4 ms·

"I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking immo

by rsync 7y ago

"I could understand the impulse people would have to not extend their lives if that's truly what they wanted, but the almost _cultural_ belief that seeking immortality is Bad and Wrong, something only pursued by cartoon villains and insane emperors ..." I've spent some time thinking about this. Bear with me ... First, let me agree with you that I am flabbergasted by the notion that one would have nothing but ill-use for another 40 or 80 or 200 years of life - I would certainly find good and productive use for it, provided I was in good physical and mental health. However, I ask you to consider the most liberal and progressive figures of the 18th century. Pick any that you like (hint: they're all men). Now bring them forward to the present and they are impossibly reactionary and conservative. Their wives didn't wear pants, they would refuse to speak to a divorced woman in public (if such a woman was even present) and they probably believed that homosexuals had no place in society. That's us 200 years from now. No matter how "woke" you are or how liberal or progressive you believe your attitudes to be: either civilization collapses, or you're hopelessly - even dangerously - conservative and reactionary 200 years from now. To put it succinctly: progressive people, and their opinions, turn into reactionary conservatives with nothing but the passage of time. So now consider if all of those "woke" 18th century (white males) were walking around with us today. How does that affect politics and civilization ? We don't need to do a thought experiment - it's right here in front of us: the "villians" in the housing/NIMBY/prop13 debate are basically anyone over the age of 50 who owns property. Those people aren't even a full generation away from us and we're trying to decide whether they're just sort-of evil or all-the-way evil. So yes, there is a cultural resistance to people living (a lot) longer and if you can extrapolate political mores forward 50-100-150-200 years I think you can see how quickly that would get murderous - and I do mean that. ... Looking deeper, I think the prohibition is more than a political one, as I've described above, but one of individual vs. group optimization. You are thinking of your personal self as the organism - and that makes sense because we aren't bees or ants. However, there are other units that can be thought of as an organism and there is, by definition, a conflict between optimizing for the individual vs. optimizing for the tribe/race/species. Remember: we have a word for what happens when a single cell reserves resources and prolongs its own life at the expense of the larger organism: cancer.

Faark 7y ago
This is an interesting aspect. But our inability to or having a hard time of changing our fundamental believes seems like a bug to me. I'd hope its one of those health issues we'll learn to mitigate. Btw, do you guys also despise the concept of a global learning rate in AI/ML? There has to be a better way than just assuming "the current state is good enough, now lets only fix details". Humans certainly don't work that way. But back to topic... even without, I have a hard time accepting that you can simply extrapolate the current "old people behavior" happening for a few hundred years longer. A lot of issues would suddenly affect them. They'd have already lived though multiple revolutions (e.g. new tech, maybe like not paying with hard cash anymore) and internalize this as a part of life. Actually, we're close to having to learn this right now, with how fast progress has accelerated. But yeah, making it work with stuff like actively seeking peers across a diverse spectrum would probably require drastic effort with a significant burden placed on the individual.
MadWombat 7y ago
So essentially, you are suggesting that people should die earlier, because you don't like old people :)
- rsync 7y ago
  "So essentially, you are suggesting that people should die earlier, because you don't like old people :)" No, not at all. I am saying that one should be wary of living much longer than a typical lifespan because when people see vampires, they hunt them down and kill them.
stcredzero 7y ago
That's us 200 years from now. No matter how "woke" you are or how liberal or progressive you believe your attitudes to be: either civilization collapses, or you're hopelessly - even dangerously - conservative and reactionary 200 years from now. I knew a young woman in college who was extremely homophobic. I witnessed her bonding with a gay activist over soap operas and changing her mind. People change and adapt. Also, if you look back at history, you'll find people more "woke" than you. if you can extrapolate political mores forward 50-100-150-200 years Human history doesn't really work like that. We may be going beyond human history with AI, and it would work quite like that either. Remember: we have a word for what happens when a single cell reserves resources and prolongs its own life at the expense of the larger organism: cancer. A single alien AI that controls the resources of an entire solar system would likely see our civilization in these terms.

by rsync 7y ago

Faark 7y ago

This is an interesting aspect. But our inability to or having a hard time of changing our fundamental believes seems like a bug to me. I'd hope its one of those health issues we'll learn to mitigate. Btw, do you guys also despise the concept of a global learning rate in AI/ML? There has to be a better way than just assuming "the current state is good enough, now lets only fix details". Humans certainly don't work that way. But back to topic... even without, I have a hard time accepting that you can simply extrapolate the current "old people behavior" happening for a few hundred years longer. A lot of issues would suddenly affect them. They'd have already lived though multiple revolutions (e.g. new tech, maybe like not paying with hard cash anymore) and internalize this as a part of life. Actually, we're close to having to learn this right now, with how fast progress has accelerated. But yeah, making it work with stuff like actively seeking peers across a diverse spectrum would probably require drastic effort with a significant burden placed on the individual.

MadWombat 7y ago

So essentially, you are suggesting that people should die earlier, because you don't like old people :)

rsync 7y ago
"So essentially, you are suggesting that people should die earlier, because you don't like old people :)" No, not at all. I am saying that one should be wary of living much longer than a typical lifespan because when people see vampires, they hunt them down and kill them.

stcredzero 7y ago

That's us 200 years from now. No matter how "woke" you are or how liberal or progressive you believe your attitudes to be: either civilization collapses, or you're hopelessly - even dangerously - conservative and reactionary 200 years from now. I knew a young woman in college who was extremely homophobic. I witnessed her bonding with a gay activist over soap operas and changing her mind. People change and adapt. Also, if you look back at history, you'll find people more "woke" than you. if you can extrapolate political mores forward 50-100-150-200 years Human history doesn't really work like that. We may be going beyond human history with AI, and it would work quite like that either. Remember: we have a word for what happens when a single cell reserves resources and prolongs its own life at the expense of the larger organism: cancer. A single alien AI that controls the resources of an entire solar system would likely see our civilization in these terms.