Death, or not

W

wolf749

Registered Member
Would it be ethical to cure death?

That's the question, here's a little background; if any of you have seen Battlestar Galatica, that's what I'm getting at.

In this show, computers have come alive and are able to 'save' their memories, and restore them in a new body if the one they're inhabiting is killed physically. So my question is, if one were to ignore the human-cyborg aspect, would this be an ethical invention?

My Answer: No, I truly have no reasonable justification for saying so, but I say so anyway. To me, it just seems like a violation of nature, to say that a human can live effectively forever? That doesn't sit well with me, but of course, I'm open to a more reasonable explanation if anyone feels like giving one.
 
Last edited:
Presuming we have an entire universe to sprawl out in, if immortality is available, then it should be a matter of choice, I think.
 
It will only make human beings more on remote operated living being in actual terms. Dying natural death brings in rationality of life. Playing with natural system only brings in disasters and nothing else. Guess if the likes of Hitler never perish to death what will be the state of affairs in the world in the endless realm of time on earth.
 
wolf749 said:
That's the question, here's a little background; if any of you have seen Stargate Galatica, that's what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...
you mean Battlestar Galactica.. Stargate is a different show..
(apperently you are not as into SciFi as i am..;))

My Answer: No, I truly have no reasonable justification for saying so, but I say so anyway. To me, it just seems like a violation of nature, to say that a human can live effectively forever? That doesn't sit well with me, but of course, I'm open to a more reasonable explanation if anyone feels like giving one.
Click to expand...

the ethicality/morality would be if we did not have a choice.
if there was a choice..i would not choose to be immortal.
hell i struggle with the decision to take an aspirin because it can prolong my life..(usually the immediate benefits of it relieving discomfort usually wins.)

<edit>
if there wasn't a choice,then it would be my luck that i would resurrect as far from my current position as was possible so i would have to expend resources to get back to where i was..
 
murdoch said:
Playing with natural system only brings in disasters and nothing else. Guess if the likes of Hitler never perish to death what will be the state of affairs in the world in the endless realm of time on earth.
Click to expand...

That's a little skewed to my mind, because while Hitler may live forever, so might Ghandi.

And with regard to the natural system, I'm pretty sure immortality would fall in line with nature: as a living organsim, it's out purpose to grow and live for as long as we can. Wouldn't this just be an extension of that?

NMSquirrel said:
you mean Battlestar Galactica.. Stargate is a different show..
(apperently you are not as into SciFi as i am..;))

You are so right, knew that sounded weird. I always get Stargate Universe and Battlestar Galatica mixed up.

<edit>
if there wasn't a choice,then it would be my luck that i would resurrect as far from my current position as was possible so i would have to expend resources to get back to where i was..
Click to expand...

But it's not your choice, the question I'm getting at deals with the incredible buzz about healthcare and to a lesser degree, assisted suicide. We as a nation put an amazing amount of resources into trying to ensure our immortality (taken to an extreme). So for those of you who don't think it's ethical to cure death, why is it ethical to cure cancer? (Probably a twisted way of looking at it)
 
Very interesting question. For an individual, it would be ethical to cure them of dying, but for a society, it would lead to eventual collapse from resource depletion. But medicine itself also contributes to less death, so.... I don't know.
 
But it's not your choice, the question I'm getting at deals with the incredible buzz about healthcare and to a lesser degree, assisted suicide. We as a nation put an amazing amount of resources into trying to ensure our immortality (taken to an extreme).
Click to expand...

That's a bit different... Right now we do waste a lot of resources fighting the inevitable.

Have to go, may post more on this later, but I think the majority of health costs come when you're old, trying to eke out a few more years...I'd like to go fast when I go, myself, not a slow downhill slide, but a quick plunge.

When severe depression is kicking my butt (now) I get annoyed that my life was saved through medical means. So many good opportunities to have not been here were prevented.
 
If humans could develop such advancements then why would it be "unnatural"? I'd think that even though humans might be able to attain a way to cheat death they just might have repercussions they never imagined.
 
wolf749 said:
But it's not your choice, the question I'm getting at deals with the incredible buzz about healthcare and to a lesser degree, assisted suicide. We as a nation put an amazing amount of resources into trying to ensure our immortality (taken to an extreme). So for those of you who don't think it's ethical to cure death, why is it ethical to cure cancer? (Probably a twisted way of looking at it)
Click to expand...

i think a more accurate question would be,

are they making it so death is illegal?
 
@chimpkin, I misspoke there, I don't mean to put emphasis on the number of resources we put into prolonging life, just the importance we assign to it. What I was trying to say was, why are we so concerned with prolonging life?

@cosmictraveler, I agree that if humans were able to develop a way to cheat death it'd be natural, and we probably would have some trouble with an unforeseeable detriment.

@NMSquirrel, I don't think it's quite the same, since your question deals with legality and mine deals with ethics, in your case a person doesn't have to get cancer treatment if they don't want to, but in mine people already are trying to cure cancer despite my claim that it's synonymous with death, so we are effectually trying to cure death, which most people have said isn't ethical (in this thread anyway).
 
wolf749 said:
That's a little skewed to my mind, because while Hitler may live forever, so might Ghandi.

And with regard to the natural system, I'm pretty sure immortality would fall in line with nature: as a living organism, it's out purpose to grow and live for as long as we can. Wouldn't this just be an extension of that?
Click to expand...

OK than think about living in 1 meter by 1 meter space shared with five more human beings.

If nature had prevailed with your wish than this supposition might have came to reality for all of us by now. Luckily nature is intelligent enough!

WE need to live our life with good purpose and leave the earth when our time arrives for moving to different destination to let our next generations to enjoy the fruits of our deeds.
 
wolf749 said:
@NMSquirrel, I don't think it's quite the same, since your question deals with legality and mine deals with ethics, in your case a person doesn't have to get cancer treatment if they don't want to, but in mine people already are trying to cure cancer despite my claim that it's synonymous with death, so we are effectually trying to cure death, which most people have said isn't ethical (in this thread anyway).
Click to expand...

if death was illegal you would have no choice but to seek treatment (or risk jail)

it is more unethical to legislate death than it would to present a cure.
keep in mind that everyday it is becoming more and more illegal to die..(seat belt laws are at the foremost of thought for this argument)
 
I think that immortality would be one of the worst tortures imaginable(maybe this is why the appeal of immortality offered by most religions doesn't grab me), I wouldn't even wish it on my worst enemy...well okay, maybe my worst enemy. We are finite creatures who's brains can only comprehend finite time periods of a certain scale. Forcing ourselves to go beyond that into an infinite time period would put much strain on the psyche and would almost certainly lead to permanent insanity. Besides that given that humans replicate so quickly, it would be vastly unjust to future generations to offer immortality even to a select few.

@wolf749 --

And with regard to the natural system, I'm pretty sure immortality would fall in line with nature: as a living organsim, it's out purpose to grow and live for as long as we can. Wouldn't this just be an extension of that?
Click to expand...

No, living forever would not be natural. Nature deigns, in her unintelligent and blind way, that we reproduce and spread our replicators(genes). Immortality is natural for genes, not for the bodies that they build. Longevity can be natural, though it most commonly is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top