Would be willing to be forever young? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JeenLeen

2018-02-09, 09:13 AM

Assuming several caveats of it being safe tech, and if you still die of old age, I'd... well, honestly I'd probably not try it since I wouldn't trust it, but if it had existed for a couple generations I likely would.

I would still want to die of old age, though. I think there's several issues (ranging from economic issues, job market issues, and overpopulation to more philosophical and theological) I'd be concerned with if it meant no dying of old age. But I'd avoid discussing major societal changes in favor of having a fun, semi-serious talk. Some SMBC comics allude to some economic implications (like not being able to get a high-level job without decades or centuries of experience) fairly well.

I'm in my 30s, and I've noticed just how much worse my body is now than my 20s. It's not terrible, but just minor things like eyesight getting worse, back pain, neck pain, energy levels down, etc. And some hair loss. And from talking to friends in their 50s-70s, it gets worse. Avoiding (or stalling the advance of) that would be nice.

On the other hand, aging does have some benefits. If this tech existed, I'd probably want to pause around 25-28. Hormones are still somewhat strong in late teen and early 20s, so that stabilizing some in the late 20s would be nice. (I realize some would not see this as a benefit, and I admit I'd see the positive of still being in my early 20s.)

factotum

2018-02-09, 11:19 AM

It sounds very "Brave New World"--there was a drug in that which people took that kept them young and active until they were in their 60s, and they would then degenerate and die in a matter of months. Speaking personally I haven't really had a completely pain-free week in the best part of 20 years, so if you offered me a method that would take me back to before that--so I could actually get a full night's sleep every night, rather than once in a blue moon--I'd go for it like a shot.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-02-09, 11:49 AM

I was think more in the sense of not aging and not immortality, you would still die, one day your body would just give up and you can still die by trauma, infections and accidents, you just won't age.

That's hardly forever young, which is why I also thought you meant literally infinite natural lifespan based on the thread title.

Which, in fact, is what would happen. The process that would eliminate aging would do so by eliminating the things that kills us when we are past 60: weakened heart, weakened immune system letting more sicknesses through, weakened autoimmune system letting cancer cells grow out of control, etc, etc.

The answer, in my case, is no, for Kantian reasons: it would not be good if everyone did it, therefore I don't see why I should give myself an exception.

Now, under the alternative "you look and feel young, but somehow still die at some point before 130 years of age", sure, if there are no catches to it.

GW

Eldan

2018-02-09, 11:50 AM

Potato_Priest

2018-02-09, 12:39 PM

Being forever young, but still mortal? That's like the best parts of immortality and mortality combined.

I'd do it with the following provision: my brain can still learn and store new knowledge (even if id doesn't "age" in the traditional sense), rather than being completely frozen at the point when I took the pill.

The body of a young man with the experience of an old one sounds excellent.

Red Fel

2018-02-09, 01:11 PM

Maryring

2018-02-09, 01:57 PM

I'd choose yes in a heartbeat. There's still so much of the world to learn and explore and understand. Being dead is just a waste of time after all. So yeah. Bring on the wonder pill.

Aliquid

2018-02-09, 04:43 PM

Which, in fact, is what would happen. The process that would eliminate aging would do so by eliminating the things that kills us when we are past 60: weakened heart, weakened immune system letting more sicknesses through, weakened autoimmune system letting cancer cells grow out of control, etc, etc.Actually, stopping aging increases the chances of getting cancer.

If you replace old aging cells with reproducing young cells, you create a good environment for cells to develop into cancer.

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-09, 04:58 PM

Without dying and illness due to old age, statistical probability predicts most humans would terminate due to accident around age 200.

Living to 200 while physically healthy sounds pretty spiffy, so I'd take this deal. Dying via other means than age was never exactly hard, so it's not really a setback if life gets tiresome.

Liquor Box

2018-02-09, 05:07 PM

I'm going to go against what looks like the majority and say YES. Life is fun, why not have it for longer? And if you are gong to be alive why not when you are heathiest and most attractive.

Grey Wolf's objection is fair - if everyone did it it would be problematic, and how do we decide which people get to do it. But, if this thread is representative, then that's not a problem - most people don't seem to want to do it anyway.

Anonymouswizard

2018-02-09, 05:36 PM

Ayup. As far as I'm concerned, three points:

*Immortality is worth any price
*Oblivion is pretty much worse than any amount of suffering
*I never believed the idea that an eternal life would be terrible.

I'm agreeing with everything here, and in discussions about immortality I always bring up that an end to aging (or some sort of aging reversal treatment) wouldn't mean nobody would die, it just means that you wouldn't die of old age.

I also believe that if immortality is developed there will be a transition period (which could be decades) and then it would settle into a new form. A form that yes, might end up requiring a couple of centuries of experience before you can get a high level job. There'd also need to be some way to stop the immortal rich from accumulating an even larger proportion of the wealth, but I'm going into dangerous territory here.

As a side note, if unaging is developed (with no magic death age) then society will move towards a point of widespread acceptance as the centuries go by. The whole 'those against immortality just died off' idea. Sure, there will likely never be 100% acceptance.

This universe is amazing, and one day everything will die. But I don't see why I should refuse the opportunity to experience more of it than the small amount of time biology has given me. I'm of the view that if I die I want it to be by choice, not by chance or because my body gave out.

I agree with Grey Wolf that it would cause problems, but unlike him I'm in favour of widespread adoption of immortality. Because as far as I'm concerned I don't want to step into the next great journey until I've decided I'm ready, and because I don't see how indefinite life extension is fundamentally different to the life extension modern medicine gives people in any ways other than raw numbers of extra years. I'd take having to work out the consequences than forcing people to pass on just because it might cause issues to solve.

On the other hand, I am vain enough that if I die I'd want a simulation of myself hanging around to annoy people for years to come even if the consciousness typing out this post would be dead, so I'm not exactly normal.

Sure, maybe it'll turn out that almost everybody chooses death after a couple of centuries, or accidents stop anybody from living over 200, but I still want the potential to be there at heat death and die alongside the universe if I want to.

EDIT: I was once asked in a university debate on immortality if I'd be willing to let *insert famous person I strongly disagree with* live forever. My answer was that yes, I am, because I believe that choice should not be restricted.

Starwulf

2018-02-09, 06:23 PM

Ayup. As far as I'm concerned, three points:

*Immortality is worth any price
*Oblivion is pretty much worse than any amount of suffering
*I never believed the idea that an eternal life would be terrible.

Agreed. I mean, I may eventually get bored after a millenia or two, maybe. But if I do, so what, I'm sure that somewhere along that timespan the technology would be invented that would reverse the process and let me die. My only caveat would be that it would have to eliminate my fractured spine. I'm not interested in living forever but doing so in immense pain every day. If I have immortality I really want to travel the world, mostly by foot so I can see everything the world has to offer.

BWR

2018-02-09, 06:44 PM

Ayup. As far as I'm concerned, three points:

*Immortality is worth any price
*Oblivion is pretty much worse than any amount of suffering
*I never believed the idea that an eternal life would be terrible.

I vehemently disagree. Nothing scares me more than the thought of eternal existence in any form. In such a case the best I could hope for is my consciousness eventually shutting down, turning me into the blind idiot gibbering in a cold, dead universe with all other matter effectively infinitely far from me.

Staying young for more years than I have now, sure. Eternity, hell no.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-09, 07:01 PM

But I love the idea of getting old, it means I'll finally be allowed to be an unapologetic ******* to everyone. :smallbiggrin:

Some Android

2018-02-09, 07:22 PM

If a new form of technology was created that allowed you to be forever young and stop aging would you do it?

I got to be forever young I want it to be from a magic painting thank you very much,

Amazon

2018-02-09, 07:36 PM

2D8HP

2018-02-09, 11:48 PM

Ok so let's get some clarifications.....

From what I've experienced and observed, it's not the years that age you as much as it is cumulative injuries.

I've seen a guy stay young (seeming) into his '80's until a motorcycle accident turn him as old as his age, and I've seen other guys with work injuries turn old in their early 30's.

You don't have to be old to be crippled, you're just more likely to be crippled by the time your old.

"That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is utter hogwash.

tensai_oni

2018-02-10, 12:52 AM

In a heartbeat. Kant was referenced earlier in the thread but I will flip that around: I believe eternal youth to be good for everyone, and so it's good for me too.

Lord Joeltion

2018-02-10, 01:10 AM

Ok so let's get some clarifications.

-It's eternal youth, not immortality.
-You won't get cancer since you still get new cells, they just won't deteriorate.
-You still die at some random point when… I dunno the energy used to keep your body from aging catchs up and the whole body enter in collapse and instantly stops working.
-It's a painless form of death.
-You still learn.
-For the sake of arguments let's say it's far in the future and we already developed colonies in other planets.
-The process increases your life spam but don't make you immortal.
-It's painless.
-Not everyone does it so there are still old people as reference.
-You can revert to at any time to any age until your 18 birthday the “legal age”.
-Your body is not "lock" from there on you can gain or lose fat and muscle mass.
-The only "bad" thing is that the process is not revertible, once lock in an age you are stuck with it.
-Doing it late on life after experiencing old age is possible and common and can actually prolong your life spam twice the expected amount.

Well, even after Grey Wolf's all too sensible answer, I was about to say yes... Keeping my good fits (lol) until the day of my death doesn't sound all too detrimental at all. But then again you brought up:

"-Not everyone does it so there are still old people as reference."

And that sets me back onto Grey Wolf's answer. The reason I agree with that answer isn't Kantian, or even for moral reasons (or not so much, at least). My reasoning is about the sociological consequences and the interpersonal aspect.

First, about the individual: It would be nice to be eternally young (and possibly having a much larger lifespan than average). Until you meet somebody, befriend them or (worse) fall in love; and then realize you will have to live with the fact that you will survive him for decades, no matter what, because they aren't open to taking the magic pill. That sucks. Utterly desolation, in my opinion. I mean, I don't mind surviving somebody for things that are beyond my control (that is the sad truth of life) but, being the atheist I am, the possibility of surviving somebody because they simply aren't open to follow my life decisions, is my version of ending up forever in Heaven, alone. I don't know, that sucks for me.

And the social consequences are more worrying for me. Because havin people who live young and people who prefer* the natural way would set up two distinct classes for human beings. An "elite", if you like. And unlike other moments in history, said "elite" would constitute an ACTUAL, FACTICAL, 100% OBJECTIVELY kind of "superior beings". They will live on longer, hence their life standard, happiness and everything will be obviously better for them. They will be more productive, or more richer, or whatever, for the simple fact of having a better health. That's pretty alarming for me. Alarming enough to be completely against such a project. You either feed the Fountain of Your to everybody, or you simply destroy the damned thing. We have plenty stories (with enough similarities to reality to take them seriously) where a faction monopolizes the Holy Grail and exclude the rest. Spoiler: they always end up using it against people who don't share their "view".

*"Prefer", or, as it is in RL: "are denied the option".

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-10, 03:38 AM

I vehemently disagree. Nothing scares me more than the thought of eternal existence in any form. In such a case the best I could hope for is my consciousness eventually shutting down, turning me into the blind idiot gibbering in a cold, dead universe with all other matter effectively infinitely far from me.

Staying young for more years than I have now, sure. Eternity, hell no.

There is no physical form of "immortality" which actually could lead to an eternal self under known natural laws. The self, in general, is a dubious concept and that is a primary reason to see most pursuits of "immortality" as fairly pointless.

If your personality is not kept in stasis, after enough time has passed the eternally young "you" won't have anything more in common with you than your child, or grandchild, or grand-grandchild (etc.) would have. So you could just skip the fantasy and go have some kids, reproduction is already a form of biological immortality.

Also, about those accidents, statistically if you live arbritrarily long the chances of you getting buried under too much stuff to dig yourself out asymptotically approaches one, and it's not up to yourself if you'll ever get dug out. The more-or-less inevitable fate of all "truly immortal" creatures would be to go the way of Balrogs and become living fossils.

factotum

2018-02-10, 04:58 AM

If your personality is not kept in stasis, after enough time has passed the eternally young "you" won't have anything more in common with you than your child, or grandchild, or grand-grandchild (etc.) would have. So you could just skip the fantasy and go have some kids, reproduction is already a form of biological immortality.

However, like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, your personality changes so slowly that it *feels* like one continuous existence. I'm pretty sure I'm not the same person I was 25 years ago, but I can look back at memories of that time and know that it's me doing them. The same could not be said of my children, should I ever have any.

Mx.Silver

2018-02-10, 05:25 AM

Err, yes?

I'm not sure why this would even be much of a question, honestly. Even before the clarifications you've just covered yourself from age-related illness and decrepitude, senility, menopause (if that's something that'd effect you), etc.

Not a terribly difficult decision to make, really :smalltongue:

And the social consequences are more worrying for me. Because havin people who live young and people who prefer* the natural way would set up two distinct classes for human beings. An "elite", if you like. And unlike other moments in history, said "elite" would constitute an ACTUAL, FACTICAL, 100% OBJECTIVELY kind of "superior beings". They will live on longer, hence their life standard, happiness and everything will be obviously better for them. They will be more productive, or more richer, or whatever, for the simple fact of having a better health. That's pretty alarming for me. Alarming enough to be completely against such a project. You either feed the Fountain of Your to everybody, or you simply destroy the damned thing. We have plenty stories (with enough similarities to reality to take them seriously) where a faction monopolizes the Holy Grail and exclude the rest. Spoiler: they always end up using it against people who don't share their "view".

*"Prefer", or, as it is in RL: "are denied the option".

You'd get the same result by substituting the hypothetical anti-aging drug here with 'access to antibiotics' or 'access to clean drinking water' or, indeed, access to anything we currently have that improves health. Unless there's something about the hypothetical that makes it extremely difficult to access, then this isn't an argument against it, it's an argument for getting a proper distribution system in place :smalltongue:

Although if you want to talk social impacts, I'd imagine the fact that the number of the (potential) 'working (and breeding) population' just exploded might have some pretty far-reaching effects, although assuming the forum rules haven't changed much since I was last here it'd probably be a bit difficult to discuss that side of it.

Lvl 2 Expert

2018-02-10, 05:35 AM

I'm a little worried about the psychological aspect.

I'm in my early 30's now, and I'm a different person than I was when I was 18. A better person, I'd say (although I'm biased because I am new me and not young me, young me might think differently about it). A big question is: am I just learning, or is this part of aging? Would I have become new me if I had stayed physically younger? I kind of like growing into the silverback stage of life. I was never a good cool kid, or a great challenger of the powers that be, I think the more relaxed controlling role of a full on adult might fit me better (even though I make a sport of being immature and not growing up in some ways), and to fill that role a full on adult brain and even a full on adult appearance could help.

It would be kind of nice to be a little less bald again, but even that sort of works within my overall look. At this rate I might hit my peak sexiness somewhere around 40. It would be a "hardworking farmer on his day off" kind of sexy, but it's better than what I had when I was younger. Any health problems I have had so far are minor, my stamina sits within the range of good enough for what I need it to do and my teeth even seem to have gotten better since my early 20's, but that probably has more to do with brushing discipline (and less energy drinks) than anything else.

So yeah, it would be nice to avoid getting old, but I do kind of like growing up, and at least for me that didn't stop at 20. Although it would be pretty cool if I could stop at some point before I turn into one of those nasty old people that know everything better and always need to be right in all the worst ways.

Anonymouswizard

2018-02-10, 05:46 AM

Aedilred

2018-02-10, 06:05 AM

On the face of it, and as with almost everyone else in the thread, it's an instant "yes". I'm old enough to feel the ill-effects of advancing age and I know it's only going to get worse. To go back to a "peak" period (probably when I was roughly 22-25) would be great.

However there are a few caveats. Firstly, my mental health is much more stable now than it was then - although still not amazing. I'd want a confirmation that that isn't going to revert to the state it was in then. I'm also aware that I had a couple of minor but persistent health problems which lasted from my late teens to my late twenties and I really don't want to have to deal with them again at all, let alone forever.

One of the few benefits of ageing is that people do take you more seriously. Whether this would be the case in a society with perpetual youths who could be of any age is something we wouldn't know unless it happened, I suspect. It would probably still be worth the trade but nevertheless it's something worth bearing in mind.

Another nice bonus is that it might give more flexibility to career and life planning. At the moment, if for instance you want to be a professional sportsman, you generally have to have begun serious investment into that by your early teens at the very latest (sport-dependent) and commit to it fully by the age of 18. That means that by the time you reach the age of legal majority it's already too late to make that decision. This is partly because you have to develop the skills at a relatively early age, but rather moreso because the career window is very short: only about 20-25 years, and only as long as that in many cases because in the latter half experience compensates for declining physicality. It also means that the years when most people receive the bulk of their qualitative education are instead taken up by your work, which limits opportunities when you want to change career.

