Ran across an interesting article on Disinfo last week. Thought I'd share it here.

By: John G. Messerly

"The Transhumanist Wager, brainchild of noted transhumanist Zoltan Istvan, can be understood as follows. If one loves and values their life, then they will want (the option) to live as long as possible. How do they achieve this?

Alternative #1 – do nothing and hope there is an afterlife. But since you don’t know there is an afterlife, doing nothing doesn’t help your odds.

Alternative #2 – use science and technology to gain immortality. By doing something you are increasing your odds of being immortal.

The choice is between bettering your odds or not, and good gamblers say the former is the better choice. At least that’s what the arguments supporters say.

There are two basic obstacles that prevent individuals from taking the wager seriously. First, most people don’t think immortality is technologically possible or, if they do, believe such technologies won’t be around for centuries or millenia. Most are unaware that research on life-extending and death-eliminating technologies are progressing rapidly. Some researchers think we are only decades from extending life significantly, if not defeating death altogether.

Second, even if convinced that we can overcome death, many feel we shouldn’t. I have written extensively about this topic in my recent book, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Perspectives, and in recent articles, arguing that death should be optional, not mandatory. I am always amazed at how many people—when confronted for the first time with the idea that technology may give them the option of living much longer, happier, and healthier lives—claim to prefer death. There are many reasons for this, but for most the paradigm shift required is too great, guided as they are by superstition, ancient religion, distorted views of what’s natural, or a general love of stasis and disdain for change—even if it means condemning their consciousness to oblivion!"

Read the rest here:

http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/11/10/transhumanist-wager-can-defeat-death/

My question is, if we do manage to develop the ability to prolong our lives indefinitely, should we do it?

Other than making a proper population growth model, and the optimum carrying capacity that the earth can sustain on renewable energy, I don't see the problem with living indefinitely if it can be done.
I don't believe that we are capable of doing it.

The Russia 2045 movement wants to achieve just that....I personally do not know if such a thing is possible...but the science of life extension and nanotechnology may make it possible.

The article suggests that a lot of people would prefer to die rather than alter their pre-existing paradigm to that extent.

I'm dying to know who some of these people are, no pun intended.
Would any of our resident Christians or Muslims choose to live indefinitely on earth?

Weah96:
The article suggests that a lot of people would prefer to die rather than alter their pre-existing paradigm to that extent.

I'm dying to know who some of these people are, no pun intended.
Would any of our resident Christians or Muslims choose to live indefinitely on earth?

One fundamental aspect of my belief system as a christian is that it is only under God's kingdom headed by Jesus Christ that humans will finally have indefinely long lives, not by any other means.
So, if it happens that humans can now do what I hold "impossible", it would be proof enough that my belief is wrong, and perhaps there is no God. But it won't stop me from enjoing life forever.

dorox:

One fundamental aspect of my belief system as a christian is that it is only under God's kingdom headed by Jesus Christ that humans will finally have indefinely long lives, not by any other means.
So, if it happens that humans can now do what I hold "impossible", it would be proof enough that my belief is wrong, and perhaps there is no God. But it won't stop me from enjoing life forever.

lol...

I think that extended life for humans would seriously distort the ecosystem and open a countdown to extinction.

Nature functions optimally on a harmonic cycle of life, death and renewal. An extension of one would inevitably distort the cycle and possibly speed up extinction.
Humans are by far the species that have the greatest impact on the natural ecosystem.

Remember, nature is a system that strives to maintain equilibrium.
If one of the equilibrium factors is altered, the system will move quickly to annul the change, and restore the equilibrium .

We observe this in isolated ecosystems.
If for example, we have an ecosystem different animals on the food chain that depend on each for food and survival, and then you increase the population or longevity of those on top of the food chain, the ecosystem would be altered or destroyed to counter the change.

Even we managed ( by who knows what means ) to reduce the earth population 80% , extended life would still pose a great risk to human survival because the evolutionary process of weeding out bad genes would be arrested. Genetic variation would suffer because bad genes ( which we all have) will remain in circulation longer than necessary.

Socially, imagine the Ghengis khans, the Alexander the greats, the King Davids, The Stalins, The Hitlers, The Henry Kissingers, the Dick Cheneys, the John Mcains, the Sanni Abachas of this world ( and there are many many of them ) having an extended lifespan.

Democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights would not endure where the worsts of human characters are allowed to live longer than their natural biological life.

Humanity has barely managed to survive because every evil man has appointment with death in easily predictable time table.

An extended lifespan is not something that humanity can afford.

@plaetton: It is for the reason of not unbalancing the ecosystem i metioned modelling the resulting human population in line with the carrying capacity of the biosphere.
To your other point, the technology that would enable us prolong our life span indefintely would also afford us the means of making gene rapairs and gene modification as need be.
Then lastly, we are not talking of immortality here, so the threat separating ones head from body would help to keep most people within the limits of what is socially acceptable.

plaetton:
I think that extended life for humans would seriously distort the ecosystem and open a countdown to extinction.

I agree. But it still doesn't mean that the ability won't be utilized when it does become realistic. I compare it to smoking cigarettes. Smokers know that cigarettes kill, but still hope that they are the exception.

Look around now, we are making a lot of efforts towards extinction as we speak.

dorox:
@plaetton: It is for the reason of not unbalancing the ecosystem i metioned modelling the resulting human population in line with the carrying capacity of the biosphere.

Yes, that would mean a drastic reduction in population by at least a factor 80% , as well as population growth rate itself.

Like I mentioned before, How would we deal with evil men, power mongers, war mongers, emperor wannabes, even the Darth Vaders amongst us , already in position of power and immense wealth, now with added bonus of an extended lifespan?

The havoc that 300yr old meglomaniacs could do the earth would be worse than any natural catastrophe.

I agree that it would be difficult to implement a system that would curb the worlds population to be in line with the earth carrying capacity. I can just imagine every country arguing for a higher quota of the fixed global population one the life extension treatment becomes available to all countries.