Transhumanist Children's Book Argues, "Death Is Wrong" (beyond-black-friday.com) 334
destinyland writes "Hoping to inspire life-extending medical research, science fiction author Gennady Stolyarov has launched a campaign to give away 1,000 free copies of his transhumanist picture book for children, Death is Wrong. 'My greatest fear about the future is not of technology running out of control or posing existential risks to humankind,' he explains. 'Rather, my greatest fear is that, in the year 2045, I will be...wondering, "What happened to that Singularity we were promised by now...?"' Along with recent scientific discoveries, the book tells its young readers about long-lived plants and animals '"that point the way toward lengthening lifespans in humans,' in an attempt to avoid a future where children 'would pay no more attention to technological progress and life-extension possibilities than their predecessors did.'"
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is here .... why?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this here? Because it's arguing about extending human life.
To say "death is wrong" is like saying "fly death is wrong" or "spider death is wrong". It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.
"And in spite of pride and erring reason spite, one truth stands clear -- what ever is, is right" (A. Pope -- An essay on man -- not sure if I have the quote exact, but it's pretty close).
I'm all for advances in science improving the QUALITY of life and allowing us to live as long as we naturally can -- but to live forever? Even beyond whatever is currently our max (maybe 120 or 130 years)? It poses ethical questions itself -- not the opposite that it's WRONG to not live forever.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
To say "death is wrong" is like saying "fly death is wrong" or "spider death is wrong". It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.
Naturalistic fallacy.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No its not. A naturalistic fallacy is where someone justifies a moral stance by a physical condition. It is essentially a round-about variation of the is/ought problem.
However, death has no real moral status, because we have no say over the matter. To say death is immoral presupposes that there is an alternative to death which IS moral, and for which we might chose.
But there isn't. Death isn't a moral choice, its simply something that exists, and we're all going to get knived by it some day.
Death *sucks*,
Re: (Score:3)
"Death is wrong" is still stupid though. This is a nongeek/nerd article. Because any geek who knows his/her science knows what forever means AND thus logically won't want to live forever AND thus at a certain point Death is Right.
0) I doubt people are psychologically able and stable enough to _enjoy_ a mere billion years of existence. A thousand years, ten thousand years, maybe. But a billion? Now guess how long is forever. So many can barely tolerate a single day of no Internet access ;).
1) How many stars
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, it is a little bit. Transhumanism is an artifact of the techie community. It's the geek version of religious extremism.
Further, transhumanism is strictly a fantasy of the 0.1%, who have now allowed their self-regard to reach a point where there is significant danger of creating a breakaway culture in which access to life-extending and death-defying technologies is strictly apportioned to a very tiny fraction of population, not incidentally, the very same people who ben
Re: (Score:3)
danger of creating a breakaway culture in which access to life-extending and death-defying technologies is strictly apportioned to a very tiny fraction of population, not incidentally, the very same people who benefit from the suffering of others.
As opposed to the "non-breakaway" US culture, where a small portion of very rich people - coincidentally "the very same people who benefit from the suffering of others" - can afford medical procedures that the rest of the population can't?
I really don't think anyone should welcome our transhumanist overlords. And any geek here who thinks they're going to be included in this immortalist revolution is delusional.
You make it sound as if every transhumanist wished for immortality. I have strong transhumanist inclinations but I believe that immortality is a logical contradiction. How does that compute to you?
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing for my position. Yes, of course they are one in the same.
It
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And they are both mechanisms of control by the elite.
Face it: when it comes to cybernetic prostheses and gene-therapy, it is very unlikely that you are going to be, as they say, "riding in the car".
Re: (Score:3)
1) Because you will never be able to afford it.
2) The elite who are driving transhumanism will never let you afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
0) I doubt people are psychologically able and stable enough to _enjoy_ a mere billion years of existence. A thousand years, ten thousand years, maybe. But a billion? Now guess how long is forever.
I doubt that there is an actual possibility for any entity to live for a billion years and still to be able to consider itself "itself". Unless you have the huge storage to keep the whole personality and all the memories mostly intact, if you picked two random points in the time line, the "same" entity in those two points would most likely be two completely different ones, making the continuity sort of a moot point.
Also, you've just mentioned the reason why heaven in many religions is not far removed from h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.