If you're permanently at your physical peak, and the career window for sport is tripled or more, it gives people more options for transitioning into it later in life. And there are a number of jobs where the maximum age for starting is relatively low (the military, in Britain at least, is another) which wouldn't have the same problems if the technology we're talking about were available.

Florian

2018-02-10, 07:13 AM

I was think more in the sense of not aging and not immortality, you would still die, one day your body would just give up and you can still die by trauma, infections and accidents, you just won't age.

Still no. The problem with aging is the accumulated wear and tear on your body, also that every hurt you ever received will sum up with time. I'm rather 80 and look and feel like 80, then look like 20 with the accumulated hurt of someone who is 80.

Scarlet Knight

2018-02-10, 07:34 AM

So basically, we'd be elves. Things will still kill us, we will live longer as our bodies stay heathy longer, & we can still learn over time with the sharpness of youth.

But I wonder how it would go if the whole family doesn't do it together? Imagine a man or woman with the body/hormones of 30 with a spouse of 70? Or a 30 year old with 50 year old children? It goes poorly with May/ december marriages.

I'm not sure; I'd love to have a young body but I see so many minefields.

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-10, 08:45 AM

However, like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, your personality changes so slowly that it *feels* like one continuous existence. I'm pretty sure I'm not the same person I was 25 years ago, but I can look back at memories of that time and know that it's me doing them. The same could not be said of my children, should I ever have any.
You're not wrong, but obviously as someone who is skeptical of the concept of self, I do not place much weight on the subjective feeling of continuity of self. That's before we get to particulars of how human memory works - once enough time has passed, it's dubious if your memories will have anything at all to do with what actually happened.

Ravens_cry

2018-02-10, 09:02 AM

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-10, 09:41 AM

Not aging does not imply magic regeneration powers, so it wouldn't get in the way of body modification. The flipside of this is that since some tissues plain do not renew themselves very well, you'd eventually lose your teeth, become infertile etc. despite otherwise being young and healthy.

There was a Finnish science fiction story, released in either Tähtivaeltaja or Portti, which explored this concept quite far.

sktarq

2018-02-10, 11:33 AM

Ummmm....yes. . . In a heartbeat. I am too curious about the world and "what's next" to have issues with it for myself.

Karmea

2018-02-10, 01:41 PM

Totally. Gimme.

There's a lot of stuff I like about the world and lot of stuff I haven't yet tried. I'd also like to see space travel. Too bad you gotta die at some point, but hey, even an extended lifespan at the prime of youth is really nice.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 01:48 PM

Can modifications to my body still 'take'? Like, if I were to get implants and other feminization surgeries and SRS, would my body try to revert to 'factory settings'? Heck, can I get my ears pierced.
Eh, probably still would. I've always wanted to see more of the Story. I want to see what we humans do with space travel.

Ironically this whole scenario was created by me as though experiment in my campus to illustrate how transphobic folks are hypocrites. :smallbiggrin:

Florian

2018-02-10, 02:46 PM

Ironically this whole scenario was created by me as though experiment in my campus to illustrate how transphobic folks are hypocrites. :smallbiggrin:

You basically failed then.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 02:52 PM

You basically failed then.

Not really, it was a huge success actually, I'm not sure if I changed the mind of all bigots in the room but they didn't had any witty come back(As they usually do -_-) and they got out of the panel with a "Hun..." puzzled look at their faces.

It was tons of fun. ^^

Florian

2018-02-10, 03:15 PM

Not really, it was a huge success actually, I'm not sure if I changed the mind of all bigots in the room but they didn't had any witty come back(As they usually do -_-) and they got out of the panel with a "Hun..." puzzled look at their faces.

It was tons of fun. ^^

Contextually, you still asked the wrong question, therefore you come to the wrong conclusions.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 03:16 PM

Still no. The problem with aging is the accumulated wear and tear on your body, also that every hurt you ever received will sum up with time. I'm rather 80 and look and feel like 80, then look like 20 with the accumulated hurt of someone who is 80.

I don't think Amazon's suggestion precludes wounds healing.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 03:20 PM

So basically, we'd be elves. Things will still kill us, we will live longer as our bodies stay heathy longer, & we can still learn over time with the sharpness of youth.

Except not lame like elves.

Outside of the benefit of looking and feeling good forever yourself, another benefit of the forever young pill, if lots of people took it is that the pool of other people who are attractive would be greater.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 03:28 PM

Contextually, you still asked the wrong question, therefore you come to the wrong conclusions.

I'm sorry you sir you are the one with the wrong assumptions, I said the scenario originated with that premise in mind, not my post in here, you know nothing about my presentation so shut up.

Anyway, I really liked the idea and wanted to explore this forum ideas and opinions on the consequences and implications of this imaginary situation further.

I’m also intrigued with the concept of maturity being a consequence of aging or just experience; can someone with a young mind and set of hormones really achieve the experience and wisdom of an old sage? Or does the experience of getting old itself makes one wiser? What you guys think?

Tvtyrant

2018-02-10, 04:01 PM

Pretty much on the no train. Immortality is essentially the end of development, in every meaningful sense of the word. Imagine Galileo trying to overcome the authority of Aristotle to his face, or the world being cut up by the Chin Emperor and Augustus.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 04:07 PM

Ironically this whole scenario was created by me as though experiment in my campus to illustrate how transphobic folks are hypocrites. :smallbiggrin:

I'm not entirely sure I see the comparison point between living forever (or being youthful until death) and SRS. Maybe if you could go into some detail on why you thought it was a good analogy or what the points in your presentation were. It's also worth noting that college campus' are not always the best place to present this sort of analogy because certain ideological points are en vogue and therefore are likely subjected to a lower degree of certainty.

So in what sense do you think that being able to make yourself young is comparable to being able to change your physical gender to match what your internalized gender is? Cause I don't see a strong comparison point.

{Note - snipped and paragraphs rearranged for response clarity}
I’m also intrigued with the concept of maturity being a consequence of aging or just experience; can someone with a young mind and set of hormones really achieve the experience and wisdom of an old sage? Or does the experience of getting old itself makes one wiser? What you guys think?

There are a few important notes here:

As far as hormones go... the hormones that have the biggest shift with age are the sexual ones, Estrogen and Testosterone basically. So my question is are you arguing that high levels of either makes a person inherently less wise? If that is the case how do you explain how men from third world countries are often considered to be the most wise or sagelike, when their testosterone levels shift less (almost not at all) as compared to men from our own first world experience?

Also if this is about hormones, wouldn't asking guys if they would be willing to take steroids to improve themselves be a better way to highlight that particular hypocrisy?

I think that in the end, being wise comes from having experienced things. I've met plenty of old people who were NOT wise, and plenty of young people who had rough lives and had to become wiser earlier in order to make it. So I don't think there's any strong correlation between age and wisdom, the only relationship is that people who are older are more likely to have had more experiences and therefore be wiser.

Anyway, I really liked the idea and wanted to explore this forum ideas and opinions on the consequences and implications of this imaginary situation further.

Alrighty then my answer depends on a couple of factors that aren't fully explored in the OP:

Scenario 1: I can stay young as can my loved ones, this treatment works on everybody equally even the very old.

In this case I would probably do it, the chance to keep doing the kind of physical things I love for longer would certainly be worth it, I could work at my job longer, and keep lifting weights at a higher level for much longer.

Scenario 2: Only I remain young.

Nope

Scenario 3: I remain young but can't develop and the same other conditions as Sc. 1

Nope

Scenario 4: It actually translates to living forever.

Nope.

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1TcDHrkQYg

Amazon

2018-02-10, 04:30 PM

I'm not entirely sure I see the comparison point between living forever (or being youthful until death) and SRS. Maybe if you could go into some detail on why you thought it was a good analogy or what the points in your presentation were. It's also worth noting that college campus' are not always the best place to present this sort of analogy because certain ideological points are en vogue and therefore are likely subjected to a lower degree of certainty.

So in what sense do you think that being able to make yourself young is comparable to being able to change your physical gender to match what your internalized gender is? Cause I don't see a strong comparison point.

I could go into some detail but I think I won't since this is not the same context, it was spoiled and it won't be as effective, and I don't want you guys talking bs on my project. So I probably won't do it.

But the basic idea is that they both consist in using technology as a form of changing a fundamental aspect of yourself with the intention of providing a more comfortable and happy existence.

Early on I asked the groups on which ways science or technology were used to improve their immediate lives or altered some aspects of their physiology.

One of the students (Who is an alternative right member btw) listed his use of glasses for example, other the use of medicines etc...

And then the conclusion was that humans have been altering themselves with whatever technology provided since the earliest days of civilization. Tools, clothing, armor, and weapons are all ways that mankind has altered itself to be better suited to its environment. Just because our tools now allow us to modify the most fundamental part of our being permanently does not make these tools any less useful or any less ethical.

If someone (Such as many students preset in the panel) consider trans folks to be against the natural order but are in favor of using technology that prolonged their life spans to unnatural levels, they are hypocrites.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 04:47 PM

I could go into some detail but I think I won't since this is not the same context, it was spoiled and it won't be as effective, and I don't want you guys talking bs on my project. So I probably won't do it.

Well your project was already successful by your own admission, so if we talk crap on it there's no negative impact to you, and you can maybe learn things that would be useful in the next project. And there's a strong likelihood that we wouldn't. I mean I think that most of the folks here tend to be pretty understanding or at least try to be. Like the attitude regarding your analogy was mostly puzzlement initially until you started to get cagey and defensive instead of answering questions about it.

But the basic idea is that they both consist in using technology as a form of changing a fundamental aspect of yourself with the intention of providing a more comfortable and happy existence.

Well I think the thing you're going to find out is that people don't consider their age to be a fundamental aspect of themselves in the same that people who are opposed to SRS would consider gender to a fundamental part of the self. Age has always been something we've fought against in terms of it's ravages. Also notably your argument WOULD NOT prevent people from aging, only from the physical ravages of time, unless of course you spelled that differently in your presentation then you have here.

Early on I asked the groups on which ways science or technology were used to improve their immediate lives or altered some aspects of their physiology.

One of the students (Who is an alternative right member btw) listed his use of glasses for example, other the use of medicines etc...

Like an admitted member of the Alt-Right? Like a member of the ANP or something? Or like somebody who is libertarian? Cause if he is not an actual Nazi you shouldn't be calling him that on a public forum, or calling him something that people think is equivalent to that. And the only grounds you'd have to fairly call somebody that is by admission, not by your inference.

And again, being nearsighted is a fundamental part of somebody's identity generally. A medical problem is not equivalent to SRS without a lot of hemming and hawing to make it work. Like if I fall at work and I break my arm and I later have corrective surgery to fix that... it's not changing who I fundamentally am, it's just surgery. The issue is that many people believe that SRS is not the correct action to take to make a transperson happy, and that it's basically encouraging somebody with a set of mental delusions, I don't know how I feel about this, I have no strong opinions, but for it to be the hypocrisy you're arguing you have to make inferences about their philosophical stances... inferences that have not been supported by any conservative person I've talked to, and I have a lot of conservative friends.

And then the conclusion was that humans have been altering themselves with whatever technology provided since the earliest days of civilization. Tools, clothing, armor, and weapons are all ways that mankind has altered itself to be better suited to its environment. Just because our tools now allow us to modify the most fundamental part of our being permanently does not make these tools any less useful or any less ethical.

Well, again, it depends on your ethical framework. Period. And you're inferring theirs, and I've never seen the particular set of objections you're claiming are the common set raised.

If someone (Such as many students preset in the panel) consider trans folks to be against the natural order but are in favor of using technology that prolonged their life spans to unnatural levels, they are hypocrites.

Well it depends on the specific reasoning behind their objections and on their specific moral philosophical set-up if they are hypocrites or not.

In any case I'd be a lot more interested in discussing the aging and hormones thing, than the potential flaws in your analogy thing. Since one is likely to be productive and interesting, and the other is likely to convince nobody and be just frustrating for you, and I as well.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 04:59 PM

I think it is a reasonable analogy myself. If you object to sex change on the basis that it is not what nature intended, then why would you not object having an artificially younger physiology?

But like any analogy, it falls short if someone points out a relevant distinction. AMFV has suggested the two states can be distinguished because gender is more essential to the sense of self than age. I wonder if some trans people might object to this analogy on the basis that they think of themselves as actually becoming their new gender (ie, a trans woman is a woman) while a 60 year old who technology has altered to have the body of a 20 year old, would still be sixty years old - they don't become young, they just imitate youth.

It also only addresses objections to gender change on the basis of what is natural. If someone objects to gender change (or holds other views that might be considered anti-trans) for different reasons, this analogy wouldn't address it.

So, an interesting though exercise/analogy, which might cause some people who object to gender change to have another look at their beliefs, but somewhat limited, and not sufficient to say people are hypocrites I don't think.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-02-10, 05:15 PM

If someone (Such as many students preset in the panel) consider trans folks to be against the natural order but are in favor of using technology that prolonged their life spans to unnatural levels, they are hypocrites.

Your conclusion relies on an assumption that you have not proven: that transphobia is based on dislike of body modification. The more generally accepted view is that transphobia is rooted in sexism: the belief that humans can only be classified as men or woman, that the two are different, and that men are superior to women. The existence of trans people is one of the many ways that reveals this picture to be a ridiculous simplification of reality, which is why they hate and fear them.

The willingness of transphobes to use technology to improve their bodies does not enter into this, since it does not disturb their simplified binary outlook, and thus cannot be classified as hypocrisy.

I think it is a reasonable analogy myself. If you object to sex change on the basis that it is not what nature intended, then why would you not object having an artificially younger physiology?
But that's not the usual "argument"* wielded by transphobes. As per the above, what's unnatural is for men to act, behave or in any other way be "like women". It's the same "argument"* wielded against non-heterosexuals, and indeed against anyone not willing to toe the line on the patriarchal world order.

Grey Wolf

*I'm using this word quite wrongly, of course

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-10, 05:22 PM

I could work at my job longer, and keep lifting weights at a higher level for much longer.[/I]

Really? I mean I don't want to judge but with the whole world out there and in this specific scenario interplanetary travel and you pick working for a longer time and lifting weights as a way to spend your eternal youth?

Are some kind of toilet paper mascot or something? :smallamused:

Pretty much on the no train. Immortality is essentially the end of development, in every meaningful sense of the word. Imagine Galileo trying to overcome the authority of Aristotle to his face, or the world being cut up by the Chin Emperor and Augustus.

It has been covered, this is not about immortality.

I’m also intrigued with the concept of maturity being a consequence of aging or just experience; can someone with a young mind and set of hormones really achieve the experience and wisdom of an old sage? Or does the experience of getting old itself makes one wiser? What you guys think?

I personally don't think so, it's hard to be wise when all you can think about is cute boys and hunky dudes, you can’t mediate on the fundamental structures of the universe if you are sad because of your last breakup.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 05:32 PM

But that's not the usual "argument"* wielded by transphobes. As per the above, what's unnatural is for men to act, behave or in any other way be "like women". It's the same "argument"* wielded against non-heterosexuals, and indeed against anyone not willing to toe the line on the patriarchal world order.

Grey Wolf

*I'm using this word quite wrongly, of course

I'm not sure I agree that there is any sort of consensus that transphobia is rooted is sexism, and "it's not natural" is a common (if not most common) argument against gender-reassignment. But, you are right that it doesn't apply to people who object to gender reassignment on different grounds, as I said in the third paragraph of my post.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 06:01 PM

Urrrg.. I knew this would happen I should never have open my huge mouth, I just wanted this gender thing to be a side note, not ruin the whole thread.

Anyway this whole thing was made as a response to a series of presentations; the biology department is making a whole symposium about ethics and bio-technology.

A stupid biologist wrote a controversial book about how nature has a natural order and that his observation of hybrids made him conclude that such thing is real, something about mules being sterile or something. And things such as trans people are going agiants the antural order of nature.

Another biologist made a panel about how sexuality and gender in nature are complex and non-binary, and that can be observed in many species of animals.

A group of jerks made a panel about how such changes are natural occurrences and don't need expensive and invasive chirurgical procedures to change, which gave me to make my own panel about transhumanism.

All that and we are not really allowed to make response panels, we are big on the passive aggressive academia on my university :smallannoyed:

So yeah I know that's not the only or main factor on trasphobia, it just happen to be a topic everyone was talking about at the time. And the thing was never about transphobia it was about how valid such changes are.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 06:04 PM

Really? I mean I don't want to judge but with the whole world out there and in this specific scenario interplanetary travel and you pick working for a longer time and lifting weights as a way to spend your eternal youth?

