Rejuvenating apples?
Suppose that at the moment the average age of PG people around 20 years. Time goes on, they get older, grow wiser, grow up, become wiser... and unfortunately, finally getting old.And here after half a century, the best scientists of the world finally cracked the secret of immortality, invented a means of giving mankind eternal life.
And it is free and accessible to all.
But... there are a couple of unpleasant moments with using this tool:
First - it keeps the age and physical condition have accepted of his person indefinitely, but not rejuvenate this man and not heal him from all his sores.
Twenty-year-old diabetic will remain forever twenty-year diabetic (yet, of course, will not come up with a cure for diabetes), and seventy-year-old big man, respectively, a seventy-year big man.
Second - the speed of production of this means is that for the year it may be enough for adoption, only two percent of the population.
That is, if according to the logic of the first to accept it will start the oldest inhabitants of the planet, assuming the average seventy-year-old (for once, this still includes our decrepit PG people), then at that time twenty years will be able to make it only 50 years later...
For simplicity, let's assume that by the time the Earth will be peace, no wars, full democracy, equality of all before the law, absence of corruption... and other benefits of a civilized society.
And, of course, making all important decisions by the General voting of the entire population of the Earth.
I think she is with the order-making elixir, you may experience disagreements And differences can cause problems, big problems among a friendly and democratic community of the Earth...
So that's... a hell of a situation.
Cho think :) the boys?
How will you vote, or rather, that invite to vote :( old fart?
Wing42
Uh no why they do not check for ColonelJason ? young intellectual at all versed in pyschology in anthropology and in history.A lot of big words he knows,and his favorite collyriums or whatever.
Nevoeiro
Nevoeiro wrote:
You don't have those and not others)
Oh, I never claimed. Just you, as it often happens with people of moderate intellectual capacity, people mistakenly believe that normal human speech is certainly a claim to intellectuality, while it is just a normal human speech. If you can\ ' ll want to leave your social habitat, you will quickly find that in circles where the person is not degenerated to a state of illegality of being subjected to species determination sapiens, in the course of such type of speech, as he again is a normal.
Krucinski the quiet badass
I suspected you were being sarcastic, just wanted to make sure. Arguing in this way, I can say that to see the designated entities complete opposite of themselves, to me-nice and easy. Much worse would I be if they suspected we had something in common.
Krucinski the quiet badass wrote:
That is, if according to the logic of the first to accept it will start the oldest inhabitants of the planet
What kind of logic is this? And who will decide? Rationally, just to give the elderly and especially the disabled to live out their days as usual, and the immortality to give the most healthy and strong so they always been like that.
requiemmm wrote:
Died almost a hundred years. Nafig to live? Who would agree to carry forever their worn-out drunk-ass drunk body?
I agree, it makes no sense to live the afflicted, say, with 80 years in the next 20 (up to hundreds). It is not life already.
Gauguin wrote:
ColonelJason
I see you seriously aim to become a champion of talk at the level of banal nonsense per square meter. Apparently, someone needs to replace Stalker
Not Stalker-numbers policy like dirt pours Russia, more here ) by the Way, Stalker, unlike CJ, as I understand it, is a believer (in the themes of faith stood up for the faith)...
Gauguin wrote:
You often make statements that are deployed away from the truth is exactly 180 degrees. Is that some sort of Orwellian Olympics?
And in fact, just the degeneration of humanity in the care of the religion.
About the victory over the institutions of the religions it is wrong of course, such a victory not )) on the other hand, the fact of the degradation of man without a religion is not apparent, even obvious. About proven I did not stutter ) human Morality and religiosity are not identical.
Gauguin wrote:
This is one of those times when you can feel the imperfection of language and the poverty of the conceptual apparatus.
I agree. The phrase not like it does not mean that the answering hatred of the subject matter.
Nevoeiro
Yes, he is a local scientist like 8) His problem is ego. Like, read literature, and then you can look at all from top to bottom. I have seen such communication with such appropriate except in the lab where you and he are working on something, but not in everyday life 8) Dull and boorish guy )
He said that it would be good if it created a pills to enhance KI. In General, Yes, but also to reduce the ego will also be useful to do drugs 8)
A. Soldier of Light
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Not Stalker-numbers policy like mud Russia pours, here's another
I'm not talking so much about content as about form. And shape are quite similar - both like to roll a sheet of text (as they see it) disruption of the integument, although in reality it is just a set, at best, about idiotic cliches in the worst - doesn't make sense.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
By the way, Stalker, unlike CJ, as I understand it, is a believer
This is not so important.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
On the other hand, the fact of the degradation of man without religion is not obvious
Obvious. Enough to look around. And to consider religion as a tool I can't, it just so happens that religion is for human self-worth. And degradation of a man who walks away from religion is not something that is obvious is the causal chain, otherwise it can not be.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Human morality and religiosity are not identical.
Many atheists say that, and what's more - many cite the phrase as the argument. But the problem is that the statement, human Morality and religiosity are not identical is meaningless. And here's why:
1) Without religion the very concept of morality is eliminated. Together with the sense and value. In a materialistic world, these concepts have no place.
2) If, however, we decided to leave the concept of morality even without religion, then what kind of morality is it and who established the concept of good and evil?
3) And finally, if we decided to leave specifically Christian morality without the Christian religion - that is a quote from a meaningless turn into just about. After all, no such morality in the secular world is long gone. If there is some sort of morality, that she was very abmormal and become a Philistine You live and let live. Such a morality attendants axes of course no one cuts, Fyodor Mikhailovich was worried over nothing. It's much worse - apathy, oskotinivanie, but about the spiritual exploits is generally better not to stutter.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
Like, read literature, and then you can look at all the top down
God forbid if literature, not naucnyh channels on utubia.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
He said that it would be good if it created a pills to enhance KI
Nothing to worry about. Well, when a person understands their own needs.