• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why science unable to control Death ?

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
After decades of prosperity and success,
But still science is unable to escape "Death" why ?
Our inability to accept death is a relatively easier problem to solve, but it is still very difficult. If we can alleviate the false pain associated with fear of death and other objections to death, then won't that be a more realistic accomplishment?

How can mortality be 'Solved' without ending reproduction? There's nowhere to put everyone who will live, and they will need more and more food and energy. No more children. Reproduction will have to end if mortality ends. From a scientific perspective that is not much different from the death of a species, since any such species is doomed. Therefore if you somehow end mortality you will also have to guarantee change and further development some other way than through reproduction.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member

It really is a moral nightmare.

We're overpopulated as it is, immortality would make this an even bigger issue. Should immortals be sterilized? Should other people be sterilized to make room for the immortals? Who should be made immortal? Should immortality be a product you can buy or should it be granted to those who deserve it? How do you decide who deserves immortality? Does everybody deserve it? Should everybody deserve it? Can an immortal be considered human? Should they have the same human rights?

Those are just a few of the potential issues that I could think of off the top of my head. This is also discounting the problems with actually designing and testing a means of making humans immortal. I'm sure somebody who knows more about these things could list off a few dozen more issues.
 

Thana

Lady
It really is a moral nightmare.

We're overpopulated as it is, immortality would make this an even bigger issue. Should immortals be sterilized? Should other people be sterilized to make room for the immortals? Who should be made immortal? Should immortality be a product you can buy or should it be granted to those who deserve it? How do you decide who deserves immortality? Does everybody deserve it? Should everybody deserve it? Can an immortal be considered human? Should they have the same human rights?

Those are just a few of the potential issues that I could think of off the top of my head. This is also discounting the problems with actually designing and testing a means of making humans immortal. I'm sure somebody who knows more about these things could list off a few dozen more issues.

Oh I didn't say cute because I didn't think it was an ethical minefield, I said cute because you said scientists generally try to follow a code of ethics. Scientists are human beings first and foremost, don't forget.

And you do realize most of our problems including overpopulation can be contributed to the progress of science, right?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Oh I didn't say cute because I didn't think it was an ethical minefield, I said cute because you said scientists generally try to follow a code of ethics. Scientists are human beings first and foremost, don't forget.

And you do realize most of our problems including overpopulation can be contributed to the progress of science, right?
As with our lack of problems.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Oh I didn't say cute because I didn't think it was an ethical minefield, I said cute because you said scientists generally try to follow a code of ethics. Scientists are human beings first and foremost, don't forget.

And you do realize most of our problems including overpopulation can be contributed to the progress of science, right?

Oh, I see. Misunderstood you there :)

I said generally, because I do think most scientists try to follow a code of ethics. I'm certainly not going to argue that scientists are all shining paragons of virtue.

As for most of our problems being contributed to by scientific progress ... you might be right? It's hard to say. There are so many factors and "what ifs" in play with that thought that I couldn't begin to say how right or wrong you are. I tend to lean more towards blaming human nature for our problems than science though.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
well, its not impossible that the nureological brain could be replaced by an electronic one with some really advanced technology. but you're right, at the moment thats not an option.

It's already happened according to this "documentary" I watched. ;)

th
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Mm, I'm inclined to think it created more problems than it solved.
I'm surprised Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons and how half the Earth's non-renewable resources are already gone hasn't yet convinced people of that.
People never listen to engineers.
Any time we solve a technical problem, 2 new societal ones are created.
We can't fix people....we can only provide them with better toys.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Mm, I'm inclined to think it created more problems than it solved.
I'm surprised Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons and how half the Earth's non-renewable resources are already gone hasn't yet convinced people of that.

That is quite the slanted view of the situation. How would science be to blame instead of, say, politics or social immaturity?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
It's just the main characteristic of organic chemistry. Carbon atoms. If we were made of rock, we would be more or less eternal
I'm not sure rocks are eternal either. Constant interaction with the environment causes them to change, and I think with the "Big Rip" theory of the end of the universe, even the atoms will eventually be ripped apart.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Mm, I'm inclined to think it created more problems than it solved.
I'm surprised Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons and how half the Earth's non-renewable resources are already gone hasn't yet convinced people of that.
What can I say, some people are just glass is half empty kind of people. I wonder if there is a correlation with that and religion.
 
Last edited:

Altfish

Veteran Member
Mm, I'm inclined to think it created more problems than it solved.
I'm surprised Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons and how half the Earth's non-renewable resources are already gone hasn't yet convinced people of that.
The problems were not created by science, it was the politicians use of scientific discoveries that leads to the problems.
 
Top