5 ms·

I’m amazed that anyone thinks above normal individual longevity is a good idea. In my view it will be the end of human progress morally and scientifically rathe

I’m amazed that anyone thinks above normal individual longevity is a good idea. In my view it will be the end of human progress morally and scientifically rather than the beginning.

scottLobster 8y ago
I'm amazed you can make such a sweeping statement with any confidence. What in your mind is "normal" human logevity? Because if by normal you mean "pre-industrial", then even discounting child mortality you're advocating for commplace plagues, famines and bad water affecting the number. We've been changing our environment, our bodies, and surpassing natural barriers since before we were sentient. Why should we stop now that we're just starting to get good at it?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Normal or natural human longevity is ~30-35 years. You can determine that because it is essentially a function of (average) body weight. The bigger your (species) is, the longer you live. Really interesting book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Origins-Death-William-Clark/dp/0195121198 https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Origins-Death-William-Clark/dp/01... TLDR: 2 unchangeable sexes + death (both of those) has proven to be the most effective reproductive strategy, beating out every competitor by a huge margin. This means there is a very good reason for death to exist and death is a "new" thing. There was a very long time when animals (well ... technically multicellular bacteria colonies) just didn't ever die. Some of those are alive right now and are hundreds of thousands of years old, at least. We know about the effectiveness because there are species (none are animals) that are still alive that predate evolution's "invention" of death, that have competed to conquer the earth, and they failed dismally. And we know about the 2 unchangeable sexes because there's a lot of variation in sexes, none very successful (there even are asexual animals, and animals that can change their sex, and animals with different sex arrangements. Some have small differences (like males giving birth), and some are hugely different, like true asexual animals)
  - kwhitefoot 8y ago
    > the most effective reproductive strategy What does this have to do with anything? We left that equilibrium point when we developed systematic agriculture. > This means there is a very good reason for death to exist No it doesn't. It is simply necessary for genes to compete. We are not our genes.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      > We are not our genes. Indeed, it's much worse than that. We are just a tool to help in survival of those genes. We are one tool among many for those genes and not nearly as important everybody seems to think we are.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Why do you believe it will signal an end?
- scandox 8y ago
  Because life is given meaning and focus by its brevity. Because generations give us the constant possibility of change and new ideas.
  - tobmlt 8y ago
    Perhaps a person's psyche will change, given the change in perspective a longer life could induce. After all, a child has many erroneous perspectives, and yet is able to adapt. With longer, healthier lives may come the freedom to re-examine old ideas. I hesitate to make sweeping statements, however, since this is psychology. What I can say is that it is fallacy to assume one can extrapolate into the unknown by projecting linearly, or even statically, the known. In this case, why should the old be locked into old views? Wisdom urges always incorporating the latest information. People persist in wrong thinking after being shown right - this ego grasping may be a symptom of short lives, for some. And yet, certainly the desire to live longer is, at (the very) least in part, ego grasping, but that does not mean a sentience with infinite longevity will engage in ego grasping forever. Forever is a long time. -Eventually even the most ego wrapped ``child'' should grow out of it, if he or she grows at all. New challenges give us the possibility of change and new ideas. Certainly re-doing life's challenges again with new minds does induce humanity to take on new ideas, as you say. Maybe there is something of the breadth first vs depth first search style in this comparison. Surely both can have their place.
  - theothermkn 8y ago
    What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But this statement can be dismissed twice: Not only is it not established that brevity gives life meaning, it isn’t established that life even has or needs meaning!
- DenisM 8y ago
  People form rigid organizational structures around themselves. At first these structures advance progress, but eventually they run their course and become a burden. Natural death of the key members of the organization is one way to promote progress within. Absent that we're looking at massive stagnation. The death of the organization itself is another way, which is basically the foundation of the free-market capitalism.
imustbeevil 8y ago
I don't want to die. When I hear statements like yours, what it sounds like to me is that you want me to die. I find that morally reprehensible. No one should have to die until they want to; that's the ultimate justice. If you don't want to live after 100, or 75, or 35, call it what it is. There is no moral high ground in telling other people to commit suicide.
subcosmos 8y ago
Do you believe in inserting a heart stent to save someones life from coronary heart disease, potentially buying them many increased years. Longevity science is basically all of human healthcare practices, but iterated ad infinitum. Where do you draw the line? We only lived to our 30s just a few hundred years ago. Was that the natural way things should be?
- scandox 8y ago
  The poster I responded to was mooting 4 digit length lifespans. This isn’t about living a longish life. Maybe super normal would have been a clearer term.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > We only lived to our 30s just a few hundred years ago. That's not true. Life expectancy used to be strongly bimodal, with a lot of people dying as children, and the rest living out a more or less modern lifespan (unless they caught some disease). Sure, average life expectancy at birth was around 30, but average life expectancy at age 18 was way higher.
- beautifulfreak 8y ago
  Say no to heart stents, btw. Do the research.
  - subcosmos 8y ago
    ... you arrogantly said to a medical professional working at a hospital ...
    - beautifulfreak 8y ago
      Sorry if I came off as arrogant. I want more people to know about the uselessness of stents. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/upshot/heart-stents-are-useless-for-most-stable-patients-theyre-still-widely-used.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/upshot/heart-stents-are-u...
jliptzin 8y ago
You don't have to take the drugs if you don't want to and can happily die at ~85
- HBlix 8y ago
  Alternatively you can take the drugs and die surprised at ~85.
mintplant 8y ago
Honestly, I just don't want to die. We can work out the rest once we get there.
wetpaws 8y ago
You can keep your normal lufespan, thank you very much, I would personally go for double.

