3 ms·

What an insanely bad deal: I pay my life, and I get a thing which somewhat increases the quality of my life, contingent on me having ambitions that are big enou

by pliny 11y ago

What an insanely bad deal: I pay my life, and I get a thing which somewhat increases the quality of my life, contingent on me having ambitions that are big enough to require a death-sized motivational tool. Why would you ever choose "dying" over "not dying"? If you live to be a million years old you have a million years to achieve all your dreams, albeit you don't have as much motivation to achieve them in the first 80 years of your life. If you only live 80 years, then you have a lot of motivation to achieve all your dreams in that timespan but (a) your ambitions might not be achievable in 80 years (b) whatever satisfaction you get from achieving your dreams runs out once you die anyway and worst of all (c) you lose 999920 years of life. It stands to reason that whoever chooses "die at 80" over "die at 1e6" or even "never die" just doesn't value living very much.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
What makes you think you'll accomplish more in 800 years than in 80? Furthermore why do you assume what you accomplish during that time is of any real benefit to society?
- photonic30 11y ago
  Why must somebody be of benefit to society to deserve to live? Of what use are collected accomplishments if you cannot be conscious to enjoy them?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pliny 11y ago
  I didn't say either of those things, but I also don't see why they're relevant. I don't have to earn my first 80 years of life with any "accomplishments that are of any real benefit to society" so I don't see why I would have to earn 800 or 8000 or 8 million years, either.
username223 11y ago
> Why would you ever choose "dying" over "not dying"? First, visit a nursing home. How much is "not dying" worth? Then, visit an elementary school. Given the earth's finite carrying capacity, do you want to have a world with no children?
- photonic30 11y ago
  >First, visit a nursing home. How much is "not dying" worth? Not dying is hard to divorce from not aging, at least in any significant sense. This isn't an argument about a few extra years in exchange for extended morbidity. Compressed morbidity is a valuable counterpoint to modern medicine's unrelenting treatment, and luckily it's gaining momentum in the medical community. But the therapies in question have very marginal returns. Significant life extension is almost certainly only achievable by keeping us young for a very long time. It is also critical that we remember the principal of autonomy. For all of the elderly folks who would like to move on, there are many who prefer not to, frailty and all. The fact that some would like to die is no justification for denying treatment to those who do not. Denying life extension to people who desire it, by the same argument, it is equally ridiculous. >Then, visit an elementary school. Given the earth's finite carrying capacity, do you want to have a world with no children? No, I suppose not, but nobody has the right to ask another to die so that they may bring a new child into the world. There are lots of benefits I might realize from taking advantage of another's suffering, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to. There is no "right to be conceived". There is a right to life.
photonic30 11y ago
Aubrey de Grey calls it a trance. Since death is inevitable, we tend to bias our reasoning toward its meager positives, whereas if it were a choice, almost nobody would really choose to follow through with it, outside of religious reasons.
- DrJonhty 11y ago
  People just don't get it. In most cases the current approach to treating the diseases of aging is akin to offering someone with cancer a codeine pill, in other words we are ameliorating the symptoms whilst doing little to attack the underlying root cause of the problem which is aging itself. If we chose to tackle aging by repairing the accumulated damage which arises at a cellular and molecular level instead of treating the end result then the diseases of aging such as Alzheimer's, cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and osteoarthritis would be reduced by around 95% because these diseases are primarily a direct consequence of old age and rarely afflict young people. Throughout our history if there has been a route by which we can lead healthier, happier and more productive lives. We have tended to take it and that is the reason why anti-aging medicine will progress down exactly the same route and why the arguments against controlling aging do not have any validity at all.

by pliny 11y ago

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

What makes you think you'll accomplish more in 800 years than in 80? Furthermore why do you assume what you accomplish during that time is of any real benefit to society?

photonic30 11y ago
Why must somebody be of benefit to society to deserve to live? Of what use are collected accomplishments if you cannot be conscious to enjoy them?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pliny 11y ago
I didn't say either of those things, but I also don't see why they're relevant. I don't have to earn my first 80 years of life with any "accomplishments that are of any real benefit to society" so I don't see why I would have to earn 800 or 8000 or 8 million years, either.

username223 11y ago

> Why would you ever choose "dying" over "not dying"? First, visit a nursing home. How much is "not dying" worth? Then, visit an elementary school. Given the earth's finite carrying capacity, do you want to have a world with no children?

photonic30 11y ago
>First, visit a nursing home. How much is "not dying" worth? Not dying is hard to divorce from not aging, at least in any significant sense. This isn't an argument about a few extra years in exchange for extended morbidity. Compressed morbidity is a valuable counterpoint to modern medicine's unrelenting treatment, and luckily it's gaining momentum in the medical community. But the therapies in question have very marginal returns. Significant life extension is almost certainly only achievable by keeping us young for a very long time. It is also critical that we remember the principal of autonomy. For all of the elderly folks who would like to move on, there are many who prefer not to, frailty and all. The fact that some would like to die is no justification for denying treatment to those who do not. Denying life extension to people who desire it, by the same argument, it is equally ridiculous. >Then, visit an elementary school. Given the earth's finite carrying capacity, do you want to have a world with no children? No, I suppose not, but nobody has the right to ask another to die so that they may bring a new child into the world. There are lots of benefits I might realize from taking advantage of another's suffering, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to. There is no "right to be conceived". There is a right to life.

photonic30 11y ago

Aubrey de Grey calls it a trance. Since death is inevitable, we tend to bias our reasoning toward its meager positives, whereas if it were a choice, almost nobody would really choose to follow through with it, outside of religious reasons.

DrJonhty 11y ago
People just don't get it. In most cases the current approach to treating the diseases of aging is akin to offering someone with cancer a codeine pill, in other words we are ameliorating the symptoms whilst doing little to attack the underlying root cause of the problem which is aging itself. If we chose to tackle aging by repairing the accumulated damage which arises at a cellular and molecular level instead of treating the end result then the diseases of aging such as Alzheimer's, cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and osteoarthritis would be reduced by around 95% because these diseases are primarily a direct consequence of old age and rarely afflict young people. Throughout our history if there has been a route by which we can lead healthier, happier and more productive lives. We have tended to take it and that is the reason why anti-aging medicine will progress down exactly the same route and why the arguments against controlling aging do not have any validity at all.