I love my job, like I really love my job. The fact that when I get older I'll have to stop doing it is deeply frustrating to me. So the idea that I might be able to be involved in something that I love for a longer period is profoundly amazing to me. I mean I make things that will live for years, sometimes even for hundreds of years. How could that not make you happy. What else would you want to do with staying young?

As far as lifting weights goes. I love that also. The fact that at some point I will stop improving and then start barely hanging on is something that makes me sad. If I'm young forever, I could continue to improve until I am literally as strong as I could ever be. And that's something that I would love. I mean it's as profound an experience as any other. If you haven't lifted weights at a high level it's impossible to understand. To paraphrase, "If you've never had, then you can't understand what it would be like to lose it". I mean I know how different it feels on my body to pick up six hundred pounds off the ground, than it did to move four. How would it feel to move a thousand? 500 kg? That would be amazing to feel, and it's something that almost nobody gets to experience.

For reference, 533 people have been in space, they have experienced that. Only ONE person has deadlifted 500 kg. So it's an experience that's rarer than space travel. Only person has had that feeling. So that's why I would chase that, to have a profound experience that very few people have shared.

I personally don't think so, it's hard to be wise when all you can think about is cute boys and hunky dudes, you can’t mediate on the fundamental structures of the universe if you are sad because of your last breakup.

Here's the thing "meditating on the fundamental structures of the universe" is not how one becomes wise. It's experiencing things and then learning from them. Your least breakup might teach you more about the world than any amount of fasting in a cave ever would.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 06:08 PM

Here's the thing "meditating on the fundamental structures of the universe" is not how one becomes wise. It's experiencing things and then learning from them. Your least breakup might teach you more about the world than any amount of fasting in a cave ever would.

I agree, but can you get over and learn things while being forever young? It seems young people never learn from their own mistakes.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 06:12 PM

I agree, but can you get over and learn things while being forever young? It seems young people never learn from their own mistakes.

Well, to be honest, and I'm extrapolating here. But I'd wager that most of your experience is with people who are in universities. Who are missing the most important part of learning from their mistakes, serious consequences and responsibilities. I've known a lot of 20 year-olds who were more mature than most forty year-olds. Cause I knew 20 year-olds who might concievably die or get their friends killed if they didn't.

I've also known people who were working with families, who had to learn because they would be out on the streets if they didn't. And they learned better than some people I know who are much older.

So again, I don't think it's youth that's the factor that's making it into a problem, more like the consequences.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 06:43 PM

Well, to be honest, and I'm extrapolating here. But I'd wager that most of your experience is with people who are in universities. Who are missing the most important part of learning from their mistakes, serious consequences and responsibilities. I've known a lot of 20 year-olds who were more mature than most forty year-olds. Cause I knew 20 year-olds who might concievably die or get their friends killed if they didn't.

I've also known people who were working with families, who had to learn because they would be out on the streets if they didn't. And they learned better than some people I know who are much older.

So again, I don't think it's youth that's the factor that's making it into a problem, more like the consequences.

Geez ok I get it you are all YVAN EHT NIOJ.

But you seem to forget that people forced to mature at a younger age then normal develop deep psychological issues, this "early maturing" you seem so proud of is not a good thing.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 06:57 PM

Geez ok I get it you are all YVAN EHT NIOJ.

I don't think I recommended that. I only said that particular set of experiences could cause a person to develop faster, in terms of wisdom and life experiences. I don't think that's always a positive.

But you seem to forget that people forced to mature at a younger age then normal develop deep psychological issues, this "early maturing" you seem so proud of is not a good thing.

Are you saying that I have deep psychological issues? That feels like I should be profoundly offended. Although I'm not actually. The thing that causes psychological issues generally is having too many intense experiences without enough time to process them. People have psychological breakdowns when they'er older as well.

Also the people I knew who had matured faster because they had jobs and family, are typically not suffering from any immediately apparent "deep psychological issues". They just had to mature faster and so they did. If you haven't had to have that particular set of attributes, you probably won't develop them. So if the eternally young people are having responsibilities in-line with their calendar age, you're likely to see roughly equivalent degrees of maturity, at least supposing that "eternal youth" stopped around the point when the brain was fully developed.

And also, people who have been to war do not all have "deep psychological issues" that's a Hollywood myth. I had issues, and you know what, I got over them, or at least got to where they were manageable. I'm fairly sure that I am a better person than I was before I went to war. Actually objectively I am a better person. So I'm pretty okay with that "early maturing" that you're dismissing out of hand without ever having experienced, and as far as I can tell not having ever met folks who have experienced.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 07:00 PM

I'm sure a 12 year old girl who has to take care of three younger brothers or a a 10 year old who gets beat up by his drunk dad and has to protect his own mom are forced to mature faster than other kids.

I'm also sure that's not good for them. Do you disagree?

AMFV

2018-02-10, 07:12 PM

I'm sure a 12 year old girl who ahs tot ake care of three younger brothers or a a 10 year old who gets beat up by his drunk dad and has to protect his own mom are forced to mature faster than other kids.

I'm also sure that's not good for you. Do you disagree?

Right, but that wasn't the scenario I was discussing. Are you arguing that going to war is the same as having to care for younger siblings as a teenager? Or being physically assaulted by a drunk father as a child? Because while those experiences are likely to cause premature maturity. That doesn't mean that all experiences that cause people to mature are necessarily going to have the same sort of negative traumatic impact as those.

So, no being abused as a child is bad. Although not every child who gets abused is going to be a complete wreck as an adult. And it's pretty offensive that you would say that. And while being abused as a child, getting married at 19, and having a kid, so that you can't go out and binge drink and party with friends and blow off work or tests. That's not bad. And that also would cause somebody to be relatively more mature than a college student.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 07:22 PM

Right, but that wasn't the scenario I was discussing.

We are discussing premature maturity... Hun that kind of sounds funny. And that includes abuse. You said yourself that you know youth who are more mature because they could conceivably die or get their loved ones killed if they didn’t so same principle.

Are you arguing that going to war is the same as having to care for younger siblings as a teenager? Or being physically assaulted by a drunk father as a child?

Well, it sure isn't a walk in the park, don't you agree?

Because while those experiences are likely to cause premature maturity. That doesn't mean that all experiences that cause people to mature are necessarily going to have the same sort of negative traumatic impact as those.

It seem that it mostly does, at least for premature maturity, prove it otherwise, if you want to go on that path.

So, no being abused as a child is bad. Although not every child who gets abused is going to be a complete wreck as an adult.

Never said that, I dunno why you mention it.

And it's pretty offensive that you would say that.

Again never said that :smallannoyed: Don't project your issues on me.

And while being abused as a child, getting married at 19, and having a kid, so that you can't go out and binge drink and party with friends and blow off work or tests. That's not bad. And that also would cause somebody to be relatively more mature than a college student.

I... Is that what you think college is for? What is your frame of reference? American pie? Hahahaha And here you are accusing me of having a biased view on the military. HA! I can't even.

Spanish_Paladin

2018-02-10, 07:27 PM

I'd love to be young until i die, but i don't want to live forever. Perhaps 500 years to explore the universe and to live adventures with my loved ones by my side. But eventually i will want to take the last step to know what is waiting for us on the other side :)

AMFV

2018-02-10, 07:34 PM

We are discussing premature maturity... Hun that kind of sounds funny. And that includes abuse. You said yourself that you know more mature youth because they could conceivably die or get their loved ones killed if they didn’t so same principle.

Not quite. Because while a 12 year old can't do anything to stop CPS from taking their siblings away, and a 10 year old can't do anything to stop his father from hitting him. A 20 year old soldier can correct their behavioral patterns to make them more likely to survive. It's not as inherently a dysfunctional situation, hence the reason why it's not necessarily damaging.

And you'll note I also included.

Well, it sure isn't a walk in the park, don't you agree?

It isn't easy, no. But a 20 year old person's ability to handle mental stress and psychological discomfort is much more developed than a 12 year old or a 11 year old's would be.

It seem that it mostly does, prove it otherwise, if you want to go on that path.

There are dozens of employed, happy combat veterans who are if they are suffering from mental anguish are still able to live a fulfilling life. Hell, I am an employed, happy combat vet, with a family, who is living a very solid life. Ergo, your argument from ignorance is largely bull****.

Never said that dunno why you mention it.

You implied that there were no positive experiences to be had as a result of things you believe to be negative. And my own experience very strongly contradicts that. My negative experiences have been as important to forming me as a person, as the positive

Again never said that :smallannoyed:

Nope, but you did strongly imply it. Your arguing that the experience is exclusively negative. That's a pretty strong statement to that effect.

I... Is that what you think college is for? What is your frame of reference? American pie? Hahahaha And here you are accusing me of having a biased view on the military. HA! I can't even.

That is because UNLIKE YOU in this particular debate, I've done both things. I've known college kids and I've been to college myself. And college kids have by and large few real responsibilities. They can't get fired. And the worst thing that happens to them generally is that they have to repeat classes and it takes them longer to leave college. I'm sorry but as somebody who pretty clearly doesn't have experience outside of college, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about how the world outside is, and I can tell you... it's significantly more difficult than college and the stakes are worse.

I'm sorry but getting kicked out of your house because you didn't make a mortgage payment and now you and your kids are on the street is a lot higher stakes than failing a test.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 07:55 PM

Not quite. Because while a 12 year old can't do anything to stop CPS from taking their siblings away, and a 10 year old can't do anything to stop his father from hitting him. A 20 year old soldier can correct their behavioral patterns to make them more likely to survive. It's not as inherently a dysfunctional situation, hence the reason why it's not necessarily damaging.
You literally said "I've also known people who were working with families, who had to learn because they would be out on the streets if they didn't." What is this "I never talked about kids" about?

Also the people I knew who had matured faster because they had jobs and family, are typically not suffering from any immediately apparent "deep psychological issues"
Yes because all forms of deep can be easily perceived by a layman.

It isn't easy, no. But a 20 year old person's ability to handle mental stress and psychological discomfort is much more developed than a 12 year old or a 11 year old's would be.
Say that to the innumerous and recurring cases of PTSD.

There are dozens of employed, happy combat veterans who are if they are suffering from mental anguish are still able to live a fulfilling life. Hell, I am an employed, happy combat vet, with a family, who is living a very solid life. Ergo, your argument from ignorance is largely bull****.
How can you tell? there is so much assumptions going on that this conversation is pointless and we should just stop here, heck I should stop here I just won't cause I have no self-control and I got to have the last word.

You implied that there were no positive experiences to be had as a result of things you believe to be negative. And my own experience very strongly contradicts that. My negative experiences have been as important to forming me as a person, as the positive.
I implied nothing, I'm only responsible for what I say write not how you interpret it. And who the hell would think that negative experiences don't help improving character and building your personality? That's like... Common sense.

Nope, but you did strongly imply it. Your arguing that the experience is exclusively negative. That's a pretty strong statement to that effect.
Again I didn't. Unless I directly sated all other things are from your head.

That is because UNLIKE YOU in this particular debate, I've done both things. I've known college kids and I've been to college myself. And college kids have by and large few real responsibilities. They can't get fired. And the worst thing that happens to them generally is that they have to repeat classes and it takes them longer to leave college. I'm sorry but as somebody who pretty clearly doesn't have experience outside of college, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about how the world outside is, and I can tell you... it's significantly more difficult than college and the stakes are worse.

What's up with the d*** measurement contest? We are in the internet there is no way to know who has what. Besides you don’t know anything about me so don’t assume.

I'm sorry but getting kicked out of your house because you didn't make a mortgage payment and now you and your kids are on the street is a lot higher stakes than failing a test.

Ha! Your simplistic world views don't surprise me at all, at least try to hide your hatred for academics geez.

Mx.Silver

2018-02-10, 08:13 PM

I’m also intrigued with the concept of maturity being a consequence of aging or just experience; can someone with a young mind and set of hormones really achieve the experience and wisdom of an old sage? Or does the experience of getting old itself makes one wiser? What you guys think?

Well, 'the wise old sage' is a character archetype, not an actual person so probably isn't great for comparisons. Which is a bit of an issue with these kind of generalities and stereotypes, which this speculation is largely going to devolve into unless everyone's got a list of long-term studies handy. The fact that what constitutes 'wisdom' is a bit fuzzy itself probably doesn't help much either :smalltongue:

If I had to speculate though I would say that I would expect that, of the two, experience is probably doing the heavy-lifting. For instance, the physiological effects of aging are generally fairly gradual (the possibly exception here being the menopause, although even then that can still take years), while it's not all that uncommon for people to go through fairly major shifts in their outlook and perspective over quite short periods of time, weeks of months. The opposite end of the spectrum, people who remain largely the same for decades, would also seem to be a go against the aging argument.

This is of course not getting into the question of where exactly you can draw the line between the two. The psychological impacts of experiencing your body deteriorate probably aren't negligible. Then there's the matter of living up to one's own stereotype of 'being old', the pressure to 'act your age', as it were, shaping behaviour.

There's also the point to consider that the physical effects of aging can often be detrimental to cognitive faculties. Even if there are 'wise elders' who are only that way because they physically aged, you'd need to weigh that against all the people who are worse off in terms of their mental abilities as a result of old age.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 08:18 PM

You literally said "I've also known people who were working with families, who had to learn because they would be out on the streets if they didn't." What is this "I never talked about kids" about?

I'm not sure what that's about because it literally has nothing to do with anything I've said. What I'm saying is that people who are working have a lot more stress than people who are in school, because the negative things that will happen if you screw up are drastically worse.

Yes because all forms of deep can be easily perceived by a layman.

So find me a Psychologist who backs your idea that every single person who has had to mature has suffered severe psychological trauma as a result? Or maybe retract your statement to "some of" which would require proof. You are the person who is claiming that people who have to mature more quickly than others have deep psychological issues. I'm only pointing out that claim is a tad ridiculous.

Say that to the innumerous and recurring cases of PTSD.

That would be "some" your argument was for "all" so you've still failed in that case. I doubt you'd even get near "most" with the numbers I've seen.

How can you tell? there is so much assumptions going on that this conversation is pointless and we should just stop here, heck I should stop here I just won't cause I have no self-control and I got to have the last word.

Well since your case was for all, then I'm alright with only me. But I've talked to plenty of folks who were pretty open about their problems, and many of them did not have the sot of problems you're implying here.

What's up with the d*** measurement contest? We are in the internet there is no way to know who has what. Besides you don’t know anything about me so don’t assume.

Well if you had combat experience you would definitely have said so, and you didn't ergo you don't. If you had work experience outside of college you also would have said so, since it would have strengthened your argument. Ergo either you are arguing in bad faith, or you don't have those sets of experiences.

Ha! Your simplistic world views don't surprise me at all, at least try to hide your hatred for academics geez. “All college kids are bad, they have it sooo easy bla bla bla It’s so unfair I don’t get the respect I deserve for training to invade other countries and kill their people in their own land”

I don't hate academics. I just know that the stakes when you're in college are lower than they are out of college. And I wasn't comparing college to military life (where the stakes are so much higher it's unfathomable), I was comparing college to work. Which is much harder. For example, let's say that you're feeling crappy, and decide that you aren't going to go to a class, the worst case is that you'll fail that class, and that isn't always true. If you decide to stop going to work, you'll get fired, with a quickness, if you don't have a good excuse you will almost DEFINITELY get fired. It's higher stakes.

Frankly, college shouldn't be high stakes, that kind of stress makes it very difficult to learn things at the rate that you need to learn them in college. And most kids who are going to college don't have the life experience to handle real stress yet, and won't for several more years, so college works as a kind of low stress buffer that's supposed to teach kids to make adult decisions. Now whether or not it works.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 08:31 PM

1- I don't usually generalize stuff like this and I can't see where I said "all" so that's on you.

2- Have you considered that I didn't wanted/felt the need/felt comfortable sharing my life details with a stranger in the net over a stupid argument?

3- Maybe your invalidating views on college life and "college kids" are such because you didn't check your privilege?

Anyway I have to sleep now so any response may take a while. It's because of life and not because you "got me".

AMFV

2018-02-10, 08:40 PM

1- I don't usually generalize stuff like this and I can't see where I said "all" so that's on you.

My argument was that people generally become wise as a result of experiences rather than simply age. And that those experiences could still happen to somebody who was physically younger. You argued that "early maturation was bad" and that implies all cases. You didn't say "early maturation is often bad" or "early maturation can be bad" you flat out said it was.

