4 ms·
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 optimist
by annnnd 9y 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 9y agoYes 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 9y agoIMHO, 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 9y agoYou 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.
- sqeaky 9y agoMuch of Eistein's issues could have been due to degenerative issues. If he had everlasting youth, perhaps he would have had the energy and motivation to properly tackle the research in QM. That and no one person is bigger than science, Even though Einstein opposed QM it kept making advancements. Imagine if Einstein spent even all this time opposing it, their theory would be even more rigorous and advanced. More likely we would have changed his mind at some point and actively contributed, why would a one time scientist be stubborn for many decades in the face of so much evidence?
- Arizhel 9y agoEinstein opposed QM, but Einstein has never been the arbiter for all of physics. QM was created and promoted by his own contemporaries, after all, not people who came many decades later. Even if all those scientists of that time had managed to magically stop aging at 30 and live indefinitely, QM would have succeeded as a theory because of all the scientists who promoted it and tested it.