Replies

and brought up an enviromentalist argument against medical technology extending human life, but not much more.

It's not an environmentalist arguement it's an economic arguement. Since social security is a pyramid scheme how do we pay for prolonging life beyond a persons ability to not just become a parasite off the young and productive ? We are at the point now where taxes, and the cost of living are creating negative population growth in industrialized economies. The human race is heading a million miles an hour into a brick wall and no one wants to even talk about it.

Once again, I've conceded that there will be risks, and perhaps negative consequences in an extreme sense.

However, I fail to see how the invention of powerful nuclear weapons and the eventual possession of said weapons in the hands of nutballs will be less dangerous than cloning genetic material.

In fact, if people were to review threats to humanity over the next hundred years, I doubt cloning would be named in the top 10(maybe even top 100, depending who is doing the listing and how they mean the term)

There are potentially negative consequences to the fact that humans no longer live to age 40. There are obvious societal impacts as marriages are no forced to last even longer, and costs to an economy are way up as a result of elderly citizens, ill-equipped to earn a living and too dependent for many of their descendants to help much.

I don't think you'd have protested against various advances on the basis of the negative impacts they've had on CURRENT human societies. Why would you be so fearful of the future if it's really just more of the same?

As for the ponzi scheme that is Social Security---Who said I approved of it or that it should survive in its current form?

That's like asking about a new type of firearm and wondering about current firearms regulations that SHOULDNT BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH.