ITT we're hypothesizing about social/technical aspects of a species developing relative immortality, first, for wealthy individuals, finally for all. Final insights welcome.
OP beliefs, species will experience: - increasing unfairness of wealth distribution - immortals consolidating power - technology boost due to brilliant minds not dying - increasing civil commotions - war on resources and locations - juristic overhaul on ideas like wealth and heritage - innovation boost on age-related problems like cancer, organ replacements and transplants - stricter regulation of reproduction the more immortality get's mass product - genetic/biological diversity degenerates - increasing amount of genetic manipulations - manipulations create new groups and segments in social structure - available technology allows groups of immortals to leave earth - strong proliferation due to new resources available - fragmentation in space and time causes differing minds and cultures - new, inter-planetary, or even inter-stellar conflicts arise - expansion becomes mandatory, and essential for survival - useful found resources will be involved in conflict
Insight: visiting aliens could try to forcefully involve us in a conflict. Parallels: 1st-world states involve and equip 3rd world parties for fighting for their benefits.
>increasing unfairness of wealth distribution Stopped reading. What makes it seems as if the wealth distribution would do anything but standardize? If nobody has to work, they would all get paid the same.
Liam Butler
Your free decision, dude. And what makes plausible rich humans suddenly relinquish wealth and power for no reason?
Ryan Powell
It just doesn't make sense to say that the rich get more rich where everything that is standardized is ready to be risen above. Their stocks could fail or whatever.
Joshua Nguyen
"Making sense" depends on the parameters, and relative immortality neither will make all individuals prudence at once, nor change the capitalistic or productive system (of supply and demand) from one moment to another
So there must be a time of transition for at least decades, and, at least during that time, the unfairness will increase, thus, lead to conflicts.
Daniel Smith
Relative immortality very much would make individuals prudent. Everything is one. What science suggests is the key to reversing aging is cellular energy (literally NAD, "the respirator of the cells"), which makes everything better; and whose other products also increase QOL.
Josiah Miller
In case of a "in a single moment all individuals are getting relative immortality"-scenario I agree. But most likely, the effect will be slowly introduced, starting for a few elite individuals.
I agree, sooner or later the "everybody has the same"-idea will be reality, but on the way there, problems will arise/increase, and in my opinion it will be enforced by conflicts, because in no way powerful and rich individuals will give away their priviledges for nothing, except they have no other choice.
Landon Miller
That's completely ignoring every advancement in every industry though, which every other advancement would be based on..
The only potential problem now is ignorance. That would predictably become obsolete if individuals weren't calling out for sustenance. Yes, that's ascribing most issues to proper nutrition, but is there any evidence to the contrary for an ordinary life?
>rich privileges Money only ever gets anything done with wisdom.
Jaxon James
> That's completely ignoring every advancement in every industry though Well, where's the advancement's consequences nowadays? We produce more food we can consume, but *nobody* give's it aways for free *anyways*. It's even a fight to be able to take it from trashbins, what doesn't make any sense at all: so even in terms of trash we're not even close to prudence.
And "industrial progress" has it's origin in "possessment", too. And our community does not develop "away from industrial demand and valuable brands". I can hardly believe there has ever been another epoch in which "possessing the right brands" have been more important than today. Which rather supports a thesis of ongoing egoism and desire of individualism instead.
Easton Hall
>It's even a fight to be able to take it from trashbins, what doesn't make any sense at all
I have to correct myself: the sense in this is, that there's a market (demand) and the fear, the free food could cause falling prices due to free supply.
Robert Parker
>appeal to tradition There's a farm that grows 1M pounds of food on 3 acres. The trashbin society is picking out of trashbins because they don't realize that they can go to the library and figure this shit out.
Nobody gives away free food (not counting outsourcing, apparently -- there are plenty of charities) because getting a job in some form, even just entrepreneurial, is that simple. ..Like, making bracelets. There's a guy that's supposedly rich from washing windows (youtube.com/watch?v=aHdoJUciy5U). What are businesses supposed to do? "If these can't get jobs or wash themselves, why should they be invited to be around nice restaurants and stores?"..
All of Africa's accepting civilizations could be fixed with a single million dollars. Mud brick compressors are $2k.
Blake Campbell
sorry, I feel like we're moving too far away from the initial question/point of critique, which was:
> Stopped reading. What makes it seems as if the wealth distribution would do anything but standardize? If nobody has to work, they would all get paid the same.
I tried to clarify, that "standardize"-process involves conflicts, even wars, which you probably didn't see due to stopping reading.
Later I tried to show, that my point of view bases on the assumption, that the relative immortality won't be available to everybody at once, but in a process of transition.
So, what we're currently debating?
Julian Richardson
That wealth distribution is based on wisdom.
Nolan Torres
Whose wealth and whose wisdom?
Mason Hill
>wealth A decent lowest common denominator and middle average, this including basic goods as "wealth".
>wisdom The truth.
Levi Russell
I understand the definition of "wealth" and "wisdom", but I was actually asking for the "who", not the "what": whose wealth is determined by whose wisdom? And why should that change "instantanously" if some relative immortality arrives?
In my point of view conflicts will be increasing, and even irrationality will get worse, because the last equality, "death of the individual" will become avoidable by money. Conflicts will get worse, before a society will be able to overcome them.
Noah Edwards
The who is the lowest common denominator.. benefiting.
