4 ms·

We have death and at the same time over-consumption, so the control is not working that well. Did you mean that it would effectively control the over-consumptio

We have death and at the same time over-consumption, so the control is not working that well. Did you mean that it would effectively control the over-consumption if better implemented (with a higher rate)?

freeflight 9y ago
Parent merely stated that we are already over-consuming with rather high death rates, not having any deaths at all most certainly wouldn't help with our current unsustainable ways, as we'd most likely overpopulate the planet pretty quickly with all it's resulting woes (even more pollution, killing off the rest of the biosphere). Imho it'd only work the other way around: For us to beat death, we first have to solve our sustainability/resource problems. What point is there to "endlessly living" if the reality of that boils down to being stuck in overcrowded and miserable living conditions? That sounds more like hell than utopia.
- Filligree 9y ago
  You're making the mistake of changing one parameter, but not projecting the entire world forwards. Immortality would be impossible without massive technological improvements that certainly would have other benefits; you can pretty well assume that both molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering will be mature by then. In combination, those should dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the world. Ignoring all of that, though... Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future onceb they know they'll live to see it?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Immortality would be impossible without massive technological improvements that certainly would have other benefits; you can pretty well assume that both molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering will be mature by then. I don't think we'll see anything like increased exponential progress of the kind that has been (and has already slowed down) during the industrial age. All low hanging fruit have been gathered, and at this point there are diminishing returns. We will have a few breakthroughs here and there but nothing to write home about the way the steam engine, electricity or the computer have been. >Ignoring all of that, though... Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future once they know they'll live to see it? Most people are terrible managing their own lives a few years ahead, much less decades ahead. So no reason to think they'll be any more apt when its something so vague as centuries ahead.
    - melling 9y ago
      Then we probably won’t cure death without large technological improvements. Problem solved. This conversation is going in circles. Has anyone brought up “death gives life meaning”? https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-be-banned-from-hacker-news-immortality/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
      - Filligree 9y ago
        > This conversation is going in circles. Has anyone brought up “death gives life meaning”? A platitude uttered by people who believe they have no way out, and are desperate to make themselves feel better about that. Not necessarily a bad thing, so long as there really is no way out, but catastrophic once that changes. Destroying death will lose us something, most certainly; there are any number of great works of art and philosophy that would never have been created without the pressures and emotions it creates. But none of that, I think, can even remotely make up for the sheer awfulness of the downside. There has to be a better solution than this creeping horror.
        melling 9y ago
        I imagine immortality will be optional. If it creeps you out, there will be other options...
        vidarh 9y ago
        The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect [1] (full text available for free; be warned it's extremely violent and sexual) is an interesting novel where immortality is not optional: An AI was "let loose" with a variation of Asimovs laws of robotics, and interpreted the requirement not to let anyone come to harm through inaction as requiring it to literally end death. The main character is a woman that feels it left her life without meaning, and who in response started gruesome competitions involving designing the most outrageous ways to die. Or rather, getting as close to the moment of death as Prime Intellect will let them before reviving them. [1] http://www.localroger.com/prime-intellect/ http://www.localroger.com/prime-intellect/
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > You're making the mistake of changing one parameter, but not projecting the entire world forwards. I changed only one parameter, while your assumption changes a whole lot of them in a very optimistic way. Which model do you think is more realistic? > Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future onceb they know they'll live to see it? Eh, imho people are too diverse for anything universal like that. Might as well pose the question if life actually still has meaning without death? If there's no end, how do we define the beginning and the different phases that used to be in-between? Those kinds of questions would probably be way more relevant than "Let's all apply some foresight, now that we don't actually need it anymore due to being immortal!".

freeflight 9y ago

Parent merely stated that we are already over-consuming with rather high death rates, not having any deaths at all most certainly wouldn't help with our current unsustainable ways, as we'd most likely overpopulate the planet pretty quickly with all it's resulting woes (even more pollution, killing off the rest of the biosphere). Imho it'd only work the other way around: For us to beat death, we first have to solve our sustainability/resource problems. What point is there to "endlessly living" if the reality of that boils down to being stuck in overcrowded and miserable living conditions? That sounds more like hell than utopia.

Filligree 9y ago
You're making the mistake of changing one parameter, but not projecting the entire world forwards. Immortality would be impossible without massive technological improvements that certainly would have other benefits; you can pretty well assume that both molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering will be mature by then. In combination, those should dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the world. Ignoring all of that, though... Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future onceb they know they'll live to see it?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Immortality would be impossible without massive technological improvements that certainly would have other benefits; you can pretty well assume that both molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering will be mature by then. I don't think we'll see anything like increased exponential progress of the kind that has been (and has already slowed down) during the industrial age. All low hanging fruit have been gathered, and at this point there are diminishing returns. We will have a few breakthroughs here and there but nothing to write home about the way the steam engine, electricity or the computer have been. >Ignoring all of that, though... Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future once they know they'll live to see it? Most people are terrible managing their own lives a few years ahead, much less decades ahead. So no reason to think they'll be any more apt when its something so vague as centuries ahead.
  - melling 9y ago
    Then we probably won’t cure death without large technological improvements. Problem solved. This conversation is going in circles. Has anyone brought up “death gives life meaning”? https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-be-banned-from-hacker-news-immortality/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
    - Filligree 9y ago
      > This conversation is going in circles. Has anyone brought up “death gives life meaning”? A platitude uttered by people who believe they have no way out, and are desperate to make themselves feel better about that. Not necessarily a bad thing, so long as there really is no way out, but catastrophic once that changes. Destroying death will lose us something, most certainly; there are any number of great works of art and philosophy that would never have been created without the pressures and emotions it creates. But none of that, I think, can even remotely make up for the sheer awfulness of the downside. There has to be a better solution than this creeping horror.
      - melling 9y ago
        I imagine immortality will be optional. If it creeps you out, there will be other options...
        vidarh 9y ago
        The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect [1] (full text available for free; be warned it's extremely violent and sexual) is an interesting novel where immortality is not optional: An AI was "let loose" with a variation of Asimovs laws of robotics, and interpreted the requirement not to let anyone come to harm through inaction as requiring it to literally end death. The main character is a woman that feels it left her life without meaning, and who in response started gruesome competitions involving designing the most outrageous ways to die. Or rather, getting as close to the moment of death as Prime Intellect will let them before reviving them. [1] http://www.localroger.com/prime-intellect/ http://www.localroger.com/prime-intellect/
- freeflight 9y ago
  > You're making the mistake of changing one parameter, but not projecting the entire world forwards. I changed only one parameter, while your assumption changes a whole lot of them in a very optimistic way. Which model do you think is more realistic? > Don't you think it's likely that people will start caring more about the future onceb they know they'll live to see it? Eh, imho people are too diverse for anything universal like that. Might as well pose the question if life actually still has meaning without death? If there's no end, how do we define the beginning and the different phases that used to be in-between? Those kinds of questions would probably be way more relevant than "Let's all apply some foresight, now that we don't actually need it anymore due to being immortal!".