Africa (was ...10 trillion people in this solar system?)

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> Have you never took into consideration that people get tired of
> living?

OK. Tell me at what age you want to die.
Look, if people get tired of living (and there is zero evidence that
they will), then they can stop taking whatever longevity treatments
are developed. There. Problem solved.

> Why to preserve walking corpses

Walking corpses? If you stay young, how are you a "walking corpse?"
We're talking about young, vibrant people who happen to have been
young, vibrant people for over a hundred years. Not "walking corpse"
in sight. And who are you to tell people how long they can live?

> instead of letting people to die with dignity

Who is talking about not LETTING people die whenever they see fit?
I'm talking about people not HAVING TO die at some two-digit age that
you seem to think should be imposed on everybody, like it or not.

> when nature say it is time to go?

And exactly when does nature say it is time to go? Nature seemed to
think 40 was old enough, but then we whupped tuburculosis and a few
other things. Now, nature seems to think that 75 or so is time to go.
Now, if we were cure cancer or heart disease, don't you think the
average life expectancy would go up? Should we refuse to do cancer
research because it's "natural" for people to die wasting deaths from
cancer? Should we ban diabetes research because it's "natural" for
people to have diabetes? And if we ever beat diabetes, the life
expectancy goes up.

Nature can blow me. I don't want cancer. I don't want heart disease.
I don't want TB. I don't want somebody trying to tell me how long
I'm allowed to live. If I get tired of living I'll take up skydiving
with cheap parachutes. You don't get to decide that for me.

>> Who decides what a 'senior citizen' is? Anyone over 40? There were
>> several movies made about that. It's a stupid way to run society.
>> Perhaps stupid people, the disabled and unpopular minorities should
>> also be put up against a wall and shot to make way for 'more
>> important people'? Which is pretty much the same thing.

> Nobody is thinking in killing people.

If you withhold medical treatment from somebody who needs it to live,
you kill that person. Just as if you had locked them in a room
without food until they starved to death. So yes, you are talking
about killing people.

> The point is to allow death to make its part. People that want to
> avoid death or pospone it forever, really don't accept human nature.
> Death is part of it and we should accept it.

Bullfeathers! I don't "accept" cancer. I don't "accept" Alzheimer's.
I don't "accept" strokes.
I'm stuck with them, for now. But only until somebody figures out how
to beat them. I don't "accept" smallpox, and am glad to see it gone.
Maybe we should bring back smallpox, because it's "natural" for
people to die of it. Hey, let's bring back polio while we're at it.

> Yes, perhaps in the future old fellows will be full of chemicals and
> cyborg tech. A Frankestein world, I am afraid.

Maybe my grandmother should have the artificial hip joint that allows
her to walk taken out, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein world."
Maybe my girlfriend should have the metal pins that allow *her* to
walk taken out of her ankle, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein
world." Should my friend Tracy refuse to wear glasses? How "natural"
do we need to be to avoid this terrible "Frankestein world?"

Tell me the truth, Mr. Vega: if you were told you had cancer, and were
going to die in a year, and two months later a doctor walks in and
tell you he has a cure, would you tell him to stick it up his ass? Or
would you maybe take the option of extending your life a little?