I would definitely do your own independent research on it, and make sure that if you decide to do it, to stay on top of all the latest research as well as you can.
The goal is to debate whether the fall out from radical life extension is worth it. If the debate doesn't go as planned, oh well. That is just the nature of the beast
updated, tough for me to find the words to make it any more clear than that, and the debate gives you an advantage of declaring yourself victor if you think I did not argue in the spirit of the debate or engaged in moving goal posts or other forms of trickery
I gave the debate a more generic title to fish for interest. I am referring to gradual advances in fighting aging that would be things like nanobots to dispense drugs or to repair cellular damage. I presuppose these technologies would be voluntary, unavailable to people in third world countries or poor people in first world countries for a very very long time. I also assume they would not be completely effective. In my current o going debate my first argument gives you an ideal of what I envision these advances in healthcare would look like. I am certainly willing to alter anything about the debate to make these things more clear if you have a specific suggestion for how to do so
I have never seen those shows. I also think the hole you mentioned is not exploitable. Radical life extension does not have to be available for most or all people to be in existence.
Some people think it is impossible to achieve be cause our genetics won't allow us to live that long regardless of technological intervention. Any suggestions for how to word this to debate the people who think radical life extension is impossible?
I also think it would be abusive to literally call anything possible and would not be like "well magic is possible" or anything like that
I would definitely do your own independent research on it, and make sure that if you decide to do it, to stay on top of all the latest research as well as you can.
After reading this debate, once it is finished, you will know what to do in terms of a career or life purpose.
Glad you responded early. Now hopefully Rational madman responds late so I can have more than plenty time for both
Me too
Thank you, this is the direction I wanted the debate to take and am happy you did not do anything to take the debate off course
Doesn't seem like a popular topic. It will probably be available when your break is done
Just updated so people know the type of diet I am advocating for
Lol
I might be able to get my first round out tonight
Thanks for accepting. I look forward to this debate.
The goal is to debate whether the fall out from radical life extension is worth it. If the debate doesn't go as planned, oh well. That is just the nature of the beast
I'm fine with that, and look forward to debating you
updated, tough for me to find the words to make it any more clear than that, and the debate gives you an advantage of declaring yourself victor if you think I did not argue in the spirit of the debate or engaged in moving goal posts or other forms of trickery
By 10pm eastern it will be fixed
Okay, when I get home I will try to describe that in the description a bit better so there is less fear of me moving the goal posts.
Although I made changes to make alec happy to debate me previously and he still opted out, which was disappointing.
I gave the debate a more generic title to fish for interest. I am referring to gradual advances in fighting aging that would be things like nanobots to dispense drugs or to repair cellular damage. I presuppose these technologies would be voluntary, unavailable to people in third world countries or poor people in first world countries for a very very long time. I also assume they would not be completely effective. In my current o going debate my first argument gives you an ideal of what I envision these advances in healthcare would look like. I am certainly willing to alter anything about the debate to make these things more clear if you have a specific suggestion for how to do so
I meant cloud computing would be common use not common sense
Never heard of it
I hope I am right also.
Sounds interesting.
Seems silly you think that it isn't already implied in the title. I will edit to more likely than not, which also means more than 50%
I have never seen those shows. I also think the hole you mentioned is not exploitable. Radical life extension does not have to be available for most or all people to be in existence.
Changed it to likely
Some people think it is impossible to achieve be cause our genetics won't allow us to live that long regardless of technological intervention. Any suggestions for how to word this to debate the people who think radical life extension is impossible?
I also think it would be abusive to literally call anything possible and would not be like "well magic is possible" or anything like that
I'm going to change the resolution hold on