From: William Pearson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 06:18:28 MDT
2008/10/27 Stathis Papaioannou <email@example.com>:
> 2008/10/27 William Pearson <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> Would you say it was rational to take a treatment to extend your life
>> by 20 years, if it made you sterile and if female incapable of having
>> IVF? Assuming you weren't sure about the singularity/massive
>> improvements in reproductive tech happening before you died.
>> Not counting potential people at all, seems like a possible recipe for
> Whether it's rational or not depends on your priorities. If you wanted
> to spread your genes as much as possible it would be rational, if you
> wanted to personally live as long as possible it would not. One of the
> main advantages of being human is that you don't have to blindly
> follow the narrow Darwinian program.
What is it that causes you not to? Arbitrary choice?
Why shouldn't you follow your Darwinian program? Actually wanting to
survive is part of your darwinian program, just a sub part rather than
all of it. What makes following one of these better than the other?
If there was a well reasoned choice for choosing to maximise your life
over the number of kids you might have, one preference should be more
rational than the other....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT