32 replies to this topic

[harris13.3]

Link: [url="http://"http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6193749""]here[/url]

Granted, it's only an informal poll but the results were surprisingly positive. Approximately 85-90% chose "I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years." - Which I suspect is also the same viewpoint shared by most Imminst members. While the poll only has 30 responses as of today, it does indicate that the vast majority of non-theists would choose to take advantage of anti-aging ("control over the aging process") and radical life-extension ("live longer than a hundred years") technologies if they were made available.

Perhaps more surprising is that only one person chose the extreme pro-death: "I would not swallow the pill and it should be made a crime for people to interefere with the natural aging process." while a whopping 25 people chose the anti-death opposite. Websites such as this and this portray society's attitudes towards death as being potentially destructive towards the goals of Imminst but should we really be worrying if these beliefs are only carried by a small minority?

(Interestingly, another poll on the same board with 40 responses had 80% admitting the plausibility of a technological singularity)


The results of the poll was a real eye-opener for me. Does this mean that the so-called social obstacle of "deathism" isn't as strong and influential as we thought?

Edited by Mind, 27 November 2009 - 07:59 PM.
edited title

[harris13.3]

Oops... The title was supposed to read "Vast Majority of Atheists in Favor of Radical Life Extension For Themselves" but the last few letters were cut off due to the character limit. It should still be readable though.

EDIT: I also added a poll to see how the results compare between the Imminst (life extensionist) and IIDB (general non-theist) populations.

Edited by Condraz23, 27 November 2009 - 11:13 AM.

[Luna]

way, way way longer :D infinite longer ^^

Edit: neat to find this kind of thing elsewhere, but not all that rare or unexpected.

I think it would be insane to see anyone posting the last option.

Edited by Luna, 27 November 2009 - 11:35 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Link: [url="http://"http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6193749""]here[/url]

Granted, it's only an informal poll but the results were surprisingly positive. Approximately 85-90% chose "I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years." - Which I suspect is also the same viewpoint shared by most Imminst members. While the poll only has 30 responses as of today, it does indicate that the vast majority of non-theists would choose to take advantage of anti-aging ("control over the aging process") and radical life-extension ("live longer than a hundred years") technologies if they were made available.

Perhaps more surprising is that only one person chose the extreme pro-death: "I would not swallow the pill and it should be made a crime for people to interefere with the natural aging process." while a whopping 25 people chose the anti-death opposite. Websites such as this and this portray society's attitudes towards death as being potentially destructive towards the goals of Imminst but should we really be worrying if these beliefs are only carried by a small minority?

(Interestingly, another poll on the same board with 40 responses had 80% admitting the plausibility of a technological singularity)


The results of the poll was a real eye-opener for me. Does this mean that the so-called social obstacle of "deathism" isn't as strong and influential as we thought?

This is some great data to back up the point I have been making for a very long time here: atheists are the target market for whatever immortalism movement. This is a very well written poll though. I'm interested in what other demographics would answer, would agnostics (not sure / don't care) overwhelmingly favor option 1 (e.g. "Approximately 85-90% chose [i]I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years.")? What about Christians?

http://www.christian...s.com/t7420862/

Edited by RighteousReason, 27 November 2009 - 07:50 PM.

[brokenportal]

This reminds me of a question I used to ask people all of the time. I would get them in to discussion about indefinite life extension, back then I rarely got through to them, now days I have figured out how to, but since I didnt get through to them back then they would almost always tell me why indefinite life extension was bad. So I would routinely say,

"So you dont want to stay alive and live on in the incredible things that the future holds for us? Alright, hypothetically, science creates a pill that would cause you to live indefinitely with health, you indicate you wouldnt take it. Ok now, lets say that somebody slipped it in to your food against your will, I dont support that, Im just saying. But, now what would you do? When you got to the typical age range of deathy of say, 90, would you then think to yourself how you didnt want that worthless life extension, and kill yourself?"

From what I can remember, saying that to them was always a show stopper. It always put the breaks on their want to deny the value in indefinite healthy life extension. Im going to have to think about that and see if I cant fit it back in to my cause spreading dialogue.

