6 ms·

That would mean we've invented a huge population problem, and hundred+ year working lives. Do people really want to live forever? My impression amongst my now

That would mean we've invented a huge population problem, and hundred+ year working lives. Do people really want to live forever? My impression amongst my now mainly middle aged friends is that no, that's for a hope for the naivety of youth. Or the hyper-wealthy who can fund a hedonistic century or three. In my fifties I am quite chilled and happy that I come with an as yet unknown expiry date. Am I intrigued what life will be like in the 23rd century? Definitely, presuming we get past our little climate emergency, which I doubt. Do I want 300 years of mainly boredom and frustration working my way to get there? Most certainly not. :)

melling 7y ago
It’s optional.
- sriram_malhar 7y ago
  Those who don't want it for themselves still can't opt out of the problems created by unchecked population growth. Everyone is screwed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Aperocky 7y ago
I think getting [human consciousness] software to run in other hardware will come before biological immortality, and once that happens there's no point in keeping a biological form. The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium.
- semantic_ai 7y ago
  Loading to the new medium would work like a multi master db cluster; attach, copy, verify, shutdown old master.
- chousuke 7y ago
  > The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium. It's not a problem. Live migration of running software is a thing. Whether it's actually possible for humans remains to be seen. The principle is the same, though. In my view, it makes sense to see myself as a software process running on biological hardware, so if there were a way to simulate a live migration from one hardware to a compatible one, there would be no point which I could consider a discontinuity, since merely suspending a process does not lose information. However, I do think that I'd prefer a method which gradually integrates my brain with a non-biological implant that eventually takes over. It seems more plausible.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Two points: 1) The "discontinuity" is a red herring. You get one of those every time you fall asleep. 2) It doesn't really make sense to speak of your brain as software running on hardware. That's a metaphor informed by the behavior of digital computers, whose state is comparatively easy to approximate due to their binary nature (and yet still very difficult, as anyone knows who's tried writing a 100% compatible emulator for a different computer). But in your brain, the software and the hardware are the same thing. It's just a hyper-complex object that interacts with its environment.There's no guarantee there's any way to abstract that above the molecular level without losing information, and even if you think you have, there's no way to verify that the behavior of a new system will match the behavior of the old system in every case. Take a system you don't normally regard as information-processing, and see if it works the same way. Can we migrate the software process that runs a ball of plasma to compatible hardware? Or a rock?
    - c1ccccc1 7y ago
      >Can we migrate the software process that runs a ball of plasma to compatible hardware? That's kind of what people who build tokamaks are trying to do when they run plasma simulations.
    - chousuke 7y ago
      This reply is a bit late, but I think I'll clarify myself anyway. The way I see it, it's not my brain or body that's "me". It's the ongoing process, which doesn't really exist as anything concrete (even though it's caused by a material body). Therefore if there were some way of seamlessly transition this process to continue in a different body, I would still consider it "me" even if the new body actually behaves differently (my body certainly doesn't behave the same way it did ten years ago).
perilunar 7y ago
> Do people really want to live forever? No one's going to live forever, just not get old. I'm also in my fifties, and would love to have another 50 years of being a naïve youth :) Personally I hope to live long enough to go to 'heaven' — i.e. retire to the Moon, Mars, or an orbiting space habitat.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That's the promise discussed, aye. Yet that's not a new intent, far from it. As another commenter notes improvements frequently extend a poor quality and phase of life, or an extra decade parked in a care home. I can't help but expect that despite intent this will end up achieving more of the same... As for naive youth, I'm less sure - just a decade out of twenties leads to different outlook and choices. I suspect the people who keep that naive youthful mindset, are one of the very rare few who manage that naturally. I suspect this is the hard part. A octogenarian, with the health of a thirty year old, is still likely to have an elderly - or extremely experienced if you prefer - outlook. Will that lead to apparently 25 year old octogenarians yelling at actual 25 year old's to turn off the infernal noise? :) We certainly grow old more disgracefully than our grand or great grandparents, who seemed positively old at 40. That seems to be societal rather than longevity or medical. I suspect there isn't much more to come there.
  - perilunar 7y ago
    I think cranky old people are cranky due to their poor health and old brains as much as their experience. The healthy ones are often quite youthful in outlook. It's going to be the actual 25 year olds yelling at the apparently 25 year old octogenarians — or more probably, the middle-aged parents yelling at the kids, the octogenarian grandparents, and the supercentenarian great-grandparents.

