Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

antioxidants won't stop the natural aging process. I think its in our genes aswell. Theres a chromosome that progressively gets shorter as we age. I think thas effectively our egg timer on life.

We'll find a way to break it. Breaking stuff is what we do best.

[Puck]

and kids would be more wimpy and pathetic than ever!

Not sure, but do you live next to a fat camp or something? Where I come from, kids tend to be tiny, vicious and snotty little stuntpeople.

[Cthulhu]

I hope we don't hit age escape velocity.  Since you can't kill people, knowing they're going to die eventually is the next best thing.  Can you imagine spending the rest of eternity with the most annoying person you know?

And it's not like we'll truly live forever.  Heat death of the universe, collapse of civilization, destruction of whatever is keeping us alive, eventually we won't be able to sustain it any more and we'll die.

[Akroma]

one step closer to video-game healing items

[Armok]

http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

[Duke 2.0]

 Now all we need is body armor that molds over you when you touch it and ammo that loads into your gun when you step over it, despite it being for a different gun/weapon/object alltogether.

[Tack]

Or ammo that jumps into your magazine when you walk over it, seeing as you also have an infinite amount of magazines.

[redacted123]

-

[Duke 2.0]

 And dropped shovels turning into flamethrower ammo, or jars of piss turning into rockets.

[Jualin]

Also, weapons that remain weightless until they are in use.

[LegoLord]

Do games like that even exist?

Also, chaoticag, pretty much anything can increase your risk of cancer of some kind. Cancer is like that.

Yes, but some things do that more so than others.

I don't like the idea of immortality, to be honest.  Think:  there will of course be limits to how far we can go with rejuvination.  Now imagine that we have the low birth rate/low death rate, and then some disaster strikes.  It doesn't matter what.  But it drastically reduces the population.  Then we have a bunch of people who are used to a very, very low birth rate.  It could be difficult to re grow the lost population, unless you forced people to have kids (which realistically you can't do).

Then of course, with such a low birth rate, there will be a vast number of people much, much older than the few young children.  These young children would probably never be able to interact very well with any one else because either they don't get enough contact with kids their own age (and therefore don't develop good communication skills), or they are in such small groups that they basically form tiny cliques.  Cliques, as a rule, are a bad thing.  They cause division and distrust.  I don't want humanity to become a collection of dozens of little cliques that can't accept each other.

That guy had a good argument, Armok, but I have to disagree with him.

Though I'm all for new medical treatments that might allow more people to have the same chances at life as everyone else.

[Korbac]

Cliques, as a rule, are a bad thing.  They cause division and distrust.  I don't want humanity to become a collection of dozens of little cliques that can't accept each other.

Isn't this what humanity is essentially at the moment anyway? Sure, you get people that waft between them, but humanity is split into cliques based on class, background, 'prestige', race (even in racially peaceful places like my city there is a clear asian / african part of the city), who you know, etc. These pretend to like each other because they have to, but in general people are always a bit distrustful of those who don't fit (like many forumers here slag off "graphics whores".)

[sonerohi]

Because graphics whores don't really belong in a game community where the graphics are.. well.

[LegoLord]

Cliques, as a rule, are a bad thing.  They cause division and distrust.  I don't want humanity to become a collection of dozens of little cliques that can't accept each other.

Isn't this what humanity is essentially at the moment anyway? Sure, you get people that waft between them, but humanity is split into cliques based on class, background, 'prestige', race (even in racially peaceful places like my city there is a clear asian / african part of the city), who you know, etc. These pretend to like each other because they have to, but in general people are always a bit distrustful of those who don't fit (like many forumers here slag off "graphics whores".)

No, actually.  There are plenty of people who might be called "wealthy" who at one point were not, and some of their closest friends can be people who could be considered poor.  I myself know several people of different classes, and all it really affects is how much they can spend, not their interactions with other people.

And even though cliques are promenent, that doesn't mean they are okay.  People call loners anti-social.  The real anti-social people, though, are those in tight, intolerant cliques.  I don't think bringing ourselves into a situation that further encourages cliques would be a very responsible thing to do.

[Korbac]

Yeah, you're right.    I know a bunch of people from different groups, but thought I was in the minority.

Not saying cliques are okay, but I guess I did kind of say that making them even more acceptable would be fine, so yeah - I was wrong there.  Sorry about that.