Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Science and Society / Future of the Information Society / Articles
Standards nestow
Material posted: Publication date: 26-11-2018
There will now be arguments on the topic of changes in morality caused by overly long life, so long that it already does not climb in any gate.

On the future of morality ageless people — nestow, in a nutshell we can say the following. Once people learn to roll back the aging process, in the minds will happen anthropocentrists shift: "aging overcome — invincible death receded". A new era will begin — a war to the death (and people have many different chances to kick in, even in the most ageless), and not as it is now — the war with the fear of death (of course learned to "vajavate with fear" to tolerate something, who courage didn't get it — try to persuade yourself that are not afraid of death... and themselves watery saliva swallow at the sight of the cadaver).

There will not be people to relax and to degrade, as the dream of the enemies of mankind. People the enemy is going to be a real death. It is now we poor her Death, we suffer (she's invincible, let alone us), but how aging will win... different everything will be. Can be compared with the situation when a full Shoe nails (full of problems in living), and still have to go (live): a couple of steps you can still tolerate (to survive several decades and choke matzah, no big deal), but if camping far away (for millennia), you will have the nails of the Shoe to get, yeah. Or a situation where a slow moving lava on the village — people don't just roll their eyes and thump and fuck, they take bulldozers and have time, dig ditches. They have and they have time for it. Long life will force nestow to behave and not otherwise. Remember how in the Great Patriotic war? The intellectual hooligan brothers on the front, in the rear for stealing the shooting, and botany do not sleep the night — aircraft and machine guns invent a new one. Here will be the same when you see people that have a Death soup of the rinds dripping, if you krasoti as it should.

And here we gradually turn to the question of "What distinguishes ethics from morality".

What distinguishes ethics from morality? Wait, don't answer. Let's listen to the doctor of Philology, Professor of Moscow state University, A. A. Volkov. He says in the book "fundamentals of rhetoric". First, he describes the concept of "cultural norms":


  • summarizes specific action or experience;
  • contains important for the society category;
  • assesses the experience and the categories in which he summarizes by recommending a certain course of action.

Next, answer our question in two steps. The first step:

Rules are divided into ethical and technical:
— Ethical standards are reduced to the concept of "good/evil" from the point of view which assesses the experience
Technical standards are reduced to the concept of "beautiful/ugly".

And the second step, which applies only to ethical standards:

Ethical standards can be divided into legal, moral and ethical.

Legal norms are reduced to a rating of "fair/unfair", a moral — evaluation "worthy/unworthy" and moral — to assess the "good/bad".

So. That is, when someone on TV says about something "ethical" then it looks as weird as "room-apartment". Let us ponder the nuances.

Legal and moral norms universally binding. Legal and moral norms include sanctions. The moral and ethical standards involve the assessment act and the individual, and the legal — only assessment act.
Standards are the main form of thinking and the basis of culture.

We still need a definition of culture.

Culture — maintain a system of knowledge providing activities of the companies.

What can be seen here.

1. Culture provides. And if you change the living conditions of the change of culture? To continue to provide – will change too. We are interested in changing the conditions of life called "life expectancy".

2. Culture is maintained. That is, she does not want to change. This property can be used to explain why sometimes no logical arguments are not taken into account cultural person. A cultured person simply retains the culture.

We shall put forward a hypothesis: change of a lifetime threatens to change the culture. Maybe not the truth, but at least everything points that way — as soon as start talking about immortality, immediately there are objections, sometimes quite wild in a way which ignores logic, and often, if you insist, the conversation becomes expressive, irritable color. To say anything specific before, but the fact remains — short life defend with fanaticism: to lengthen two or three times are not allowed, and when the offer life immortal, just ready to break. At the same time, to shorten the life of such disputes as do not allow all those fanatics. They argue that life expectancy cannot be changed. And they say that all this extension of life is pointless and meaningless. Cunning... what I do not want that culture to stay the same... discouraged.

Thus, the protective reaction of cultured people is the basis for the hypothesis that the prolongation of life will greatly change the culture. Try to predict which side will change the culture. To do this, we will examine how culture is represented the most important moment in lifetime. Namely, the finish line, "death." And also, what is the significance in the culture of its main satellite, "aging" (aging, that is, from vozrastaniya diseases, and people die in most cases). We will do just that. We will take the phenomena of life and to make them a moral issue: "good/bad".

In addition, we note that in the culture is firmly a myth "about the inevitability of aging."
For example, it is considered true that "aging is a natural process". But the statement itself does not contain a fact. What do you mean "natural"? Natural, clear, obvious, or may be good? Chose "natural"? Yeah. And what do you mean natural? In the sense that the nature of mind? No, this is wrong. Because in nature there is an ageless organism. Therefore, a myth.

In the end we come to the conclusion that ageless people will:

1. The value of life. This is in contrast to our modern culture. For now, we are your life we do not appreciate. We know that will soon grow old and die. We can't get used to living. And our culture generates a great number of moral norms on the subject of how to die "well", and what is good in aging.

2. To appreciate the planet, environment and resources. Don't need it now, anyway, soon to die.

3. To appreciate others, society. Now, we have more developed competition. Every man for himself is a natural consequence of the inevitability of aging and death.

4. To appreciate the intangible. We now have the meaning of life — "money and success". These meanings generated in our culture because of the short life with an inevitable end. Have to live, then it will be too late.

5. To appreciate the responsibility and reasonableness. Now from officials to ordinary mortals we have not decided to be responsible and make sensible decisions. Why? Life is short. We live for the moment.

Aside from immortality and the aging process to look at Standards Nestow regardless, it is impossible to say that it is strange and unacceptable norms. On the contrary. This is good, love and life. That's what we try to teach children. What I try to teach adults. But we look around, turns out badly. Short life, with inevitable aging dictates the ugly standards.

They say that Francois Marie Arouet once said: "If there is no God, it would have had to create". In our case we can say the same: "If immortality was not, it would be necessary to invent it". As motivation, as a goal, as a national idea.


RELATED MATERIALS: Science and Society
Возрастное ограничение