"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:493954c4@news.povray.org...
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
> > On 04-Dec-08 23:14, Darren New wrote:
> > > andrel wrote:

> > >> I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't
> mind.
>
> > > My goodness. Why ever for?
>
> > Imagine what happens if people live for 200 years or more. How will the
> > society be organized. Who will be in charge do you think? What will
> > happen to creativity?

> Who is in charge *now*? What's happening with creativity *now*? What's
your
> thesis that 70-80 years is the ideal lifespan on these counts?

Besides, what's "good" for the society is not always desirable. If it were,
we would be killing off the sick, infirm, handicapped, and generally
unproductive individuals *now*. The individual's motives are not, and should
not, be to maximize the benefit to the society at all costs. There's no
being as the "society", it's an emergent phenomenon. We all strive to
maximize our own happiness, and society emerges as a means to achieve that,
not as an end. Who cares if society settles in a less than perfect state, so
long as individuals increase their happiness? And I'd be happier having the
option to live to 800 or 8000 or 80,000 instead of 80, and I don't see many
people preferring to have that option not present.

Post a reply to this message