5 ms·

By the same token, humanity hasn't changed so much that the rich and powerful don't eventually realize the terror of their mortality, and desperately try to buy

by M_Grey 10y ago

By the same token, humanity hasn't changed so much that the rich and powerful don't eventually realize the terror of their mortality, and desperately try to buy their way out of it. While it's always possible that this will be the generation to discover the Philosopher's Stone, there is no real indication that's the case. I wish I could agree with your rosy outlook, but my view of a realistic form of immortality is in line with Richard K. Morgan's vis a vis 'Altered Carbon'. People keep looking for a technology to change us as humans, but we're going to have to do it ourselves, and soon, or die. Technology doesn't change our nature, it just empowers us to act more freely on it.

BadassFractal 10y ago
At the end of the day the impetus behind the desire to extend life doesn't matter. If the outcome is that we are around for centuries at a time, we all win as a species. It's a bit idealistic but it would be wonderful to have truly wise people in power who have to care about the long term for once, even if at first not all of the masses get to live much longer. Right now life is so short that by the time you barely start getting a grasp of what's going on, it's already time to go.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's true, but nothing on the horizon is changing that for us in our lifetimes, no matter how desperately we wish for something else. Meanwhile problems with solutions do exist, which could enable our species to be around and civilized for long enough to eventually reach that dream. Our current course ends in death, not immortality.
  - BadassFractal 10y ago
    Well, not with that attitude.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Believe it or not, a positive attitude isn't the magic ingredient to immortality, any more than a lack of skepticism helps a psychic work better. Science is a beautiful edifice, in part because it works in spite of attitude and expectation. The world can laugh at you while you putter away in your shed, but if you can fly at the end of the day, you're going down in history. The only thing that needs a positive attitude and a suspension of disbelief is fraud.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        Suspension of disbelief doesn't make science go better, but science that doesn't get popular support or widespread credibility doesn't get funded as readily, or accepted as quickly, or treated as urgent. And an excess of incredulity can become fear and rejection. 150,000 people die every day. That's bigger than a moderate-sized city. That's not a problem to casually get around to maybe thinking about in the perpetual "a few years from now but really never"; that's a problem we should be devoting a substantial part of our total resources to.
        nradov 10y ago
        Why? There's no reason other than wishful thinking to expect that devoting substantially more resources would actually deliver significant life extension.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
        There are many such reasons to expect that research would produce good results, including past research that already has, and ongoing research that continues to.
        nradov 10y ago
        No past research has ever pushed up the maximum age of humans. It remains at about 124. There has been no progress in that field. Other medical research has helped prevent people from dying early and that's certainly worth continuing. But that's not what we're discussing here.
  - lz400 10y ago
    Science researches problems that are deemed important, and funding of those problems should be proportional to the importance of the problem. Death I argue is one of the most important problems of all so research on how to cure it should be funded much better than it is. If it happens in our lifetime or in our children's or in 100 years doesn't matter. What matters is that every day we accelerate the curing of aging we're saving 150K lives.
- tomc1985 10y ago
  How would everyone win? Not having deaths to offset birth grows the population even faster. Unless such a thing were more likely to produce people capable of solving humanity's imminent crises, within a decade or two you'd see life getting a lot worse if immortality went mainstream
  - BadassFractal 10y ago
    Assuming quality of life is high enough for most of the world, births will automatically adjust themselves. If you know you have a couple of centuries to decide whether you want a kid or not, you don't have to rush into it, you have options.
    - larsiusprime 10y ago
      I'm a bit skeptical that the human sex drive is going to automatically adjust itself downwards at the same rate as the death rate suddenly plunging, even with modern contraception.
    - foobarchu 10y ago
      People don't rush into it because they're worried about time, they rush into because: - its an accident - they want some sort of benefit, e.g. farm help or gov assistants - biological urges Making people immortal wouldn't affect any of those. Which do you think is worse for the poor who tend to rush into kids: a lifetime of poverty, or an eternity of it?
      - BadassFractal 10y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
      - tomc1985 10y ago
        Nevermind that it feels good?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >It's a bit idealistic but it would be wonderful to have truly wise people in power who have to care about the long term for once No it's not. Idealistic is to have the masses wise and involved enough to get rid of persistent leader-castes. This sort of getting-rid is likely to happen quite soon, especially if we in the masses hear that the leader-caste are likely to become immortal while we remain subject to the Reaper.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Old people can be wise (i.e. experienced) but they also become conservative and rigid. Youth is what drives change and when people do their best work. Old people need to get out of the way at some point.
  - Rapzid 10y ago
    And unfortunately they are back in power now in the US. Prime example IMHO. Both Trump and Clinton were like giving the AARP the reigns. Now it's like the old boy's club is having one last run at managing our country. After the 40-something Obama from 2008 it really feels like a step backwards. Wise? How far has these people's thinking evolved from their 30's or 40's? How "wise" was our country back then? It's morbid to say it but I have no reservations in admitting that I(and I'll throw out there most others I know) am looking forward to these people "moving on". And by "moving on" I mean dying and getting out of the way.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      The thing is, if you don't like the old people and they way they govern, you're free to not elect them. They're only "in the way" because stupid voters elect them. On top of that, we had an extremely progressive candidate running; his name was "Bernie", and he was older than both Hillary and Donald. He was far more progressive than "young" Obama, and he was also very popular with the youngest voters. You don't have to be young to be popular with young people, and think in idealistic ways like younger people. I don't want to see these people die of old age; I'd rather keep great old people like Bernie around. If the people of our country are so stupid that they keep electing people like Hillary and Trump and rejecting people like Bernie, then they deserve that kind of governance.
  - BadassFractal 10y ago
    Unfortunately young people also sign up for many unfortunate causes because they have no historical perspective, nor do they understand how subtle and not black-and-white real life can be. Young people aren't a panacea and there absolutely is such a thing as a wise but also modern older leader.
  - 10y ago

by M_Grey 10y ago

BadassFractal 10y ago

At the end of the day the impetus behind the desire to extend life doesn't matter. If the outcome is that we are around for centuries at a time, we all win as a species. It's a bit idealistic but it would be wonderful to have truly wise people in power who have to care about the long term for once, even if at first not all of the masses get to live much longer. Right now life is so short that by the time you barely start getting a grasp of what's going on, it's already time to go.

