Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Science and Society / New in Science / Other
Technologies of life-extension will change human nature
Material posted: Publication date: 28-09-2018
Bright beats in the hearts of such a thought: "People unworthy of immortality, first they should change." What needs to change in man is absolutely clear. We never tire of talking about it. Our literary classics are always only those involved that pointed out human weaknesses. Our satirists from the stage loudly ridiculed the social and personal vices. This activity is to sow reasonable, good, eternal — and now popular.

However, to inform about the shortcomings – it does not help. Something we are not much of a change. We see this in literature: the story may be centuries, but still interesting. So, characters and problems (themes, motifs, images, and conflicts) are clear to us, distant descendants. Ancient stories fresh and relevant. And, to give a contemporary gloss to ancient text, the spear is replaced by the machine, and sheep parchment on the smartphone. So, people did not change.

Some bright heart anxious chattering: "human nature cannot be changed". Others still believe that you can, they're on their way. Still others think "if it is impossible to change the nature, probably, it is possible to restrain, to take nature under the control of the mind, of the spirit."
Leo Tolstoy tried to create a system of education of a Person. He believed that the system can create based on existing religions. Not all agreed with him. Some people thought that the need to create their own, new system of education — a new "religion" with "gods." At times in some of the newborn the system of education of any gods speech was not. Some of us found the days when society raised quite enchanting from the point of view of mass scale and the "novelty" of the idea, but it is usually from the point of view of methods: suggestions and punishment — when the "break the backbone" nature of an ordinary person, trying to "surgically remove" the essence of his personal interests – did not, at that time, nature has won. Now it's not about a particular case, but in General, a "light heart" believed and continue to believe that a Person can be, anyway, but it is to educate. The method is based on the transformation of little man into a big Man they see in education.

The essence is not in different approaches, but in General — that "light of heart" does not leave attempts to change a Person for the better. But why?! "What cheer, bright heart"? And here is why: "the smoke without fire does not happen" – humanity is heading somewhere downhill, suffering person, suffering society all "off". Here, "a light heart" and "smoke" — root for each and every one. The issue is relevant.

And then I notice the "light hearts" in that, in addition to education, there is another way to directly change human nature: to extend his life. And "life extension" does not prevent "to sow reasonable, kind, eternal", but on the contrary – will help. I strongly sure. My resolve to support it "objections to immortality".

"Objections against the immortality" clearly point to the problems that emerge when there is a "tablet of rejuvenation": what will worsen in the individual and in society. "Opposition" claim that they will come, "the acute phase of the disease", which will lead to death. And my whole premise is that the aggravation will not lead to death, and to recovery.

Face it. Analyze impartially. What you say objection? What is this "disease" now takes place not in the acute and in the chronic form? What exactly dies? What will be improved? Where "objections" are wrong, and where telling the truth?

A few words about what "changing life time" – a change in the nature of man. "Objections" right whining about it! It would seem, then yell something, if "all this stuff" if immortality does not change the nature?! No. Just scream, no change. And because they shout excitedly. "No! shout objections. – You cannot change anything! Things will only get worse! Don't need no immortality." Cry, darling. So – not trivia, then all seriously: "immortality" seriously comes on the "sore spot". But you can argue it's only "smoke" — it only points to a hypothetical possibility "of fire". Maybe the "fire" no?! Yes, ladies and gentlemen. "Fire" is. Life extension really deep change human nature. "Time" defines "natural features", is the us any physicist will tell you: "life is a process, the process evolves over time, time – based process."

We, as representatives of humanity, to any process suitable with one measure of time – "the average lifetime of a single element of the system, man." All that matters is what will happen in our lifetime (even our personal lives, and the lives of the hypothetical representative of humanity), it is important that commensurate with the time of our lives, it is important that we can observe and they can respond.

For example, is not important for us evolution (process) – we don't even know how much is "one billion years". How is it different from "one million years"? We are not interested. Both for us – it's just "the same lot".

On the other hand, for us unimportant process, if the "lifetime" less a tenth of a second – all that flashed before my eyes faster – we're not interested.

We give only what is comparable with the time of our lives or our mental reactions – the processes of "life" which is about from one second to one century – the other, too fast or too slow processes, we simply do not see.