And you also said that people exposed early maturity developed deep psychological issues. You didn't say "They often develop psychological issues" or "that can lead to psychological issues" because you didn't add those qualifiers that means that you are talking about all cases. If you have communicated that incorrectly then we shouldn't have as much to argue about, but I think you weren't expecting to have to back up your opinions with facts, or to encounter somebody with experiences in those areas.

2- Have you considered that I didn't wanted/felt the need/felt comfortable sharing my life details with a stranger in the net over a stupid argument?

True, but you haven't been to war, and you haven't had work experience outside of college. Let's be honest here. I'm not saying that you're a worse person for that. I'm saying that you are less qualified to comment on a particular set of experiences that you haven't had as compared to somebody who has had those particular set of experiences.

3- Maybe your invalidating views on college life and "college kids" are such because you didn't check your privilege?

My privilege? I mean the students who haven't had to go to war would be the privileged ones, no? Also, I have been to school, same as all the other college students. So I have had that experience, I had friends who were regular college students, and they had a lot less ability to handle stressful situations and a lot less ability to cope. It's not because they were worse people. It's because dealing with stress is a learned skill, they hadn't yet learned.

I don't think that a college student is less than a working person, or a soldier. But I do think that there are areas in which they are relatively inexperienced.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 09:00 PM

My argument was that people generally become wise as a result of experiences rather than simply age. And that those experiences could still happen to somebody who was physically younger. You argued that "early maturation was bad" and that implies all cases. You didn't say "early maturation is often bad" or "early maturation can be bad" you flat out said it was.

And you also said that people exposed early maturity developed deep psychological issues. You didn't say "They often develop psychological issues" or "that can lead to psychological issues" because you didn't add those qualifiers that means that you are talking about all cases. If you have communicated that incorrectly then we shouldn't have as much to argue about, but I think you weren't expecting to have to back up your opinions with facts, or to encounter somebody with experiences in those areas.

True, but you haven't been to war, and you haven't had work experience outside of college. Let's be honest here. I'm not saying that you're a worse person for that. I'm saying that you are less qualified to comment on a particular set of experiences that you haven't had as compared to somebody who has had those particular set of experiences.

My privilege? I mean the students who haven't had to go to war would be the privileged ones, no? Also, I have been to school, same as all the other college students. So I have had that experience, I had friends who were regular college students, and they had a lot less ability to handle stressful situations and a lot less ability to cope. It's not because they were worse people. It's because dealing with stress is a learned skill, they hadn't yet learned.

I don't think that a college student is less than a working person, or a soldier. But I do think that there are areas in which they are relatively inexperienced.

I'm on my phone so don't expect anything fancy.

But it is bad! Forcing a teen or a kid to act like an adult is dishuman and has mental and emotional consequences. That's why we have laws againts this sort of things y'know.

They do!

Have you been to war? Care to tell me which one? Because I'm also a teacher giving class in a dangerous sector of the most dangerous city in a third world country with war zone death rates.

So you've been to war. I have been born, raised and live in war. Daily and costantly. Some days I wake up to the sound of gunfire, rather then the singing birds you most likely asume.

Yes, your privilage. If you have been to class and failing a test was "no big deal" you have a huge priviliged ass and don't even know it.

To some "college kids" failure in a test means they lose scholarship which means they can't aford college which is their only way of giving their families a better life and a better house so they don't have to step on their own literal feces everytime they leave their house and they won't lose any more siblings because they can't aford f**** basic sanitation!

So yeah I would say your college experince was a little bit priviliged.

2D8HP

2018-02-10, 09:20 PM

....Maybe your invalidating views on college life and "college kids" are such because you didn't check your privilege?.....

You weren't addressing me, but it's very hard for me to regard those who've had the privilege of going to college as not being a group that's more privedged than those of us who haven't had the privilege of that education (yes they're individual exceptions, it's a big world). The majority of Americans haven't gone to college, only a majority of today's 25 to 35 year-olds, and the even the majority of them don't have the privilege of a degree.

And while I'm at it, "check your privilege"?

That he loves his current job, and had some college education seems privileged, but from what I've gleaned from his posts, the first half of AMFV's life doesn't seem like anything to be jealous of.

I'm sure I haven't experienced a tenth of what AMFV's experienced but from what I remember of seeing gunfire on city streets, and hearing bullets land on your roof it didn't make me feel privileged, nor did being moved to the "Track" in High School that had more students from the hills who made it clear that I "didn't belong" among them, and have given me more 30 years later a jealousy and resentment of those who grew up in the self-styled "middle class" (how is richer than the majority "middle"?).

Please define what you meant by "Privilege".

Amazon

2018-02-10, 09:24 PM

You weren't addressing me, but it's very hard for me to regard those who've had the privilege of going to college as not being a group that's more privedged than those of us who haven't had the privilege of that education (yes they're individual exceptions, it's a big world). The majority of Americans haven't gone to college, only a majority of today's 25 to 35 year-olds, and the even the majority of them don't have the privilege of a degree.

And while I'm at it, "check your privilege"?

That he loves his current job, and had some college education seems privileged, but from what I've gleaned from his posts, the first half of AMFV's life doesn't seem like anything to be jealous of.

I'm sure I haven't experienced a tenth of what AMFV's experienced but from what I remember of seeing gunfire on city streets, and hearing bullets land on your roof it didn't make me feel privileged, nor did being moved to the "Track" in High School that had more students from the hills who made it clear that I "didn't belong" among them, and have given me more 30 years later a jealousy and resentment of those who grew up in the self-styled "middle class" (how is richer than the majority "middle"?).

Please define what you meant by "Privilege".

I just did in the post above but maybe this boy can help:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/shadowed-fear-violence-one-students-story-rio-favela

AMFV

2018-02-10, 09:52 PM

I'm on my phone so don't expect anything fancy.

No problem.

But it is bad! Forcing a teen or a kid to act like an adult is dishuman and has mental and emotional consequences. That's why we have laws againts this sort of things y'know.

We don't have laws against a 19 year old having a kid and having to take on adult responsibilities sooner than somebody who went to college and then waited to do so. We also don't have laws against 19 year old kids going to war. And those were my examples.

I also argued that a 19 year old has a much better emotional capacity to deal with things than the 10 year old or 12 year old in your examples. A 25 year old better still. But to be fair, 25 is when the brain is typically done developing... and so that's usually about the end of your age making you wiser on it's own. After that it's all experiential.

They do!

Not always though, and not always with equal severity.

Also getting a job and working doesn't generally do that, even though it forces people to act more maturely than college typically does.

Have you been to war? Care to tell me which one? Because I'm also a teacher giving class in a dangerous sector of the most dangerous city in a third world country with war zone death rates.

OIF during the surge. And then OIF after. Which is the war with the highest US death toll recently. And much higher among civilians, particularly during the surge.

I would argue that teaching in a dangerous sector of the most dangerous city probably makes you more mature than most college students. But you've already said that you were. That most kids don't learn from their mistakes, so you can see a clear difference in maturity, no?

So you've been to war. I have been born, raised and live in war. Daily and costantly. Some days I wake up to the sound of gunfire, rather then the singing birds you most likely asume.

I've also lived in cities where waking up to gunfire wasn't abnormal, before I went to war. And you know what... going to war was a helluva lot more stressful than living in bad parts of Pittsburgh, Tacoma, and Maryland was. You didn't "live in war" you lived around a war. For people who are experiencing war in that way it's like a natural disaster, and that does require more maturity. But it's not anywhere near the same level of maturity that having to command people who are in a combat situation requires. Or knowing that if you **** up, your friends could die, or more people could. Or that if you do the wrong thing some innocent person could die. That's a completely different situation.

Yes, your privilage. If you have been to class and failing a test was "no big deal" you have a huge priviliged ass and don't even know it.

My ass isn't that big.

But no, I've been to a lot of hard classes and very rarely was it the case that failing one test would cause you to fail an entire class, unless you're bombing a math final or something. And that's a slightly different situation. I've also passed classes that I almost never attended. In a job situation I'd have been fired for that, but not in school.

To some "college kids" failure in a test means they lose scholarship which means they can't aford college which is their only way of giving their families a better life and a better house so they don't have to step on their own literal feces everytime they leave their house and they won't lose any more siblings because they can't aford f**** basic sanitation!

I've never heard of a scholarship that you'd lose for one failed test. I had scholarships that required that I maintain a certain GPA, and I did. Even when I skipped classes. So maybe I'm unusually intelligent or something, but college was low stakes. It just is.

Now for people who are using college as the only escape from poverty, then they might be a little bit more mature, but again college is still a lot lower stakes than if they'd had a kid and had to go into the work force. And frankly at least where I live there are a lot of ways you can give your family better ways out without college, skilled trades for example.

So yeah I would say your college experince was a little bit priviliged.

No, I was a war vet, who was going through a divorce and still had to help out his family. I've lived without power and running water in the past. I've lived in areas where you'd wake up to gunfire every night, where there were hookers wandering the streets, where there were druggies breaking into people's cars and houses. I've not had a privileged life, and compared to everything else I've had... college has been way easier.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:01 PM

It seems your college life was a lot more stressful and a lot less chill then you first described. So maybe next time just go on reporting your experiences without invalidating other people's lives? Thanks. XOXO.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 10:08 PM

It seems your college life was a lot more stressful and a lot less chill then you first discribed. So maybe next time just go on reporting your experiences without invalidating other people's lives? Thanks. XOXO.

How is me saying that college is a lot less stressful than work invalidating anybody's life? It just is. And also most of those experiences where not at college, they were either before or after. College was pretty much the least stressful time of my life, once the divorce was done with.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:19 PM

Well, to be honest, and I'm extrapolating here. But I'd wager that most of your experience is with people who are in universities. Who are missing the most important part of learning from their mistakes, serious consequences and responsibilities. I've known a lot of 20 year-olds who were more mature than most forty year-olds. Cause I knew 20 year-olds who might concievably die or get their friends killed if they didn't.

I've also known people who were working with families, who had to learn because they would be out on the streets if they didn't. And they learned better than some people I know who are much older.

So again, I don't think it's youth that's the factor that's making it into a problem, more like the consequences.

That whole part was unnecessary. Just say what you think and your experiences.

In special because military is know for their dicipline... Rigth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045785/Army-commander-brands-lack-discipline-U-S-troops-potentially-cancerous-problem.html

AMFV

2018-02-10, 10:21 PM

That whole part was unnecessary. Just say what you think and your experiences.

Not wholly untrue though. You don't have the experiences with kids who have had to grow up in the same way that I have, or you would have recognized that this is a thing that happens.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:26 PM

Not wholly untrue though. You don't have the experiences with kids who have had to grow up in the same way that I have, or you would have recognized that this is a thing that happens.

Ok. You see yourself as a super mature dude. Fine . Great. Have fun with that.

Do you want a freaking medal? Oh wait... Nevermind.

Anyway good luck with your life try not to asume as much.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 10:27 PM

That whole part was unnecessary. Just say what you think and your experiences.

In special because military is know for their dicipline... Rigth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045785/Army-commander-brands-lack-discipline-U-S-troops-potentially-cancerous-problem.html

I think it is ok for AMFV to guess that most of your experiences are with people who are in University. And that, having attended university and done a lot of other stuff, he thinks University is at the easier, less stressful, end of the spectrum. My own experience is the same.

If he is wrong, you could simply say - "no, I am not thinking of University students, but people who have worked in [high pressure job or whatever]".

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:31 PM

I think it is ok for AMFV to guess that most of your experiences are with people who are in University. And that, having attended university and done a lot of other stuff, he thinks University is at the easier, less stressful, end of the spectrum. My own experience is the same.

If he is wrong, you could simply say - "no, I am not thinking of University students, but people who have worked in [high pressure job or whatever]".

You don't see me assuming stuff. Do you? So Mr. AMFV Can try to do the same.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 10:34 PM

You don't see me assuming stuff. Do you? So Mr. AMFV Can try to do the same.

First, you ****ing implied that all the soldiers who have had to mature had some kind of deep psychological issues. You also implied that people who had to get jobs at 19 had deep psychological issues. That's a lot worse assumption than saying "most college kids aren't done maturing yet", no?

And I never used myself as an example of somebody who was mature, I used myself as an example of somebody who had been to war and wasn't permanently traumatized and ruined by the experience.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:39 PM

First, you ****ing implied that all the soldiers who have had to mature had some kind of deep psychological issues. You also implied that people who had to get jobs at 19 had deep psychological issues. That's a lot worse assumption than saying "most college kids aren't done maturing yet", no?

And I never used myself as an example of somebody who was mature, I used myself as an example of somebody who had been to war and wasn't permanently traumatized and ruined by the experience.

It's fact that people in the military are more likely to develop psycological issues(Or escape family abuse) you are being trained to kill people! Prove me otherwise. No one pictures a solider when they think "Good mental health and emotional stability" sorry.

I never said 19 I meant kids and teens. Stuff like 5-15.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 10:52 PM

It's fact that people in the military are more likely to develop psycological issues(Or escape family abuse) you are being trained to kill people! Prove me otherwise. No one pictures a solider when they think "Good mental health and emotional stability" sorry.

Well how many soldiers are you close personal friends with? I would wager I'm close personal friends with far more than you, and my experience is that they're for the most part relatively stable. The sources that you are getting things from is generally Hollywood, at least I would imagine it is, and Hollywood for some reason, likes to depict soldiers as being permanently broken by war.

I never said 19 I meant kids and teens. Stuff like 5-15.

Well the thing is that when we're talking "forever young" I don't think most people are picturing 15, rather early-mid twenties. Which is an age when I think people are equipped to deal with almost as much as anybody older, at least they should be. If you're thinking mid-late twenties, then they should be exactly as well equipped as a forty year old, with the exception of the fact that they are missing life experiences.

Most people agree that at 25 brain development is pretty much complete. So as far as physical development goes.

Edit: And in any case somebody who is physically in their early twenties but is mentally much older is probably as well equipped as somebody who is much older. I mean physical deterioration doesn't really begin to set in until people are in their 50s typically especially for active people.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 10:56 PM

Well how many soldiers are you close personal friends with?

I mean articles dummy, not your drinking or gym buddies or whatever.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 10:57 PM

I mean articles dummy, not your drinking or gym buddies or whatever.

Well you share an article that shows the rate of "Deep Mental Disorders" at 100% as you implied it was.

Edit: I also note that you are glossing over literally anything that is an actual response to the OP topic, since I've been including that. Look these guys aren't my "drinking or gym buddies" they're my friends. Like people I've known for years.

Edit 2: And if you were wondering the prevalence for depression in deployed people is 12 percent, which is higher than the national average, but definitely not enough to say that deployments cause depression. I'm sure that we could do the same thing for other disorders. Although many disorders are disqualifying from the military so they'd be more prevalent outside the military.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 11:07 PM

Geez I never said 100%.

No. You prove to me that the % is suuuper low since I'm tired of finding things for guys like you and then getting discredited because "my sources are not valid". I'm not bothering nor opening that bag of cats.

AMFV

2018-02-10, 11:09 PM

Geez I never 100%.

No. You prove to me thst the % is suuuper low since I'm tired of finding things for guys like you and then getting discreted because "my sources are not valid". I'm not bothering nor opening that bag of cats.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100466/

12%, that's where I got the number from.

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/PTSD-overview/epidemiological-facts-ptsd.asp

And about the same for current theater vets from OIF and what-not.

Higher for Vietnam vets.

So we're looking at less than 50% of combat veterans having "deep psychological issues" or at least the kind that would be most likely to be caused by that. I mean higher than the general population, yes. But not higher enough to say that everybody who goes to war comes back permanently scarred or anything.

Amazon

2018-02-10, 11:11 PM

Great. You win. I going to sleep now. Have a good life. Hope not to talk to you again.

Liquor Box

2018-02-10, 11:38 PM

You don't see me assuming stuff. Do you? So Mr. AMFV Can try to do the same.

You did say this to AMFV, which does appear to be (or be predicated on) an assumption about him (for all you knew AMFV had been on a scholarship and wouldn't have been able to afford college if he failed, or afford "f***** basic sanitation" for that matter) :

Yes, your privilage. If you have been to class and failing a test was "no big deal" you have a huge priviliged ass and don't even know it.

To some "college kids" failure in a test means they lose scholarship which means they can't aford college which is their only way of giving their families a better life and a better house so they don't have to step on their own literal feces everytime they leave their house and they won't lose any more siblings because they can't aford f**** basic sanitation!

So yeah I would say your college experince was a little bit priviliged.