And that is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The system can't exist without it. Without the old dying to make room for the new evolution becomes impossible and we'd all still be single-celled organisms feeding on complex chemicals from volcanic vents. Or are you proposing that we've reached the pinnacle of evolution, or should take complete intentional control of our own development and population reduction from here forth? Because the first is a ridiculous claim, and the second has invariably been used as an excuse for atrocities against the human
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and saying "Death is wrong" is in my view just another form of religion, most of which are based on the fear of death. It may be a good survival trait to have fear of death, but it leads to things like religions, including this new technological one, and prolonging life beyond when it serves an evolutionary incentive.
Death is just the end part of life. Avoid it if you still intend to reproduce or care for young, and otherwise, it's just death. Nothing mystical or something you can or should beat.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be a good survival trait to have fear of death, but it leads to things like religions, including this new technological one, and prolonging life beyond when it serves an evolutionary incentive.
We should probably take away the insulin from the diabetics and the classes and contacts from people who are near-sighted, and undo any laser surgeries we've done on peoples eyes.
You know, to serve as an evolutionary incentive.
In case you were wondering, evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of those who successfully reproduce most", or we would have weeded things like near-sightedness out of the genome a long time ago, along with all other recessive traits.
Re: (Score:2)
We should probably take away the insulin from the diabetics and the classes and contacts from people who are near-sighted, and undo any laser surgeries we've done on peoples eyes.
You know, to serve as an evolutionary incentive.
In case you were wondering, evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of those who successfully reproduce most", or we would have weeded things like near-sightedness out of the genome a long time ago, along with all other recessive traits.
Straw-man, as well as a severely wrong understanding of evolution. Evolution does not cause anything - it describes what happens. And what happens is that those who have viable offspring down the line are the ones whose genes survive. No time limit, no single generation. That you live is an evolutionary plus for the genes of your great-great-geat-grandmother.
As for recessive traits, unless they are severe enough to cause you to lose against competitors without the same trait, they will not be bred out.
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI the appendix seems to be a functional "organ" even in modern humans - it houses a healthy colony of gut bacteria isolated from most digestive disorders, who can then repopulate the gut after serious infection. Without it you'd pretty much be limited to coprophagic behavior to reestablish a proper population of symbiotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has being beyond an evolutionary incentive had anything to do with morality. We vaccinate our children, wash our hands, build sewage treatment plants, etc... all of which subvert evolution.
That's not subverting evolution. Evolution happens whenever there is a way for genetics to pass. If the people who wash their hands and build sewage treatment plants have a higher chance of their offspring reproducing, then they're the evolutionary winners.
If you can make peoples lives better and longer it is right to do so.
That doesn't follow. That's moralism, and assuming that your culture has a monopoly on knowing what's "better". Some might think that a Logan's Run society was better. Others would gladly have traded their 90 year old lifespans for the much shorter
Re: (Score:2)
Short - your argument doesn't hold.
Re: (Score:3)
"Living longer, healthier lives without an arbitrary time limit is a worthwhile goal. If you don't agree, feel free to die of old age instead of accepting treatment, but don't condemn everyone else to early death and try to claim the high ground."
Perhaps you can try harder to read and comprehend what you read.
It was claimed that "death is wrong". I claim that at the very least it brings up ethic questions to try and eliminate it entirely and certainly not "wrong".
Then you claim I'm trying condemn everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this here? It's here to tell you that we want the ability to transfer your consciousness to a chip just so we can hit CTRL+ALT+DEL over and over and over for shits and giggles. Any other brilliant questions?
/. category: "Sci-Fi" (Score:2)
It's here b/c it's relevant...and hilarious!
A transhumanist childrens book called "Death is Wrong"
i lol'ed
also, I noted with joy at the category TFA was placed in..."sci-fi"...well played, samzenpus
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you haven't submitted any better articles.
Man. This is a barrel scraper 'tho.
I have one proposition for Gennady. Why not stop killing each other first? Work that angle on the "Death is Wrong" gig. Then, when we have problem A solved, get to the advanced degree shit. You dig?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not stop killing each other first?
That's a terrible idea. If immortality turns out to be possible, we'll likely need a few perpetual wars to help thin out the population until we have the technology to blast the excess into space.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
Oh no, not again!
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you do it if you think that takes priority? Is it because you're too busy karma whoring, shitposting, and desperately scrambling to compete with Taco Cowboy about who can post or semi-coherent crap the highest uo on the page?
Anyway, dipshits, this is here because it deals with transhumanism, which is singularity stuff, which works the tech angle as much as is possible without having also having any scientific substance.
