Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WBurkhart90 t1_j67d5lh wrote

Even that is debatable. But yeah I can see where you're coming from. I do see humans uncovering anti-aging discoveries that could potentially end age-related death entirely.

It's far-fetched, sure. But I don't think death is a guarantee forever.


odigon t1_j67eymo wrote

Strictly speaking I'd say it's guaranteed just from thermodynamics. But that's a pretty high upper bound. Everything below that is subject to technology, which could change our circumstances dramatically.


stupsnon t1_j6alid5 wrote

Until we beat thermodynamics…? Seems unlikely from where we are now, but so was going to mars 300 years ago


T_WREKX t1_j67im78 wrote

Every single living creature will some day eventually cease to exist scientifically speaking. No anti aging treatment will grant immortality to anyone.


WBurkhart90 t1_j68ztk9 wrote

I'm sorry but I can't stand arrogant truth statements like this. Do you know every single possible discovery that's possible in our existence? You don't. You can say things like reasonably speaking, sure, but making fact statements in the dark is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

You don't know what we can create, discover, or innovate. What if we could create a new universe that we can enter that is still in it's youth far from a heat death. This is just the most basic idea I could think of in moments writing this sentence. I'm sure you'll say that's not possible, because again you have all knowable knowledge in the entire universe.


xXNotorious2108Xx t1_j68wo09 wrote

Yeah what we have done in 100 years probably won’t come close what we are going to do in the next 100 years when AIs probably are used for everything


lanon_lulfer_loves_u t1_j6aco15 wrote

Aging isn't the only way to die


WBurkhart90 t1_j6akp1g wrote

I agree, but those circumstances aren't guaranteed like OP is suggesting. Aging is a sure fire way of guaranteeing death, and if we master aging then death has one less hold on us.


lanon_lulfer_loves_u t1_j6akrzf wrote

One less of the infinite amount of ways we could die?


WBurkhart90 t1_j6al031 wrote

Infinite? I don't think it's infinite. But yes, the number one cause to say death is inevitable is the existence of aging. The rest are variables and you can't say death is inevitable if it's up to luck. Then you can say death is likely or probable but not guaranteed.


lanon_lulfer_loves_u t1_j6al61t wrote

The heat death of the sun and eventual collapse of the universe might mean that death is inevitable


WBurkhart90 t1_j6alrx6 wrote

But that's only because we have limited understanding of the universe. I agree it's likely that we will not be able to avoid the heat death. But I find it dishonest to say it's impossible to avoid.

Imagine we could create a brand new universe in a lab and somehow transport ourselves into it. We could do this an infinite amount of times. Who knows, and that's my point. We have limited knowledge of what's actually possible in this existence, yet people constantly let the "impossibilities" define what's true and what's not.


lanon_lulfer_loves_u t1_j6am6vq wrote

you and I both know that's never gonna happen. Or you might know, and just don't want to admit it. There's a possibility that Tom Hanks will perform 100 backflips after reciting Shakespeare and drinking exactly 1.287772984 liters of water on August 24th, 2024 at 9:17 PM eastern time, but does that mean it will ever happen?


WBurkhart90 t1_j6amsmc wrote

Actually I don't know that and that's the only honest answer. To say you know it won't happen is intellectually dishonest. You're comparing a human beings possibilities to the possibilities of science. Unequivocable strawman you're propping up there.

The biggest difference, we have barely scratched the surface of discovery for science, so we literally have no clue how much we can manipulate or innovate. How dare you set limits like you are on science. Scientists have already theorized the possibility of creating synthetic universes, or multi-dimensional reality. I'm sorry you put limits on this world, but your ignorance doesn't set real limits.


lanon_lulfer_loves_u t1_j6amw0l wrote

It's less ignorance and more common sense


WBurkhart90 t1_j6an9eo wrote

How so? You know the farthest reaches of what science can do? Please educate me all knowing master. Because you have no clue and just talking out of your butt. Top of their field scientists don't even know the farthest reaches of scientific possibility, it's daily being expanded and more understood. But yet you say it's common sense what science can and can't do. That's the most obvious example of ignorance I have ever been a part of.


andrevvm t1_j6dtlra wrote

The obsession with extending human life is unhealthy to the balance of nature and would cause massive problems. The population would explode so rapidly, we’d start eating each other to survive. Death defines the value of life.


WBurkhart90 t1_j6dvpjh wrote

Not really, especially if we have the ability to expand beyond our world and form livable conditions elsewhere. Rules could be composed such as being able to see through the eyes of drones or other robotics while our physical body is kept safe in underground facilities. You put so many limits on what we could do and that's forming the foundation of your flawed reasoning.

You use the catchphrase death defines life as if it's scientific staple because it sounds good. But catchy phrases don't dictate reality, and the real truth is that you have no idea how it would actually play our. You are guessing. Yet you state it as matter of fact.

Humans have shown tremendous resilience towards adversity. Adversity and necessity have driven us to do extraordinary things scientifically, things that would seem like magic to humans living hundreds of years ago.

So I don't take your quote of death defining the value of life. In fact the majority of the world is religious who believe that death is just the beginning and that the afterlife defines life. Yet the world keeps spinning and people keep going with renewed vigor constantly.

Edit because I get upset about crap like this. Human beings are a huge contributor to imbalance to nature. But steps are being taken to help that imbalance, with things like lab grown meats and combating climate change. The future is not limited because you say so. We can actually make it a goal to sustain and maintain balance better than anything else out there. Intervening in moments where species are nearly extinct, providing care and shelter and everything else under the sun. I'm sorry but you aren't seeing any type of big picture possibilities and just harping on your small scope lens you read about in news feeds everyday. If you stop and take a step back and look at it in a wider lens you could see that humanity living much longer really is actually for the better of nature and not the other way around.