10 ms·

I never understood the people who argue for indefinite life extension. Imagine a world with essentially no children. No generation of young adults growing up an

I never understood the people who argue for indefinite life extension. Imagine a world with essentially no children. No generation of young adults growing up and spurring change in the world. I think it would not just take away a crucial part of the human experience, but our entire economic system would collapse. There's just too much of it tied into the constant churn of people. (Of course, you might imagine indefinite life extension springing into existence only after we've started rapid colonisation of space; a pipe dream if I ever saw one. Even then, Earth would still be holden to what I describe.) In two-three generations, most everyone alive in the countries where life extension was widely adopted would be old farts that didn't want to take up much further debt, with few new ideas and not much drive left in them. "Science advances one funeral at a time", as do many other fields key to human progress. Meanwhile, the countries too poor to see mass adoption of life extension would out-grow and out-innovate our collective asses faster than you can say "collapse of Western civilisation". So you'd live forever, but in increasing poverty (due the countries that produce most of the things you buy having much higher growth than yours) in a stagnant, crumbling society. If we were to invent indefinite life extension that was affordable beyond the 0.1%, I think it would be the ultimate tragedy of the commons.

bamboozled 10y ago
I know what you're saying, natural death from aging could be seen as a solution just as easily as it can be viewed as a problem. If anything we should get better at it, for example, educate people more about aging and talk more about death and the benefits of caring for yourself in your youth so to age well, it doesn't really have to be sad.
fizixer 10y ago
> I never understood the people who argue for indefinite life extension. I'd say admitting an inability to understand something is a good first step towards making progress. Don't lose hope. Here's something to read in the meantime [1] [1] https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/ https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/
- owens99 10y ago
  Great article. Would be better if the answers were written in a slightly more compassionate tone.
  - fizixer 10y ago
    I think the tone is perfect. - In questions, it represents a knee-jerk reaction of annoyance by a deathist who hasn't thought about this seriously or deeply. - In answers, it represents an anti-deathist who is jaded after engaging in the debate hundreds of times, with almost every time the deathist being highly opinionated and yet completely lacking any convincing counter arguments.
lordnacho 10y ago
> In two-three generations, most everyone alive in the countries where life extension was widely adopted would be old farts that didn't want to take up much further debt, with few new ideas and not much drive left in them. "Science advances one funeral at a time", as do many other fields key to human progress. But old farts are like that because they realise they are going to die. Wouldn't you behave differently if you were going to live forever? You could learn new skills, invest for the really long term. Do multiple degrees, try out many professions. Start a game of Civilization on a huge map. Level up all your wow characters.
- sametmax 10y ago
  No, old fart are like that because they now "have it figure it out" and are happy with they point of view. That's just how the brains work: it uses experience to create a map of the world, a paradigm. The older you get, the more experience you get, and the harder you can endure a paradigm shit. Renewing the populating, beside the absolute biological necessity (you are adapted to your environment now, but probably not to the one in the future) is the only way nature manage to balance experience and flexibility.
  - JohnDotAwesome 10y ago
    > paradigm shit Still works.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Accidental brilliance, even.
      - sametmax 10y ago
        When you can't be brillant in any other way...
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Transcendendal excremeditation.
annnnd 10y ago
You are assuming that life extension would produce lifeless old men - which of course wouldn't improve humankind. But this is not given. Another, more optimistical way to look at life extension is that it is what neural networks are to genetic algorithms. Instead of randomized search for better parameters you get a more directed one (backpropagation). In other words, instead of waiting for the next generation to learn on the same mistakes previous ones made, we can skip this and transfer knowledge in the future much faster. It all depends in what form the technology will surface, and what the people will use it for once it does. I am willing to bet it won't be all good, but also not all bad.
- sametmax 10y ago
  Yes but neural networks use experience to make decisions. The more experience it gets, the less creative and flexible it becomes. This is why you need new individual: - to not be blinded by a vision of the past; - to ignorer status quo; - to see things differently; - to bring creativity; - to bring a bit of chaos. They are rare, those who, among us, can cumulate experience and a beginner's mind.
  - owens99 10y ago
    IMHO, this is a problem with the current education system, not with aging. Imagine if Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Disney, Steve Jobs, etc. all lived for another couple hundred years. Do you truly believe they would stop trying to disrupt the status quo? It only takes one person to disrupt the status quo. Generally, it doesn't matter how many people are against something. Nothing can stop a great idea when its time has come.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      You could equally point to examples of great minds who nonetheless objected to new (and correct) theories. Einstein objected to much of QM. There's the history of the adoption (and rejection) of plate tectonics over much of the 20th century. Continued opposition to old-Earth geology, or biological evolution. The present conflict within physics over string theory. Likely others. At some point, fixed mental models tend to get in the way, even if the minds containing them once made novel and useful contributions.