The technological singualrity will never happen, at least not until us regular humans get over greed and egoism. Until then, transhumanists are just one more group saying they know what's best for the rest of us. Maybe they do or maybe they don't, but religions and various philosophies have been promising that for ever. Why should anybody accept the transhumanist's version of what is best is any better than anybody elses.
One might even argue that it's ultimate goal is to wipe out humanity, replacing it wi
Irresponsible or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's already far too many humans on the planet. If we stop dying there'll be nothing to eat and nowhere to stand.
That's a very narrow and conservative point of view that doesn't allow for any kind of technological achievement that we don't yet understand. What makes you think we will only ever live on this planet, do you really think we can't, ever, utilize the vast resources out side this planet?
Re: (Score:3)
do you really think we can't, ever, utilize the vast resources out side this planet?
Given the vast distances and hostility of space and the fact that we have to use this planets resources to reach them in the first place, despite how much Star Trek I have watch, yes I thin that is a good possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.
Either postulate warp drive OR postulate "the Singularity".
But requiring warp drive AND the Singularity to fuel your dreams of being an immortal star-traveller ... now you are WAY into the science FANTASY realm.
I'd be more interested in what effect "the Singularity" would have on the people living in the third world. Will everyone become immortal? Or will it be just a few of the very rich (by world standards) and billions of people living their regular lifetimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in fairness, if you have immortality, warp drive is less of a concern. What's 40,000 years if you live for a billion?
The one think the immortalists seem to miss is there's going to also have to be some huge advances in trauma medicine (unless you're talking we're to the point of uploading consciousness to robot bodies a la Moravec... that's so much change that if it were to happen hypothesizing on its results would be a series of science fiction stories, your guess is as good as mine what would actual
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of corn flakes that need to be brought along for breakfast food on the 40,000 year trip.
Per person.
Unless you're a robot. In which case, would you be able to tell that you were really traveling? Or could it be a video game? And do robots think faster than humans? Would a 40,000 year trip for a robot take the same subjective time (boredom) as a 100,000 year trip for a regular human?
We have a lot of wars in just the last 2,000 years of civilization. Would th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
narrow and conservative, aka it is possible by some mechanism that I do not understand the argument might be wrong, at least it is not statistically impossible.
That is a great argument you have there.
Re:Irresponsible or what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's the caffeine imbibers who you'll see go get those resources.
Re:Irresponsible or what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>There's a strong reason to suspect that if we were effectively immortal, our birth rates would drop to sustainable rates, or less.
Really? Seems to me people like children. Maybe not everyone, and maybe not *today*, but at some point in their lives, once they've got the survival thing comfortably under control they're likely to want to have some - biological imperative versus rational opportunity. And if people are immortal then the sustainable birth rate is zero. Occasionally people will die by viol
Re: (Score:2)
There's a strong reason to suspect that if we were effectively immortal, our birth rates would drop to sustainable rates, or less.
You do realize that the sustainable rate is around two kids/woman because the oldest generation dies off, right? If we were effectively immortal, the birth rate would have to drop to zero to be sustainable. Not a big deal if we live to be 150, it'll just cause a slightly longer delay but true immortality would really throw a monkey wrench in how society works.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW Vegas is an unsustainable parasite that wouldn't exist if not for gambling and prostitutes. However there are plenty of open spaces with dependable water in less desertified areas of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see that Ted Turner and other propaganda works on people like you, but I'll ask you to consider how narrow minded and wrong this really is. Lets ask a few pointed questions to see how well you grasp not only the complexity of the problem, but how you are wrong.
Pollution is a major factor in climate change, loss of agriculture, availability of water, availability of fish/game, and causes decreased health. We live in a pollution based economy and who among the wealthy is willing to give up making as
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you remove yourself from the planet, then. That'll leave us one closer to your ideal number of humans...
What? You thought that OTHER humans were the problem? Ahh, I see....
Re: (Score:2)
Current capacity is somewhere north of 50 billion. That's without any new technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why focus on length of life (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why focus on length of life (Score:5, Insightful)
when quality of life is what really matters?
Because it is possible for humanity as a whole to focus on more than one thing. Besides, most of the things that extend life also increase its quality. By a large margin, the most successful life extending technologies (so far) have been childhood vaccinations and public sanitation. Having your child not die probably enhances happiness as well as average lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an aunt about to hit 99....
Her life is in pain....