I don't think there's anything wrong with making reasonable assumptions (like you both did, and we all do) so long as you acknowledge them as such, and be prepared to listen if someone challenges those assumptions.

2D8HP

2018-02-10, 11:41 PM

If a new form of technology was created that allowed you to be forever young and stop aging would you do it?

If so why? If not... Why not?

Ok so let's get some clarifications...
....-Not everyone does it so there are still old people as reference..

I just did in the post above but maybe this boy can help:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/shadowed-fear-violence-one-students-story-rio-favela

That post of yours reminds me why in your thought experiment "Not everyone does it".

Tour simplistic world views don't surprise me at all, at least try to hide your hatred for academics geez.

Again, you weren't referring to me, but I'd feel much less resentment if more could get a higher ration of education than do now, instead of it be hoarded away from most.

...I mean physical deterioration doesn't really begin to set in until people are in their 50s typically especially for active people.

As late as that?

Most of my physical deterioration was a steep decline at ages 32 to 34, during my apprenticeship, when I was very active, I curse those years forever!

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-11, 04:29 AM

Aging doesn't start at any given point, or rather, it's there right from the womb. But your body is also constantly renewing itself, and that's why it's possible to stay constant, even improve, well into your 40s.

The downward slope begins when your body starts losing the fight - when it can no longer fix itself as quickly as before, or when it accumulates injuries it plain can't fix. And when this starts is influenced by a huge number of factors, from genetics, to diet, to exposure to chemicals, to how much sleep you get, to how warm the climate is where you live.

So, 2D8HP, you're a plumber, which in my experience means working in cramped spaces, carrying heavy loads, inhaling toxic dust and smoke, being exposed to corrosive chemicals, being exposed to extreme hot and cold, long workdays and eating dubious stuff for lunch. Of course you were going to age quickly.

Suttle

2018-02-11, 06:06 AM

Again, you weren't referring to me, but I'd feel much less resentment if more could get a higher ration of education than do now, instead of it be hoarded away from most.

Well, I'm not Amazon but since she is a teacher I believe she most likely agree with you, in special because she teaches kids in a "third world country" (I hate such terminology we only have one world) and such places without a higher education the salary and working conditions expected are the bare minimum to survive, sometimes not even that, so I bet she doesn't want to see the very kids she gave classes to working in risky jobs that may cause their deaths or risks causing lasting damage to their health and well being.

I've also lived in cities where waking up to gunfire wasn't abnormal, before I went to war. And you know what... going to war was a helluva lot more stressful than living in bad parts of Pittsburgh, Tacoma, and Maryland was. You didn't "live in war" you lived around a war. For people who are experiencing war in that way it's like a natural disaster, and that does require more maturity. But it's not anywhere near the same level of maturity that having to command people who are in a combat situation requires. Or knowing that if you **** up, your friends could die, or more people could. Or that if you do the wrong thing some innocent person could die. That's a completely different situation.

Yes, sure I bet a combatant in a foregin country experiences a lot more stress than a native of that city beign invaded.

I mean it's their family who is getting killed in the cross fire, their city that is beign destoried and their shcools and hospitals being bombed.

I bet the soliders are having a worst time, it really makes sese.

" 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse, I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad." - Frankie Boyle

Florian

2018-02-11, 06:41 AM

@Amazon:

In a sense, I actually agree with AMFV. My home country uses a bit different education system and still uses a three year formal apprenticeship on-the-job training method that produces above average results. We used to have automatic conscription to either the army or public service, but that's on hold right now.
It´s rather interesting when you compare the results of those who have gone through the apprenticeship to qualify to study with those that have gone though formal schooling for the same. Add the difference the year of conscription made in experience and outlook on top and it gets more pronounced.

I´m a company owner in the beverage production business, so I employ a wide range from unskilled labor to academics and for quite some time, I've getting the feeling that I'm getting more and more "children" on the academic side of things. Children in the sense of not being emotionally settled, no developed stress resistance and an outlook at how jobs work that could be more fitting into my little pony or something. It´s a bit eerie.

As for the previous point, mixing biological and sociological topics will practically never lead to results. That's also the downside of transhumanism, continuation of the self vs. continuation of the species.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-11, 07:50 AM

Come on guys, watch out the jokes, we all know that the military are unacceptable targets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnacceptableTargets).

Lvl 2 Expert

2018-02-11, 08:23 AM

Yes, sure I bet a combatant in a foregin country experiences a lot more stress than a native of that city beign invaded.

Suffering is not a competition. On neither side of the argument. And suffering and stress in and of themselves are not much of a recipe for maturity either (at best a cure for youth), although getting taught how to deal with them can be.

I´m a company owner in the beverage production business, so I employ a wide range from unskilled labor to academics and for quite some time, I've getting the feeling that I'm getting more and more "children" on the academic side of things. Children in the sense of not being emotionally settled, no developed stress resistance and an outlook at how jobs work that could be more fitting into my little pony or something. It´s a bit eerie.

Or maybe that's just you getting old and misremembering your own past. :smallbiggrin:

(There's no non-annoying way to make a text half blue I'm afraid.)

Asmotherion

2018-02-11, 08:27 AM

Well, sure. I'm shallow enough in order to do so.

And I honestly believe that, whoever argues against it is a bit of a hypocrit, provided that they could easyly adjust/extend it to their fammily and friends as well.

Let's time skip the world about a 100 years. Since we would practically all be imortal youths, whoever choses to become an imortal would also chose to become sterile by-the Law. I already have a daughter, so it's a win-win situation for me.

Then, law would heavily focus on population control, and you would probably need a special licence in order to have children, by fear of overpopulation.

Since people are dumb, they would still be Wars so people would still eventually die, leaving only 20-30% of the human population alive (and we are talking about eternally young human beings here). The vast majority would be women, because it's mostly men who engage in military warfare (as foot soldiers. Again, I am talking about the majority, no offence if you happen to read this, and you are a woman soldier). I'm hypothesising this happening around 250-300 years after imortality becoming a reality.

GrayDeath

2018-02-11, 11:05 AM

Yeah, I'mma get onboard the "needs clarification" bandwagon here. We've got to define "forever" and "young."

Forever: Does that mean you can't die? Because, gonna be honest, would start to suck. Does it mean you don't age, but at a certain point just snuff it? Because that would probably still be preferable to what we have now. Does it mean you don't age, don't die of natural causes, but can still die? Because that's golden.

Young: How young? Because, honestly, my current age isn't ideal, but I also wouldn't want to be, y'know, eternally prepubescent. Say, prime of your life, mid-20s? That works for me. Also: Is it you at that age, or you at an idealized that age? I wasn't exactly the picture of fitness in my 20s; I wouldn't mind being a healthier me. And although you don't age, can you change? One poster mentioned the idea of developing your knowledge and skills; I want to know if my body will also change, despite not "aging." Like, would I be stuck as an overweight 20-something? Could I stay fit despite poor habits? Could I develop muscle memory?

So yeah. If the prompt is, say, that you remain a fit, healthy you, in the prime of your youth and strength, until your death, that's a pretty sweet gig, honestly. But the details matter.

Ok so let's get some clarifications.

-It's eternal youth, not immortality.
-You won't get cancer since you still get new cells, they just won't deteriorate.
-You still die at some random point when… I dunno the energy used to keep your body from aging catchs up and the whole body enter in collapse and instantly stops working.
-It's a painless form of death.
-You still learn.
-For the sake of arguments let's say it's far in the future and we already developed colonies in other planets.
-The process increases your life spam but don't make you immortal.
-It's painless.
-Not everyone does it so there are still old people as reference.
-You can revert to at any time to any age until your 18 birthday the “legal age”.
-Your body is not "lock" from there on you can gain or lose fat and muscle mass.
-The only "bad" thing is that the process is not revertible, once lock in an age you are stuck with it.
-Doing it late on life after experiencing old age is possible and common and can actually prolong your life spam twice the expected amount.

OK, with the caveat of Colonies existing, and the Tech being safe and not needing Virgin Sacrifices (or similar stuff) I am going for a big and obvious YES.
Sounds like what we all want if you ask me.

However for this I am assuming average improvements in our society system and it not costing a lot (as I am neither rich nor aprticularly influental, sadly) so that you could go to the colony you wanted to, and keep living, learning and evolving until you die.

Sounds great to me.

Xyril

2018-02-11, 02:20 PM

First off, using the term eternal youth implies immortality. But that's a nitpick.

Hate to nitpick your nitpick, but that's not really true. Eternal youth, at best, implies only the potential for immortality--that is, the removal of those potentially fatal conditions that come directly as a result of aging. It doesn't inherently imply immunity from those potentially fatal diseases that can strike even the young; it certainly doesn't imply invincibility against death by violence or some other misadventure.

If what you mean is that when they hear "eternal youth," most people infer immortality, then you would be correct. In fact, some of my favorite fictional twists have been centered around the idea of someone incorrectly inferring too much when they were offered "eternal youth."

I would be all for eternal youth, whether or not it came with immortality. I don't think I'll be unhappy getting older--if I became frail and sedentary tomorrow, I could still make a decent living, and I would be perfectly content spending even more time than I do now arguing with people on the internet, playing games, and doing completely non-physical activities with my friends. That being said, most of my other hobbies are pretty physical. Some I can probably keep up with well past middle age, so long as I make allowances for aging. The others are basically unheard of for older people because they become pretty dangerous once your balance and flexibility start to decline with age. If I can keep doing the things I love until I either die or finally get bored with them, why wouldn't I want that option?

As for the clarification bandwagon, I'm going to hipster it up and remain conspicuously off of it. Whether or not it's really forever and whether or not forever can be cut short are important details if you want to debate the wider impact on society--and certainly that could be a fun debate--but I don't really see it as all that important to my answer. While we haven't had a shift as sudden or to such a degree as gaining eternal youth overnight, we've had numerous shifts of a like kind--increasing or decreasing life expectancy, radically changing early life mortality rates. While they certainly impact society, they haven't had a uniquely large impact in part because they don't intrinsically benefit some people over others.

While it is certainly true that access to clean water, food, and medical care is highly uneven, it isn't uneven because medical advances are inherently unequal. Rather, the way these advances are implemented merely reflect the institutions and cultural values that already existed, shaped primarily by other, arguably more powerful events. In a world where medicine can grant eternal youth, the least privileged will have the least access; even in a world where eternal youth were a sudden, universal phenomenon, the powerful would benefit more because they'd have more opportunity to spend their wealth and exercise their power. But that can be said of almost any purely technological or scientific advancement. I'm not going to worry about the potentially increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots because that gap had already existed and it won't stop existed merely because we prevented some sort of general advancement. The same can be said for violence, bigotry, ignorance, and myriad other problems. None of these problems will be substantially changed--for better or worse--by making everyone eternally young, or immortal, or richer, or by making everyone equally poor and less healthy.

Frozen_Feet

2018-02-11, 02:51 PM

People infer too much in general about any sort of immortality.

Typical track of thought goes something like immortality = eternal youth = invulnerability = invincibility. When logically, none of these necessarily entail from one another.

Even more specifically, people seem to think immortality means infinite opportunities, or infine memory, or infinite ability to create matter, or infinite ability to withstand suffering. These are even more disjointed from the actual concept.

Of course, many people infer equally absurd negative traits, such as complete inability to move on, or develop in any way as a person. These too are highly particular and need not be true for any given form of immortality, let alone eternal youth.

Lvl 2 Expert

2018-02-12, 05:06 AM

Hate to nitpick your nitpick, but that's not really true. Eternal youth, at best, implies only the potential for immortality--that is, the removal of those potentially fatal conditions that come directly as a result of aging.

It does. Except in this case the OP's second post specifies it does not. This form of eternal youth will prevent you from suffering from a heart condition for 30 years, just not from dropping dead from it.

If anything realistically people might die sooner because they never get a warning for what's eventually going to kill them. But let's ignore that for now. You just die the same day you would have died, unless eternal youth makes you play in traffic. So it's more like 80 years of youth.

This is not that weird a question because people are testing anti-aging medication right now. Anything we can cook up within our lifetimes can probably not combat all mechanisms of aging, so you might gain a few decades, but not more than that. The main effect we can hope for is staying 50 all the way to our 80's. For instance: there is a drug in the works that will help clean up old inactive cells that take up space and bind messenger molecules, preventing nearby stem cells from dividing as often as they used to. This treatment would lead to more cell division and thus a more youthful body, but it doesn't do anything for the lifespan of the cells, the total amount of times they can divide before their telomeres run out and the DNA starts getting damaged. If you start the medication early it might even shorten your life. (Which is speculation on my part, but speculation founded in theory.) But hey, if you can live to 60 fit as when you were 20, that alone could be worth it to at least a good subset of people...

We might have some idea of what the stuff does about 40 years from now, because while market approval is a long way off some people have already started self-medicating in secret.

On another note, it just hit me how paranoid parents would become in this scenario, with Twilight-esque 60 year olds locked in as late teenagers going around trying to manipulate 15 year olds into things loverboys style.

Zmeoaice

2018-02-12, 09:30 AM

Put me in the body of my 10 year old self please. That would ultimately be ideal.

Potato_Priest

2018-02-12, 11:55 AM

Put me in the body of my 10 year old self please. That would ultimately be ideal.

If you'll pardon my curiosity, why is your 10 year old body preferable to your current body or your 18 year old one?

In general, 10 year olds tend to be weaker, smaller, and less intelligent (simply because of developmental stuff) than their older counterparts.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-12, 04:45 PM

hq27

2018-02-15, 01:43 PM

no reason why - ITS A TRAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP xO) dont be fooled everything gets old eventually even being young:smallcool:

NontheistCleric

2018-02-17, 01:29 AM

If you'll pardon my curiosity, why is your 10 year old body preferable to your current body or your 18 year old one?

In general, 10 year olds tend to be weaker, smaller, and less intelligent (simply because of developmental stuff) than their older counterparts.

Perhaps he has been a professional thief since age 10 and misses how he used to be able to squeeze through small spaces and act the young, innocent, child.

veti

2018-02-17, 09:21 AM

I've had enough experience of aging to know how it feels. Sign me up.

It's not just a matter of accumulating more and more damage over time. It's how the body responds to that damage.

When I was in my 20s, I could stay up all night and not feel particularly bad the next day. I could drink hard, play hard, and even at worst I'd only lose one or two days to feeling grotty afterwards.

In my 30s, I was surprised at how my body started to rebel against this kind of treatment. The things I could do in my 20s - just didn't work any more.

In my 40s, the decay set in. Minor cuts and scrapes that I'd have shrugged off once upon a time - start to really hurt. I started to think about words like "infection", which never really worried me before even though of course I knew about them. I could get cold by being out in the rain, I could get tired by walking just an hour or so. I could make myself ill just by eating bad food (and for clarity, "bad" doesn't mean "rotten" or "dirty", just - McDonalds'). One time I fell on my back, and had to spend the next two weeks pretty much lying flat on the floor.

My body is, simply, not what it was.

I wouldn't want to be immortal, unless everyone else was too. But if I could keep the strength and stamina of my, let's say 30-year-old self, I'd take it.

thorgrim29

2018-02-17, 12:16 PM

I feel like peak physical shape is probably mid twenties. You look like an adult, your hormones are under control, and you mostly haven't started ageing (your reflexes are probably a tad slower than at 16 based on when pro gamers tend to wash out but that's fairly minor). So yeah, why wouldn't I want to stay at that age? I'm only 28 now and I'm starting to get some recurrent back and knee pain and I bounce back from hangovers much slower then I used to. Also living is fun, so why wouldn't I want to go on in peak physical condition for as long as I'm still enjoying it? And even then everything we think we know about what the "optimal" lifespan is is based on the fact that most of us (barring technological breakthoughs) won't see 100 and will probably spend our last few decades in assisted living, take that away who knows what a physically young 90 or 150 year old would be like?

The main problem I see from my perspective is that engineering of objectively superior kids is going to be a thing in the near future, so even if we stay young the "naturals" will be pretty much obsolete living fossils in a few hundred years, dumber, uglier and slower than our descendants. That mkight not be as fun...

Honest Tiefling

2018-02-17, 02:42 PM

But I love the idea of getting old, it means I'll finally be allowed to be an unapologetic ******* to everyone. :smallbiggrin:

Sweetie, we need to teach you the ways of being passive-aggressive. If people don't know you've insulted them, you've won!

I've seen a guy stay young (seeming) into his '80's until a motorcycle accident turn him as old as his age, and I've seen other guys with work injuries turn old in their early 30's.

Yeah, apparently playing chicken while on a motorcycle is why 1) My uncle went bald during his 20's and 2) my parents can never complain about my behavior ever again.