I’m amazed that anyone thinks above normal individual longevity is a good idea. In my view it will be the end of human progress morally and scientifically rather than the beginning.

scottLobster 8y ago

I'm amazed you can make such a sweeping statement with any confidence. What in your mind is "normal" human logevity? Because if by normal you mean "pre-industrial", then even discounting child mortality you're advocating for commplace plagues, famines and bad water affecting the number. We've been changing our environment, our bodies, and surpassing natural barriers since before we were sentient. Why should we stop now that we're just starting to get good at it?

candiodari 8y ago
Normal or natural human longevity is ~30-35 years. You can determine that because it is essentially a function of (average) body weight. The bigger your (species) is, the longer you live. Really interesting book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Origins-Death-William-Clark/dp/0195121198 https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Origins-Death-William-Clark/dp/01... TLDR: 2 unchangeable sexes + death (both of those) has proven to be the most effective reproductive strategy, beating out every competitor by a huge margin. This means there is a very good reason for death to exist and death is a "new" thing. There was a very long time when animals (well ... technically multicellular bacteria colonies) just didn't ever die. Some of those are alive right now and are hundreds of thousands of years old, at least. We know about the effectiveness because there are species (none are animals) that are still alive that predate evolution's "invention" of death, that have competed to conquer the earth, and they failed dismally. And we know about the 2 unchangeable sexes because there's a lot of variation in sexes, none very successful (there even are asexual animals, and animals that can change their sex, and animals with different sex arrangements. Some have small differences (like males giving birth), and some are hugely different, like true asexual animals)
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  > the most effective reproductive strategy What does this have to do with anything? We left that equilibrium point when we developed systematic agriculture. > This means there is a very good reason for death to exist No it doesn't. It is simply necessary for genes to compete. We are not our genes.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    > We are not our genes. Indeed, it's much worse than that. We are just a tool to help in survival of those genes. We are one tool among many for those genes and not nearly as important everybody seems to think we are.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Why do you believe it will signal an end?

scandox 8y ago
Because life is given meaning and focus by its brevity. Because generations give us the constant possibility of change and new ideas.
- tobmlt 8y ago
  Perhaps a person's psyche will change, given the change in perspective a longer life could induce. After all, a child has many erroneous perspectives, and yet is able to adapt. With longer, healthier lives may come the freedom to re-examine old ideas. I hesitate to make sweeping statements, however, since this is psychology. What I can say is that it is fallacy to assume one can extrapolate into the unknown by projecting linearly, or even statically, the known. In this case, why should the old be locked into old views? Wisdom urges always incorporating the latest information. People persist in wrong thinking after being shown right - this ego grasping may be a symptom of short lives, for some. And yet, certainly the desire to live longer is, at (the very) least in part, ego grasping, but that does not mean a sentience with infinite longevity will engage in ego grasping forever. Forever is a long time. -Eventually even the most ego wrapped ``child'' should grow out of it, if he or she grows at all. New challenges give us the possibility of change and new ideas. Certainly re-doing life's challenges again with new minds does induce humanity to take on new ideas, as you say. Maybe there is something of the breadth first vs depth first search style in this comparison. Surely both can have their place.
- theothermkn 8y ago
  What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But this statement can be dismissed twice: Not only is it not established that brevity gives life meaning, it isn’t established that life even has or needs meaning!
DenisM 8y ago
People form rigid organizational structures around themselves. At first these structures advance progress, but eventually they run their course and become a burden. Natural death of the key members of the organization is one way to promote progress within. Absent that we're looking at massive stagnation. The death of the organization itself is another way, which is basically the foundation of the free-market capitalism.

imustbeevil 8y ago

I don't want to die. When I hear statements like yours, what it sounds like to me is that you want me to die. I find that morally reprehensible. No one should have to die until they want to; that's the ultimate justice. If you don't want to live after 100, or 75, or 35, call it what it is. There is no moral high ground in telling other people to commit suicide.

subcosmos 8y ago

Do you believe in inserting a heart stent to save someones life from coronary heart disease, potentially buying them many increased years. Longevity science is basically all of human healthcare practices, but iterated ad infinitum. Where do you draw the line? We only lived to our 30s just a few hundred years ago. Was that the natural way things should be?

scandox 8y ago
The poster I responded to was mooting 4 digit length lifespans. This isn’t about living a longish life. Maybe super normal would have been a clearer term.
majewsky 8y ago
> We only lived to our 30s just a few hundred years ago. That's not true. Life expectancy used to be strongly bimodal, with a lot of people dying as children, and the rest living out a more or less modern lifespan (unless they caught some disease). Sure, average life expectancy at birth was around 30, but average life expectancy at age 18 was way higher.
beautifulfreak 8y ago
Say no to heart stents, btw. Do the research.
- subcosmos 8y ago
  ... you arrogantly said to a medical professional working at a hospital ...
  - beautifulfreak 8y ago
    Sorry if I came off as arrogant. I want more people to know about the uselessness of stents. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/upshot/heart-stents-are-useless-for-most-stable-patients-theyre-still-widely-used.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/upshot/heart-stents-are-u...

jliptzin 8y ago

You don't have to take the drugs if you don't want to and can happily die at ~85

HBlix 8y ago
Alternatively you can take the drugs and die surprised at ~85.

mintplant 8y ago

Honestly, I just don't want to die. We can work out the rest once we get there.

wetpaws 8y ago

You can keep your normal lufespan, thank you very much, I would personally go for double.