The fact of the matter is that nature cannot be beat.
If functional immortality is achieved it will by way of rejuvenation. No-one is interested in an eternity of infirmity. The laws of physics do not prohibit it, provided there is a source of energy available to combat entropy with. Any other hand-waving about 'nature' is cryptoreligiocrap.
The meaning of our lives is to reproduce.
To what end? To perpetuate the cycle of meaningless? Can any meaning emerge from that? More cryptoreligiocrap.
Re: (Score:2)
The meaning of our lives is to reproduce.
Wrong, simply wrong. The meaning of our lives is to improve everyone around us in addition to ourselves. I believe this meaning is lost on many today, because we are taught and shown wrong messages constantly (these messages are not new, this was happening when I was young long ago). Ask a kid today "How much money is to much money?" and most will laugh and claim there is no such thing. Yet "The Allegory of the Artisan" explained over 2.5 thousand years ago explained why this was wrong and society would
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why focus on length of life (Score:5, Insightful)
when quality of life is what really matters? Maybe once we can create a sustainable society where people are actually happy we can focus on resource drains like people who never die.
Why fight child poverty in North America when kids are starving in Africa? Why fight deforestation when global warming can do far more damage.
We can fight more than one battle at once, maybe these people are content enough with their lives that they really don't want them to end so that's the quest they're pursuing.
Btw, at any age being healthier probably translates into being happier.
Re: (Score:3)
I am happy enough that I would like to live a lot longer. I figure I could do another few hundred years. Those sad sacks can go off and die, if they really want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about insulated (Score:3)
Wow, I get the strong impression the author has only lived and traveled in developed nations his entire life. Its fun to wish for the things he writes about but they're unrealistic given human history.
It's especially awkward how he keeps saying he's not espousing a libertarian view and then does just that.
FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up, death is desirable, just imagine someone like Zuckerberg alive forever.
No one "promised" you a singularity, it was a prediction like flying cars (which are an absurdity when you think about it) and a very small percentage of population deserve such things.
Space travel (Score:2)
for all the negative remarks, maybe i'm the only one who wonders how awesome this would be for space travel XD
we would be able to explore a meaningful part of the galaxy XD.
Re: (Score:2)
for all the negative remarks, maybe i'm the only one who wonders how awesome this would be for space travel XD
we would be able to explore a meaningful part of the galaxy XD.
Not just able to, we might *need* to at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
generational starships or just time dilation by going near speed of light, don't need longer lifespan for space travel
Death is necessary for evolution to take place (Score:2)
Re:Death is necessary for evolution to take place (Score:5, Interesting)
> Without death, there's no evolution possible
Unless a species can modify its own biology, or the evolution of _technology_ or of _societies_ can be included. And in practice, it is: evolution is not just DNA biology, it involves entire ecosystems and behavior that are effective, but contained nowhere within the biology of a species.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is not more important than individuals
Evolution is certainly more inevitable than individuals, and without evolution, there wouldn't be any individuals either.
Because evolution happens no matter what, the immortals would become roadkill on the road of evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
So because death always wins at the end you want others not to try and not to work towards increasing their own lifespan? Yeah, death always wins, as long as we let it, it wins. We will all die, no question about it. What are you going to do about it, just return to the slime you came out of? You won't even try?
Those who will try, do you know what will happen once (not if, once) they succeed? They will be called 'the rich' (and they may as well be, it will be painfully expensive to achieve those results) and the rest will go to WAR to get a piece of that cake, which they did not bake, which the likes of you are spitting upon in its general direction.
Don't pretend you won't be on this or some other forum should this happen within your life time, yelling and screaming that the rich are the bastards that prevent the rest from having something that they have achieved. Your position right now is most likely in direct contradiction to your future position, should that future materialise, where you will be willing to do just about anything, including murder and theft, anything to get a piece of that.
Whoah, what a rant, and all quite misplaced too.
If the "rich" wants a cure that prolongs life, let them have it. It will be the downfall for them in the long run. And if the plebs want to go to war over that, let them.
It will just serve to get rid of both, making those of us who don't feel a need to cheat or cause death have a greater chance of our genes surviving in the long run.
I don't envy people with long lives. Nor short lives. If they want long lives, let them have it. As long as those attaining
Also, where's my flying car? (Score:2, Interesting)
The singularity is a fascinating idea that ain't going to happen. Vernor Vinge himself did a much better treatment [sdsu.edu] on what happens in this case.