So basically, we'd be elves.

Why did you have to go and ruin it!?!?!

Pretty much on the no train. Immortality is essentially the end of development, in every meaningful sense of the word. Imagine Galileo trying to overcome the authority of Aristotle to his face...

I dunno. Maybe I have a different view of scientists, but I think there would be plenty willing to knock someone off of their pedestal while mooning them or while performing a victory dance. Different people, I suppose. Through if you have people from several centuries ago around, you might be less impressed with them. I mean, think of all of the embarrassing comments they'll make during dinner. 'In my time, we didn't treat slaves like people unless we wanted to!' 'DAD THAT IS THE WAITRESS OMG'

If I do it, would I have to do it alone? If yes, then no. If no, then yes. I mean, it would be such an interesting discovery so someone should probably do it just in the name of science. There would be problems if everyone did it, but perhaps there could be ways around that, so why fear the unknown?

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-17, 03:20 PM

Sweetie, we need to teach you the ways of being passive-aggressive. If people don't know you've insulted them, you've won!

Bu that's the whole point! I want them to know, I want to be an unapologetic jerk and they will just go like "Ah,she's old just let her do her thing" that's my dream ^^

EDIT: Like for exemple, at my mom's house there are a bunch of kids who everyday ring the bell at the same time, so when day I got a bucked of cold water waited for them to show up and then just trowed the cold water at them.

My mom looked at me and said: "What are you? Mr scrooge? Just let the kids have fun, I swear god you are an old lady soul traped in a young lady body."

So I just want my body to match my soul :smallsmile:

If I didi that as an old womkan I would look grumpy not crazy.

AMFV

2018-02-17, 04:56 PM

Bu that's the whole point! I want them to know, I want to be an unapologetic jerk and they will just go like "Ah,she's old just let her do her thing" that's my dream ^^

EDIT: Like for exemple, at my mom's house there are a bunch of kids who everyday ring the bell at the same time, so when day I got a bucked of cold water waited for them to show up and then just trowed the cold water at them.

My mom looked at me and said: "What are you? Mr scrooge? Just let the kids have fun, I swear god you are an old lady soul traped in a young lady body."

So I just want my body to match my soul :smallsmile:

If I didi that as an old womkan I would look grumpy not crazy.

But that also means that people won't give any weight to your insults, or your *******ness. They'll just think it's dementia, and so you won't actually get the satisfaction from it.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-02-17, 05:24 PM

But that also means that people won't give any weight to your insults, or your *******ness. They'll just think it's dementia, and so you won't actually get the satisfaction from it.

I'm fine with that. :smallyuk:

roseheart

2018-02-20, 05:59 PM

I am more powerful in my current form.

An immortal disguised as a mortal.

Your offer would be a limitation, even a trap.

Spanish_Paladin

2018-02-20, 07:59 PM

I am more powerful in my current form.

An immortal disguised as a mortal.

Your offer would be a limitation, even a trap.

Ahh, you can see through the Maya, my friend... You are indeed powerful :)

Jay R

2018-02-22, 11:40 PM

A. Most such offers turn out to be really bad, in literature and in real life. If an offer sounds too good to be true, it generally turns out to be just that.

B. At age 62, I no longer feel any need to accept stupid dares or compete with the younger people. Don't take away my excuse.

C. Is there something after death? I don't claim to know, but I won't turn down my chance to find out.

Spanish_Paladin

2018-02-23, 06:03 AM

C. Is there something after death? I don't claim to know, but I won't turn down my chance to find out.

This!, i want to embark in some moment in that last adventure. The worst thing can happen is nothing and that is not bad at all.

Xyril

2018-02-23, 11:55 PM

B. At age 62, I no longer feel any need to accept stupid dares or compete with the younger people. Don't take away my excuse.

I would hope that at age 62, I would no longer need to accept stupid dares mostly out of a sense of wisdom and maturity gained from living for so long, and not because "Sorry kids, my prostate's acting up again" suddenly becomes a catch all excuse, and that if I suddenly became young again, I'd lose the enlarged prostate but not the wisdom and maturity.

Potato_Priest

2018-02-24, 12:14 PM

B. At age 62, I no longer feel any need to accept stupid dares or compete with the younger people. Don't take away my excuse.

At age 10 I never felt any need to accept stupid dares or enter competitions I didn't think I could win. People called me a chicken, and I would say something along the lines of "yes I am a chicken, but I'm still not going to jump off the roof". This is thus not an obstacle to me staying forever young.

Liquor Box

2018-02-24, 11:05 PM

At age 10 I never felt any need to accept stupid dares or enter competitions I didn't think I could win. People called me a chicken, and I would say something along the lines of "yes I am a chicken, but I'm still not going to jump off the roof". This is thus not an obstacle to me staying forever young.

Because you would get another chance at the fun of accepting (and making) dares and competing in silly competitions, and also the acceptance of your peers?

2D8HP

2018-02-25, 12:11 AM

Because you would get another chance at the fun of accepting (and making) dares and competing in silly competitions, and also the acceptance of your peers?

With a young body, you'd have a young persons brain and brain chemistry (IIRC it's by the age of 26 that you get an "adult" brain), so you'd learn things faster, but also probably have the strong emotions, impulsiveness, and craving for novelty of youth.

It be nice to be without the physical pain of age, but I wouldn't want the heartaches of youth again.

factotum

2018-02-25, 02:02 AM

With a young body, you'd have a young persons brain and brain chemistry (IIRC it's by the age of 26 that you get an "adult" brain), so you'd learn things faster, but also probably have the strong emotions, impulsiveness, and craving for novelty of youth.

It be nice to be without the physical pain of age, but I wouldn't want the heartaches of youth again.

So why assume that "young" here means a teenager? Dunno about you, but 26 is still plenty young as far as I'm concerned.

2D8HP

2018-02-25, 02:44 AM

So why assume that "young" here means a teenager? Dunno about you, but 26 is still plenty young as far as I'm concerned.

True, but at 26 I was already cursed with work caused back, knee, and wrist pain, so I was already starting to feel old (though it was at 33 years old that I most felt my age).

Suttle

2018-03-05, 09:23 PM

True, but at 26 I was already cursed with work caused back, knee, and wrist pain, so I was already starting to feel old (though it was at 33 years old that I most felt my age).

How old would you eb willing to get if this hypothetical scenario real?

2D8HP

2018-03-05, 09:27 PM

How old would you eb willing to get if this hypothetical scenario real?

Since I was in less pain three weeks ago I could go for that.

Lvl 2 Expert

2018-03-06, 04:54 AM

For the people who know at which age they should have locked themselves in, who using hindsight can say "I would want to be that age forever": would you actually have locked yourself in at that right moment had it been an option? Or would you have been too early, or too late? At which age do you think you'd have first said "okay, this is exactly old enough"?

Liquor Box

2018-03-06, 06:28 AM

For the people who know at which age they should have locked themselves in, who using hindsight can say "I would want to be that age forever": would you actually have locked yourself in at that right moment had it been an option? Or would you have been too early, or too late? At which age do you think you'd have first said "okay, this is exactly old enough"?

My ideal age is a range, and Im pretty sure I would have got within it.

factotum

2018-03-06, 06:55 AM

For the people who know at which age they should have locked themselves in, who using hindsight can say "I would want to be that age forever": would you actually have locked yourself in at that right moment had it been an option?

It's impossible to say, really. When I was 20 I didn't really worry much about what I was going to be like at age 47, and I'm pretty sure that my 20-year-old self would look at me now and wonder how the heck I got to here from there. When I started getting my regular back pain I was only in my early 20s, so I wouldn't have looked at that at the time as being something related to aging, because it demonstrably wasn't.

2D8HP

2018-03-07, 11:43 AM

http://i1.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/luke-development.jpg?w=720&type=vertical&ssl=1

Bohandas

2018-03-16, 03:08 AM

If a new form of technology was created that allowed you to be forever young and stop aging would you do it?

Yes, and furthermore I would be willing to commit war crimes to acquire such a thing.

Bohandas

2018-03-16, 03:30 AM

I was think more in the sense of not aging and not immortality, you would still die, one day your body would just give up and you can still die by trauma, infections and accidents, you just won't age.

But you can't die of old age though, right?

Because my previous respomse was predicated on not dying of age or age related disease and being able to live forever in a bunker somewhere

Potato_Priest

2018-03-24, 09:32 PM

But you can't die of old age though, right?

Because my previous respomse was predicated on not dying of age or age related disease and being able to live forever in a bunker somewhere

I'm with you on that interpretation.

Honestly, the only bad part of this deal would be watching your friends get old and die without you, but I imagine that that still beats dying of old age yourself.

Blackjack3004

2018-05-06, 05:42 AM

Forever young, I want to be forever young
Do you really want to live forever?

arcas

2018-05-06, 12:17 PM

Yes. Being forever anything is better than being dead right?

Bohandas

2018-05-06, 01:03 PM

Yes. Being forever anything is better than being dead right?

Exactly. Furthermore not being dead is the only reason anyone tolerates being old; or middle aged for that matter

factotum

2018-05-06, 02:36 PM

Yes. Being forever anything is better than being dead right?

Er, no? Let's say you got an offer--you can live forever! Unfortunately you'll stink so bad everybody within a mile of you will projectile vomit, and you'll be in constant debilitating pain. Would you really take that offer? Because I certainly wouldn't.

Zollqir

2018-05-06, 07:40 PM

I would take eternal immortality and youth (I'm 22) in a heartbeat. I want to get to the future with all the flying cars and space exploration!

Frozen_Feet

2018-05-14, 03:54 PM

Yes. Being forever anything is better than being dead right?

Time and life is an illusion. Eternalism is true, all you have been, are and will be is already decided and will be so forever. This includes all those points in the continuum where you are nothing but dust in the grave. :smalltongue:

CosmicHobbit

2018-05-15, 06:19 PM

2D8HP

2018-05-15, 06:23 PM

...I just couldn't handle seeing everyone I love or have ever loved die.

You may be surprised by how much you can handle.

Bansheexero

2018-05-15, 06:38 PM

I'd go for it as long as I could still die from other causes. Never understood why people like immortality, after the planet blows up and the sun goes out, what would you do then?

S@tanicoaldo

2018-05-15, 07:48 PM

You may be surprised by how much you can handle.

Sounds like soemthing an immortal would say. :smallamused:

I'd go for it as long as I could still die from other causes. Never understood why people like immortality, after the planet blows up and the sun goes out, what would you do then?

Float?

Bohandas

2018-05-15, 07:53 PM

I'd go for it as long as I could still die from other causes. Never understood why people like immortality, after the planet blows up and the sun goes out, what would you do then?

In that situation you could, over a very very long period of time, spawn a new planet from your blood or hair

factotum

2018-05-16, 01:20 AM

I'd go for it as long as I could still die from other causes. Never understood why people like immortality, after the planet blows up and the sun goes out, what would you do then?

Travel to a different star system? The journey will take centuries, but you're immortal!

Mind you, something that happened in the Sandman comics by Neil Gaiman occurs here...he had a chap in that who was immortal (thanks to a bet between Death and Dream), and at one point he fell on hard times. As he asked of Dream at their next meeting, "Do you know how hungry a man can get if he doesn't eat, but can't die?".

Frozen_Feet

2018-05-16, 02:33 PM

Travel to a different star system? The journey will take centuries, but you're immortal!

In that situation you could, over a very very long period of time, spawn a new planet from your blood or hair

*groan*

I mentioned people assuming immortality gives you other arbitrary superpowers. These are two cases in point.

First: immortality does not itself give any sort or form of space travel ability. If you'd be jettisoned to the void for whatever reason, chances are you'd be entirely at the mercy of gravity and unable to control your course. Plus, space is a big and sparse. It's entirely possible to end up drifting for millions of years without hitting anything, before falling into a sun or a black hole, where you can't do anything but suffer.

Second: why are you assuming that any sort of immortality which allows you to survive planetary devastation actually allows for any parts of yourself to leave your body? Even if we take for granted an ability of perpetual motion, there's no guarantee any energy produced by you is easily convertible into matter. You might as well be a sealed, impervious container giving out low levels of blackbody radiation, and nothing else.

factotum

2018-05-16, 03:36 PM

I mentioned people assuming immortality gives you other arbitrary superpowers. These are two cases in point.

First: immortality does not itself give any sort or form of space travel ability.

Um, if I'd meant some sort of magical space travel ability in my post, I'd have said so. What I obviously meant was that you build a rocket and leave this solar system *before* the place goes kablooey? Still no easy task, don't get me wrong, but considering you've got a few *billion* years to prepare for the event, I'm sure it's not beyond human wit to come up with some way of doing this.

InvisibleBison

2018-05-16, 07:23 PM

No. Think of this: if you were forever young, and never died of old age, you could live forever. But none if your friends and family could. You would live to see the deaths of everybody you love. You would see the deaths of everybody you love's children. On and on. Witnessing death after death. You would have infinite life, but also see infinite funerals. And when the time finally comes, you would die from the end of Earth. Or not, depending on what you believe. The point is, it would be depressing to see your brother have a kid, but know you'll see your brother, your nephew, and youe great nephew die, as well as everybody descended from your great nephew, or to meet the perfect soul mate for you, then watch as they age and die while you stay young. I couldn't handle that. I just couldn't handle seeing everyone I love or have ever loved die.

I've never understood why people say that they'd have this sort of problem with immortality. Seeing lots of people you love die isn't some sort of unbearably miserable fate worse than death - it's something that eventually happens to literally every person who has ever loved someone. Personally, I consider seeing thousands of friends and family members die a reasonable price for the opportunity to have thousands of friends and family members.

Jay R

2018-05-16, 09:20 PM

I've never understood why people say that they'd have this sort of problem with immortality. Seeing lots of people you love die isn't some sort of unbearably miserable fate worse than death - it's something that eventually happens to literally every person who has ever loved someone. Personally, I consider seeing thousands of friends and family members die a reasonable price for the opportunity to have thousands of friends and family members.

I have a wife, who is an essential part of who I am.

Yes, I know that the odds are that either I will die first, and she will live without me, or she will die first, and I will live without her. Nonetheless, the plan and desire is that we live as much of the rest of our lives together as possible.

My Mom has now lived ten years without Dad. And she's done well. But he was central to her life for 55 years, and that was at the core of their happiness. I hope I have as long with Diane, because that is the core of my happiness.

Similarly, I have friends who have been part of my life for the majority of my time on earth, and are a part of who I am. I have no desire to start over with new friends who weren't a part of my maturation, my schooling, my development, etc.

I still fence with somebody who started fencing the same day I did, 45 years ago.

My life is a story, and it includes people who have been crucial to me for most of that story. Immortality (for myself alone) means that that would not be true.

I'm not suggesting everybody should feel this way. I have no reason to believe that everybody should. But this is how I feel.

You said you didn't understand how somebody could feel this way. I'm not trying to convince you to feel this way, just to help you understand how people could say it.

Zebalas

2018-05-16, 10:32 PM

Is floating around is the void of soace really so bad? The view is quite nice.

2D8HP

2018-05-17, 12:54 AM

I've outlived:

A son

My father

My grandparents

A girlfriend

My best friend (and DM)

Nine customers (of the motorcycle shop I worked at for seven years)

At least six co-workers

Other friends

Countless pets

Sorrow lingers, but tears dry.

Being alone with the heat death of the universe might be a bit much though.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-05-17, 09:56 AM

People assume loss is devastating sure it's bad but you can survive it, that's the greatest human virtue adaptability. You get used to it.

That's why I like sandman take on a immortal man:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7AhD3UjbWsw/Vpy7CCPWX_I/AAAAAAAANaw/ZplU-p1OmGk/s1600-Ic42/RCO006.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hzryO8PT4mE/Vpy7CtXNsgI/AAAAAAAANaw/K62Jmlii8O0/s1600-Ic42/RCO007.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WtYktEwXSRU/Vpy7DJWtXUI/AAAAAAAANbE/Kum_thdlojo/s1600-Ic42/RCO008.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HBtiYWE8JVs/Vpy7DKHWqTI/AAAAAAAANaw/Du970WQDd0o/s1600-Ic42/RCO009.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RL7sU_Fawvk/Vpy7DhL3e4I/AAAAAAAANaw/-k6qASC7cck/s1600-Ic42/RCO011.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sDFpbAdsXwk/Vpy7Dm1RgZI/AAAAAAAANaw/ISL1PCAsJOs/s1600-Ic42/RCO012.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FF2Mmp-SDN8/Vpy7EGT6RPI/AAAAAAAANaw/YebC2vZ4qls/s1600-Ic42/RCO014.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ODUMGvmro0E/Vpy7ER0AZHI/AAAAAAAANaw/wnSod2UJKU8/s1600-Ic42/RCO015.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NopZ5qS2_m8/Vpy7EaxSK0I/AAAAAAAANaw/JYWHFaLzEk8/s1600-Ic42/RCO016.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4utoydXsfTE/Vpy7E6Lig_I/AAAAAAAANa8/60dXwttDeHw/s1600-Ic42/RCO017.jpg

The argument is that when a immortal see all his loved ones die and he doesn't, he gives up the idea of immortality, people who asusme that in my view are ignoring human adaptability.

