You raise some interesting points. You have studied Psychiatry so maybe you
can also work out some of the answers. here are some ideas to go on, in no
particular order.
1. The established society is based on a birth-live-suffer-die cycle and
there are many professions and organisations that would lose thier livings
if this was changed.
2. Obsequience to religion or government or profession or other
collective provides a comfort level that replaces being a child and having
parents (at least in people who donlt think that deeply). Although there
are few collectives that wage open warfare against immortalism, many people
intuitively feel that they would be against it if asked.
3. The inbuilt desire to look after the next generation includes a powerful
sacrifice meme that suggests one should die to make room for another.
In article: <4j49bc$1vok at news.doit.wisc.edu> yracheta at facstaff.wisc.edu
(Joseph) writes:
>> I work in academia in the biological sciences. The Phd.'s I work for and
even
> most I don't work for balk at the notion of immortality or even
lengthening
> the life span to any great degree. They say things like, "Why, what's the
> point who would want to live for ever anyway." Or things like, "It isn't
meant
> to be, it would be to egotistical and ecologically unsound".
>> It seems that some scientists are working on the problem but never state
it in
> their papers. They usually couch it in terms of cellular senescence,
> regeneration or oncology. Is it that taboo a subject. Is everyone afraid
of
> being labeled a crackpot. Or is it that the research and the reality are
so
> far removed from each other that we won't see any progress in this area
for
> another 100 years.
> Moreover, I have not seen any discussion or consensus about the ethical
or
> social issues that such a discovery might bring up. I personally would
like to
> live longer than the current norm and the scientific challenge that the
> problem poses is very compelling, but when I think of the 'correctness'
of
> such a breakthrough I am at a loss. Is it a selfish egotistical endeavor
and
> would we cause global havoc, or would it really benefit mankind and
remove
> that "the one who dies with the most toys wins" attitude.
> Are there any ethical treatise or government reports on these ethical
> potentialities.
>> Joseph Yracheta
> Dept. Psychiatry
> University of Wisconsin
>yracheta at facstaff.wisc.edu>>--
Sincerely, ****************************************
* Publisher of Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* details on request *
****************************************
In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
because giving information does not decrease your information.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
Fast loading, very few slow pictures