We're already living in the Age of Failed Dreams. Advancements in technology, aside from computing, have all but halted. Flying cars? We can barely improve planes; yes, that IS your fathers airframe. Cheap and limitless energy? Nope. Life extension? John Adams died at 90 over 200 years ago, and he wasn't THAT unusual; many more live that long today, but few
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everything you said is false. And completely lacking evidence.
I, for one, Welcome (Score:2)
Who's been promising a singularity? (Score:2)
What happened to that Singularity we were promised by now...?
I didn't promise anyone a singularity. Did you?
Sure, it'd be nice if it came along before I shuffle off, but right now life's too short to keep getting annoyed because you think you're entitled to stuff from sci-fi.
Fear of what you don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
It's really sad to see the comments about life extension being bad or we are going to overpopulate the planet etc. They truly show the lack of imagination and understanding of much of the /. readership. There are some truly closed minds here among people calling them selves Liberals, Libertarians and Progressives. The reactions are very much like those of a society and system of thinking that thinks a cat can steal the breath of a baby, a society where superstition is given more weight than science.
The population models of Thomas Malthus were wrong. Paul Ehrlich's reuse of those models was wrong and reusing those same tired models will continue to be wrong. You are placing your hopes in Armageddon and self distraction instead of the creativity and ingenuity of humanity to make more from what we have than the last generation thought possible.
Stop being small minded lovers of doom!
Re: (Score:2)
it's really sad to see comments from those who can't accept reality, you'll live less than nine decades and die. your imagination will not help you, technology will not change this.
Even in greco-roman times people who took care of their health lived into their 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
it's really sad to see comments from those who can't accept reality
What's really sad is that many of the people who say this sort of thing don't seem to realize that the same types of things have been said about many technological achievements throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about stagnation rather than over population. We need new people to have new ideas.
Life is not about the individual (Score:2)
An essence of life is the continuation and gradual improvement of the self-sustainment capabilities of the information pattern that is conserved; that is, the genome.
Individual organisms are temporary containers (guardians) of the pattern, ensuring that the pattern survives (remains embodied in local matter and energy) for some more time. But each individual is almost always a redundant guardian of the information. There are many backups.
The inevitability of either accidental catastrophic destruction of the
I welcome the centenarian SAT (Score:2)
I welcome the centenarian SAT, wherein the desiccated (if not decrepit) demonstrate that they retain the mental flexibility to allow necessary social change to redefine the terms of continued living.
The movement loses most of its gloss when retirement age gets bumped to 165. Under present conditions, the extremely gifted can amass enough wealth by the present retirement age to coast on equity for a long time.
This of course all changes once life extension begins to rock the boat. Living forever will, howe
Longevity vs. Quality of Life (Score:2)
Not a bad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this line of thinking. I mean, there's fish and lizards and stuff out there that live for hundreds of years... Why not humans?
I for one think that a longer life might be the key first step to that bright-shiny technological future we've been promised; Imagine what some of the greatest minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty.
Besides... Future generations should have a better life than us, otherwise what was the point?
There is a better way of promoting transhumanism (Score:2)
With present technology we have no way of knowing whether immportality is even possible, aside from the whole desirability debate.
If I were selling transhumanism to children, I would try to inculcate a love of science (finding out about the unknown) combined with an adventurous, can-do attitude toward technology. If you can influence a generation of children away from the fearful, suspicious anti-science culture of their parents, you will be the greatest children's author in history by increasing the possib
Hypothetical scenario (Score:2)
Most people here seem to be arguing about the effects of a cure for aging as though it would be cheap and readily available to anyone. Experience has shown that that's not always the case. Certain substances are hard to synthesize and certain operations are very difficult to perform without killing the patient.
So, hypothetical scenario: the treatment is so incredibly difficult and expensive that you can extend your life and "freeze" the aging process, but only at the cost (in 2014 US dollars) of $1,000,00
Death is natural (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it the essence of emotional immaturity to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it or even just call it "wrong." Death is quite right and quite natural. We'd do much better getting to know death as a good thing, as the natural term limit to our personal administrations, so that we can get out there and live...fully!
I believe the most powerful thing you can do is make death your friend. Let it advise you, guide you, make you stronger. It takes work, maybe most of a lifetime, but I believe it's well worth it, and certainly a much more sensible approach than railing against the bars of your emotional crib, screaming over not having enough.