People do lose loved ones, they do lose everyhting they had, and they move on, why would immortals be any different?

Besides as the comic shows an immortal can see things change and evolve, tecnology and all the comfort they bring, can you iamgine the tecnology that is going to come and make life more awesome? You can't because it's not here but if you were immortal you could for exemple go to other planets somethign we won't be able to do.

So when I see a immortal get all emo and stuff I don't buy it, I belive immortality brings tragic situations and a lot of angst but not in the way the do in most media.

thorgrim29

2018-05-17, 10:21 AM

There's a lot of critical things to be said of Aubrey De Grey but I really like his baseball bat to the head analogy. I'm sure I'm not quoting him correctly here since it's been 5 or 6 years since I listened to that TED talk.

Imagine that every morning since the dawn of time everyone gets hit in the head with a baseball bat. It's an accepted, normal fact of live, as normal as growing old and dying is. Sure in recent years helmet technology had advanced and the baseball bat hurts less and leaves less bruises but every morning here it is. In that world if you were to suggest that we should look for a way to remove the baseball bat entirely you would probably run into much of the same objections that people looking into rejuvenation or more singularity-ish technologies. The baseball bat gives meaning to life, without it how would you tell the passage of time, it's a central part of the human experience, is God didn't want us to get hit by a baseball bat he wouldn't have created it, etc...

Bohandas

2018-05-17, 10:45 AM

I'd go for it as long as I could still die from other causes. Never understood why people like immortality, after the planet blows up and the sun goes out, what would you do then?

Dream. .

S@tanicoaldo

2018-05-17, 10:50 AM

Dream. .

Masturbate? ;p

Jay R

2018-05-17, 10:51 AM

People assume loss is devastating sure it's bad but you can survive it, that's the greatest human virtue adaptability. You get used to it.

That's why I like sandman take on a immortal man:
<snip>

The argument is that when a immortal see all his loved ones die and he doesn't, he gives up the idea of immortality, people who asusme that in my view are ignoring human adaptability.

People do lose loved ones, they do lose everyhting they had, and they move on, why would immortals be any different?

Besides as the comic shows an immortal can see things change and evolve, tecnology and all the comfort they bring, can you iamgine the tecnology that is going to come and make life more awesome? You can't because it's not here but if you were immortal you could for exemple go to other planets somethign we won't be able to do.

So when I see a immortal get all emo and stuff I don't buy it, I belive immortality brings tragic situations and a lot of angst but not in the way the do in most media.

This is all interesting, but it is also irrelevant to the position I posted. It is also a change of subject from the original topic. The question isn't "Could you survive being forever young?" It is "Would [you] be willing to be forever young?"

My life has been shaped around friends and family who have been part of my life for a vast majority of it. My wife is a major part of nearly my entire life. My Mom has been part of my life for the 62 years I've lived. My Dad was an active mentor for my first 52 years, which I assume will be the majority of my life, and certainly the vast majority of the most active part of my life. Chris and Glen have been friends for my entire adult life, and both stood up for me at my wedding. Glen passed away last year, but is still what I consider a major influence on pretty much my entire life. I knew Brian from age 12 until his death 2 years ago; he introduced me to Tolkien and I introduced him to D&D.

These people and others are a major part of the majority of my life. That's what I don't want to give up.

Yes, I can survive it; yes, I can adapt; yes, I can get used to it. And I'm not "ignoring human adaptability". That's not my point. A life with people who are part of a huge part of it is different from a life in which the people you know change over and over.

Both are survivable. Both can be satisfying. Both can be good - even great.

But I prefer one of them over the other. "Would [I] be willing to be forever young?" No, not really. Endings aren't inherently bad, and continuation isn't inherently good. I [I]like the shape of my life.

S@tanicoaldo

2018-05-17, 11:19 AM

This is all interesting, but it is also irrelevant to the position I posted. It is also a change of subject from the original topic. The question isn't "Could you survive being forever young?" It is "Would [you] be willing to be forever young?"

My life has been shaped around friends and family who have been part of my life for a vast majority of it. My wife is a major part of nearly my entire life. My Mom has been part of my life for the 62 years I've lived. My Dad was an active mentor for my first 52 years, which I assume will be the majority of my life, and certainly the vast majority of the most active part of my life. Chris and Glen have been friends for my entire adult life, and both stood up for me at my wedding. Glen passed away last year, but is still what I consider a major influence on pretty much my entire life. I knew Brian from age 12 until his death 2 years ago; he introduced me to Tolkien and I introduced him to D&D.

These people and others are a major part of the majority of my life. That's what I don't want to give up.

Yes, I can survive it; yes, I can adapt; yes, I can get used to it. And I'm not "ignoring human adaptability". That's not my point. A life with people who are part of a huge part of it is different from a life in which the people you know change over and over.

Both are survivable. Both can be satisfying. Both can be good - even great.

But I prefer one of them over the other. "Would [I] be willing to be forever young?" No, not really. Endings aren't inherently bad, and continuation isn't inherently good. I [I]like the shape of my life.

Oh, absolutely I agree, i think getting old and death are much more elegant then the alternative despite what everyone thinks.

I'm just saying that loss and death of loved ones is not something that would necessarily make someone give up immortality.

Bohandas

2018-05-17, 11:01 PM

I'd like to live forever even if I didn't get to be young. If the Golden Throne were an option I'd take it.

Celestia

2018-05-17, 11:37 PM

While true immortality is a curse that I would not wish upon anyone, this is much better. Eternal youth with the ability to kill myself at any time should life grow dull is a pretty sweet deal. I'd take it.

Xenopax

2018-05-20, 12:32 PM

Very important question: Can I die? Or atleast put myself into a Coma where I can't think.
Other Very Important Question: How young do you mean?

If I could be forever 18 but i could still die/coma I'd go for it. There's a lot to experience that normally I wouldn't be able to do in my life time. But if I can't die/coma then no. I know that one day after I've lived Long enough and seen enough friends die, that Beretta will be in my hand pointed at my head. (Figuratively)

Poiuytrewq

2018-05-20, 12:35 PM

I think 22-25 is the peak not 18, unless you want to eternally deal with zits, hormones and awkwardness.

2D8HP

2018-05-22, 06:38 PM

I think 22-25 is the peak not 18, unless you want to eternally deal with zits, hormones and awkwardness.

Eh, most of those years were lousy too, except for when I was 24 and me and my future (and current) wife lived together on unemployment insurance (mostly hers) for income.

It was glorious

I've missed it for 25 years.

Bohandas

2018-05-22, 07:56 PM

Forever young is the good kind of immortality anyway. The main disadvantage immortality would have is if you kept aging, and even then it might all cancel itself out because you might become too demented to appreciate your infirmity

HouseRules

2018-06-16, 06:21 PM

People keep questioning if I'm old enough to drink. Damn them all. Forever Young is not as good as you would think.

Infinite Lifespan is Independent from Forever Young.
Forever Young is Independent from Indestructible.
Indestructible is Independent from Undying.

That's the four aspect to complete Immortality.
Infinite Lifespan (Eternal Life)
Forever Young (Eternal Youth)
Indestructible
Undying

Bohandas

2018-06-16, 08:22 PM

No. Think of this: if you were forever young, and never died of old age, you could live forever. But none if your friends and family could. You would live to see the deaths of everybody you love. You would see the deaths of everybody you love's children. On and on. Witnessing death after death. You would have infinite life, but also see infinite funerals. And when the time finally comes, you would die from the end of Earth. Or not, depending on what you believe. The point is, it would be depressing to see your brother have a kid, but know you'll see your brother, your nephew, and youe great nephew die, as well as everybody descended from your great nephew, or to meet the perfect soul mate for you, then watch as they age and die while you stay young. I couldn't handle that. I just couldn't handle seeing everyone I love or have ever loved die.

Once you run out of immediate family (+ grandparents, grandchildren, and first cousins) I don't think any of this continues to be relevant. All life on earth is ultimately descended from a single common ancestor, yet the vast majority of deaths of specific individual organisms don't bother us.

HouseRules

2018-06-16, 08:31 PM

Half Elves like me age half the speed of normal humans, but our Elven parents age one-tenth the rate of humans. We are not truly Forever Young, but compared to Humans, they would suggest that we are Forever Young.

candys

2018-07-02, 05:35 AM

I'm not sure
It could be boring, forever lasts so long:smallbiggrin:

Bohandas

2018-07-02, 11:17 AM

Forever young seems like it has no downsides. The only reason people ever get o;d is because the alternative is the one thing that's worse. By being forever young you could avoid both.

EDIT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_M0Z1Janc

EllaCoach

2018-07-03, 05:25 AM

Probably, I would like not to grow old, not to see for many years, how my body becomes covered with wrinkles.

dps

2018-07-31, 11:50 PM

I'd say yes, with 3 caveats (I skipped ahead after the first page; the first 2 of these were covered on the first page, but not #3):

1) I get to choose how "young" I am. I'm 56 now; I'm not sure that keeping my body from aging any more from this point is worth it. OTOH, I wouldn't want to be stuck in my 6 year old body, either. I'd want to keep my body roughly as it was sometime in my 20s.

2) I can still change--work out and get more fit, learn new things, develop new skills, etc.

3) Very Important! I still get to retire with full benefits when I hit age 65 chronologically--eternal youth would be a waste if it's coupled with eternal work.

NontheistCleric

2018-08-01, 10:25 AM

I'd say yes, with 3 caveats (I skipped ahead after the first page; the first 2 of these were covered on the first page, but not #3):

1) I get to choose how "young" I am. I'm 56 now; I'm not sure that keeping my body from aging any more from this point is worth it. OTOH, I wouldn't want to be stuck in my 6 year old body, either. I'd want to keep my body roughly as it was sometime in my 20s.

Even you stayed physically 56, you'd still have the advantage of being, you know, alive.

3) Very Important! I still get to retire with full benefits when I hit age 65 chronologically--eternal youth would be a waste if it's coupled with eternal work.

You have a theoretically infinite life. Even without the benefits, eventually you will have accumulated enough wealth to retire comfortably for a time.

dps

2018-08-01, 10:52 AM

You have a theoretically infinite life. Even without the benefits, eventually you will have accumulated enough wealth to retire comfortably for a time.

The problem is that right now, I'm not accumulating wealth, I'm just getting further into debt. If I was 65, I could retire and actually draw more in Social Security benefits than what I take home right now.

BaronOfHell

2018-08-02, 05:30 AM

If a new form of technology was created that allowed you to be forever young and stop aging would you do it?

If so why? If not... Why not?

Yes I would, because I'd rather exist than not exist.

Bohandas

2018-09-16, 10:11 PM

The problem is that right now, I'm not accumulating wealth

That is an issue with just eternal youth. With full immortality on the other hand you could live with no expenses and dump all your money in the bank for a really long time to accumulate interest

AMFV

2018-09-17, 05:40 AM

That is an issue with just eternal youth. With full immortality on the other hand you could live with no expenses and dump all your money in the bank for a really long time to accumulate interest

But banks fail. The oldest bank currently in existence is only a few hundred years old. And there have been countless banks that have failed in that period. If you put all your money in the bank, and you live forever, that money will eventually evaporate or become valueless.
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/01/10/immortals-and-compound-interest/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2010/12/03/immortality-and-the-law/

Those are probably the most interesting articles I've seen on the subject.

Tvtyrant

2018-09-17, 07:56 AM

I hated my teen years, suffered through my 20s and am hoping my 30s are actually enjoyable. If this decade sucks too I'm definitely on the "no" side.

Bohandas

2018-09-17, 09:57 AM

another interesting response. That last one also in theory also depends on pure eternal youth, as with full immortality he could blow most of the relevant bummers off

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-17, 09:57 AM

That is an issue with just eternal youth. With full immortality on the other hand you could live with no expenses and dump all your money in the bank for a really long time to accumulate interest

Beyond what AMFV said, you'd have to be on top of that money to ensure that your interest is actually above inflation rate for that currency. And keep an eye out to bail out if the currency starts to fail. Even in the short term, currencies and banks are not that stable. They are if you aren't planning to live much more than a century, but for an immortal, it would be a full time job to keep the money going.

Grey Wolf

Tvtyrant

2018-09-17, 10:12 AM

Beyond what AMFV said, you'd have to be on top of that money to ensure that your interest is actually above inflation rate for that currency. And keep an eye out to bail out if the currency starts to fail. Even in the short term, currencies and banks are not that stable. They are if you aren't planning to live much more than a century, but for an immortal, it would be a full time job to keep the money going.

Grey Wolf
Yeah imagine being banker-vampire when Rome collapsed. "There goes my unlife savings!"

Also people would get wise fast. "This account has been open for three hundred years without paying gift or estate taxes and we are seizing it."

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-17, 10:20 AM

Yeah imagine being banker-vampire when Rome collapsed. "There goes my unlife savings!"

Also people would get wise fast. "This account has been open for three hundred years without paying gift or estate taxes and we are seizing it."

I am sure there are ways around it - establish a fund for a corporation (not unlike, say, the Nobel account that pays for the awards), and then set up a fund trust around it, and the like. You'd still need to pay taxes, keep an eye on the economy, not to mention watch whomever runs the trust (see: President Carter). It would not be as easy as "put all the money in the bank and go live under a bridge for a couple hundred years, and thus become rich" as was originally suggested.

(and that is without even going into how bad it would be to attempt to live without expenses for any amount of time)

Grey Wolf

Bohandas

2018-09-17, 11:28 AM

You could occasionally take it out of the bank and put most of it into a different bank, after converting the remainder to a non-perishable commodity

AMFV

2018-09-17, 11:54 AM

another interesting response. That last one also in theory also depends on pure eternal youth, as with full immortality he could blow most of the relevant bummers off

Well if you're living without any expenses, like eating or good living environments anyway why do you need money?

Beyond what AMFV said, you'd have to be on top of that money to ensure that your interest is actually above inflation rate for that currency. And keep an eye out to bail out if the currency starts to fail. Even in the short term, currencies and banks are not that stable. They are if you aren't planning to live much more than a century, but for an immortal, it would be a full time job to keep the money going.

Grey Wolf

And a job that would be constantly (to a perspective of an immortal) changing, banks are very different than they were before, tax law has changed drastically, inheritance laws have drastically changed, it would be a serious headache to keep track.

You could occasionally take it out of the bank and put most of it into a different bank, after converting the remainder to a non-perishable commodity

Which is good when that commodity doesn't collapse in value, which over a long enough time-scale many of them would. And provided you have the ability to liquidate those items without questions being asked.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-17, 12:56 PM

And a job that would be constantly (to a perspective of an immortal) changing, banks are very different than they were before, tax law has changed drastically, inheritance laws have drastically changed, it would be a serious headache to keep track.

This happens often enough that it is a headache even to my non-immortal head.

You could occasionally take it out of the bank and put most of it into a different bank, after converting the remainder to a non-perishable commodity
We've already established that that woulnd't actually help the money increase.

Also, to an immortal there is no such thing as a non-perishable commodity. No, not even gold, cowry shells or rais (although this last one comes closest, since it established very early on conceptual ownership). And even if you were OK with long-term perishable investment, changing back and forth would eat into what little value you would eke out at the margins.

Let me put it another way: no-one ever has got rich by putting money in a bank. You put money in a bank to protect it and convenience, not grow it.

Grey Wolf

Tyndmyr

2018-09-17, 02:14 PM

If a new form of technology was created that allowed you to be forever young and stop aging would you do it?

If so why? If not... Why not?

Sure. Why not? Even if it was full-on "can't die" immortality, yeah, I'd push that button.

Mid twenties would be ideal. Around about 25 you start to have hit all the "old enough to do this" criteria, and being younger might be awkward. Can you imagine looking too young to have booze forever? That's a bit much. Still, I'd trade off a fair bit here in return for youthful immortality. That's a huge win.

