> Fellow Extropians, please enarmor me with a set of counter arguments to
this
> assertion below as well as other classic deathist positions ?
>
> "Professor Lee Silver, a geneticist at Princeton University, says any
> attempt to achieve immortality would go against nature.
>
> He said: "Death makes perfect sense in terms of evolution, in terms of
> passing your genes on to the next generation.
>
> "If we did not die then we would be around competing with our children and
> that is not very good for evolution."
1- Evolutionary processes have nothing to do with dying of old age. If you
survive, you are doing something right.
2 - Genes are old news. Evolution in the strictly genetic sense is an
anachronism to humanity.
3 - If nature has a problem with us, maybe she can come kick our arses.
Until then, tough luck. What does "go against nature" actually mean?
Not attempting to survive at all costs would go against evolution, if
anything does. Still, that's quite simplistic. As long as we do reproduce in
some sense (that might be biological, it might be social (new societies), it
might be technological (alife?)), evolution continues. Evolution does not
require that we die when we have the ability to live.
Competing with our children will bring some social challenges, but evolution
is not particularly relevant.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:24 MDT