Cthris
said
:
My hypothetical scenario mentioned
extreme
pain with only a net gain of a year. Would a society that forces its citizens to undergo
Extreme
pain every 7 days with only the benefit of living on average more than one year than a comparable society that does not force its citizens to undergo any pain be more advanced in your opinion.
*You have absolute control over the citizens so there is no need to worry about convincing them of anything*
I would say they are more advanced, but immediately recommend new research into painkillers and alternative routes to increased longevity at the same time. They have a method the other does not for increasing lifespan, it is just not an optimal one because of the frequent and disruptive application of pain.
Addendum: If the method is so disruptive that it renders the average member of society unable to operate from the pain for over a cumulative year, then it is less advanced. In that case the added longevity is not conducive to the ability of the society to further advance or to fitness (well, technically fitness is simply the odds one will live long enough to reproduce, but we haven't been using that definition from the beginning).
Addendum 2: As such, longevity for this purpose should likely be measured in the amount of time a person is not in a state that severely impairs action. This includes the overwhelming pain mentioned, being in a coma, or being asleep. Ex. A development that eliminates the need to sleep, but with no increase in actual time lived, would still be an advancement.
22-Mar-2017 17:14:22
- Last edited on
22-Mar-2017 17:27:46
by
Rifleavenger