilization.
Want to be immortal? you'll have to give up reproducing.
problem solved.
nickorization 1 week ago
why would it be irresponsible? it blows my mind how this guy can spend so much time pretending to be an intellectual while constantly contradicting his worldview.
atheists have no claims to any ought other than "you ought to do what you want".
anonazero 1 week ago
@anonazero Creating a method to live forever is completely irresponsible, do you not realise how overcrowded the planet is already? Imagine if we took away all the deaths in the world, but people continued to have children. The world population would balloon, food and water would dwindle and no one would live a happy life. As well as that, he isn't pretending to be an intellectual, he is one.
thejdcole 1 week ago
@thejdcole people who say the earth is overcrowded haven't been to half of the states in america... or canada... or australia.. etc etc
anonazero 1 week ago
@anonazero Australia is mostly dessert, just cause we have room to put people there, doesnt mean we have room to also grow their food.
linkrulesx10 1 week ago
@linkrulesx10 A. that doesn't really matter B. that was ONE THING on the list of millions of square miles of land.
anonazero 1 week ago
@anonazero They don't say that because of lack of space, they say it because of sustainability. I didn't know that until I took a class in it last semester.
thinkboutit 1 week ago
@thinkboutit LOLz, some prof said it so its true? wake up kid. open your eyes.
anonazero 1 week ago
@anonazero No, many people in the field of geography and sustainability. It's quite obvious if you just do some simple research. Open your eyes, read a book.
thinkboutit 1 week ago
@thinkboutit in other words you haven't been to wyoming. gotcha.
anonazero 1 week ago
@anonazero Yes but that is physical overcrowding, what about a sustainable population, as surprising as it may sound, water can run out, and the more humans there are on the planet consuming it, the more likely it will run dry. The same goes for food and other resources such as oil. As well as that, even if none of that were true, if everyone was immortal, do you not understand how fast the population would boom. The population of the planet is increasing fast enough as it is, even with deaths.
thejdcole 4 days ago
@thejdcole water can run out. yeah, problem with that line of logic: MOST of the earth is covered with water.
secondly, i dont want people to be immortal in this life. that isn't my goal. this world is going to continue to fall apart until Christ comes back to restore creation. my only point was that this planet isn't overcroweded and won't be for a long time.
anonazero 4 days ago
@anonazero
Of course the planet is overcrowded. If it wasnt logically no one would be experiencing famine.
Confusedfurry 4 days ago
@Confusedfurry famine's got more to do with the luck of where you were born and live than overcrowding. There is enough food in the world for everyone it's just the distribution and accessibility of food is hugely imbalanced
SkitchyMcdoo 4 days ago
@Confusedfurry i don't mean to offend you but thats the most illogical ignorant thing i've ever heard. i have leftover chicken parmesan my wife made... so the kid on the other side of the planet who has no one to take care of him who starves to death shouldn't starve to death... cause i have food... and nebraska has millions of acres of grain. riiiiiiiiight.
anonazero 4 days ago
@anonazero
You idiot. You're one of those common type who prove religious people to have no intelligence. You must be so proud.
funkyfranx 4 days ago
@funkyfranx as a software developer, electrical engineer, and theologian i do more thinking on a daily basis than you probably do all month (or year). thats not to be mean, its just the odds especially given your previous comments.
anonazero 4 days ago
@anonazero the whole point is that we can't wait for 'christ' to come and save us , we have to live in the real world and deal with the problems ourselves
shakka219 4 days ago
@shakka219 which is why we shouldn't be creating fictional problems. overpopulation is to the world as anorexia is to the adolescent girl in america. just because one person/region has an issue with it doesn't mean its an actual problem for the whole planet. there is plenty of food in other regions, the problem is localized overpopulation and localized poor asset management.
dont tell me the world is overpopulated, i live in texas.
