6 ms·

A lot of people that discuss this issue decide that "they don't want people living forever". What about you stop living after a while, and let the rest of us li

A lot of people that discuss this issue decide that "they don't want people living forever". What about you stop living after a while, and let the rest of us live longer? Keep your decision for yourself; die if you want to!

serf 7y ago
> Keep your decision for yourself; die if you want to! at the risk of seeming like the devil's advocate, i'd like to point out that the freedom to kill yourself is fairly rare, and still being fought for. There might be an intersection in our future history where aging is no longer a problem, but the freedom to commit suicide is still being discussed. At that point those folks you mention may have had a point. It takes a few leaps, but I can imagine it.
- Inception 7y ago
  > freedom to kill yourself is fairly rare, and still being fought for. > the freedom to commit suicide is still being discussed. I think you mean "assisted suicide" or "assisted dying". People are free to commit suicide whenever they want. I wish they weren't...I'd (selfishly) like to have a couple friends back.
  - darkerside 7y ago
    If somebody is discovered to have intent to commit suicide, you can bet the police will be knocking down their door to stop them. By your definition (possible to do, if not stopped by authorities), we are free to rob banks. I'm sorry about your friends.
  - Someone 7y ago
    (Attempting) suicide is a crime in parts of the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation), and used to be in the UK up to 1961 (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14374296 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14374296), in Canada until 1972 (https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/faqs/ https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/faqs/), and in some sense still is in India (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Pe...)
mariodiana 7y ago
I don't remember the exact figures, but I believe some actuaries crunched the numbers a while back and determined that if aging were halted and all diseases made curable, people would die on average around age 400 from accidental causes. Nobody lives forever.
- gpm 7y ago
  I bet that if aging were halted, all diseases made curable, and famine was made obsolete, the accidental death rate would go way down. People take risks right now because "they have nothing to lose" - they're going to die anyways. Once that stops being the case the amount of risk taking would go down.
ergothus 7y ago
I used to feel as you do. Looking at history, though, it seems like most (all?) significant social progress comes about because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. We live in a world that isnt controlled by feudal powers owning a good portion of the population not because of wars, but because younger and less invested people forced those conflicts. The results of those conflicts are accepted because the people for whom the old way was normal die off. The new generations are able to make their own mistakes, get invested in the nest normal, and be replaced in turn. Now I fear we will make anti-agathics before we develop a means to actually change without people dying. I still hope. Someday we might live with death as a choice AND without oppression. Pretty sure I wont be around for it.
- magduf 7y ago
  >because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. This is just wrong. My 80-year-old mother is far more progressive politically than many 20-35 year old men in this country. Remember the heavily armed Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville protesting the removal of Civil War statues? Those weren't elderly people.
  - serverholic 7y ago
    Just because your mom is different doesn't mean anything. It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways.
    - gpm 7y ago
      > It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways. Is that a "symptom" of the "disease" of aging though?
  - close04 7y ago
    That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Today's model of society isn't adapted for this. Postponing the effects of aging but maintaining the same lifespan within reason is one thing, greatly extending the lifespan* is quite another and we're definitely not ready for this one more than we're ready to become 4m tall from one generation to the next. *with the multitude of options - the young and old phases are proportional to today's but longer, the young phase is just as long as today and you get to "enjoy" a longer old phase, or the opposite.
lm28469 7y ago
This is a pretty naive take on the subject, I think it's a much deeper problem on many level (moral, philosophical, economical, &c.), if we "cure" ageing tomorrow it'll concern everyone, even the people who don't want to be part of it. It's as if oil and fracking companies told you to shut up about pollution and just "keep your decisions for yourself". People would be much better off by focusing on their quality of life rather than their lifespan. One is a very actionable thing, the other one is a pure gamble (and ""curing"" it is 100% sci-fi for now). Or as Seneca would put it "But tell me, pray, do you consider it fairer that you should obey Nature, or that Nature should obey you? And what difference does it make how soon you depart from a place which you must depart from sooner or later? We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul."
- meowface 7y ago
  You should try to optimize for the best quality of life for the longest amount of time possible (you could consider the expected value quality * time). I'd rather live a mostly pretty good life for many years than a good life for half of those years. If the people working on aging treatments are right (and I imagine they probably are if you set a long time horizon), we'll eventually be able to live for hundreds of years without any of the effects of aging. Eliminating aging and most disease would improve the average quality of life far more than probably anything else we could possibly do within the same time span. Of course dramatically extending lifespans will have a huge impact on the world, but we'll almost certainly have other shock absorbers by then to minimize the externalities. (The same things we'd be doing to deal with overpopulation from birth rates, etc.) And once/if the technology is universally available, free, and safe, the majority of people will almost certainly opt in to it within a generation or sooner. You can be a conscientious objector if you like, but that doesn't mean you have a right to try to prevent a near-uncountable number of total hours of human flourishing. Comparing eliminating aging to retaining pollution is a much more naive take than what the parent posted, I think. I would consider it the opposite: hindering funding and progress towards treatment of aging is like blocking initiatives to fight climate change and fossil fuel proliferation, except possibly with even more dire consequences for humans in the long term than what climate change might pose.

