So murder = 100% dangerous, and not murder = 100% not dangerous? Seems flawed.
It'll be more probably be (much?) more likely, but it does not guarantee.
So murder = 100% dangerous, and not murder = 100% not dangerous? Seems flawed.
It'll be more probably be (much?) more likely, but it does not guarantee.
Humanity as we know it would rapidly become... well, something that's not as we know it.In post 0, talah wrote:This is a thought experiment.
Tomorrow morning, a vaccine is announced which is highly available and which provides effective immortality.
Anybody who wants the vaccine can have it without cost or judgement and therefore will live forever.
The vaccine halts the ageing process and removes all disease and entropy, but does not protect from external physical harm.
This makes it slightly more difficult to work with. It takes compromises to be making thoughts on an idea that by laws of nature isn't going to happen.In post 9, Invisibility wrote:i assume for thsi hpytheticcal experiment to work there is no negative effect
The current method is fucked. It may or may not become unfucked.
A person proven guilty of murder isn't enough context to prove whether they'd be a "danger", as the word "danger" itself is even more vague.
By biology, men were more expendable, hence this.In post 16, u r a person 2 wrote: We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"
Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)
This is accurate.In post 38, u r a person 2 wrote:if there are other villages, then surely the one with more men and less women would just steal women from the group with more women and less men
duh
The alternative of lifers without parole are ofcourse lifers on parole. Executions in our "civilized" world are considered too "barbaric", so lifers without parole are the substitute to that. It's used not because it's the best option, but because it's the most convenient one. Life becoming eternal simply tips the scale in what we classify as ethical and unethical (permenantly locking up someone who lives eternally may be considered ethically unacceptable, for example), and the wiseness that comes from long lives simply improves our capabilities to utlize the better option.In post 42, talah wrote: What I'm asking is - what do we do with people we currently punish by locking up for life, if that life is suddenly eternity?
What would need to happen so that somebody like you/me will be judged guilty of commiting such crimes?In post 44, talah wrote:
Nature/nurture?
Spirit/soul?
Something else?
I suppose you might propose that a person of infinite longevity would always become wiser as time passed and be less and less likely to harm another.
(and I'm also using "you" in the "royal we" form )
Lifer without parole is fucked up, period.In post 51, talah wrote: To clarify - if the standard lifespan was 100,000 years, and you killed a person, would a just punishment be 100,000 years of imprisonment?
Metaphor contains the expected, not the exception.In post 73, talah wrote:'old dogs can't learn new tricks'
It's like comparing the ability to change psychological behaviours/patterns with the ability to change one's skin colour.In post 73, talah wrote:'a leopard never changes its spots'
See argument #1.In post 73, talah wrote:or when doctor phil (sorta validly?) compulsively says that 'past behaviour is the best predictor for future behaviour'.