Augmentation survey

[Smokej]

hoi chummer, you should add the options for smart gun interfaces and reflex boosters...

 

[Jonluw]

Why would I want to spend the rest of eternity in a conscious state?
Dying is the only way you can pass on from life, and I'd rather not give up chance to do so.

Er, because life is fun and good and is only going to get more so as technology advances.

"I don't care how bloody blissful it is. You'll get used to it, and you'll be fucking bored."
-Jim Jeffries.

He's a really funny comedian by the way. I recommend checking his stuff out. Lots of stuff on youtube.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about heaven in that context, and heaven is a pretty boring place. Human memory isn't good enough for you to be bored with something you haven't been doing for over a century, and there are more than enough things to occupy yourself with to get a rotation going (and that's assuming the world becomes all still and stagnant, which it won't).

I'm fairly certain heaven as a christian'd imagine it is supposed to be more entertaining than earth, but whatever.

That said, no-one would ever engineer an augmentation that you can't manually turn off somehow or at least something. And even if you can't, there are plenty of things that are physically impossible to survive no matter how much indestructium alloy your skull is coated in. If you're bored after the first few millenia, just hurl yourself into the sun. There's no way an immortality upgrade could do the same stuff as an immortality "curse" from fantasy fiction.

Well, then you wouldn't be immortal, would you?
You'd be something like "practically immortal" or just have an indefinite lifespan.
Both of which appeal somewhat, but not all that much to me. I'd still very much like to die at some point, and I don't see a lot of reason for putting it off too far past my time.
Besides: Common availability of "immortality" augments would lead to a horrible surge in social conservatism which would just make me so depressed.

Since this thread isn't discussing miracles, wishes or magic, I don't see why you'd assume it'd be that kind of immortality.

Because it wasn't a very serious comment in the first place. I just figured I'd slap a disclaimer on there saying I don't want any of that immortality nonsense.

Why? What makes living less than a century so appealing?

Living for a century doesn't sound so bad. Living for two is pushing it. Living for a millennia. No please. I've managed to be suicidal after just sixteen years of life, I can only imagine living for a long time as being shit.

The zeitgeist wouldn't become socially conservative relative to the current one. The introduction of immortality augmentations would lead to the proportion of the population that are open to new ideas expanding, because the technophobes die for their beliefs.
From then on, yes conservatism will increase because of the older population, but you'll be one of these conservative old people! Either you can actually change things and make this not happen, or you're going to hate whatever new thing the children of 2200 will come up with and being conservative is exactly what you want anyway.

That's sort of the point though.
Yes, I would be conservative because that'd be what I would want, and I would think I was in the right. But looking at it from this perspective, I can't stand the thought of me becoming someone who tries to hold development, social and scientific, back.

 

[Rowan93]

Why? What makes living less than a century so appealing?

Living for a century doesn't sound so bad. Living for two is pushing it. Living for a millennia. No please. I've managed to be suicidal after just sixteen years of life, I can only imagine living for a long time as being shit.

Okay, if you were actually suicidal at one point the argument "refusal of immortality = suicide" doesn't really work any more, so yeah...

The zeitgeist wouldn't become socially conservative relative to the current one. The introduction of immortality augmentations would lead to the proportion of the population that are open to new ideas expanding, because the technophobes die for their beliefs.
From then on, yes conservatism will increase because of the older population, but you'll be one of these conservative old people! Either you can actually change things and make this not happen, or you're going to hate whatever new thing the children of 2200 will come up with and being conservative is exactly what you want anyway.

That's sort of the point though.
Yes, I would be conservative because that'd be what I would want, and I would think I was in the right. But looking at it from this perspective, I can't stand the thought of me becoming someone who tries to hold development, social and scientific, back.[/quote]

Yeah, but I don't think that's really the right perspective. If I'm going to disagree with unborn future generations, the idea that I'll be part of a conservative majority that keeps to ancient 21st and 22nd century values is glorious.

 

[Jonluw]

Why? What makes living less than a century so appealing?

Living for a century doesn't sound so bad. Living for two is pushing it. Living for a millennia. No please. I've managed to be suicidal after just sixteen years of life, I can only imagine living for a long time as being shit.

Okay, if you were actually suicidal at one point the argument "refusal of immortality = suicide" doesn't really work any more, so yeah...

The zeitgeist wouldn't become socially conservative relative to the current one. The introduction of immortality augmentations would lead to the proportion of the population that are open to new ideas expanding, because the technophobes die for their beliefs.
From then on, yes conservatism will increase because of the older population, but you'll be one of these conservative old people! Either you can actually change things and make this not happen, or you're going to hate whatever new thing the children of 2200 will come up with and being conservative is exactly what you want anyway.

That's sort of the point though.
Yes, I would be conservative because that'd be what I would want, and I would think I was in the right. But looking at it from this perspective, I can't stand the thought of me becoming someone who tries to hold development, social and scientific, back.

Yeah, but I don't think that's really the right perspective. If I'm going to disagree with unborn future generations, the idea that I'll be part of a conservative majority that keeps to ancient 21st and 22nd century values is glorious.

The thing is that I don't think there's anything like an objective right and wrong, and I don't want to draw the line for how far humanity should be allowed to progress in any area anywhere.
I am afraid that I over time would betray this position and try to affect the world according to my own tastes. I don't want that.

Edit: Gosh fuck it, the quotes got all silly.

 

[Rowan93]

The thing is that I don't think there's anything like an objective right and wrong, and I don't want to draw the line for how far humanity should be allowed to progress in any area anywhere.
I am afraid that I over time would betray this position and try to affect the world according to my own tastes. I don't want that.

Edit: Gosh fuck it, the quotes got all silly.

Oh no, of course there's no objective right and wrong. But, from my perspective, my right and wrong are right, and so obviously I want my value system to be the mainstream one that people are looked down on for going against. If there's something you see as morally wrong that you don't want to stop people from doing, do you really see it as wrong at all?

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

hoi chummer, you should add the options for smart gun interfaces and reflex boosters...

And that would be of benefit to a blind civilian because...?

 

[Jonluw]

The thing is that I don't think there's anything like an objective right and wrong, and I don't want to draw the line for how far humanity should be allowed to progress in any area anywhere.
I am afraid that I over time would betray this position and try to affect the world according to my own tastes. I don't want that.

Edit: Gosh fuck it, the quotes got all silly.

Oh no, of course there's no objective right and wrong. But, from my perspective, my right and wrong are right, and so obviously I want my value system to be the mainstream one that people are looked down on for going against. If there's something you see as morally wrong that you don't want to stop people from doing, do you really see it as wrong at all?

It does sound appealing to have everyone follow my value system, but I can only assume that the world would move on to something better and more progressive although I might not see it as such, and I would hate to become a part of that which I hate.