Since I am not advocating that everyone be forced to live forever merely expressing my own intention to extend my own lifespan for as long as possible I cannot see how any libertarian can object.
Likewise wanting to be rid of welfare is not eugenic although there certainly would be benefits.
Noone has told me what is wrong with voluntary eugenics? I
I may be speaking out of turn when it comes to the opinions of others, but I see nothing wrong with wanting to extend one’s lifespan so long as it does not cause harm – in any sense of that term – to another. If you want to be cryogenically frozen and then “thawed out” at some future date, go for it.
No one said that getting rid of welfare was eugenics. Ending welfare economics programs, and the “do-gooder” attempts at social engineering, is nothing more ending a specific malinvestment type. I would venture a guess and say that once those policies have been ended we may be able to observe less breeding among the “useless, criminal, and feckless”, as you call them; and I agree with you on this specific topic: that welfare programs promote nothing but waste.
As has already been noted above by Merlin, voluntary eugenics can be called “dating”. Likewise, I know some people who are not married and have no children – to include when person who had themselves neutered (if we can use that term). I know married couples who do not have nor want children. While my evidence is anecdotal, it does show that there are those in society who voluntarily decide not to continue there specific strand of DNA in a future generation.
It isn’t clear to me that the destination of the road to become more than human is necc a place we want to go. That’s why I inherently distrust transhumanism. Though, on the other hand, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to live forever. 
ppl are complicated.
Just so I can understand everyone who “wouldn’t necc want to live forever”, are you suggesting that there exists a time in the future whereby, when asked if you’d rather live or die tomorrow, your answer would be the latter?
^ no. i was saying i am infact tempted by promises of immortality, even if i distrust transhumanism in general.
original post has been reworded for added clarity.
Evolution seems to consistently ensure that the unwashed (herd) out-procreate the elite (by definition), as if the symbiotic herd+elite is the only viable mode of humanity’s existence/persistence.
I rather have my neurons hooked up to a machine and live there “forever” then be a biological burden.
I worry less about living forever and more about living now. People who want immortality generally seem to be powerless in the present, and underachievers. Achievers are too busy pwning the here.
I think I kind of see it like that - or at least transhumanist type people seem, oddly enough, to “hate” life in a way - but than again this stuff is hard to think or talk about and I think I am getting a little too general and into the realm of psychologizing. So I suppose that is all I can muse on about when it comes to this.
That would be people like Morovec and Minsky would it? I would like to know your evidence for this. I adore life which is why I want to extend it.I love to learn stuff and experience stuff and I am already over half way through my life and it just isn’t enough.I would love to know what liberty student has achieved in his wonderful existence of achievement.
Well, I said it was hard to think or talk about, and there wasn’t much else I could say.
Here would be a mock argument though if I entered one:
Me: You hate life
You: No I don’t, you have no evidence for this
Me: oh OK I guess your right, carry on than.
You: Victory
That’s about all I got.
As far as who achieved what, that has about as much to do with the price of tea in China than it does with the point being made. Which in my case (can’t speak for LS) wasn’t even an attempt at argument.
LS, William - Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Empirically, this is the first time I’ve heard of such a hypothesis. Logically, I’d bet that the ones enjoying life the most would be the ones attempting the hardest to have more of it. For me, choosing immortality (if offered) would be the biggest no-brainer of them all.
Logically, I’d bet that the ones enjoying life the most would be the ones attempting the hardest to have more of it. For me, choosing immortality (if offered) would be the biggest no-brainer of them all.
Logically, I would say the ones living their lives are within their own “logic of life” as it where, pursuing their own ends to “enjoyment” which is demonstrated by their everyday actions. Seeing life as a “thing in itself” is nothing I am too impressed with at the moment, and while it is true some of these people can be having a blast (much as someone who pusrues law, programming, or any other field), it is no different than anything else - and with anything else it does have some negative stereotypes, myths, and narratives that could be associated with it: such as the Howard Hughes type who has himself locked off in a padded room, or something.
Emprically most people don’t choose a job in life extension - that says something about the actual world choices. It mostly, to me, seems to be in the realm of metaphysical musers
For me, choosing immortality (if offered) would be the biggest no-brainer of them all.
But the choice is not offered, it is not in my realm of action, so there is nothing to consider.
Anyway as I said; I don’t have an argument to what I said before. It was a statement of a general impression and was not meant to be a logical argumentative statement.
Please don’t try to claim a value statement is logical.
To be clear:
I am not putting up an argument against trans-humanism. I can’t, no one can - transhumanism is not within the realm of argumentation. There is nothing to argue for or against.
If a person subjectively values something then, by definition, he would want more of it. It’s a tautology, really, and perfectly logical. The moment one stops (subjectively) valuing his life, would be the moment he would choose to end it, i.e. exchange it with something he values more (death).
We have to keep in mind though that life extension would be possible right now if it wasn’t for a) economic interventionism and b) people opposing it because of “overpopulation”. I’m kind of irked by the thought that life extension might be getting on the way right when I’m too old to take advantage of it. Kind of makes me feel cheated.
Value scales are ordinal not cardinal.
Thank you.