[RighteousReason]

Link: [url="http://"http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6193749""]here[/url]

Granted, it's only an informal poll but the results were surprisingly positive. Approximately 85-90% chose "I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years." - Which I suspect is also the same viewpoint shared by most Imminst members. While the poll only has 30 responses as of today, it does indicate that the vast majority of non-theists would choose to take advantage of anti-aging ("control over the aging process") and radical life-extension ("live longer than a hundred years") technologies if they were made available.

Perhaps more surprising is that only one person chose the extreme pro-death: "I would not swallow the pill and it should be made a crime for people to interefere with the natural aging process." while a whopping 25 people chose the anti-death opposite. Websites such as this and this portray society's attitudes towards death as being potentially destructive towards the goals of Imminst but should we really be worrying if these beliefs are only carried by a small minority?

(Interestingly, another poll on the same board with 40 responses had 80% admitting the plausibility of a technological singularity)


The results of the poll was a real eye-opener for me. Does this mean that the so-called social obstacle of "deathism" isn't as strong and influential as we thought?

Your link is broken, where do I find it?

[Shannon Vyff]

I didn't see any votes in that poll yet, but I know there are many religious people that favor immortality--the Mormon Transhumanist Association is the largest group I know of, but I've met those from all the major wold religions.

[harris13.3]

Link: [url="http://"http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6193749""]here[/url]

Granted, it's only an informal poll but the results were surprisingly positive. Approximately 85-90% chose "I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years." - Which I suspect is also the same viewpoint shared by most Imminst members. While the poll only has 30 responses as of today, it does indicate that the vast majority of non-theists would choose to take advantage of anti-aging ("control over the aging process") and radical life-extension ("live longer than a hundred years") technologies if they were made available.

Perhaps more surprising is that only one person chose the extreme pro-death: "I would not swallow the pill and it should be made a crime for people to interefere with the natural aging process." while a whopping 25 people chose the anti-death opposite. Websites such as this and this portray society's attitudes towards death as being potentially destructive towards the goals of Imminst but should we really be worrying if these beliefs are only carried by a small minority?

(Interestingly, another poll on the same board with 40 responses had 80% admitting the plausibility of a technological singularity)


The results of the poll was a real eye-opener for me. Does this mean that the so-called social obstacle of "deathism" isn't as strong and influential as we thought?

Your link is broken, where do I find it?

http://www.freeratio...d.php?p=6193569

[Moonbeam]

I'm not surprised that atheists are in favor of it, but unfortunately the are the minority of the population now.

I didn't see any votes in that poll yet, but I know there are many religious people that favor immortality--the Mormon Transhumanist Association is the largest group I know of, but I've met those from all the major wold religions.

Xians including Mormons and most other religious people already believe in immortality. Why would they want to spend it on earth when they could be in heaven (or paradise or wherever they think they are going)? Maybe they don't think they are going there. In that case I can see why they would want to stay on earth. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. But I guess that is consistent with the rest of their beliefs.

Edited by Moonbeam, 27 November 2009 - 11:39 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Most atheists will be in favor of anti aging, but few will actually support immortality.

[SiliconAnimation]

Why would they want to spend it on earth when they could be in heaven (or paradise or wherever they think they are going)?

Thats exactly it, with religions. I think a better question is how to get opinion to favor allowing non-religious people to extend their lifespans while leaving the option open to them if they change their mind. If you use some John Stuart Mill and the constitutions 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that is a winning combination for the legal debate. Getting the legal system watchmen to agree with you is another thing.

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 29 November 2009 - 08:36 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Link: [url="http://"http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6193749""]here[/url]

Granted, it's only an informal poll but the results were surprisingly positive. Approximately 85-90% chose "I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years." - Which I suspect is also the same viewpoint shared by most Imminst members. While the poll only has 30 responses as of today, it does indicate that the vast majority of non-theists would choose to take advantage of anti-aging ("control over the aging process") and radical life-extension ("live longer than a hundred years") technologies if they were made available.

