It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
"Medical technology which makes human
life expectancy potentially unlimited
ask the former residents of Chernobyl
The nuclear bomb
chemical that the Nazi's used
Reminiscent of Nazi Germany
Increasing quality of life is never a bad thing, giving humans an opportunity to
live a high quality of life for a long period of time would be a wonderful thing.
What happens when we become so technologically dependent,
we no longer have fear of organic viruses but have to be
treated for a computer virus?
What about embryonic stem cells? Already controversial, what happens
if there is no way to enhance adult stem cells and the only real
alternative is embryonic stem cells. Sure, they are a potential
miracle for all sorts of ailments, but the moral issue of ending
one life to save another still remains.
if genetic manipulation is used to cease the aging process, what will
that do to our children? Would our children be born infants and remain
infants never having the ability to grow up?
How long can a person want to live? Eventually wouldn’t you
want to die? Then comes the issue of euthanasia, which is
controversial enough for the terminally ill, Imagine the
controversy for someone in perfect health?
How is dying at a time and manner of one's choosing while remaining healthy into an advanced numerical age, "morally superior" to dying before you want to in a hospital bed after many years of degeneration and decay?
When quantity of life surpasses quality of life, one must
concede that life has no more usefulness, and therefore must end.
my point in this debate is that it's simply immoral to never die.
Cheating death is not the natural order no matter what form it comes in.
SQ1: Is suicide morally justifiable, when there
is no terminal illness involved?
SQ2: How much of the body can be replaced before a
person can no longer be considered human?
SQ3: Is it justifiable to create a life, in order to
harvest from that life organs to save the life of another?
Why is it immoral to never die?
Are you seriously suggesting that things like cars and houses and medical procedures that save lives are somehow "immoral" simply because they're "not natural?"
And if some people decide to live for thousands of years before they reach that point, or for millions of years, or forever...I have no problem with that. "Potentially forever", not "magic genie against your wishes forever"...but potentially forever sounds awesome to me. Potentially forever means "until you choose to stop."
I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and the ecological balance of life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do.
If you needed a replacement liver and you had the choice of waiting around for someone to die so their liver could be cut from their dead body and put into you...or using a sponge to take a skin scraping from the inside of your cheeks and growing a replacement liver from those cells...which would you prefer?
I have also shown other examples of technology that when developed was
said to be beneficial, and yet has caused countless deaths and destruction.
What of the megalomaniacs of the world
Certainly they would be interested in Nigh Immortality
I would wait for the organ donation from the person, because that has been done many times
before, it's not experimental, and it's a person that already has died and donated his organ
for that expressed purpose. The replacement liver from cells grown on a sponge to me sounds
more like the "Frankenstein's Monster" route than actual science.
Aubrey de Grey
You would think that me posting this mans work
would be counterproductive to my argument
Changing the fundamental nature of what we are is an immoral act, because
it artificially and against nature disrupts the natural process of human evolution.
Lord Bucket wins. Whatuknow's style in this debate is weak; he brings up anecdotes but never connects them logically and never defines many critical terms (such as "what is moral"), bringing to the debate ground his perceptions which aren't backed by much in the way of fact (The Bible does indeed count as a legitimate source, but even his Biblically based comments are simply comments and not the foundation of a true debate.) Lord Bucket's rebuttals are stronger than Whatuknow's propositons.