As one Round of people in one film: "to Live longer – see more". If you increase the human lifespan, the "other eye" opens, new "senses" appear – we will begin to see long-running processes personally and individually. Going to feel that to die we'll never make it — in ourselves, in our lifetime, with a heavy hangover, a sling will hit, for example, a bad environment or is our attraction to the life of the loan, the essence of which is our love of consumerism, instant gratification. This happens the impact is not after our death, "to pay interest to ourselves, can't leave us at the light," will hit ourselves, is not unknown to anyone not yet born descendants.

And for a thousand years, some "eternal hamley" accumulate has his karma finally remember him, surrounding everything, and done the very thing which now laughing: "may life condemn, let the life will punish." We've all heard about "the repeated prisoner's dilemma" — the more interaction ahead, the better not to lie, not to betray, but honestly, to cooperate and to trust that the math says: "with long life good and honest to be more profitable than the evil and lying".

Now about the method of working with "objections to immortality". The method will call somehow poetic. Mmm... "the Method of non-resistance". We won't resist to the objection. We will draw from the objections use. Do Aikido masters. Beat them, and they gently go out of the line of strike, the strike itself is not blocked. They on the other hand, no fuss, coolly moving on to the heart, the center of balance, and further, using the movement of the enemy, knocked him to the ground. Well, something like waltz.

Let's start with respect for "the enemy". The bow to him. Can you not wriggle, and just mentally nod. Any opinion has the right to life. The enemy must be respected. We are not going from the beginning to think that he is a fool and understands nothing. Someone objected rather intelligent. He was raised and schooled, and that he had teachers, he is not alone, he is the translator of some of the cultural values he has long gained strength and now he throws us his wisdom. He says:
— Overpopulation.

And we are not going to casually wave a hand and laugh. We will not hack his arguments about China and Europe. Won't be noted sarcastically that there was no problem that she invented that is now under-population. It's all trivial isn't working. It's a battle-level sources of information. "Your sources are lying, that's all," so we declare the opponent. And we need the ideological battle.

Let's notice, where the "center of balance" of our enemy. And then explain to ourselves why we got involved in the fight, what we want from this specific conversation with a specific person. After all, most often it is better just to remain silent. There is no point in dispute, there is no point in "doxazosin". Is it possible to convince someone, if just once to argue?! And in General, better about girls to talk about the money or about cars and the response of the interlocutor warmer. But "why should we dispute about immortality" — this is after it tomorrow too, that every answer himself. And today, we got involved. We now look at where the enemy's "center of balance".

It is clear that if humanity will be attacked by "overpopulation", if cramped and stuffy, if everything is always dirtied and angry, and nervously sleeping in piles on the sidewalks if you stink, if, hang it all, there is no tap water – it's uncomfortable, it's really a problem. But why "overpopulation" is obliged to happen? Why the opponent is so sure of "of numinosity" of overpopulation? What gives him strength? What he stands firmly with your feet?

Usually this prop can be formulated in two words: "man is weak". Well weak and that's it. Nothing will come of it. You can not rock the boat. Before never anything the person could not, now he can not and may not, and in the future no hope — then it will be the same. A very skinny little man! With overcrowding it, therefore, fail.

Is our opponent on the "chelovecheskaya" confidently. Here it is, support it. And break a leg will not work – aprosiana, muscular leg. Try it, tell him a man is that Man creates space objects (small, Yes, but it creates – moget, then!), what germs he crushed the nail (Yes, out again, the germs from under the antibiotics, but the precedent was crushed!). You can tell a lot in support of "man strong." Will not help. You don't break your leg, standing on the "chelovecheskaya". Support fundamental.

And not have to break the support. Should the opponent bring out of balance. This trick rukopashke is called a "toke". Hit you, and you don't flinch, don't go "under snags", you catch and pull on. Itself all fall. That's the way we do. We reply something like (to imagine specific dialogue is ridiculous and absurd, Yes — doing a discount):
— Of course there will be overpopulation. And what more! This overcrowding is what the world had never seen. How long will the overpopulation? Three rows will be on each other to live? Or five? And then what?

And the opponent will have to assume that then all the same people with the overpopulation will do something. In their beastly manner, of course. War on want, a reptile. Will all the extra to kill. But look, man is not weak. Had the opponent go "chelovecheskaya". Where he now stands? And by the way, where is our "overpopulation"? Over? It is not a problem? Already the post-Apocalypse? Yeah... In General, your opponent has grown a second leg, the second prop. Had the opponent step to do not to fall. The second pillar is: "no need to change anything — and so all is well." That is, a weak man and can't change, and there is already people are not weak, may, but will make it worse – stupid. The second pillar we call "chelovekov". Also the fundamental thing.