mirimir 10y ago
Yes, but you're missing the other aspect of life extension: control over effects of aging. People become "old farts" because of physical and cognitive decline. Consider evidence from rapid-aging disorders. So by preventing and repairing damage, there are no "old farts". And you get the advantages of both youth and age.
- sametmax 10y ago
  You would still loose: - new DNA combinations entering the mix. They are quite damn important. - beginners minds. Without it, systems will be stuck in what we assume are the best fit. - disrupters. Newcommers, by lack of experience, misunderstanding or just because they are not blinded by the status quo have the tendency to change things. Basically, even if you don't have "old farts", our system will get old. There is a reason why nature promoted renewal of individuals inside a long living but dynamic group and not long living individuals inside a static small group.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Re new DNA combinations, do you have evidence? CNS development is a higher level of natural selection, involving on-the-fly variation. Rather like the immune system. There arguably hasn't been much biological evolution over the past few thousand years. Certainly not enough to account for modern civilization. We all become disruptors when we switch fields.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      Every mass extinction, a new DNA set is gaining traction.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        That's quite a jump in time scale. The overall lifetime of the human species is miniscule, relative to the timing of mass extinctions.
zeroer 10y ago
> Imagine a world with essentially no children. Thanks, but I don't want to get lost in fantasy while at work.
zlynx 10y ago
I forget the author but there was a pretty cool sci-fi story that had legislation to "solve" this. Every 100 years, an individual "died" and was "reborn" legally. They lost all their stuff, were given a starter account with enough interest to live on for several years and exiled from their home continent. Most people went back to school.
bambax 10y ago
Exactly. Life extension is the apex of selfishness, and also extremely inefficient. My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else!
- adwn 10y ago
  > My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else! If that is true, then you are the problem. Consider working on your character and/or your ability to contribute to other peoples' well-being (if possible).
  - bambax 10y ago
    It doesn't seem you got my point.
    - adwn 10y ago
      Could you elaborate on your point, then?
      - owens99 10y ago
        It reads like sarcasm (to me).
        bambax 10y ago
        Yet it isn't.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >Life extension is the apex of selfishness, and also extremely inefficient. Inefficient? It takes an enormous amount of resources to raise an infant to adulthood, namely with education, and many years of not only complete non-productivity, but distracting adults from being productive by having to spend time changing their diapers and such. There's a reason people aren't having many (or frequently any) kids these days. Industrialized nations are in negative population growth mode now. >My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else! If you really feel that way, you can off yourself at any time.
Nursie 10y ago
You embody my greatest fear and annoyance in this area. I think it's perfectly possible that, within my lifetime, significant or indefinite life extension could become possible. But I'd bet that fears about effects on society, as well as the arrayed forces of religious conservatism, will create so much strife on the matter that it'll be denied to people for long enough that I'll die unnecesarily.
- logicchains 10y ago
  If you're really worried about that, have you considered coming to China? The government keeps religion in check, and science is pretty free (although plagued with plagiarism); China's already trying to genetically modify children. If a technology with the potential for indefinite life expansion was found, there's no way the ruling class would let anything stand in the way of them prolonging their lives indefinitely.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    I would consider going anywhere that could offer proven, real, relatively safe life extension. A choice of leaving the country of my birth or leaving this mortal plane... I know which way I would go.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > I think it's perfectly possible that, within my lifetime, significant or indefinite life extension could become possible. It's about as likely as having a sentient AI anytime soon. So, you can rest assured it's not going to happen despite all the hype.
- bamboozled 10y ago
  Ironically your wish to "live eternally" kind of sounds like something out of the bible ;)
  - leothelocust 10y ago
    Exactly, which is why I will live forever...
Lewton 10y ago
If death is so good, why should people live to 90? Why not 60? or 40?
fivestar 10y ago
I get it--humans don't make progress except through culling of the elderly, people such as John McCain and Nancy Pelosi--won't be sad to see them go, lol! But seriously, if we're ever to be come a true spacefaring species, the aging thing has to get solved. Humans would then have a far better chance of ranging out. Right now we're just ants.
s_kilk 10y ago
> Imagine a world with essentially no children. No generation of young adults growing up and spurring change in the world. I think it would not just take away a crucial part of the human experience, but our entire economic system would collapse. There's just too much of it tied into the constant churn of people. Basically "Children of Men", but without the cool camera work.