M_Grey 10y ago
That's true, but nothing on the horizon is changing that for us in our lifetimes, no matter how desperately we wish for something else. Meanwhile problems with solutions do exist, which could enable our species to be around and civilized for long enough to eventually reach that dream. Our current course ends in death, not immortality.
- BadassFractal 10y ago
  Well, not with that attitude.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Believe it or not, a positive attitude isn't the magic ingredient to immortality, any more than a lack of skepticism helps a psychic work better. Science is a beautiful edifice, in part because it works in spite of attitude and expectation. The world can laugh at you while you putter away in your shed, but if you can fly at the end of the day, you're going down in history. The only thing that needs a positive attitude and a suspension of disbelief is fraud.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      Suspension of disbelief doesn't make science go better, but science that doesn't get popular support or widespread credibility doesn't get funded as readily, or accepted as quickly, or treated as urgent. And an excess of incredulity can become fear and rejection. 150,000 people die every day. That's bigger than a moderate-sized city. That's not a problem to casually get around to maybe thinking about in the perpetual "a few years from now but really never"; that's a problem we should be devoting a substantial part of our total resources to.
      - nradov 10y ago
        Why? There's no reason other than wishful thinking to expect that devoting substantially more resources would actually deliver significant life extension.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
        There are many such reasons to expect that research would produce good results, including past research that already has, and ongoing research that continues to.
        nradov 10y ago
        No past research has ever pushed up the maximum age of humans. It remains at about 124. There has been no progress in that field. Other medical research has helped prevent people from dying early and that's certainly worth continuing. But that's not what we're discussing here.
- lz400 10y ago
  Science researches problems that are deemed important, and funding of those problems should be proportional to the importance of the problem. Death I argue is one of the most important problems of all so research on how to cure it should be funded much better than it is. If it happens in our lifetime or in our children's or in 100 years doesn't matter. What matters is that every day we accelerate the curing of aging we're saving 150K lives.
tomc1985 10y ago
How would everyone win? Not having deaths to offset birth grows the population even faster. Unless such a thing were more likely to produce people capable of solving humanity's imminent crises, within a decade or two you'd see life getting a lot worse if immortality went mainstream
- BadassFractal 10y ago
  Assuming quality of life is high enough for most of the world, births will automatically adjust themselves. If you know you have a couple of centuries to decide whether you want a kid or not, you don't have to rush into it, you have options.
  - larsiusprime 10y ago
    I'm a bit skeptical that the human sex drive is going to automatically adjust itself downwards at the same rate as the death rate suddenly plunging, even with modern contraception.
  - foobarchu 10y ago
    People don't rush into it because they're worried about time, they rush into because: - its an accident - they want some sort of benefit, e.g. farm help or gov assistants - biological urges Making people immortal wouldn't affect any of those. Which do you think is worse for the poor who tend to rush into kids: a lifetime of poverty, or an eternity of it?
    - BadassFractal 10y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
    - tomc1985 10y ago
      Nevermind that it feels good?
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>It's a bit idealistic but it would be wonderful to have truly wise people in power who have to care about the long term for once No it's not. Idealistic is to have the masses wise and involved enough to get rid of persistent leader-castes. This sort of getting-rid is likely to happen quite soon, especially if we in the masses hear that the leader-caste are likely to become immortal while we remain subject to the Reaper.
ams6110 10y ago
Old people can be wise (i.e. experienced) but they also become conservative and rigid. Youth is what drives change and when people do their best work. Old people need to get out of the way at some point.
- Rapzid 10y ago
  And unfortunately they are back in power now in the US. Prime example IMHO. Both Trump and Clinton were like giving the AARP the reigns. Now it's like the old boy's club is having one last run at managing our country. After the 40-something Obama from 2008 it really feels like a step backwards. Wise? How far has these people's thinking evolved from their 30's or 40's? How "wise" was our country back then? It's morbid to say it but I have no reservations in admitting that I(and I'll throw out there most others I know) am looking forward to these people "moving on". And by "moving on" I mean dying and getting out of the way.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    The thing is, if you don't like the old people and they way they govern, you're free to not elect them. They're only "in the way" because stupid voters elect them. On top of that, we had an extremely progressive candidate running; his name was "Bernie", and he was older than both Hillary and Donald. He was far more progressive than "young" Obama, and he was also very popular with the youngest voters. You don't have to be young to be popular with young people, and think in idealistic ways like younger people. I don't want to see these people die of old age; I'd rather keep great old people like Bernie around. If the people of our country are so stupid that they keep electing people like Hillary and Trump and rejecting people like Bernie, then they deserve that kind of governance.
- BadassFractal 10y ago
  Unfortunately young people also sign up for many unfortunate causes because they have no historical perspective, nor do they understand how subtle and not black-and-white real life can be. Young people aren't a panacea and there absolutely is such a thing as a wise but also modern older leader.
- 10y ago