It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Should immortality be only available to the Wealthy.
page: 3share:
NavyDoc
OTOH, why would we want someone staying alive for a thousand years if they are just going to be on the dole for a thousand years?
Why do we want someone staying alive for a thousand years cause daddy left them a big inheritance ?
crazyewok
NavyDoc
OTOH, why would we want someone staying alive for a thousand years if they are just going to be on the dole for a thousand years?
Why do we want someone staying alive for a thousand years cause daddy left them a big inheritance ?
Because his inheritance doesn't hurt me at all, perhaps?
Just to clarify. I don't think that like extension should be limited to anyone based on class, gender, creed, work skills, etc and nor should it be supplied by, controlled, subsidized or dictated by the government. Anyone who has the means should be able to use it just like anyone with the means should be able to partake in any offered service.
edit on 24-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
NavyDoc
Because his inheritance doesn't hurt me at all, perhaps?
It does when he takes the thousand years life and you get F all and die at 70.
So you are ok with a two tier system then? Of a small group of the wealthy living for thousands or millions of years while the plebs and middle classes are stuck with the same 70 years ? You make me sick. what is even the point of living? If certain indvials live thousand or million year life spans the knowalge and resources they would gather would put them at a advantage so far ahead no one could compete EVER.
edit on 24-1-2014
by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
crazyewok
NavyDoc
Because his inheritance doesn't hurt me at all, perhaps?
It does when he takes the thousand years life and you get F all and die at 70.
So you are ok with a two tier system then? Of a small group of the wealthy living for thousands or millions of years while the plebs and middle classes are stuck with the same 70 years ? You make me sick.
See my edit above.
My, and people call conservatives bile-filled and hateful.
NavyDoc
My, and people call conservatives bile-filled and hateful.
Because your promoting a TWO TIER SYSTEM!
It would be limited by money! So dam well it would be limited by Class, work skilled and Creed. Money= long life so unless your in the rich classes or know the right people or are in the right cricles your dead. You limiting it by money still so it may as well be put of reach to the majority based on anything else you listed.
The working and middle classes would not be able to partake as they would likely not have the means! That means condemning them to death just because they don't have money! How is that right! HOW?
Those with the money would live such long life's the knowledge and resources they could accumulate would put them at such a extreme advantage competition would be all but dead!
I guess films like in time and Elysium were pornography to you.
I may be hate filled and full or bile but at least Im not a cold hearted uncareing monster who gets off on poverty and class division.
edit on
24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
crazyewok
NavyDoc
My, and people call conservatives bile-filled and hateful.
Because your promoting a TWO TIER SYSTEM!
It would be limited by money! So dam well it would be limited by Class, work skilled and Creed. Money= long life so unless your in the rich classes or know the right people or are in the right cricles your dead.
The working and middle classes would not be able to partake as they would likely not have the means! That means condemning them to death just because they don't have money! How is that right! HOW?
Those with the money would live such long life's the knowledge and resources they could accumulate would put them at such a extreme advantage competition would be all but dead!
I guess films like in time and Elysium were pornography to you.
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
Elysium was stupid and a propaganda piece.
I don't see why you are getting so lathered up that people should be allowed to exchange in a free market goods and services without government mandate. Certainly the technology would be expensive initially but, under a free market, technology always becomes cheaper over time. Only the wealthy could first afford an automobile when it first came out and now a car is considered a necessity for every person in the US, even the poorest and pretty much everyone can afford one. Same with computers, TV's, cell phones, and every other innovation.
What's your point? That the government should take over the technology and only dole it out based on some bureaucrat community organizer's idea of social justice? Shall we let a scientist die because we don't have enough feminist poets on the list? Put in racial quotas? Ban people who support the opposition party from the technology? I think that your statements actually sort of support my point that the left, in positions of power, become vile and intolerant creatures only looking to control and force others to their will.
NavyDoc
I don't see why you are getting so lathered up that people should be allowed to exchange in a free market goods and services without government mandate. Certainly the technology would be expensive initially but, under a free market, technology always becomes cheaper over time. Only the wealthy could first afford an automobile when it first came out and now a car is considered a necessity for every person in the US, even the poorest and pretty much everyone can afford one. Same with computers, TV's, cell phones, and every other innovation.
Were not taling computers, TV's, cell phones and car We are talking LIFE! Not luxory goods! LIFE!