What happened to that promised Singularity? (Score:2)
It's right next to the jetpack.
Singularity? (Score:2)
hell I'm still waiting to get a decent winter out of this so-called global warming a promised 'singularity' ain't even on my radar! And don't even get me started on the flying cars!
Death Can Be A Blessing (Score:2)
Then we'd be Tolkien elves (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only there was some way to prevent unwanted pregnancies... a sort of "birth control". Nah, better just resign ourselves and all future humans to the horrible infinite nothingness of death. Working on solutions to problems is hard! It's easier to just spout off some drivel about the circle of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, do you understand how species development works? Have you heard of this "evolution" thing?
That would be the natural tendency of people with normal vision to out-compete people with impaired vision, and for people without diabetes to out-compete those with it, right?
Didn't we kind of lose that pressure when we started intervening technologically by putting up audible crossing indicators, manufacturing glasses, manufacturing injectable insulin, doing allergy testing, developed cochlear implants, started vaccinating people against diseases, and so on?
Most of the historical evolutionary pressures on
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should reread what "recessive genes" actually are. ... has nothing to do with your rant.
E.g. the gene for red hair is recessive
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should reread what "recessive genes" actually are. ... has nothing to do with your rant.
E.g. the gene for red hair is recessive
Your argument would be sound if all we were talking about were recessive genetic disorders, like color blindness.
Perhaps you should read about adrenoleukodystrophy caused by a mutation on ABCD1 which can happen to anyone, and which was normally removed from the gene pool by way of the effected person dying at a young age before they could reproduce. Or any of thousands of similar genetic diseases which we now treat, and therefore retain in the gene pool.
Re: (Score:2)
My paret (or is that you?) assumed that all recessive gens are harmfullor a sign of illness or an genetic illness.
They are not.
Brining some more genetic illnesses as argument implies you make the same mistake.
Re:I RTFA. Gibberish. (Score:5, Informative)
Science fiction author "Gennady Stolyarov" isn't listed in Internet Speculative Fiction Database either, and the book's publisher, "Rational Argumentator Press" has a grand total of *one* publication, and its web presence is a section of Mr. Stolyarov's personal site. So what we're dealing with here is the self-published work by an unpublished crank sci-fi author -- not that there's any dishonor in being an unpublished crank sci-fi author. There's lots of us around.
I peeked inside the book, and what strikes me is that if you squint, this *looks* like a religious tract pitched toward children, right down to the colorful but stiff illustrations. Take a look at the cover, with it's child dressed in a blue oxford shirt, red tie and khaki chinos banishing death. This is peculiar, in a way that I applaud; an image pitched at children by someone so far out of the mainstream that she has no idea what a culturally "normal" child looks like. That's a good thing for the world, although it may not do much for the author's message. It's more important for people with an oddball streak to write books than people who think like everyone else.
This book appears to come out of the same impetus that underlies a lot of religious impulse: rage at the fact we're are going to die. It's a fact we *should* be uncomfortable with. Religion does the most damage when it makes us too comfortable with the prospect of death. The afterlife becomes a make-up session where we can do the things we put off line life like reconciling with estranged loved ones.
Anyone who regards speculation about technological singularity enabling indefinite human life extension as a "promise" is taking far too much comfort in what is, at best, an intriguing idea. But the universe itself has a finite lifespan; any being who could last to the heat death of the universe, or even a single 2 million century "galactic year" would be so far from human that calling it "transhuman" would be like calling ourselves "transprotozoans".
Whether we just disappear after a mere century or so, or survive as something unrecognizable as human, our opportunity to experience the universe as ourselves, as humans, is brief. We should make the most of it, no matter what we plan to leave behind when our human existence is done.
Re: (Score:2)
We were promised flying cars, home fusion reactors and hoverboards for next year. We already should had sent a tripulated mission to Jupiter, and the world should had ended 2 years ago. Sometimes our expectations have no grounds on the real world.
But anyway, maybe believing in some fantasies (like there is such thing as justice, and in this case, living forever) could improve things, maybe with that belief we could finally care about making our world to be sustainable in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
We already should had sent a tripulated mission to Jupiter
o_O ... a what now?
Re:Death leads to accomplishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if we get the population sorted out, if we live forever, what drive do we have to accomplish anything?
Not everyone holds off on things simply because it'll be a while before they die. Lots of people just, you know, want to get things done.
Death is the drive behind making life meaningful.
People decide their own meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself, chump.