Active Users:344 Time:11/07/2025 11:09:22 PM
I don't see why it would be immoral, but I can see why it would be undesirable A Deathwatch Guard Send a noteboard - 26/02/2013 04:59:32 AM

For instance, I see nothing desirable about living much beyond 80 if I'll be senile, or living in a nursing home, or suffering from the myriad of conditions the elderly typically do. It's not enough to simply survive to an old age, you have to be able to enjoy it and do the things you like doing. Without that, it's not really life anymore, not the way I understand it or want it, so extending it beyond those limits would not be desirable or beneficial.

As for it being moral, that's simply ridiculous. Very few things we do today are in any way "natural," and in any case, there is no one to judge what is natural and what isn't. Overpopulation and resource scarcity are problems, but they're not insurmountable. If human longevity is rising at such a rapid pace, then it's only because human technology is advancing even faster, so I'm confident solutions can and will be found. And if not people will simply starve and die and the problem will still resolve itself.

Reply to message
Scientists claim 72 is the new 30 - 26/02/2013 03:06:04 AM 916 Views
"New" is a relative term, as its usage here demonstrates. - 26/02/2013 04:31:24 AM 427 Views
Re: "New" is a relative term, as its usage here demonstrates. - 26/02/2013 08:28:58 AM 371 Views
Perhaps quality of life is the basic moral issue here. - 28/02/2013 08:16:48 PM 322 Views
I don't see why it would be immoral, but I can see why it would be undesirable - 26/02/2013 04:59:32 AM 379 Views
Stole my answer . . . - 26/02/2013 01:20:33 PM 310 Views
It comes down to the same thing - 26/02/2013 05:10:14 PM 342 Views
You sound like Voldemort lol - 26/02/2013 01:28:40 PM 421 Views
I haven't read Harry Potter so I'll take your word for it - 26/02/2013 03:13:55 PM 323 Views
Solution: Only live to 110. No miserable last 10 years. *NM* - 26/02/2013 08:18:41 PM 225 Views

Reply to Message