bamboozled 10y ago

I know what you're saying, natural death from aging could be seen as a solution just as easily as it can be viewed as a problem. If anything we should get better at it, for example, educate people more about aging and talk more about death and the benefits of caring for yourself in your youth so to age well, it doesn't really have to be sad.

fizixer 10y ago

> I never understood the people who argue for indefinite life extension. I'd say admitting an inability to understand something is a good first step towards making progress. Don't lose hope. Here's something to read in the meantime [1] [1] https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/ https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/

owens99 10y ago
Great article. Would be better if the answers were written in a slightly more compassionate tone.
- fizixer 10y ago
  I think the tone is perfect. - In questions, it represents a knee-jerk reaction of annoyance by a deathist who hasn't thought about this seriously or deeply. - In answers, it represents an anti-deathist who is jaded after engaging in the debate hundreds of times, with almost every time the deathist being highly opinionated and yet completely lacking any convincing counter arguments.

lordnacho 10y ago

> In two-three generations, most everyone alive in the countries where life extension was widely adopted would be old farts that didn't want to take up much further debt, with few new ideas and not much drive left in them. "Science advances one funeral at a time", as do many other fields key to human progress. But old farts are like that because they realise they are going to die. Wouldn't you behave differently if you were going to live forever? You could learn new skills, invest for the really long term. Do multiple degrees, try out many professions. Start a game of Civilization on a huge map. Level up all your wow characters.

sametmax 10y ago
No, old fart are like that because they now "have it figure it out" and are happy with they point of view. That's just how the brains work: it uses experience to create a map of the world, a paradigm. The older you get, the more experience you get, and the harder you can endure a paradigm shit. Renewing the populating, beside the absolute biological necessity (you are adapted to your environment now, but probably not to the one in the future) is the only way nature manage to balance experience and flexibility.
- JohnDotAwesome 10y ago
  > paradigm shit Still works.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Accidental brilliance, even.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      When you can't be brillant in any other way...
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Transcendendal excremeditation.

annnnd 10y ago

You are assuming that life extension would produce lifeless old men - which of course wouldn't improve humankind. But this is not given. Another, more optimistical way to look at life extension is that it is what neural networks are to genetic algorithms. Instead of randomized search for better parameters you get a more directed one (backpropagation). In other words, instead of waiting for the next generation to learn on the same mistakes previous ones made, we can skip this and transfer knowledge in the future much faster. It all depends in what form the technology will surface, and what the people will use it for once it does. I am willing to bet it won't be all good, but also not all bad.

sametmax 10y ago
Yes but neural networks use experience to make decisions. The more experience it gets, the less creative and flexible it becomes. This is why you need new individual: - to not be blinded by a vision of the past; - to ignorer status quo; - to see things differently; - to bring creativity; - to bring a bit of chaos. They are rare, those who, among us, can cumulate experience and a beginner's mind.
- owens99 10y ago
  IMHO, this is a problem with the current education system, not with aging. Imagine if Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Disney, Steve Jobs, etc. all lived for another couple hundred years. Do you truly believe they would stop trying to disrupt the status quo? It only takes one person to disrupt the status quo. Generally, it doesn't matter how many people are against something. Nothing can stop a great idea when its time has come.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    You could equally point to examples of great minds who nonetheless objected to new (and correct) theories. Einstein objected to much of QM. There's the history of the adoption (and rejection) of plate tectonics over much of the 20th century. Continued opposition to old-Earth geology, or biological evolution. The present conflict within physics over string theory. Likely others. At some point, fixed mental models tend to get in the way, even if the minds containing them once made novel and useful contributions.

mirimir 10y ago

Yes, but you're missing the other aspect of life extension: control over effects of aging. People become "old farts" because of physical and cognitive decline. Consider evidence from rapid-aging disorders. So by preventing and repairing damage, there are no "old farts". And you get the advantages of both youth and age.