NavyDoc
I think that your statements actually sort of support my point that the left, in positions of power, become vile and intolerant creatures only looking to control and force others to their will.
intolerant ? Cause I would only want to see such tec avalible to everyone. Thats freaking rich!
Creature? Well I think your a vile indiffrent uncareing creature who could not care less about his fellow man. Wanting to control and force his will on health and life expectancy through privalige and money!
And again with the Left/right BS that right is BS. Is comlplete bull feces when we are talking about something like HUMAN LIFE. Keep your right/left crap to yourself!
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason
given)
Um, no. We are already immortal. But they need to get off that idea themselves, for they would be sentencing themselves to prolongued periods in
hell/purgatory. This isn't home.
On a side note there should be no wealthy, all should be living in abundance without slavery and all technologies applied to all who wish them.
On a side note there should be no wealthy, all should be living in abundance without slavery and all technologies applied to all who wish them.
I can't help but think that perhaps they're trying to prolong their lives to avoid consequences, since running an illegal slave system of inequality
and war, with torture and murder is not the fast way home.
crazyewok
Cause I would only want to see such tec avalible to everyone. Thats freaking rich!
editby]edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
Funny. Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or are you one of those people that believes that if something is not paid for by someone else, that person is denied or that you have the mistaken belief that only the state can ensure positive access.
Since you seem to think a free market solution is greed and evil and all of those sort of things, what is your solution? State control? Cannot you comprehend that the abuse state control would make of such technology? You seriously can't believe that government bureaucrats and politicians wouldn't abuse it just as bad or more. Look at the Soviet Union. The higher ranking you were in the party, the better care you got. You seriously are not naïve enough to trust the government with a monopoly on such an important technology.
edit on 24-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason
given)
crazyewok
Were not taling computers, TV's, cell phones and car We are talking LIFE! Not luxory goods! LIFE!
No, we are talking about technology. All technology, even medical technology, becomes more prevalent and less expensive in a free market, absent government getting involved.
NavyDoc
Funny. Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or are you one of those people that believes that if something is not paid for by someone else, that person is denied or that you have the mistaken belief that only the state can ensure positive access.
Since you seem to think a free market solution is greed and evil and all of those sort of things, what is your solution? State control? Cannot you comprehend that the abuse state control would make of such technology? You seriously can't believe that government bureaucrats and politicians wouldn't abuse it just as bad or more. Look at the Soviet Union. The higher ranking you were in the party, the better care you got. You seriously are not naïve enough to trust the government with a monopoly on such an important technology.edit on 24-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
No it shouldnt be state controled either. It would be used for abuse. But nor should it be left to the highest bidder either in the freemarket.
Quite frankly until a third option that allows access to all regardless of wealth, social status ect comes along humans are not ready for such tec.
edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
Not usually my style but why not,,,
If I remember, Jesus said something about giving all your possessions cause some rich guy asked for immortality, so he said give till your broke, so that way you can get all the riches in heaven.
Also, I think they'd drink a lot, since alcohol is their preferred poison. Idk, if they'd ether get bored, or mentally deranged after such a long time. I could only imagine how senile they'd get though.
I personally would just like to retain some of my youth if it were possible in old age, instead of immortality. Then when the time comes, just croak like Yoda.
If I remember, Jesus said something about giving all your possessions cause some rich guy asked for immortality, so he said give till your broke, so that way you can get all the riches in heaven.
Also, I think they'd drink a lot, since alcohol is their preferred poison. Idk, if they'd ether get bored, or mentally deranged after such a long time. I could only imagine how senile they'd get though.
I personally would just like to retain some of my youth if it were possible in old age, instead of immortality. Then when the time comes, just croak like Yoda.
edit on 24-1-2014 by Specimen because: (no reason given)
reply to post by AthlonSavage
What's fair about letting rich people buy their time? You want the 1% of rich douchebags to live forever, while the hard working, creative, and artistic are left to die off? How would that affect evolution if only the immortal were to procreate over a period of time?
Besides, you can't invent immortality and expect everyone to not try and get there.
No one can be immortal without global reprecussions, and for that reason, we will never know of such technology. If everyone had access to it, which is what they would demand, then the Earth would overpopulate and run out of food in a matter of generations. There are already more people born each day than die, and if people stopped dying for a year, two years, or three. that means there are more people alive to procreate each year. So the birth rate would exponentially grow and the death rate would stop. We would run out of food, land, water, and everything in a matter of years.