Perhaps more surprising is that only one person chose the extreme pro-death: "I would not swallow the pill and it should be made a crime for people to interefere with the natural aging process." while a whopping 25 people chose the anti-death opposite. Websites such as this and this portray society's attitudes towards death as being potentially destructive towards the goals of Imminst but should we really be worrying if these beliefs are only carried by a small minority?

(Interestingly, another poll on the same board with 40 responses had 80% admitting the plausibility of a technological singularity)


The results of the poll was a real eye-opener for me. Does this mean that the so-called social obstacle of "deathism" isn't as strong and influential as we thought?

This is some great data to back up the point I have been making for a very long time here: atheists are the target market for whatever immortalism movement. This is a very well written poll though. I'm interested in what other demographics would answer, would agnostics (not sure / don't care) overwhelmingly favor option 1 (e.g. "Approximately 85-90% chose [i]I would like to have control over the aging process and I would choose to live longer than a hundred years.")? What about Christians?

http://www.christian...s.com/t7420862/

Updated:

[arosophos]

I'm not surprised that atheists are in favor of it, but unfortunately the are the minority of the population now.

I didn't see any votes in that poll yet, but I know there are many religious people that favor immortality--the Mormon Transhumanist Association is the largest group I know of, but I've met those from all the major wold religions.

Xians including Mormons and most other religious people already believe in immortality. Why would they want to spend it on earth when they could be in heaven (or paradise or wherever they think they are going)? Maybe they don't think they are going there. In that case I can see why they would want to stay on earth. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. But I guess that is consistent with the rest of their beliefs.

Mormon scripture teaches that this world will become our heaven.

[bacopa]

As someone mentioned in another thread started by me, most atheists are simply non-theists, in that it's not like they necessarily all agree that aging is a problem. But clearly from that poll it seems that perhaps a majority of Atheists do favor anti-aging tech and radical life extension.

So, in short, I don't think I was off base in writing a post to Atheist Nexus as to why more atheists don't talk about this stuff. And why so many seemed to oppose it, when your poll shows the opposite.

[bacopa]

The biggest arguments I get from atheists, and others opposing, is the socioeconomic changes/upheaval that WILL occur, and the depleted resources, energy, climate eco-catastrophy that is "imminent," and the overpopulation problem, and is this technology only going to the elite wealthy argument...the argument of what makes us deserve life extension over other animals, and do we deserve it crap.

We need to always have solid rebuttals to these common points that do make sense to me.

I urge all of you to post on all kinds of boards where you think people might like to talk about these issues...start debate, get people informed etc.

Just a few nights ago I got into a debate with two hard suicidal DNA Darwinists who opposed LE for all of these reason, I was a bit tipsy so I didn't hold my own, well we need solid rebuttals. I know Humanity + has a FAQ that attempts to address most of these problems, and Center For Responsible Nanotech, explains how the future of nanotech can "fix" or better alot of the resources, energy stuff.

So GET into debates with the opposition and explain in solid laid out arguments why we may be able to avoid all of these huge concerns.

Edited by dfowler, 13 December 2009 - 07:05 AM.

[fatboy]

So GET into debates with the opposition and explain in solid laid out arguments why we may be able to avoid all of these huge concerns.

It is not at all clear to me who the opposition is.

[harris13.3]

I didn't make it but this poll (which I found on the same atheist forum) might also be of interest...



The question is; If the technology existed, how far would you go in the pursuit of transhumanism?

The choices in order of popularity are...

1. Total transformation: I would use technology to depart completely from the human form (i.e. through mind uploading), possibly attaining abilities which mythologies attributed to gods (at 32 votes)

2. Drastically beyond normal: I would make drastic improvements in my cognitive and physical abilities to reach an existence way beyond current human limitations (at 10 votes)

3. Beyond normal + life extension: I would accept #3, while allowing my body to live healthfully AND indefinitely (i.e. until I die in an accident or simply grow tired of living) (at 7 votes)

The other options are all tied with 2 votes each.

Edited by Condraz23, 26 January 2010 - 12:42 PM.