All wealth distributions are determined by wisdom, supposedly on a case per case basis. Can a single book of knowledge vastly increase the standard of prudence and quality of life? Yes. Then, why isn't it written? The explanation provided by this thread is nutrition.
>why "instantaneous" Because it's so simple.
Jordan Hall
> So, what we're currently debating?
> That wealth distribution is based on wisdom.
> nobody gives away free food [...] because getting a job in some form [...] is that simple
> All wealth distributions are determined by wisdom
Well, sorry, m8, but I don't see a reason to discuss whether or not wealth distribution is based on wisdom: it's distribution is uneven for whatever reason, and won't instantaniously be "redistributed evenly" for any reason, because neither mentality, nor laws, would require that in case immortality would be made available to few.
As I can hardly see any arguments of you, I just stick to my thoughts mentioned above: relative immortality available for few will lead to conflicts and even war before a society is able to actually integrate it into culture and mentality.
Jayden Parker
>I won't define why wealth distribution is what it is, but I can claim what it would become
Nathan Nguyen
I don't need to define "why" it is distributed like it is, nor "what" it actually is. For my thesis it's enough to proof it's uneven distribution and the circumstance that wealth isn't given away for nothing *now*, so it's legit to assume it's not gonna be given away for nothing *in future*.
You're the one claiming to a) know WHY it's distributed uneven and b) WHEN it's distributed evenly, and you claim to c) know the change will be made INSTANTANOUSLY. For neither a, nor b nor c I can see any other arguments beside "it's like this" (not an argument) and "it's simple" (unproven claim).
Nolan Evans
Any initial presumption here for increased giving is based on increased availability and the fact that most work is probably being done by drones.
Justin Cooper
> ... the fact that most work is probably being done by drones > fact > probably
pick one
Also: I feel like you're not seeing the whole picture. Beside the fact we do not have "producing drones" yet: they will be bought and possessed by somebody, and as long as wealth allows priviledges an "evenly distributed wealth"-society cannot have, nobody will quit their wealth. So, the suddenly available relative immortality" will deepen the unfairnesses, and only conflicts up to wars will change the currently established system.
Ethan Smith
Desk factories ^2.
Jaxson Powell
fuel?
Lucas Campbell
What makes things smaller? What makes things pure?
William Wilson
Why questions? Why not answers?
Parker Garcia
There are no physically safe systems in the Universe [that we know of]. Such hypotheticals don't belong in Veeky Forums they belong in /x/ and /pol/.
>be in Veeky Forums >Hoping for good reason, evidence, empiricism, induction, deduction, critical thinking >Seeing unfounded hypotheses being flug around >No one wishes to progress beyond conjecture, but wish to criticize each other's conjecture *facepalm*
Looks like you're just another zero-value-contributor critizing something, right?
Ethan Barnes
Deduction is contribution. It weeds out the bullshit so that all we're left with is the truth. Inductive conjecture is not a contribution.
Nicholas White
Patience and humility are intelligent. Offering conjecture so that you can feel safe is immature and unscientific.
Leo James
All your contributions can yet be rated using your own words:
>Seeing unfounded hypotheses being flug around >No one wishes to progress beyond conjecture, but wish to criticize each other's conjecture *facepalm*
What do you want? Contribute? Then contribute to the topic. Stop others to criticize each other's conjecture? Then stop critisizing and just leave, smartass.
Aiden Hughes
So, psychology?
Jason Lewis
From where's the medicine come?
Josiah Stewart
Criticizing conjecture is not conjecture. What you're doing is a circlejerk, and circlejerks contribute to nothing. Informing you that you're all wasting your time is the best contribution in the thread. If you're not aware of that, then you're a sophist by definition.
Parker Gonzalez
Why would we want to become immortal? Those who become immortal we be the only ones left, no new humans, no development, I think if we did this few people should become immortal like astronauts so they can do limitless space travel. If we slowly become immortal there will be class issues, if the rich can't die they'll have too much power. And what if we go insane by being immortal?
Julian Phillips
> What you're doing is a circlejerk, and circlejerks contribute to nothing.
Hypothetical scenarios are base of literature, scientists research scenarios in literature, scientists' work influece reality.
> circlejerks contribute to nothing.
proof by contradiction: see above.
Jaxson Myers
>Hypothetical scenarios are base of literature, scientists research scenarios in literature, scientists' work influece reality.
^ That is complete nonsense
> circlejerks contribute to nothing. >proof by contradiction: see above. Proof by verbosity isn't proof. >Using the argument from verbosity fallacy >Jesus motherfucking christ Why is the anti-science, anti-deduction, pro-conjecture idiot still here?
Elijah Powell
> Why would we want to become immortal? The better an indivudual feels, the less it wants to be mortal. Motivation to be immortal may differ, desire not.
> no development Only true if there are no goals to be reached, otherwise there is a motivation to develop
> And what if we go insane by being immortal? In my opinion, one of the first consequences of immortality would be to develop an "insane" culture of irrational ideas (at least for mortals)
Evan Hughes
> that is nonsense Assertions aren't arguments.
>Proof by verbosity isn't proof Agree. Your post: zero arguments, thus, represents, exactly what you criticize yourself. Again and once more.
Jeremiah Evans
I doubt the aliens could make us "useful" by simply equipping us. On the other hand: none of the 3rd world soldiers need to understand physics or chemistry in order to fire a gun. But a gun isn't a spaceship.
David Wood
The idea of "equipping low techs", utilizing them, sounds interesting. Any movies or books to be mentioned?
