On 07-Dec-08 20:23, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> - I saw the dictators in his slide but he did not take it and the 
>> other objections seriously. Apparently he does not want to think about 
>> what longevity means to a society.
> 
> I don't know. Change seems to take one generation to happen. If you live 
> 1000 years, is it a problem that the dictators do too?  I don't know. 
> Seems like you'd have more chances to overthrow them.

It is more his general attitude that if people live longer everything 
will stay the same except for that. I think society will change. And 
then we are not even talking about who will live longer and who won't 
get treatment. His malaria example is a good one in that respect.

>> - He is only talking about life extension. He totally neglects that it 
>> may be useful to think about changing the time course of (brain) 
>> development.
> 
> I think he's talking about what he thinks is realistic. He thinks we 
> know how to slow aging. I don't think he thinks we know how to modify 
> your brain yet.

I think we may know about the same amount about both issues. Not a lot, 
but growing rapidly.

>> - I have the same feeling sometimes as when I watch a talk of a 
>> creationist. It only makes real sense if you believe in the implicit 
>> assumptions. In this case that it is bad that people die at a certain 
>> age.
> 
> Well, I think he was arguing that case, not assuming it. You may be 
> unconvinced, of course.

He was arguing from a conviction. It is like having a catholic 
theologian proving that god exist. Very convincing arguments, if you 
happen to believe in them.

Post a reply to this message