[bacopa]

good poll! I have been upset that so many atheists remain ok with death; this just shows that this is really not the case, in this instance.

[N.T.M.]

Some people actually espouse the last option ROTFLMAO!!

^^^Not here, but I've certainly witnessed it. It's fucking ridiculous.

[Utnapishtim]

I am not really very concerned about religiously motivated opposition to life extension. I think that the idea that we need to win some sort of grand philosophical argument against aging is mistaken. Modern medicine ALREADY tries to extend human life as long as possible, using any and all means at its disposal. With some very rare exceptions Christians are no less keen than atheists to avail themselves of the latest medical technology to live as long as possible.

In fact an interesting example of this is the Amish. Although the defining feature of the Amish way of life is their almost total rejection of modernity, I found an interesting quote in the FAQ section of Amish.net


"Question: Do the Amish go for health care services? How do they deal with technological advances of health care? Do the Amish allow the Doctors to go all out when they are ill or do they place restrictions on medical care provided? Do they believe in immunizations?

Answer: The Amish use local doctors, dentists, eye doctors, etc., and will go to specialists and hospitals as needed. They make use of advances in health care that are used in hospitals, etc"

In other words when high religious principle conflicts with the human drive for self preservation the latter will almost invariably win, ideological purity be damned.

No one need ever ask themselves the question "Do you want to live forever?" The questions we will be actually faced with are far more mundane, and much the same ones as the sick and aged face today "Do you want to keep living to tomorrow? Do you want to take advantage of a new medical procedure that will improve your condition?" With the exception of the suicide or fanatic the answers of the future just like today will almost invariably be yes...

In regards to life extension 'Build it and they will come" seems the most likely outcome. I think the greatest difficulties to overcome will be technical barriers and lack of investment due to shortsightedness rather than religious opposition.

[advancedatheist]

In fact an interesting example of this is the Amish. Although the defining feature of the Amish way of life is their almost total rejection of modernity, I found an interesting quote in the FAQ section of Amish.net


"Question: Do the Amish go for health care services? How do they deal with technological advances of health care? Do the Amish allow the Doctors to go all out when they are ill or do they place restrictions on medical care provided? Do they believe in immunizations?

Answer: The Amish use local doctors, dentists, eye doctors, etc., and will go to specialists and hospitals as needed. They make use of advances in health care that are used in hospitals, etc"

In other words when high religious principle conflicts with the human drive for self preservation the latter will almost invariably win, ideological purity be damned.

I've read conflicting accounts of Amish theology, but they might believe in something like Calvinist predestination, which holds that we remain in ignorance during our earthly lives about our eternal destiny no matter what we believe about a god. The reluctance to pass through this wall of ignorance at death (where you could discover you wind up in the hell box instead of the heaven box) might account for the Amish people's desires to live as long as possible via modern health care.

The Amish also provide a model of a pocket society for people who want to live in a less complicated way than the surrounding society, something which revived cryonauts might have to do for awhile until we can get up to speed in Future World.

[shadowhawk]

Interesting:
Everyone who took the poll wanted to live over 100 years. Life is something we all value. Almost all of us think we would like to control that life while living it. We want to know when and how we die and want to be in control. And who knows or controls that now in the living of life? No one. So, only one of us is living the life they want? Only one is living in reality?
Interesting.

[chris w]

In fact an interesting example of this is the Amish. Although the defining feature of the Amish way of life is their almost total rejection of modernity, I found an interesting quote in the FAQ section of Amish.net


"Question: Do the Amish go for health care services? How do they deal with technological advances of health care? Do the Amish allow the Doctors to go all out when they are ill or do they place restrictions on medical care provided? Do they believe in immunizations?

Answer: The Amish use local doctors, dentists, eye doctors, etc., and will go to specialists and hospitals as needed. They make use of advances in health care that are used in hospitals, etc"

In other words when high religious principle conflicts with the human drive for self preservation the latter will almost invariably win, ideological purity be damned.