Liquor Box

2018-09-17, 06:32 PM

Also, to an immortal there is no such thing as a non-perishable commodity. No, not even gold, cowry shells or rais (although this last one comes closest, since it established very early on conceptual ownership). And even if you were OK with long-term perishable investment, changing back and forth would eat into what little value you would eke out at the margins.

My understanding was that we are not talking about immortality or eternity, just non-aging. People who don't age would still die from accidents etc. Their life expectancy may be three or four times that of an ordinary human (anyone keen to work it out?), but would be much briefer than the time it takes for gold to perish.

AMFV

2018-09-17, 09:15 PM

My understanding was that we are not talking about immortality or eternity, just non-aging. People who don't age would still die from accidents etc. Their life expectancy may be three or four times that of an ordinary human (anyone keen to work it out?), but would be much briefer than the time it takes for gold to perish.

The issue isn't with gold becoming Not Gold, the issue is with somebody in vending machine that can make a pound of gold out of lead for $0.37 to the pound which is a historical thing that happens quite frequently

factotum

2018-09-18, 12:57 AM

AMFV

2018-09-18, 03:10 AM

It is? I must have missed that part of my history classes at school. :smallconfused:

Well because it hasn't happened yet, but the value of minerals is hardly consistent throughout history. Aluminum was once valued more highly than gold. Now it is not. That's the kind of thing I was talking about. If you (a theoretical immortal) put your stock into any physical commodity, then it may eventually become not scarce or easily reproducible, or the value may crash completely.

And that's not even taking into account things like seizure and loss. Which are threats that an immortal would have a much more serious issue with, because they'd have a much greater chance of being impacted than a short lived being. So basically if you want to be rich as an immortal you'd still have to work at it, and you'd still have to have timing and luck.

factotum

2018-09-18, 05:38 AM

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-18, 07:47 AM

It is? I must have missed that part of my history classes at school. :smallconfused:

If you read The Truth (a Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett), you will learn you can in fact turn lead into gold. There are two ways: the easy way, and the hard way. The difference is that the hard way works.

In a particular historical case, the Spanish figured out a way to turn lead into silver and gold, by building machines that accelerated lead to amazing speeds. Then used said machines to kill and slave the people living close to said silver and gold. 150-ish years later (a blink of an eye to an immortal), hyperinflation came forth, and the value of gold and silver collapsed.

Similar thing had happened in a different part of the world some 200 years prior, when Mansa ("Emperor") Musa went on a shopping/PR trip, and collapsed the value of gold in the Middle East. Lead wasn't involved then, so I can't make a silly story about it, but still, you get the point: gold is not a stable repository of value, and never has been.

Gold is pretty darned rare no matter how you extract it--I think I recall reading somewhere that every single ounce of gold ever produced, if put together in one place, wouldn't fill a regulation swimming pool

Indeed, and therefore the moment that someone finds and brings to near Earth a meteorite with high gold content, doubling (say) the gold reserves of the world will make a fortune... and halve the value of gold in the process. Which should happen at some point in an immortal's lifetime.

Grey Wolf

thorgrim29

2018-09-18, 07:59 AM

Apparently while Mansa Musa was definitely real and most probably the richest person ever the tale about his pilgrimage collapsing the value of gold in the market cities he visited had been through a few generations of exaggerations before Ibn Battuta wrote about them and made his way to Mali (where he proceeded to be a very bad guest... dude had an amazingly interesting life but he was a bit of a jackass judging from his own books).

Anyway I wouldn't bet on gold long term. The high value of gold is based on gold historically being valuable and pretty much nothing else... It's always going to be pretty and a good conductor but the rise of cryptocurrency is making people realize that there is no such thing as ''real'' worth to currency, it's all a social contract. I'd probably invest in land and real estate myself if I was building a fortune to last hundreds of years.

Chen

2018-09-18, 08:25 AM

Indeed, and therefore the moment that someone finds and brings to near Earth a meteorite with high gold content, doubling (say) the gold reserves of the world will make a fortune... and halve the value of gold in the process. Which should happen at some point in an immortal's lifetime.

Grey Wolf

But it's not going to happen instantly. You'd be able to react to these things, just the way people react to new technologies/discoveries now. Sure it's an issue if you invest and then go into a coma or something and come back way later, but that has all sorts of other problems associated with it too.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-18, 08:31 AM

But it's not going to happen instantly. You'd be able to react to these things, just the way people react to new technologies/discoveries now. Sure it's an issue if you invest and then go into a coma or something and come back way later, but that has all sorts of other problems associated with it too.

And yet that is the scenario proposed:

With full immortality on the other hand you could live with no expenses and dump all your money in the bank for a really long time to accumulate interest

My point all along has been that an immortal can't simply put their money in a bank, forget about it, and somehow become rich. To become rich, you need to work at it and get lucky - say, invest in the one of a myriad indistinguishable start-ups that will become huge. Investing in gold is like investing in any other commodity: a temporary investment that you need to know when its time to buy, and when its time to sell.

Honestly, to an immortal, it might be easier to become the leader of a successful revolution in a (soon to be) banana republic.

Grey Wolf

Chen

2018-09-18, 08:43 AM

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-18, 08:53 AM

I mean you do it in short bursts to avoid bank failure and probably be pretty successful in just exploiting standard compound interest. Say every 10 years. I do agree it would still take effort but significantly less if you have an unlimited timespan to work with.

Standard compound interest does not beat standard compound inflation unless you are already rich to start with. Inflation hovers around 2-4% annual. I know no bank that'll give you anywhere near close to that interest unless you give them far more money than I make in a year.

Grey Wolf

AMFV

2018-09-18, 10:29 AM

While all that's true, the main reason for the drop in price of aluminium is improvements in the methods used to extract it. Gold is pretty darned rare no matter how you extract it--I think I recall reading somewhere that every single ounce of gold ever produced, if put together in one place, wouldn't fill a regulation swimming pool--so unless you literally *do* get someone finding a cheap way to convert lead into gold, its price is never going to plummet in the same way.

It won't plummet in the same way necessarily, but people could discover new reserves that could drastically lower the value of what you have. People could decide to buy less. The point here is that it's not just putting money in the bank, you have to actually work to be rich, and it's difficult to predict what's going to work to make money on a scale that's incredibly fleeting to an immortal.

But it's not going to happen instantly. You'd be able to react to these things, just the way people react to new technologies/discoveries now. Sure it's an issue if you invest and then go into a coma or something and come back way later, but that has all sorts of other problems associated with it too.

I think the worst problem you'd have with being an immortal and trying to become very rich would be burning out. Eventually you're not going to want to check the stocks in the morning cause you've done it every morning for 300 years. And you'll burn out, like most people who are doing stressful things do. Then you'll wind up losing a big chunk of your wealth. Which again means a lot of work.

Also people don't always react well to new tech/discoveries, a lot of people lose their shirt to those things.

I mean you do it in short bursts to avoid bank failure and probably be pretty successful in just exploiting standard compound interest. Say every 10 years. I do agree it would still take effort but significantly less if you have an unlimited timespan to work with.

Well then you'd still have to do with national failure, currency failures, and national bank crashes (in which you would have few banking alternatives).

factotum

2018-09-18, 10:37 AM

The point here is that it's not just putting money in the bank, you have to actually work to be rich, and it's difficult to predict what's going to work to make money on a scale that's incredibly fleeting to an immortal.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. If you're after something that always appreciates in value then no such thing exists--gold is more stable over the long term than a lot of currencies, but it's not a sure thing by any means.

@thorgrim29: Gold isn't just useful because it's pretty and it's a good conductor, it's also incredibly malleable, which makes it useful for some applications you might not think of--for instance, the cockpit windows on Concorde had an incredibly thin layer of gold in them to act as an anti-glare mechanism.

thorgrim29

2018-09-18, 01:22 PM

Yeah ok it was an oversimplification. Gold still is vastly overvalued compared to it's value as a metal even though we've been off the gold standard for 40 or so years.

jayem

2018-09-18, 04:38 PM

Yeah ok it was an oversimplification. Gold still is vastly overvalued compared to it's value as a metal even though we've been off the gold standard for 40 or so years.
The other thing you can do is play for time.
You can be your own 'child'/'rich uncle' as it were for a generation saving education and food costs. You don't have to attract/support a partner, you don't need maternity leave. Conversely the senile you won't be running down the inheritance.
All those non-expenses can go in the bank, which gives the you of 20 years time their deposit (or equivalent). And in turn the you of 40 years time their house. Which gives you a good kick up to having the assets to start playing with the bigger boys. Which is probably at least 95% successful throughout time (on the basis people manage to have kids grow up) .

If you could take some extreme risks safely then that's an even quicker way to start your nest egg. Hold up a few stagecoaches.

Arguably that doesn't work quite so from a serf based position, but there are probably ways to game the system even there for a small advantage.

Liquor Box

2018-09-18, 05:10 PM

The issue isn't with gold becoming Not Gold, the issue is with somebody in vending machine that can make a pound of gold out of lead for $0.37 to the pound which is a historical thing that happens quite frequently

What do you mean "quite frequently"? Because, again, I don't think this thread is about immortality/eternity. It's not impossible that gold will become less valuable (perhaps we will discover a planet that is rich in gold), but I think there'd be short odds on the non-aging person dyeing from an accident long before gold significantly loses its value.

Gold is seen as one the most stable investments for a reason. That reason is not because the collective judgment of investors as to gold's value and stability is less intelligent or well informed than that of people on this forum.

Standard compound interest does not beat standard compound inflation unless you are already rich to start with. Inflation hovers around 2-4% annual. I know no bank that'll give you anywhere near close to that interest unless you give them far more money than I make in a year.

Grey Wolf

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't you are universally correct. You may be speaking from a local perspective, but in my home country there are term deposit interest rates available that are significantly greater than local inflation. You don't need much money to receive the interest rate, but you would need a lot of money before your profit (after tax and accounting for inflation) became significant.

My point all along has been that an immortal can't simply put their money in a bank, forget about it, and somehow become rich. To become rich, you need to work at it and get lucky - say, invest in the one of a myriad indistinguishable start-ups that will become huge. Investing in gold is like investing in any other commodity: a temporary investment that you need to know when its time to buy, and when its time to sell.

If we were talking about true immortality, the safest way to safeguard (and conservatively grow) your money would be through diversity. Buy some gold, some government bonds, some in the bank, some in real property (no mortgage), some in managed funds etc etc (not all within a single country).

Of course there may be a total breakdown of civilisation, or the extinction of our species. But short of that, once you have accumulated sufficient money to diversify to the extent that you could survive a portion of your portfolio losing value, I think you are reasonably safe.

factotum

2018-09-18, 09:28 PM

I think there'd be short odds on the non-aging person dyeing from an accident long before gold significantly loses its value.

If we were talking about true immortality, the safest way to safeguard (and conservatively grow) your money would be through diversity. Buy some gold, some government bonds, some in the bank, some in real property (no mortgage), some in managed funds etc etc (not all within a single country).

Are accidents so common? The only information I can find is from 2011 in the UK, but that shows that there were 484,000 deaths in that year, of which only 11,000 were accidental--the others were mostly disease. Given the population here is around 65 million, that suggests your annual chance of death from accident here is only 0.017%--which means your chance of dying in an accident if you lived a thousand years would still only be 15.7%.

The second point is kind of ignoring that banks, property ownership, funds etc. all have the problem of what you do to prove you own them if you've lived longer than an average lifetime. You'd have to withdraw the funds and legally pass them on to your "son" every few decades. Gold has the advantage that it's a physical object you can store, so if doesn't have that problem to the same degree.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-18, 09:48 PM

Gold has the advantage that it's a physical object you can store, so if doesn't have that problem to the same degree.

The same is true of every other commodity exchangeable through the stock market. And heck, bearer bonds. Gold isn't special - you might as well invest the money in apple stock or orange juice futures (or, you know, a bit of everything). But again, none of it is stable in even the medium run (see: current bubble-like conditions of both gold and apple stock), and of course, it takes time and effort (as well as knowledge and luck) to make a fortune this way.

Grey Wolf

thorgrim29

2018-09-18, 09:58 PM

To be clear, I don't think investing in gold is dumb, I think the concept of gold having value is dumb. Since I don't have the power to change that I might very well invest in gold at some point if I'm reasonably confident a market crash is coming. I'll hate myself a bit for becoming part of the problem but I'll still do it...

Anyway, if we're talking about being the only immortal and trying to keep it a secret like I said I would probably invest in real estate and every time my empire gets big enough to make waves I'd set up a trust to manage it and start over under a new name once I get bored/want more money. No matter what happens as long as there's people they'll need to live and work somewhere. In this scenario I'm able to set up new identities fairly easily, I have no idea how possible that is and how long that will remain the case what with face recognition software and digital records though.

Liquor Box

2018-09-18, 10:17 PM

Are accidents so common? The only information I can find is from 2011 in the UK, but that shows that there were 484,000 deaths in that year, of which only 11,000 were accidental--the others were mostly disease. Given the population here is around 65 million, that suggests your annual chance of death from accident here is only 0.017%--which means your chance of dying in an accident if you lived a thousand years would still only be 15.7%.

There is a bit of ambiguity in the thread itself. I took it as immunity to aging only, not immunity to disease (or accidents) - although youth might mean you are at decreased risk of some diseases associated with age.

I'm surprised that the rate of accidents is as low as you say, but I was only guessing so I am happy to take your word for it.

The second point is kind of ignoring that banks, property ownership, funds etc. all have the problem of what you do to prove you own them if you've lived longer than an average lifetime. You'd have to withdraw the funds and legally pass them on to your "son" every few decades. Gold has the advantage that it's a physical object you can store, so if doesn't have that problem to the same degree.

That's true, if we assume that you are the only person who has an elongated lifetime (so banks might refuse to believe that you are the person who owns the deposit). Many countries have inheritance tax etc as well. This does open a can of worms beyond maintaining your bank account though - how would you maintain an identity in a modern society (including tax numbers, a passport etc) without breaking the law?

I must admit, that when I referred to gold, I was not actually referring to taking physical possession of it, only ownership.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-18, 10:37 PM

To be clear, I don't think investing in gold is dumb, I think the concept of gold having value is dumb.

That's going a bit too far. Everything has a value, even if only relative to everything else. Gold gets its value from its industrial and fashion applications, and a multiplier due to its current scarcity.

Which is, in fact, what makes it such a poor candidate as the base for a medium of exchange ("currency"). The less valuable the medium, the better. Rarity is also undesirable, now that we have better method to prevent counterfeiting.

Grey Wolf

Bohandas

2018-09-18, 11:19 PM

To be clear, I don't think investing in gold is dumb, I think the concept of gold having value is dumb.

I second that (to the point that I rooted for the villains in the movie Hudson Hawk). Though I think that may be why it's so good for coinage; it's pretty useless, and taking a bunch using all of it to make coins isn;t going ti dusrupt anything

thorgrim29

2018-09-19, 07:47 AM

That's going a bit too far. Everything has a value, even if only relative to everything else. Gold gets its value from its industrial and fashion applications, and a multiplier due to its current scarcity.

Value higher than an equivalent material without history as a currency would have I mean. I don't know what the numbers are exactly but I would suspect most of the gold in circulation is bullion being horded for investment purposes.

Grey_Wolf_c

2018-09-19, 08:02 AM

Value higher than an equivalent material without history as a currency would have I mean. I don't know what the numbers are exactly but I would suspect most of the gold in circulation is bullion being horded for investment purposes.

Nope. Jewelry (https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/gold-mining/how-much-gold-has-been-mined). Mind you, in India* it kinda doubles as both, but it is definitely not in bullion form.

And honestly, I think you are wrong about higher value than similar materials. Ignoring for a second the bubble price, I think you will find it is about level with other materials of similar rarity and specialised used - platinum and palladium spring to mind. Yes, right now because of various unsavory reasons the price of gold is inflated (which is why I said it was a poor way to store wealth - it is not as stable as people think it is), but once the hucksters have made their fortunes or the law catches up to them, the price will go back to the equlibrium point, I suspect.

As to using it for coin, it's a terrible idea. It is too soft to hold its shape in regular use, which is why it needed to be at least partially mixed with lead, it is way too heavy and of course, due to the supply being limited, it makes for very poor currency in any growing economy. Pro-tip: don't pick as a medium of exchange anything you can't make more of as the economy requires it. It's a medium of exchange - a way to keep the score, if you will - not a ball and chain. There is a reason why most cultures preferred little seashells to gold, even when both were available.

Grey Wolf

* More so than elsewhere, I mean. Trying to find the news of it, but recently the Indian government tried to get the citizenship to stop using gold jewelry as a form of savings, because India's trade deficit is not helped by the massive continued import of gold.