melling 7y ago

It’s optional.

sriram_malhar 7y ago
Those who don't want it for themselves still can't opt out of the problems created by unchecked population growth. Everyone is screwed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Aperocky 7y ago

I think getting [human consciousness] software to run in other hardware will come before biological immortality, and once that happens there's no point in keeping a biological form. The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium.

semantic_ai 7y ago
Loading to the new medium would work like a multi master db cluster; attach, copy, verify, shutdown old master.
chousuke 7y ago
> The only pain point that I have as a software engineer, I have no clear idea on how to not shutdown the software before loading in to another medium. It's not a problem. Live migration of running software is a thing. Whether it's actually possible for humans remains to be seen. The principle is the same, though. In my view, it makes sense to see myself as a software process running on biological hardware, so if there were a way to simulate a live migration from one hardware to a compatible one, there would be no point which I could consider a discontinuity, since merely suspending a process does not lose information. However, I do think that I'd prefer a method which gradually integrates my brain with a non-biological implant that eventually takes over. It seems more plausible.
- dTal 7y ago
  Two points: 1) The "discontinuity" is a red herring. You get one of those every time you fall asleep. 2) It doesn't really make sense to speak of your brain as software running on hardware. That's a metaphor informed by the behavior of digital computers, whose state is comparatively easy to approximate due to their binary nature (and yet still very difficult, as anyone knows who's tried writing a 100% compatible emulator for a different computer). But in your brain, the software and the hardware are the same thing. It's just a hyper-complex object that interacts with its environment.There's no guarantee there's any way to abstract that above the molecular level without losing information, and even if you think you have, there's no way to verify that the behavior of a new system will match the behavior of the old system in every case. Take a system you don't normally regard as information-processing, and see if it works the same way. Can we migrate the software process that runs a ball of plasma to compatible hardware? Or a rock?
  - c1ccccc1 7y ago
    >Can we migrate the software process that runs a ball of plasma to compatible hardware? That's kind of what people who build tokamaks are trying to do when they run plasma simulations.
  - chousuke 7y ago
    This reply is a bit late, but I think I'll clarify myself anyway. The way I see it, it's not my brain or body that's "me". It's the ongoing process, which doesn't really exist as anything concrete (even though it's caused by a material body). Therefore if there were some way of seamlessly transition this process to continue in a different body, I would still consider it "me" even if the new body actually behaves differently (my body certainly doesn't behave the same way it did ten years ago).

perilunar 7y ago

> Do people really want to live forever? No one's going to live forever, just not get old. I'm also in my fifties, and would love to have another 50 years of being a naïve youth :) Personally I hope to live long enough to go to 'heaven' — i.e. retire to the Moon, Mars, or an orbiting space habitat.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
That's the promise discussed, aye. Yet that's not a new intent, far from it. As another commenter notes improvements frequently extend a poor quality and phase of life, or an extra decade parked in a care home. I can't help but expect that despite intent this will end up achieving more of the same... As for naive youth, I'm less sure - just a decade out of twenties leads to different outlook and choices. I suspect the people who keep that naive youthful mindset, are one of the very rare few who manage that naturally. I suspect this is the hard part. A octogenarian, with the health of a thirty year old, is still likely to have an elderly - or extremely experienced if you prefer - outlook. Will that lead to apparently 25 year old octogenarians yelling at actual 25 year old's to turn off the infernal noise? :) We certainly grow old more disgracefully than our grand or great grandparents, who seemed positively old at 40. That seems to be societal rather than longevity or medical. I suspect there isn't much more to come there.
- perilunar 7y ago
  I think cranky old people are cranky due to their poor health and old brains as much as their experience. The healthy ones are often quite youthful in outlook. It's going to be the actual 25 year olds yelling at the apparently 25 year old octogenarians — or more probably, the middle-aged parents yelling at the kids, the octogenarian grandparents, and the supercentenarian great-grandparents.