I've read conflicting accounts of Amish theology, but they might believe in something like Calvinist predestination, which holds that we remain in ignorance during our earthly lives about our eternal destiny no matter what we believe about a god. The reluctance to pass through this wall of ignorance at death (where you could discover you wind up in the hell box instead of the heaven box) might account for the Amish people's desires to live as long as possible via modern health care.

I guess actually that the reason is more mundane, they do it because years of inbreeding increased the number of harmfull mutations ( like in the case of Tay Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews in America ) in the community and since The Holly Scripture doesn't mention anywhere "preimplementation diagnostics" they don't have a problem with it.

Edited by chris w, 28 April 2010 - 08:14 PM.

[ken_akiba]

I wonder to what degree would I get flamed if I say,
Greed is prerequisite to the pursuit of immortality. A father of all greed that human kind has ever conceived/faced.

Edited by ken_akiba, 08 May 2010 - 11:53 PM.

[Cameron]

I wonder to what degree would I get flamed if I say,
Greed is prerequisite to the pursuit of immortality. A father of all greed that human kind has ever conceived/faced.

Greed? I'd say that depends on what you consider to be 'excessive'. I personally consider a limited lifespan to always be too little, and asking for more is never excessive(many religions agree with their offer of eternal life in happy-land.). I'd say ambition, a desire to improve, are often present, but whether you consider this to be excessive will vary from person to person.

[ken_akiba]

I was rather refering to socioeconomic factor, that the poor wouldn't be able to afford longevity/ immortality. (Longevity or immortality at the time of its initial market introduction, will surely be prohibitdely expensive for the poor...)

Edited by ken_akiba, 09 May 2010 - 01:54 AM.

[Kolos]

We can't really know but it's hard to imagine there will be lets say some horribly expensive immortality pills that only rich could buy. If we have medical nanobots we could just program them to control/stop aging and it doesn't have to cost anything "longevity" might be a freeware.

[chris w]

We can't really know but it's hard to imagine there will be lets say some horribly expensive immortality pills that only rich could buy. If we have medical nanobots we could just program them to control/stop aging and it doesn't have to cost anything "longevity" might be a freeware.

Yes, besides I seriously doubt that if it was the "the rich immortals" scenario all the not haves would go to work the next day, pay their taxes and just think "damn, that lucky Bruce Willis gets now to live forever with his new hair, and I'm stuck here with death pending, but that's how life is". There would be massive social outbreak, from boycotting their products to the point of even launching terrorist like attacks on the powerfull ones, for example by their angry mortal butlers and maids . If the whole nanoassembler factories thing has a chance of happening then we would be looking at a world were prestige will be less and less associated with wealth - if for example one could build himself a Maybach from scratch by downloading the information from the Web, then in weeks everybody will be driving them.

I guess it would be unwise in matters of profits if the "immortality companies" just withheld their product to only few people on the planet, but of course it's all speculative for now ( like for ex what will be the politics in 40 years from today it's very hard to guess in my opinion).

Edited by chris w, 09 May 2010 - 12:43 PM.

[Kolos]

Nanotechnology doesn't have to be expensive as long as it doesn't require any rare resources. When medicines turn into programs/information price shouldn't be much of a problem, even today you can download almost anything for free.
What I fear is that this private companies would eventually see where it's going (end of economy as we know it etc.) and they would try to stop it by artificially raising the prices etc. sure they wouldn't stop this changes but they could stop us from benefiting from them because we will be probably quite old by that time.

[chris w]

What I fear is that this private companies would eventually see where it's going (end of economy as we know it etc.) and they would try to stop it by artificially raising the prices etc. sure they wouldn't stop this changes but they could stop us from benefiting from them because we will be probably quite old by that time.

But imagine for example if today in the west HIV drugs rose in prices just because the stock holders of the pharma companies said so, it would be a catastrophe in PR and I guess we can safely assume that even several decades from now reputation will still be something valuable to those people. Of course like I said it's difficult to speculate about political issues, if there were no liberal democracies anymore, but more something like today's Russia ( government power and bussiness power merging ), then we might be screwed indeed. So lets hope everything goes nice and colorfull

Edited by chris w, 09 May 2010 - 02:11 PM.