anonazero 3 days ago
@anonazero I agree that overpopulation isnt a problem in many areas for example where you live, but areas like africa and india because of overpopulation there are things like faminie etc , which is why we ourselves need to deal with these by helping our fellow man , I may not beleive in religion but at least it tells us to help thy neighbour as they are just as important as me , you or anyone else
shakka219 3 days ago
@shakka219 the point is that overpopulation isn't the problem (as you've implicitely stated here). God said "be fruitful and multiply". He created a world that was supposed to be filled with life. make babies and feed em. doint have food? go somewhere that does have food. why can't you leave? oh... people... governments... oppression.
people are the problem but it aint that there's too many of em... its that a few have too much power.
anonazero 3 days ago
@anonazero yes you make a good point but in many places its not the case of corrupt governments maybe in places like zimbabwe or former iraq, but places like mali, parts of north africa , they dont have the resources to make money to leave so they cant leave their country's , and even if they did leave where would they go? 1st world countrys dont want anymore poor immagrants they have enough already . what people need to do is create economy and education in these countries,
shakka219 3 days ago
@shakka219 "what people need to do is create economy and education in these countries,"
why?
anonazero 3 days ago
@anonazero to helping someone out who is less fortunate than you, they havent chosen to be born there its not their fault why let them suffer when you can help them for as little as like £4 a month? I went to africa teaching english for 2 years and it was one of the most rewarding things I ever did, but maybe im wasting my breath you cant tell someone who is selfish not to be
shakka219 3 days ago
@shakka219 Relax it's just natural selection at work. At least in Africa there's still some semblence of balance between man and nature.
canberrajames 3 days ago
@shakka219 Unfortunately thats the way the world works, those born in prosperous areas or tribes survive, those that don't die. It's random chance where you are born but you also have to remember that humans as a whole are still bound by animalistic way of thinking even if we try and deny it to ourselves.
zornsthorne 2 days ago
@shakka219 you haven't told me why thats a good thing to do. you've only told me that i should do that. so... why is that a good thing?
anonazero 2 days ago
@anonazero because it makes you part of something bigger , gives you fullfillment and satasfaction an also changes other peoples lives so they can experience as good lives as we have
shakka219 2 days ago
@shakka219 you haven't answered the question, though. thats all arbitrary if you can't tell me why objectively it is a good thing to help people. the naturalistic worldview says that i should do what i want to do, not what is difficult or tedious. so again, why should i?
anonazero 2 days ago
@shakka219 For only £4 per month? Fortunately, I would rather but a mcdonalds. Nobody gives a fuck about your pathetic charity, pretending you can change the world. Nobody with an IQ above 60 cares about africa, if they became rich, and had less deaths, wanna know what would happen? Population would grow even faster and natural resources would be used up faster too. It's sad that there is people so stupid that they think they can change that, HAHA, idealist retard.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 day ago
@anonazero Yeah but the problem with that is... most of the water the earth is covered in is undrinkable. 97.5% is salt water, and we only have access to less than 1% of the fresh water available. As well as that, if you don't want people to be immortal in this life, then why did you have a problem with Dawkins saying the exact same thing?
thejdcole 1 day ago
@thejdcole there's this cool thing called the water cycle and we even have these cool things called "filters". we can take oily salt water and make drinking water from it.
dawkins has a flawed worldview and the rest of his points are in conflict with each other.
anonazero 22 hours ago
Dawkins..... tosser!
gruff5 1 week ago
@gruff5 you fool
jestermoon 1 week ago
I'd like to take a moment to appreciate the fact that Mr. Dawkins was referred to as "Evolutionary Biologist" rather than simply atheist
Ars3nalFC95 1 week ago
It's not dying I have a problem with, its the fact that I can't die on my own accord.
House3272 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
This would require an intense treatment and the places with highest birthrate are also known to be the poorest ones. Those intensive treatments would be given to the scientists running the tests themselves and people with enough money to afford such an expensive thing. The biggest changes would be less rich people and scientists dying- and by the time it got to the general population, birthrates may be several points lower.