What's fair about letting rich people buy their time? You want the 1% of rich douchebags to live forever, while the hard working, creative, and artistic are left to die off? How would that affect evolution if only the immortal were to procreate over a period of time?
Besides, you can't invent immortality and expect everyone to not try and get there.
No one can be immortal without global reprecussions, and for that reason, we will never know of such technology. If everyone had access to it, which is what they would demand, then the Earth would overpopulate and run out of food in a matter of generations. There are already more people born each day than die, and if people stopped dying for a year, two years, or three. that means there are more people alive to procreate each year. So the birth rate would exponentially grow and the death rate would stop. We would run out of food, land, water, and everything in a matter of years.
crazyewok
NavyDoc
Funny. Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or are you one of those people that believes that if something is not paid for by someone else, that person is denied or that you have the mistaken belief that only the state can ensure positive access.
Since you seem to think a free market solution is greed and evil and all of those sort of things, what is your solution? State control? Cannot you comprehend that the abuse state control would make of such technology? You seriously can't believe that government bureaucrats and politicians wouldn't abuse it just as bad or more. Look at the Soviet Union. The higher ranking you were in the party, the better care you got. You seriously are not naïve enough to trust the government with a monopoly on such an important technology.edit on 24-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
No it shouldnt be state controled either. It would be used for abuse. But nor should it be left to the highest bidder either in the freemarket.
Quite frankly until a third option that allows access to all regardless of wealth, social status ect comes along humans are not ready for such tec.edit on 24-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
How would such a third option even be possible? Everything has a cost. All technology takes some sort of resource. If it didn't, then such a discussion wouldn't exist.
edit on 24-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
NavyDoc
How would such a third option even be possible? Everything has a cost.
I dont know. But until we can figure out free access for all and not just for a few then I think we are not ready for such tec as it would rip the social frabric of the world apart.
Can you see people just happly willing to live meagre 70 year life spans when most the politicans and bankers are living forever?
I dont. I see riots and cival wars. You think the police and armed forces will protect some of these elites when they and there family most likley wont get such treatment? Free market will be just as destructive as goverment control on this.
Free market is not the be all and end all and the prefect awnser to everything im afraid any more than goverment control is. Free market has its limits and your looking at one.
Not only that, in this universe, after a couple hundred years, I think they'd be begging Gods mercy for a peaceful exit.
crazyewok
NavyDoc
How would such a third option even be possible? Everything has a cost.
I dont know. But until we can figure out free access for all and not just for a few then I think we are not ready for such tec as it would rip the social frabric of the world apart.
Can you see people just happly willing to live meagre 70 year life spans when most the politicans and bankers are living forever?
I dont. I see riots and cival wars. You think the police and armed forces will protect some of these elites when they and there family most likley wont get such treatment? Free market will be just as destructive as goverment control on this.
Free market is not the be all and end all and the prefect awnser to everything im afraid any more than goverment control is. Free market has its limits and your looking at one.
So you are saying that no technology should be developed unless it can be provided to everyone, all at once, immediately, without cost , and without either the free market nor the state being involved?
Sounds like a recipe for staying in the Stone Age with no technology being developed. How would you enforce this no life extending technology development rule?
NavyDoc
So you are saying that no technology should be developed unless it can be provided to everyone, all at once, immediately, without cost , and without either the free market nor the state being involved?
Sounds like a recipe for staying in the Stone Age with no technology being developed. How would you enforce this no life extending technology development rule?
We are not talking TV or computers here but the human life span.
Fact is I dont know. Im not a sociologist .
But if we had you freemarket it would rip the world appart!
Can you really see a fucntioning society with Bankers and politican living millions of years and everyone else living for the bog standard 70 just because they dont have the cash? Really how do you think that will work out? You honnestly cant see rampent crime, riots and civil wars? How do you think will enforce the laws of the free market when the theifs and looters come for the riches fountin of youth?
reply to post by AthlonSavage
If it was going to be available to anyone, seeing how you assume the wealthy would control it. It would most likely be forced upon those with substantial debt, so they have more time to pay it off. That's how the wealthy make the most money. Other peoples debts, and if your dead it's worthless.
If it was going to be available to anyone, seeing how you assume the wealthy would control it. It would most likely be forced upon those with substantial debt, so they have more time to pay it off. That's how the wealthy make the most money. Other peoples debts, and if your dead it's worthless.