The Rational Argumentator is proud to announce the second in its planned series of quizzes on indefinite life extension, a companion activity to the Resources on Indefinite Life Extension (RILE) page.
Longevity is Justice Quiz
Time limit: 0
Quiz-summary
0 of 4 questions completed
Questions:
1
2
3
4
Read “The Imposition of Death” by G. Stolyarov II and answer the questions in the quiz below, in accordance with the essay. If you get 100% of the questions correct, you will earn the Longevity is Justice badge, the second badge in The Rational Argumentator’s interactive educational series on indefinite life extension. You will need a free account with Mozilla Backpack to receive the badge.
This badge was designed by Wendy Stolyarov, whose art you can see here, here, and here.
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 4 questions answered correctly
Your time:
Time has elapsed
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Average score
Your score
Categories
Not categorized0%
100% Correct: Congratulations! You have demonstrated an understanding of the value of indefinite life extension. You have earned the Longevity is Justice badge. To claim the badge, click HERE.
Some Answers Were Incorrect. You have missed at least one question on this quiz and therefore do not qualify for the Longevity is Justice badge yet. However, you may feel free to review your answers and try again.
Your result has been entered into leaderboard
Loading
1
2
3
4
Answered
Review
Question 1 of 4
1. Question
As of this moment, how many people have been sentenced to death?
Correct
Correct.
Incorrect
Incorrect.
Question 2 of 4
2. Question
Which of the following actions does not decrease the rate of senescence?
Correct
Correct.
Incorrect
Incorrect.
Question 3 of 4
3. Question
Which of the following organizations does not focus on the promotion of longevity science?
Correct
Correct.
Incorrect
Incorrect.
Question 4 of 4
4. Question
Of the following methods of death, which is just for an innocent individual?
How would criminal punishments be affected if humans attain indefinite life? I was recently invited to comment on this subject in an Immortal Life debate thread.
Importantly, there would be considerably less crime in a society where indefinite life extension has been achieved. People would have fewer motivations to commit crime, as they would be considerably healthier, happier, and more prosperous. Moreover, they would have more to lose through criminal punishment. They would make plans with a much longer time horizon in mind, and criminal behavior could derail those ambitious plans.
My general view is that criminal punishment would be transformed, especially in the case of capital punishment. Capital punishment might itself be redefined from execution to the simple withholding of life-extension therapies, allowing the unmitigated process of senescence to proceed. This would be effective in allowing appeals and the discovery of evidence of innocence – since a biologically young offender might have a good sixty years in which to make a successful case. I still see the need for that kind of “death penalty” for actual murder, though. Depriving a person of life in a society where indefinite life is possible is no longer a matter of shortening a life by a few decades. Rather, it curtails a potentially unlimited lifespan, full of irreplaceable individual experiences, achievements, and values. Thus, while the troubling aspects of physically violent execution might disappear, the severity with which the offense of murder is perceived would also increase. For some people who might otherwise have been inclined toward crime, this might lead them to reconsider and form internal inhibitions.
As regards imprisonment, being incarcerated for life would be much more severe of a punishment if a person is to live indefinitely – especially if parole is not an option. Perhaps this sort of life imprisonment would be used for offenses that are a degree less egregious than the kinds of offenses that result in the gradual “natural” death penalty that consists of withdrawing rejuvenation treatments. For lesser offenses, though, the focus of the criminal-justice system would shift from punishment to restitution. In a future that is far more prosperous and where advanced medical care is abundant, it would be much easier to fix injuries or restore property to a pre-damaged form. The offender would be asked to pay for the damage (perhaps twice the cost, in accordance with Murray Rothbard’s “two teeth for a tooth” rule of restitution).
My video elaborates on all of these points, for those who are interested in delving into them in greater depth.
A young man has been murdered with absolutely no provocation – and, unless his killer is brought to justice, the same could happen to any one of us.
17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed by self-styled “neighborhood watchman” (in truth, vigilante) George Zimmerman for no offense other than walking back to his home and “looking suspicious”. Mr. Stolyarov comments on this atrocity and considers it an outrage that George Zimmerman has not yet been arrested, charged, or removed from civilized society.