But what's the use for us? What "method of non-resistance"? Just to let opponent get to run? To the debates to win? Well, Yes, convenient, fun method of fighting. But we use it for other "work". Our job is not objections, this is more than a struggle. We saw what running opponents. They run only on two legs: on the "chelovecheskaya" and "chelovekopotok". They never admit that the man is strong and smart. Don't believe it. Here that man is an animal, stupid and weak – believe in it are willing, on and are.

I think that there are more legs of opponents? Let's see some more examples. Other foot we do not see. Only "weak people" and "people are stupid".

Here is the opponent said:

— Limited resources.

And we know and do not argue. Yes, resources are limited. But why is that a problem? Who can do that? The weak and stupid.

— Social mobility will stall.

Yes, if you do not change the social structure, then stops. It is necessary to change. Who would not be able to change the social structure? The weak and stupid.

— No need to change anything, so all is well.

Better than that "good" will not be able to do who? Exactly — weak and stupid.

— The laws of nature wiser. Evolution goes right.

Who, exactly, are wiser than the laws of nature? Yes, "Hey". Only the weak and stupid may think about the wisdom of the laws, and humbly to drift. Smart and strong laws of nature uses, and the question of "wisdom" and "correctness" of the law before them is not necessary.

— It is not necessary to prolong life. We don't know how to change the culture, if everyone becomes immortal.

Who knows? Those who can not cope with change? Yeah. "Well, you ponel!"

— Immortal existence makes no sense.

The opponent thinks so. There's no need to think so. We are not weak and not stupid. It makes no sense?! And we'll find! And the meaning of it, and the interest of life.

So everywhere. Take any objection – it sticks out only two legs (or one of them): "I chelovekoraz" and "chelovekov". Other legs are not visible.

Opponents serve us in good stead. They had long prepared — absorbed cultural objections, sucked up the statements of thinkers. We, thanks to them, we see the problems that will arise from the immortal. And assuming that the man still strong and clever, we can imagine what this Man will do — how it will change the world, to live without overpopulation, to develop and make progress, in order for him to live comfortably. We now, thanks to the objections, see the key: opponents pull owl on the globe, they believe that people will not change, and then immortality will make a weakling and a fool to a pulp. But the man is strong and smart and who is not strong and not smart, that will have to be strong and smart is saying "objection", the only way to survive, and in another, following the logic of "objections" to survive – that is good service opponents, that's the kind of truth they show us.

My (and not only my) assertion is that immortality is necessary for all. Mass immortality will open people's eyes. Emphasize that immortality, to have power to "open your eyes", has to be massive. Then humanity will be well, then will change the nature of man. And the sooner we will recover from the "weakness and stupidity", the better. Not this disease to endure. It is impossible to leave everything as is. Dangerous us — conservatively to keep and cherish our "weakness and stupidity" – all here on the planet gobble, dirtied, perebivay each other and die out, like pigs. None of the "pigs" will never solve the really important problems: the problem of resources, overpopulation, culture, and social mobility. Themselves opponents know that. Think so, when opposed to universal immortality – "weak and stupid" do not solve problems. Yes, exactly, not decide.

Too bad that opponents are convinced that the "weakness and stupidity" invincible. But "she" is unbeatable. Precedents of the mass. As soon as a problem as to aggravation, as soon as the war and everybody gather in a close-knit bunch, all at once "become smarter and silnet". And based on this phenomena, some of the Lord's misanthropic doing monstrous conclusion that war is the engine of progress (like, a lot in science and in technology and in culture came due to wars and military threats – we need more blood!). Well, no. Don't need war. Don't need sorrow and blood. I hinted about the war, only to specify the subject, that man is capable of, what heights of mind and spirit he is subject. "Strong and smart" already among us. War only gives a "strong and smart" to work at full capacity ("weak and stupid" during the war in hiding).

A person is strong and clever — it was and will be. There is a peaceful way to "move progress" – to extend the life. The people who create the "pill of immortality", do a very good job: for the individual, for society, for the world.

Source: https://habr.com/post/424357/


RELATED MATERIALS: Science and Society
Возрастное ограничение