RafaellaszBill 1 week ago
This is one of the few subjects that I completely disagree with Dawkins on. I think his view here is quite old fashioned and is going to be seen as obsolete, if you don't see it that way already. Population is a trivial argument, people in first world nations who could afford such therapies hardly breed anyway. When you compare it against the economic costs of death, how a library burns when someone dies, it's quite a trivial complaint to point at overpopulation.
Jotto999 1 week ago
I rather have sex than be immortal
Deathray75 1 week ago
I rather have sex and be immortal done
Deathray75 1 week ago
Now he makes me feel bad about it
Schoening91 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Eternal life would at some point lead to eternal torture unless you found a way to stop the aging process and the decline of immunesystem. Also how would eternal life seem if you for example got afflicted by arthritis or some othe lifelong disease? death is natural, and chasing immortality is like chasing a fairy tale.
Gud3n2 1 week ago
Eternal life would at some point lead to eternal torture unless you found a way to stop the aging process and the decline of immunesystem. Also how would eternal life seem if you for example got afflicted by arthritis or some othe lifelong disease? death is natural, and chasing immortality is like chasing a fairy tale.
Gud3n2 1 week ago
Or we could just find a new planet to live on
5aaron23 1 week ago
im still trying to figure out if this life is real or if the ones in my dreams is
Bannon04 1 week ago
@Bannon04 you need help, I suggest a therapist.
ProphecyRJ 1 week ago
@ProphecyRJ you need your dose of cock, i suggest a big black man
Bannon04 1 week ago
@Bannon04 maybe it is you who needs a dose of cock, and I am the big black man.
ProphecyRJ 6 days ago
Living forever would suck. You'd have to grow tired of it at some point. I think that most people don't actually want to live forever, but rather live for a long enough time to experience everything they want to experience.
VanessaTexasGal 1 week ago
No one would be able to live forever, they may not die of old age, however disease or some sort of accident will inevitably occur, and the longer someone lives the higher this possibility will rise until it is an absolute certainty. Today people today live longer than they did 100 years ago. As as a result, people are giving birth later and later. It is worth considering that if people lived a thousand years, they may not feel the need to have a baby until they were well into there hundreds
shaunkenclark 1 week ago
This guy seem to be suggesting that the grandpas and grandmas should die so that the babies can be born.
HoSayLiaoLah 1 week ago
@HoSayLiaoLah Umm.. Isn't that how life works?
Kickmeinmygroind 1 week ago
@Kickmeinmygroind
If my grandparents had to die just so that I can be born, then I would rather stay in my mother's womb.
HoSayLiaoLah 1 week ago
\\
jestermoon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go suck a cock Dawkins.
nogoodtroll 1 week ago
I'd like to be resurrected one day, for kicks.
Zebonka 1 week ago
Well, I am pretty arrogant. But I want to live forever so fuck you!
jackhwo1 1 week ago
You could argue that man's ultimate quest for thousands of years is immortality. There's a great film called The Holy Mountain that discusses this.
aruiz90 2 weeks ago 2
A solution is space colonization. But only if the technology is available which at the rate we're going I highly doubt it will.
MrJScott2011 2 weeks ago
@MrJScott2011
Especially not given how the Earth is running out of readily available fuel and everyone is hoarding theirs, rather than 'wasting' it on space missions. So many space projects have been cancelled recently because of lack of funding (which is necessary for the obscene amounts of fuel they use).
Wind power certainly isn't going to get us to Mars.
I think that the current Health and Safety obsession that people should never die, ever, is, ironically, going to be the death of us.
eragonsaphira777 2 weeks ago
I want the current composition of atoms in my body to remain there and continue to keep my consciousness alive. If you think that the prolongation of your life keeps other people from living you'd have to introduce a concept similiar to that of a soul, which Mr. Dawkins probably does not believe in. Since the person not born yet, doesn't exist yet, it's probably not missing out on much, so I don't think it's selfish to want to prolong one's life.
