27 replies to this topic

[Beowulf]

Someone's been listening to Arjen lately...

 

We can *easily* feed those we have now. We just choose to get rich instead.

The sad part is that it's not even that. The real issue is with environmentalist weasels lying about agricultural improvement. So, yeah, the leftist side of the US fucked it up for everyone. My bad.

 

Anyhow, on the subject at hand, I don't want to live that long. I'm not a fan of being alive as it is so living past, say, 65 or 70 is like... no thanks. We really don't need people living any longer anyway. Resource consumption is bad enough and we'll start running out of space to the point where we'll be destroying what's left of nature. I'd like future generations to be able to enjoy things like the Alps, Yellowstone and Mt. Fuji without it being wrecked by "advancement." We die for a reason. It wouldn't be a valuable part of the life cycle if it weren't important.

Edited by Beowulf, 27 March 2014 - 07:44 PM.

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

... Yellowstone? Honey, the only thing future generations are going to experience significantly of that is an eruption, and we aren't really gonna be a major factor in that.

[duke_Qa]

Someone's been listening to Arjen lately...

 

 

 

We can *easily* feed those we have now. We just choose to get rich instead.

The sad part is that it's not even that. The real issue is with environmentalist weasels lying about agricultural improvement. So, yeah, the leftist side of the US fucked it up for everyone. My bad.

 

Anyhow, on the subject at hand, I don't want to live that long. I'm not a fan of being alive as it is so living past, say, 65 or 70 is like... no thanks. We really don't need people living any longer anyway. Resource consumption is bad enough and we'll start running out of space to the point where we'll be destroying what's left of nature. I'd like future generations to be able to enjoy things like the Alps, Yellowstone and Mt. Fuji without it being wrecked by "advancement." We die for a reason. It wouldn't be a valuable part of the life cycle if it weren't important.

 

I can agree that environmentalists can be troublesome in finding the best solutions because they want every thing we eat to be natural. Thing is, natural does not equal healthy. many lethal poisons in nature.

 

I'd hate to live forever with alzheimers and parkinsons myself, but I find your argument for resource consumption ignorant. If we were living longer, we'd be making fewer kids over time, we'd be producing more in our lifetimes. technology is just decades away from harvesting resources from space. By then, if we are lucky, peak-whatever will never be a problem.

[Pasidon]

How would living longer result in less kids?  Unless there's a 'castration mandatory' rule on immortality potions, I would imagine the opposite of that.

[OmegaBolt]

Because presumably you'd get sick of it.

[Gen.Kenobi]

Not actually sick of it, but getting older.

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Try this: http://www.cracked.c...than-death.html

[MattTheLegoman]

The first two assume you are the only one who is. =p

#3 and #1 are the same, they assume tech and peoples views on it hasn't caught up.

 

It would be kinda lame if you were the only one. =p