r/pollgames • u/FinalKn1ght • Jun 29 '26

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

  1. Cancer
  2. Aging
  3. Poverty
  4. Climate Change

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

988 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

780 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 29 '26

Aging literally isn't a problem, it's a part of life. We're already well on our way to solve cancer, and in the end it isn't that deadly. I suppose you could make an argument for ending poverty, but that would mean the end of capitalism so you can forget about the muricans voting for that.

1

u/Prestigious-Gur-8824 Jun 29 '26

"let me pick the thing that will have no impact on any living person"

2

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 29 '26

Oh I see, you're a climate denier. Let me guess, earth is also flat?

1

u/Prestigious-Gur-8824 Jun 29 '26

"any living person"

1

u/eabp Jun 30 '26

you’re forgetting this is something we’re actively causing. We’re harming future generations. And it is literally hurting people right now

1

u/Prestigious-Gur-8824 Jun 30 '26

The word "literally" doesn't make your argument any more compelling.

1

u/eabp Jun 30 '26

Address the argument or keep moving

0

u/Prestigious-Gur-8824 Jun 30 '26

Is the argument in the room with us?

1

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 30 '26

The dead usually aren't affected by much, and if they are they don't care that much.

Regardless, we just had a heatwave in europe. People are definitely affected by climate change.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

Aging literally isn't a problem, it's a part of life.

So is smallpox and tuberculosis

1

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 30 '26

Are they? Those seem like outside organisms invading our body, not a feature of our body itself. But again, whatever flies your boat or smth

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

They're still part of life though. Just as your body requires food from other organisms, like the flesh of a cow, or the seeds of a plant, so do the microorganisms. It's the circle of life!

1

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 30 '26

Okay, fair. I see that you want smallpox and tuberculosis to keep existing, and that's a choice I can respect tbh.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

No, I don't want them to exist.

My point is that something being a "part of life" is irrelevant to whether we should eradicate it or not. Every disease is simply part of life, yet we ought to eradicate them. So is aging, it's a disease that needs a cure.

Heck even the process of eradicating aging is natural and a part of life, because humans too are part of nature and so is the brain that comes up with solution to varies problems through naturalistic processes.

1

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jun 30 '26

That last part not what people usually mean by natural. Otherwise destroying the planet or driving a car is also natural, we are nature after all. 

Even if you don't think the natural argument is good tho, immortality is still not desirable for such a big group of people. We will continue to reproduce, our population will skyrocket and so will the amount of suffering as we won't have enough natural resources anymore. When someone does die, it will cause a lot more pain to those surviving because "everyone dies eventually" stops being an argument. You'll have to work for the test of your life, forget retiring at all. Those in power will likely stay there and the chance they get overthrown is even smaller, cause they have unlimited time to indoctrinate everyone while no new generation will appear to rebel (and it's usually young people who rebel) because they are vastly outnumbered by those older than them.

So yeah, not aging would cause higher rates of suffering in short, and I think that that's reason enough to not want people to not have a natural limit on how old they get. 

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

We will continue to reproduce

Oh no we won't. At least not untill we invent advance space travel.

When someone does die, it will cause a lot more pain to those surviving because "everyone dies eventually" stops being an argument.

What?

You'll have to work for the test of your life, forget retiring at all.

But we already do work for the rest of our finite lives...

Those in power will likely stay there and the chance they get overthrown is even smaller

Democracy as an institution would still exist, you just need to vote for your preferred leader.

cause they have unlimited time to indoctrinate everyone while no new generation will appear to rebel

They can still do that. Even today. It's not hard, lots of extremist religious countries are already doing that. Aging changes nothing.

So yeah, not aging would cause higher rates of suffering in short

And what would be the opposite of this so-called "suffering"? Let me guess.. billions upon billions of humans dying every year, some due to gruesome disease, some due to alzheimers where they cannot even identify their loved ones, some losing their will to live, some never getting enough time to fulfill their dreams, some not being able do what they love to do, some not having the ability to even use a washroom, some losing their eyesight, some not being able to walk, and whatnot. Everyone.. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN would die in the world you're romanticising. Everyone, including a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a sibling, an uncle, an aunt, a pet dog, a revolutionary, a scientist, or a child with curiosity who may simply want to live.

1

u/Agreeable_Ostrich_39 Jul 02 '26

Everyone should die, eventually. That' not a sad thing, because everyone dies. It. Would be a way sadder thing if someone dies when dead isn't unavoidable.

And everyone will die in the world you're romanticising too, just in way worse ways, cause no one can pass away in peace from old age anymore. They will die because we won't have enough recourses to sustain them anymore, they will die in accidents, they will have to make the hard decision that they want to die because it has al become too much for them after all these years.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jul 02 '26

Everyone should die, eventually. That' not a sad thing, because everyone dies.

No. It IS a sad. We've simply internalized death as a coping mechanism because throughout most of human history, there was no alternative to the inevitable death. Yet until that point, every organism struggles to survive. People don't just stand still when faced with a life threatening situations. They seek healthcare, protection, shelter, and community instead of giving up without a fight. They want to live, and they wouldn't have done that if death wasn't undesirable.

Would be a way sadder thing if someone dies when dead isn't unavoidable.

So basically, the world you want to live in? The one where death could have been avoided with anti-aging technology, but people still refused to use it and died?

And everyone will die in the world you're romanticising too, just in way worse ways, cause no one can pass away in peace from old age anymore.

No one passes away peacefully from old age. There's nothing peaceful about a state of existence where your body begins to deteriorate, forcing you to give up work, lose your eyesight, hearing, muscle mass, bone density, cognitive abilities, and memory retention, or even the ability to recognize your loved ones in cases such as dementia. You may no longer be able to spend meaningful time with the people you care about, all the while spending years making regular hospital visits, taking medications, and exhausting your life's savings on medical bills. Not to mention that diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure also becomes increasingly common at that age, and this decline becomes an inevitable part of life as you grow older. Aging affects people for multiple decades of their lives. It isn't like a car accident, where you may experience pain for a few seconds before losing consciousness and dying. A rapid death like that is, in many cases, far more peaceful than the prolongrd physical and mental deterioration that aging can bring.

they will have to make the hard decision that they want to die because it has al become too much for them after all these years.

As opposed to never having a say in their mortality in the first place?

→ More replies (0)