BallaholicNo10in89 2 weeks ago
@BallaholicNo10in89
That's assuming that Time is a straight line, and that what happened yet isn't certain. And there's so little (none, actually) evidence about Time or fate/determinism that it is a matter of personal belief.
So if you want to live forever mate, have at it.
Do you really want to put up with the rest of humanity forever though? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think there's anyone I'd like to spend eternity with.
eragonsaphira777 2 weeks ago
I can understand fully and agree with him fully..I worked with young mentally and physically disabled young adults for years,people who should have died in all seriousness at birth. But medicine kept them alive,not a full life,but a life. Why are medical staff doi it,selfish reasons on behalf of the family? cause its not in the intrest of the child..many of these children died in their early teens.. its not good to do it just because you can,leave nature to do what it does..
cassiesmum 2 weeks ago
Immortal does not mean invulnerable. Once the world gets too overpopulated, the problem will solve itself. It won't be pretty, but it will be taken care of.
sleazybtd 2 weeks ago
Dawkins, WTF mate? Regardless of immortality, the increase in birth rates will still be massive, and dare I say, over-populated. The clue is in the adding-up of all those dead people he mentioned.
TableWolfMusic 2 weeks ago
I this guy was intelligent once, now he's just turned into an absolute dickhead, nothing more than a wind up merchant, but he's well educated so he gets away with it.
Liam2621 2 weeks ago
The truth of course is that religious people are simply scared of dying, or rather NOT BEING - it's just a collective panic attack. Why do these boring self obsessed jerks carry on with their empty headed scaredy cat whingeing ? Who cares except them whether they drone on in eternal life or not ? Death is the end, if it makes you shit yourself then too bad !!
ysgol3 2 weeks ago
@ysgol3 What? That makes no sense what so ever. Almost all religious people accept death because they "know" it's not the end. Kinda like you "know" it is the end. The people searching for man made immortality are generally not religious people and it would make more sense that THEY would more likely fear death, believing that its final. Your comment was just an empty and obviously malicious shot at religious people fueled by your own hatred, absent any real, logical thought. Strive to be better
gokuudo 2 weeks ago
@gokuudo I reckon you're one of the boring scaredy cats. Strive to be cleverer, or at least more interesting !
ysgol3 2 weeks ago
@ysgol3 lame. say something smart...if you can
gokuudo 2 weeks ago
@ysgol3
I think it's not fear of not being that religious people are scared of, rather that their lives are pointless, and that they mean nothing to the universe. That they are an insignificant insect on a pinprick of a rock in the corner of the universe
I believe religion is a way to give life purpose, meaning, to find some sort of reason for life. Because its so hard, so painful, they need a reason to keep going.
You could say that atheists are stronger people for not being dependant on this.
eragonsaphira777 2 weeks ago
Is he talking out of his arse?
did I say that right? I'm not Brittish.
ianwjensen 2 weeks ago
I just don't want my body to break down as I get older besides as biological entities we can't be truly immortal because we're too soft.
caranauba 2 weeks ago
Hell yea if I could make it so I dont get old and die I sure would. If after a few hundred thousand or a few million years I get bored, I can always kill myself.There is so much to see in the universe, ill never understand how people say they would get bored if they had that opportunity and would favour oblivion
Edbrad 2 weeks ago
Nick Bostrom says 90 percent of people who have ever lived is dead, Richard Dawkins says less than 50 percent of those who have ever lived is dead. I am confused. Who is right?
wranglerwranglerwran 2 weeks ago
@wranglerwranglerwran Thats not what Dawkins said. He said because death rates have gone down (globally) so much, there are a lot more people alive right now than at any other point in history. So you would have to go back quite a long period of time (maybe even a few thousand years) to find enough dead people. He DIDN'T say 'every dead person ever'
MasterRC 2 weeks ago
@wranglerwranglerwran Richard Dwkins is the son of the flying spagetting monster ( the creator of the universer ) ,trust me, u should believe him.
SophistAtheist 2 weeks ago
Meh, I wouldn't mind adding 200 years to my lifespan. I think that's just long enough for me to enjoy life before becoming tired of it.