sametmax 10y ago
You would still loose: - new DNA combinations entering the mix. They are quite damn important. - beginners minds. Without it, systems will be stuck in what we assume are the best fit. - disrupters. Newcommers, by lack of experience, misunderstanding or just because they are not blinded by the status quo have the tendency to change things. Basically, even if you don't have "old farts", our system will get old. There is a reason why nature promoted renewal of individuals inside a long living but dynamic group and not long living individuals inside a static small group.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Re new DNA combinations, do you have evidence? CNS development is a higher level of natural selection, involving on-the-fly variation. Rather like the immune system. There arguably hasn't been much biological evolution over the past few thousand years. Certainly not enough to account for modern civilization. We all become disruptors when we switch fields.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    Every mass extinction, a new DNA set is gaining traction.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      That's quite a jump in time scale. The overall lifetime of the human species is miniscule, relative to the timing of mass extinctions.

zeroer 10y ago

> Imagine a world with essentially no children. Thanks, but I don't want to get lost in fantasy while at work.

zlynx 10y ago

I forget the author but there was a pretty cool sci-fi story that had legislation to "solve" this. Every 100 years, an individual "died" and was "reborn" legally. They lost all their stuff, were given a starter account with enough interest to live on for several years and exiled from their home continent. Most people went back to school.

bambax 10y ago

Exactly. Life extension is the apex of selfishness, and also extremely inefficient. My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else!

adwn 10y ago
> My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else! If that is true, then you are the problem. Consider working on your character and/or your ability to contribute to other peoples' well-being (if possible).
- bambax 10y ago
  It doesn't seem you got my point.
  - adwn 10y ago
    Could you elaborate on your point, then?
    - owens99 10y ago
      It reads like sarcasm (to me).
      - bambax 10y ago
        Yet it isn't.
Arizhel 10y ago
>Life extension is the apex of selfishness, and also extremely inefficient. Inefficient? It takes an enormous amount of resources to raise an infant to adulthood, namely with education, and many years of not only complete non-productivity, but distracting adults from being productive by having to spend time changing their diapers and such. There's a reason people aren't having many (or frequently any) kids these days. Industrialized nations are in negative population growth mode now. >My death is a little annoying for me, but oh so great for everyone else! If you really feel that way, you can off yourself at any time.

Nursie 10y ago

You embody my greatest fear and annoyance in this area. I think it's perfectly possible that, within my lifetime, significant or indefinite life extension could become possible. But I'd bet that fears about effects on society, as well as the arrayed forces of religious conservatism, will create so much strife on the matter that it'll be denied to people for long enough that I'll die unnecesarily.

logicchains 10y ago
If you're really worried about that, have you considered coming to China? The government keeps religion in check, and science is pretty free (although plagued with plagiarism); China's already trying to genetically modify children. If a technology with the potential for indefinite life expansion was found, there's no way the ruling class would let anything stand in the way of them prolonging their lives indefinitely.
- Nursie 10y ago
  I would consider going anywhere that could offer proven, real, relatively safe life extension. A choice of leaving the country of my birth or leaving this mortal plane... I know which way I would go.
ekianjo 10y ago
> I think it's perfectly possible that, within my lifetime, significant or indefinite life extension could become possible. It's about as likely as having a sentient AI anytime soon. So, you can rest assured it's not going to happen despite all the hype.
bamboozled 10y ago
Ironically your wish to "live eternally" kind of sounds like something out of the bible ;)
- leothelocust 10y ago
  Exactly, which is why I will live forever...

Lewton 10y ago

If death is so good, why should people live to 90? Why not 60? or 40?

fivestar 10y ago

I get it--humans don't make progress except through culling of the elderly, people such as John McCain and Nancy Pelosi--won't be sad to see them go, lol! But seriously, if we're ever to be come a true spacefaring species, the aging thing has to get solved. Humans would then have a far better chance of ranging out. Right now we're just ants.

s_kilk 10y ago

> Imagine a world with essentially no children. No generation of young adults growing up and spurring change in the world. I think it would not just take away a crucial part of the human experience, but our entire economic system would collapse. There's just too much of it tied into the constant churn of people. Basically "Children of Men", but without the cool camera work.