Devil's Advocate
The first poster makes an absurd proposition and then those that reply to it will argue for why the preposterous view is correct. Feel free to make as many threads and reply to as many threads as you wish.
E.g.
User56: Devils advocate: All pregnancies should end in abortion.
FromWithin: You're right, humans are destroying the environment and killing all the wildlife. Once we are gone another race, perhaps crab-people, will evolve that actually properly look after the environment. Furthermore, did you know that childbirth results in 18 years of suffering?
|
2
points
Devil's Advocate: You're right, congress keep stopping him from making America great again. If they weren't constantly getting in his way with pesky things like due process and the law we'd already be in paradise. Everybody would be a beautiful shade of orange so there'd be no racism and everything would be perfect, if only he would follow the will of the people and let us crown him king (Source 1). Sources: HMMM, I never looked at my defending people's right to believe in the Bible or the Koran as playing "Devils Advocate". Kind of weird, isn't it? Da devil made me do it?? Of course I can't agree with FromWithin, to me he IS the devils advocate! He seems to hate anyone after they exit the birth canal that doesn't agree with him/her/it. I would argue against every pregnancy ending in abortion, though I could name several cases that should have (I would argue). ;-) And , as always, I would argue that they SHOULD end in abortion if the woman and her doctor believe it should! I disagreed with your first line until I thought about it. I guess I DO do devils advocate as you define it. You should find what you're looking for here: http://jaded.createdebate.com/ ;)
Supporting Evidence:
http://jaded.createdebate.com/browse/
Supporting Evidence:
http://jaded.createdebate.com/browse/
I know this thread is for devil's advocacy but I actually hold this position to be true for the most part (and from the amount of posts on this thread it's unlikely anyone else will come do some devil's advocacy). I can agree with natural life extension ideas such as taking supplements of nutrients that we lose the ability to digest as we age (that are linked to the aging process). My problem, however, comes in when we consider the more extensive methods of life-extension, for example mechanical or nano-technological enhancements, genetic engineering and so on. To begin, we have neurons not just in our brain but spread everywhere throughout our body, with particularly dense concentrations in our gut and heart. These gut and heart "brains" interact in a complex manner with our brain, with both top-down and bottom-up influence occurring (Source 1). When we take this information together with the fact that electrodes connected to the brain can control the brain (Source 2), it is not clear, as mechanical enhancements become smarter, that the only influence will be top-down. In other words, while one may influence the enhancement, one is likely to also be influenced by the enhancement. This doesn't even take into account the potential for purposeful abuse of this neuronal connection to the brain by the corporation or government that is making the enhancements (or a hacker). Nanotechnology also holds vast potential for abuse as it would potentially give the creators control over human bodies at a cellular level. In the case that the technology were not so controllable (more automatic) then there is the issue that the nano-tech may run amok by itself, acting as a pathogen. This second case actually makes a lot of sense considering that one's immune system can be triggered merely by common food proteins and nano-tech is often self-replicating. As for the genetic engineering of humans, this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all, I would imagine a "Brave New World" scenario, where there are several different grades of human. The reason for this is because is everyone were (for example) a leader then society couldn't function. As we've already discussed elsewhere at length, creating a ruling class leads inevitably to the abuse of any underclasses. Alternatively, I'd imagine a "Gattaca" type society (another dystopia), where everyone can choose their child's genetics. However, due to the fact that nobody would choose certain genes (for example tall genes would always be preferred over short ones) over time humanity would become more genetically homogeneous. Aside from the increased risk from pathogens, we would also be less diverse in our thinking, behavior and interests, as temperament (personality) is in part genetically determined (Source 3). This, obviously, would stagger our progress as a species. Further, different genes give advantages in different situations and as such we would be reducing humanity's ability to deal with unforeseen problems. Moreover, such trait selection could also cause genetic diseases several generations in the future that cannot be foreseen now. Finally, it's possible that certain genes (such as ones causing greater submissiveness) would be forced on people, under the pretext that such genes are better for society. Sources: @WinstonC Thanks for your response. Now, before getting into potential methods of hyper-life extension; what are your thoughts about current life-span extensions based on 'standard' medical progress? For instance, I am a mid-twenties Millennial, the expected life expectancy for people in my age group is about 95-low 100s--which is based on 'regular' medical advances of the type already seen (i.e. not even factoring in other potential methods that could extend life-spans drastically which may or may not come about). Furthermore, for people being born today, reasonable estimates of life-expectancy is approaching about 150 years. What are your thoughts on this; good or bad? Also, what constitutes as a 'natural' life-span, in this context? |