Tatchko 2 weeks ago
retroactive abortion! hip hip hooray!!
juliusworms 3 weeks ago in playlist Science + Technology
there are more living people alive today than there are dead people alive today. yeah, i could get the hang of evolutionary biology.
juliusworms 3 weeks ago in playlist Science + Technology
genophage this bitching planet
BenFosterism 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 3 weeks ago
So, when one elects to live forever they simply get castrated, problem solved.
HardwiredNerd 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why is he blinking so much?
Glarium1 3 weeks ago
why is he blinking so much?
Glarium1 3 weeks ago
Holy shit I never noticed how fucked up Dawkin's nose is lol
Ddotrespect 3 weeks ago
So in the future, people will be prescribed malt whiskey to help them die.
Schfifty12 3 weeks ago
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Albert.
Aluminata 3 weeks ago
Not to mention natural evolutionary process.
Aluminata 3 weeks ago
There was a Scientific American article which debunked the "more people alive now than there are dead people" myth, just so you know
odinssverd 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
JesusChristusSoter 3 weeks ago
This guy is too pessimistic and fatalistic. I prefer the optimism of Michio Kaku.
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
@crapfacejoe He is just real, I love Kaku too but you have to look at both sides of the coin not just the happy side.
joshski85 3 weeks ago
@joshski85 Do you disagree that one day, probably in the next 100 years, science will find a way to eliminate natural aging altogether?
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
@crapfacejoe goal #1 keep the planet around for another 100 years. After that, no I am not sure that they will find a way to simply stop the decomposition of cells and your body falling apart of old age. Plastic surgeory and things like that are simply asthetic mods, did hear about that fat cell freezing thing though. I suppose most anti aging products are for the skin. Something like that would have to target your whole body... what about the cognitive side of it? Possible, but not probable
sr1129 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sr1129 I'm not talking about aesthetics, but biotech solutions to end the aging process once and for all. If they can grow complex organs like bladders, kidneys, lungs... in a lab today and successfully transplant them in patients, surely within 100 years they will conquer aging. I think once we've reached that point, the next scientific revolution will be to identify and understand consciousness so we can transfer it from an organic body to a non-organic form such as a robot.
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
@crapfacejoe No I find that pretty plauseable. The question is should it?
joshski85 3 weeks ago
@joshski85 The question should be why not? I can't think of a plausible counter argument. Can you?
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
@crapfacejoe There are a couple I can think off. Why would anyone want to live forever?, is this technology like most things only going to be available to those with means?.And like Dawkins mentions if everyone or even just those who have the means to gain accsess live forever and continue to re populate why kind of strain does that put on a planet with an already overwhelming population.
joshski85 3 weeks ago
@joshski85 If someone doesn't want to live forever, no one will force them... Like any other new tech, in the beginning it will be available to those with means, after which it will be commercialized. I would also assume 100 years from now the line between rich and poor would have been greatly diminished. Just look at the economic progress in the past 100 years... As far as finding space, earth is just the beginning, as time goes by colonization of other planets is inevitable.
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
@crapfacejoe I agree with you on everything apart from your opinion that the gap between the poor and the rich is decreasing I would argue the complete opposite it is increasing at a rate not seen before, the current ecconomic climate is a huge example of that and I can't see nothing but more of the same in the near future.
joshski85 3 weeks ago
@joshski85 What I should have said is being poor today in developed nations is not what it used to mean 100 years ago... The developing world will also catch up in the next few decades. Furthermore, the definition of rich today can mean 200,000+, millionaire or billionaire, and when you look at the percentage of middle class it has risen significantly since the last century. Anyway, I'm sure in 100 years we would have a better medical system than today.
crapfacejoe 3 weeks ago
weeeeell, we in England brought our birth rates down, but then we let the millions of immigrants in who's average birth rate are around 5 kids per family LOL
We're so fucking stupid.
godkingRoss 3 weeks ago
I'm hoping for Deus Ex type augments. I don't want to live forever; just for a reaaaaaaaaaaaally long time. Oh and to be able to punch through walls. Thanks.
