Is lncreasing human longevity a good idea?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> He's probably refering to the environment and the wildlife, inwhich case he's right as we're on course to causing another mass extinction... [/b] so what? extinctions happen daily, and we ourselves are always at risk of extinction from ourselves, our environment, and even from large rocks blithfully cruising through the solar system.[/b]

If we are causing these extinctions then it does matter, we're majoring disrupting life on earth on a level that has probably never been matched by another organism. If we don't want ourselves to go extinct then why should other organisms which are not threatening us?

Originally posted by Leopard Who gave us this right? We did! of course! Who else? It is our right as humans to do as we please until we discover some other creature capable of recipricating rights with us - at that point we will have whatever 'rights' that both species determine. What 'right' does a plant have to suck out the nutrients from the soil for its own uses? What 'right' does a tiger have to kill and eat an antelope? It is the nature of life, and it is the nature of man to proceed as he does in the fashion he does... we may change, become different than the humans we are today... until that day, there is nothing immoral or wrong with taking actions like we do, consuming as we do, extincting other species as we do....

There is something morally wrong about it, because morals are relative wheras the Laws of nature are regardless to it. I think you've got it the wrong way round, if we didn't have morals then we'd be free to do what we want, pillage, plunder and murder. But do we? Why have we formed societies and enforced laws?

Originally posted by Leopard I am sorry that you detest what it is to be human... we are amazing creatures and have virtually unlimited potential to further our species, unlike all other life forms encountered to date.

I hate the way we're spreading like a virus, I want us to live in harmony with nature, perhaps it is wiseful thinking but a man can dream.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard@

I will return any respect that they give me - there is nothing 'special' about all these other species. It would seem foolish of us to destroy a species which we obtain benefit from (food, for instance, or oxygen in the case of plants).[/quote]
Those species are a result of billions of years of evolution, a work of art and you're so willing to destroy it?

<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard

I am talking about folks who recommend sterilization to curb the population growth, folks who would fence off large sections of land with governmental force to 'preserve' nature in any way, folks that put iron spikes into trees that incur damage to loggers as they chainsaw their way through the tree, folks that violate private property rights and break into laboratories and companies to 'free' the animals held there for research and/or testing... these are the insane folks I am referring to, these are the folks who are enemies of humans everywhere...

michael[/quote]
Well, I'm not the kind of person to take those actions (especially with the latter as I'd likely be the one working IN those labs with animal testing) but preserving the natural countryside and habitats of wildlife is something I'd definitely support though I wouldn't go to illegal methods with it. Maybe you don't see the beauty in life but we all have a different outlook, at the end of the day it is the consensus of society that determines this planet's future.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Leopard, That sir is called denial. Your examples are not comparable at all, because you miss out the real issue with lab animals. Stealing is not the sole moral issue at stake, and there are quite obviously greater issues sometimes. As in the case of torture. You sem only to see the morality of ownership, and to voerlook the fact that there are other issues, and the fact that at times there is conflict between them. well, then, please explain the 'other' moral issues at stake instead of vaguely referring to them - what are these 'other issues'?

I did, in the next paragraph. The fact that you seem to see no moral issue with mass torture of lab animals is not encouraging.

It is true, I see the absolute morality of ownership: self-ownership. Either it is absolutely true that I own myself OR, the only other possible case is that someone else owns me (slavery).

thats the problem, you think it is the only thing that matters. Much of the rest of the world also sees other issues, and the avoidance of extreme suffering as a valuable principle. That is the principle behind the ambulance service, and it is a bigger deal than private ownership.

If someone is lying in the road dying and you're standing by with the necessary drugs/equipment, but refuse to hand it over, I will take it off you if I can, and I dont think you'd find too many sympathisers in the crowd.


> OK. So, first, do you agree with me when I claim that my being tortured and held against my will directly violates my natural, human rights?

tortured yes, I'll exclude held against your will for now.

> Do you believe that being physically attacked or tortured (threat to life) is a greater moral evil (or rights violation) than theft?

ah yes

> After you have effected my escape, do you think you have a moral obligation (or that perhaps I do) to return the now infamous hammer to its owner or compensate him for it aas he sees fit?

I was thinking the hammer belonged to the torturer, in which case no.

> How about we now take your example and turn it around...
If I am on my deathbed and the only thing that will save me is the kidney from some other person, do I (or others acting on my behalf..you, if you really cared about me) have the right to physically attack and restrain that other person and steal their kidney to effect my recovery and health? What about their heart? Or maybe just their index finger or a lock of their hair?

no, and that is not comparable to taking someones glovebox medical kit or hammer.

> It is WRONG to steal - for whatever reason.

very clearly wrong. The courts will uphold this view as well: they will not punish someone who technically committed theft by taking the emergency supplies out of one car in a pile up in order to save the other drivers life. I'm afraid your viewpoint is not normal.

It is also 'compassionate' to voluntarily provide assistance to others in need - but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about. of course it has. It is exactly whats being talked about. no, I understood you talking about 'forcing' assistance - not voluntary. Huge difference.

the people removing the animals were providing assistance voluntarily. If someone is using a secure building and guards to keep you captive in your place of torture, then it is moral to damage or destroy that building to get you out. The preservation of the torturer's private property is trivial compared to the real issue.

The 'ends' do NOT justify the 'means' - it is immoral to steal from one person, no matter what you intend to do with the proceeds, be it pay for your elderly and sick mother, buy a new car, or feed a starving child. there we entirely disagree. I guess if we could go back in time and kill Hitler you'd object. think up a more plausible and realistic situation and I will answer - there are too many unknowns in this one - for instance, assuming time travel is possible, and thus altering historical events is possible, what is to say that Hitler would commit the atrocities he did once the past was altered just by going back in time? If then by going back in time alters events so that he would not become the mass murderer that he did in the 'other' timeline, then his murder would be unwarranted and immoral.

I thought so, youre trying to justify killing hitler as immoral. No reasonable normal person will buy that.

please explain this denial you charge me with... what am I denying? I am saying there are great differences between humans and other animals, just as there are great differences between fish and insects - even though they are both 'animals'.

1. the importance of prevention and alleviation of extreme suffering,
2. the fact that in moral terms it overrides the secondary concept of private ownership,
3. the fact that monkeys are mostly the same as us, with the difference in intelligence being the one significant difference. (I dont consider the possesion of more hair or a different nose shape to be especially significant)


Regards, Lava