3 ms·

> real good by funding research Like the planet need humans to live longer???

M_Grey 10y ago
The planet has no needs at all, and human longevity is unlikely to be a major issue when most of our human ventures center around efficient ways of killing each other.
- tonmoy 10y ago
  A ,ore appropriate question would be, "Does humanity need longevity for humans?"
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Unknown. There is are reasons to believe that longevity isn't necessarily a bad thing however, and many reasons to believe that it could have global value. You have to remember that in such a rosy future, we still have the oceans to colonize, and then space. Longevity would bring problems with it, but they could be solved by sensible controls on birth rates.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >most of our human ventures center around efficient ways of killing each other. Excuse me? What planet are you living on? I thought I was already living on the dystopian-social-scifi planet.
- adventured 10y ago
  That's blatantly incorrect. The radical majority of human ventures center around improving the quality of life for humans on the planet. An extremely small percentage of human ventures are focused on finding new ways to kill (less than 1%). US defense spending for example - most of which goes to human soldier expenses for pay / benefits / veterans etc - is merely 3% of US GDP. The actual amount of that 3% that goes into figuring out new ways to kill, is less than Google's revenue. In other words, you missed by greater than a factor of 100x (I'd guess greater than 1000x) in your estimation regarding how much effort/money/time humans as a whole are putting into killing each other.
r00fus 10y ago
The planet doesn't need billionaires, but there they are. Cue George Carlin.
- radiorental 10y ago
  All we know is that the planet needs plastic... etc. All due respect to Mr Carlin, the guy was insightful and funny, but a solution he did not provide. He made a lot of money out of pointing out what was wrong with the setup, a solution to the shithole we're in was not part of his schtick. I love the man and will point people at his skit on 'save the whales' but nothing he's done or said changes shit. He would be the first to admit that btw. We're royally fucked.
  - adventured 10y ago
    You say we're royally fucked, meanwhile the condition of human existence, or the standard of living at the median, has done nothing but drastically improve over the last 5,000 / 500 / 100 / 50 years. We're the exact opposite of royally fucked. We've been dealt the greatest hand imaginable. Improvements in the human condition are accelerating by the decade.
    - radiorental 10y ago
      You've misread the thread. We're talking about the planet, not the fact we all get to live to 100.
zanny 10y ago
Yes, because a huge part of the reason people disregard climate science today is because many of the people with the decision making authority to invest in actually correcting for it also judge they won't be alive to suffer from the consequences. Make humans live forever and suddenly everything matters. Interplanetary colonization for the preservation of the species alone is not enough, but to preserve themselves it becomes essential. Why develop Type 2 civilization power generation technology if you would never live long enough to see the transition? Make people live longer and you increase the likelihood the long term becomes relevant to them.
- wott 10y ago
  That's the theory. Practically, almost all humans don't give a shit about the 5-year consequences of their actions even though they will most likely leave at least another 50 years.
- radiorental 10y ago
  Oh, if it only were that simple. Create a class of longer living humans and you double down on the problem we have today. Half the number of the species on top of the food chain, then I'll take you seriously.
- inimino 10y ago
  And what are the long term consequences of immortality?

The planet has no needs at all, and human longevity is unlikely to be a major issue when most of our human ventures center around efficient ways of killing each other.

tonmoy 10y ago
A ,ore appropriate question would be, "Does humanity need longevity for humans?"
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Unknown. There is are reasons to believe that longevity isn't necessarily a bad thing however, and many reasons to believe that it could have global value. You have to remember that in such a rosy future, we still have the oceans to colonize, and then space. Longevity would bring problems with it, but they could be solved by sensible controls on birth rates.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>most of our human ventures center around efficient ways of killing each other. Excuse me? What planet are you living on? I thought I was already living on the dystopian-social-scifi planet.
adventured 10y ago
That's blatantly incorrect. The radical majority of human ventures center around improving the quality of life for humans on the planet. An extremely small percentage of human ventures are focused on finding new ways to kill (less than 1%). US defense spending for example - most of which goes to human soldier expenses for pay / benefits / veterans etc - is merely 3% of US GDP. The actual amount of that 3% that goes into figuring out new ways to kill, is less than Google's revenue. In other words, you missed by greater than a factor of 100x (I'd guess greater than 1000x) in your estimation regarding how much effort/money/time humans as a whole are putting into killing each other.

r00fus 10y ago

The planet doesn't need billionaires, but there they are. Cue George Carlin.

radiorental 10y ago
All we know is that the planet needs plastic... etc. All due respect to Mr Carlin, the guy was insightful and funny, but a solution he did not provide. He made a lot of money out of pointing out what was wrong with the setup, a solution to the shithole we're in was not part of his schtick. I love the man and will point people at his skit on 'save the whales' but nothing he's done or said changes shit. He would be the first to admit that btw. We're royally fucked.
- adventured 10y ago
  You say we're royally fucked, meanwhile the condition of human existence, or the standard of living at the median, has done nothing but drastically improve over the last 5,000 / 500 / 100 / 50 years. We're the exact opposite of royally fucked. We've been dealt the greatest hand imaginable. Improvements in the human condition are accelerating by the decade.
  - radiorental 10y ago
    You've misread the thread. We're talking about the planet, not the fact we all get to live to 100.

zanny 10y ago

Yes, because a huge part of the reason people disregard climate science today is because many of the people with the decision making authority to invest in actually correcting for it also judge they won't be alive to suffer from the consequences. Make humans live forever and suddenly everything matters. Interplanetary colonization for the preservation of the species alone is not enough, but to preserve themselves it becomes essential. Why develop Type 2 civilization power generation technology if you would never live long enough to see the transition? Make people live longer and you increase the likelihood the long term becomes relevant to them.

wott 10y ago
That's the theory. Practically, almost all humans don't give a shit about the 5-year consequences of their actions even though they will most likely leave at least another 50 years.
radiorental 10y ago
Oh, if it only were that simple. Create a class of longer living humans and you double down on the problem we have today. Half the number of the species on top of the food chain, then I'll take you seriously.
inimino 10y ago
And what are the long term consequences of immortality?