195ashes 3 weeks ago
Ths guy seems like a character from the lord of the rings like a wizard or
MrJcenter7 3 weeks ago
I'd rather have immortality as a simulation.
i.e. My mind lives on even after my body dies...
sathvikp 4 weeks ago
@sathvikp Isn't that the general idea..?
TheDurationPlusFive 4 weeks ago
@TheDurationPlusFive Not necessarily, as most of the present-day projects aim at physical longevity, which, as Richard Dawkins points out, could be costly in the long-run, unless we start migrating to other worlds...
sathvikp 3 weeks ago
I think the solution is simple.If in the future it is possible to stop aging then this technology should not be made available to general public,we should just make it really expensive so only the uber rich could afford it because as "unnatural" or "wrong" it would be stop aging it would still be a breakthrough and we cannot just discard such a great scientific breakthrough.
anuragborn2rock 4 weeks ago
@anuragborn2rock You really want Donald Trump and the Rockefellers as immortal overlords?
TheDurationPlusFive 4 weeks ago
@TheDurationPlusFive why would they be immortal "overlords" they would just be immortal and who knows maybe after 100 years he will run out of money and wont be able 2 buy more years like in that movie in time.
anuragborn2rock 4 weeks ago
@anuragborn2rock Ummmmm no. Do as Richard Dawkins said and just reduce population growth. Besides if immortality was only available for the uber rich, there would be a riot. Not just any fucking riot, but a shit stomping mother fucking riot. How would "the 99%" when "the 1%" not only keep 30% of the world's wealth, but live forever. Insult + injury = shit stomping motherfucking riot.
LeblueLegume 4 weeks ago
@LeblueLegume Why would there be a riot?OK so u make the immortal technology so expensive that only the "uber" rich can buy it,not just any rich millionaire,but only billionaire like donald trump.If a billionaire wants to be immortal he would need 2 pay billions of dollars which in turn would be used by the government for development of the nation and people wont care if donald trump or bill gates live forever infact they will be happy.
anuragborn2rock 4 weeks ago
@anuragborn2rock Ok you are trolling. There is no reason anyone but Donald Trump would be happy that he is immortal.
LeblueLegume 3 weeks ago
@LeblueLegume really?i think donald's kinda cool and maybe some people will not like it if he lives forever but his living certainly wont make anyone's life hell,it would at most piss off some people and think of the billions of dollars the nation would get from him buying this technology,that money can be used to build hospitals bridges or for scientific advancement.Really this is the only way,the other way would be to discard the technology which would be a total waste.
anuragborn2rock 3 weeks ago
@anuragborn2rock It might not be that big of a breakthrough after awhile - the high of even our most amazing technological achievements seems to fade fast. We take for granted technologies beyond the imagination of people 500 years ago and still bitch when our debit transactions are two seconds late in processing. How the hell are we going to stay sane for 1,000 years with that kind of mentality?
squamish4244 3 weeks ago
@squamish4244 We take our technological marvels for granted because we are so used to them so we dont marvel at it daily but things like computers and aircraft are still a breakthrough for humanity and immortality would be an even bigger breakthrough cuz not everyone in the future will use it,only the super rich will afford this technology so people will still die.Nobody will be like "dying,whats that?"
anuragborn2rock 3 weeks ago
It's strangely refreshing to see such an intelligent man saying something so foolish.
SPRLDR 4 weeks ago
Immortality is really not the right word. Indefinite lifespan is more like it.
nightsoldier1112 1 month ago 26
@nightsoldier1112 Immortality sounds cooler though.
Iralaeh 2 weeks ago
Let’s work to eradicate all religion. Conversely, begin a relationship with Jesus Christ today. You need to repent. Yes, you. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 month ago
@paularenas26 why jesus of the whole lot??
RalphMarx 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins: a certified nut
TAXtheAtheist 1 month ago