4 ms·

That's a very seductive argument for the individual, but most species do have a finite lifespan, and that in itself is actually an argument for its adaptive ben

That's a very seductive argument for the individual, but most species do have a finite lifespan, and that in itself is actually an argument for its adaptive benefit. Consider that genetic code could become dated or fragile over long time periods: it's never going to be in the individual's benefit to die, but it's much better in the long term for the species to be adaptable. It's not entirely implausible, but I'm skeptical that this would change in the far future.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
We've escaped the reign of biological evolution millennia ago. Ever since humans figured out how to learn and later write, we've been evolving society and technology orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution could ever hope to work. We are no longer bound by it. And given what's been done over the past couple decades, we're about to take control of our own genetic future as well. We will be able to repair, "update" and adapt our species' genetic makeup as we see fit, and this might actually be a prerequisite knowledge to achieving life extension. So no, I don't think this argument for species holds either.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  It must be a prerequisite for this kind of hyperbole that the technology it describes does not exist yet. Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free. Well yes, there's heat death of the universe that we still have to contend with :P. But beyond that, what you wrote is not a problem. The biology itself works around it - it "repairs" by copying and checksumming, and does so using energy. It's not perfect (this is what enables evolution), but it's perfectable. We already know enough to realize that we can design systems which allow for reducing the probability of incorrectable errors to arbitrarily low amounts - that's practically infinite repairability. No one is saying maintenance is ever going to become free.
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      You're focusing on the error rate, which is not actually the concern. You could have a perfectly working VAX in front of you, and it would be essentially a museum piece, because technology has moved on. Suggesting that any physical process is perfectable is...subject to qualification and requiring of strong evidence, shall we say. However, if true, it would still be insufficient.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        So what is the point? That we won't stay the same, because we'll want to be better? If that's it, then great, that's the goal!
        canhascodez 8y ago
        Better is not universal nor uniformly distributed, therefore evolution occurs, therefore death has adaptive value even in otherwise ideal conditions, and there is no reason to believe in truly ideal conditions even assuming arbitrarily high technology.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to say. "Evolution" occurs, but we've already freed ourselves from the grasp of biological evolution, and are already employing a much more efficient and effective human-controlled evolution. There is no need for death of individuals to play a part in this any longer. Most of our adaptations can be freely removed and replaced without harming their user.
        canhascodez 8y ago
        > Most of our adaptations can be freely removed and replaced without harming their user. Magic does not exist, even in the future.
        8y ago
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
You seem to be making the naturalistic fallacy in this thread of comments - that which is ought to be. That evolution adapts the species, therefore that is good and any "unnatural" modification of human body is bad. Once evolution created the human species, a species that is smart and can debate ethics, there is no need to depend on evolution to improve either the species or the individual. Technology and our ethics can allows us and guide us to improve. Whether we like it or not, transhumanism is going to come in the next few centuries and then we will be able to systematically improve our bodies and brains as we chose to improve them, not by the random statistical process of evolution by natural selection.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  No, that's not my argument.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

We've escaped the reign of biological evolution millennia ago. Ever since humans figured out how to learn and later write, we've been evolving society and technology orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution could ever hope to work. We are no longer bound by it. And given what's been done over the past couple decades, we're about to take control of our own genetic future as well. We will be able to repair, "update" and adapt our species' genetic makeup as we see fit, and this might actually be a prerequisite knowledge to achieving life extension. So no, I don't think this argument for species holds either.

canhascodez 8y ago
It must be a prerequisite for this kind of hyperbole that the technology it describes does not exist yet. Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free. Well yes, there's heat death of the universe that we still have to contend with :P. But beyond that, what you wrote is not a problem. The biology itself works around it - it "repairs" by copying and checksumming, and does so using energy. It's not perfect (this is what enables evolution), but it's perfectable. We already know enough to realize that we can design systems which allow for reducing the probability of incorrectable errors to arbitrarily low amounts - that's practically infinite repairability. No one is saying maintenance is ever going to become free.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    You're focusing on the error rate, which is not actually the concern. You could have a perfectly working VAX in front of you, and it would be essentially a museum piece, because technology has moved on. Suggesting that any physical process is perfectable is...subject to qualification and requiring of strong evidence, shall we say. However, if true, it would still be insufficient.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      So what is the point? That we won't stay the same, because we'll want to be better? If that's it, then great, that's the goal!
      - canhascodez 8y ago
        Better is not universal nor uniformly distributed, therefore evolution occurs, therefore death has adaptive value even in otherwise ideal conditions, and there is no reason to believe in truly ideal conditions even assuming arbitrarily high technology.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to say. "Evolution" occurs, but we've already freed ourselves from the grasp of biological evolution, and are already employing a much more efficient and effective human-controlled evolution. There is no need for death of individuals to play a part in this any longer. Most of our adaptations can be freely removed and replaced without harming their user.
        canhascodez 8y ago
        > Most of our adaptations can be freely removed and replaced without harming their user. Magic does not exist, even in the future.
        8y ago

abdullahkhalids 8y ago

You seem to be making the naturalistic fallacy in this thread of comments - that which is ought to be. That evolution adapts the species, therefore that is good and any "unnatural" modification of human body is bad. Once evolution created the human species, a species that is smart and can debate ethics, there is no need to depend on evolution to improve either the species or the individual. Technology and our ethics can allows us and guide us to improve. Whether we like it or not, transhumanism is going to come in the next few centuries and then we will be able to systematically improve our bodies and brains as we chose to improve them, not by the random statistical process of evolution by natural selection.

canhascodez 8y ago
No, that's not my argument.