serf 7y ago

> Keep your decision for yourself; die if you want to! at the risk of seeming like the devil's advocate, i'd like to point out that the freedom to kill yourself is fairly rare, and still being fought for. There might be an intersection in our future history where aging is no longer a problem, but the freedom to commit suicide is still being discussed. At that point those folks you mention may have had a point. It takes a few leaps, but I can imagine it.

Inception 7y ago
> freedom to kill yourself is fairly rare, and still being fought for. > the freedom to commit suicide is still being discussed. I think you mean "assisted suicide" or "assisted dying". People are free to commit suicide whenever they want. I wish they weren't...I'd (selfishly) like to have a couple friends back.
- darkerside 7y ago
  If somebody is discovered to have intent to commit suicide, you can bet the police will be knocking down their door to stop them. By your definition (possible to do, if not stopped by authorities), we are free to rob banks. I'm sorry about your friends.
- Someone 7y ago
  (Attempting) suicide is a crime in parts of the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation), and used to be in the UK up to 1961 (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14374296 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14374296), in Canada until 1972 (https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/faqs/ https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/faqs/), and in some sense still is in India (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_309_of_the_Indian_Pe...)

mariodiana 7y ago

I don't remember the exact figures, but I believe some actuaries crunched the numbers a while back and determined that if aging were halted and all diseases made curable, people would die on average around age 400 from accidental causes. Nobody lives forever.

gpm 7y ago
I bet that if aging were halted, all diseases made curable, and famine was made obsolete, the accidental death rate would go way down. People take risks right now because "they have nothing to lose" - they're going to die anyways. Once that stops being the case the amount of risk taking would go down.

ergothus 7y ago

I used to feel as you do. Looking at history, though, it seems like most (all?) significant social progress comes about because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. We live in a world that isnt controlled by feudal powers owning a good portion of the population not because of wars, but because younger and less invested people forced those conflicts. The results of those conflicts are accepted because the people for whom the old way was normal die off. The new generations are able to make their own mistakes, get invested in the nest normal, and be replaced in turn. Now I fear we will make anti-agathics before we develop a means to actually change without people dying. I still hope. Someday we might live with death as a choice AND without oppression. Pretty sure I wont be around for it.

magduf 7y ago
>because old people that bitterly cling their views and (most importantly) their power eventually die off, freeing room for the new. This is just wrong. My 80-year-old mother is far more progressive politically than many 20-35 year old men in this country. Remember the heavily armed Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville protesting the removal of Civil War statues? Those weren't elderly people.
- serverholic 7y ago
  Just because your mom is different doesn't mean anything. It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways.
  - gpm 7y ago
    > It's well known that as people get older they become more conservative and set in their ways. Is that a "symptom" of the "disease" of aging though?
- close04 7y ago
  That's a nice anecdote but what happens when you try to dislodge a ruler with 300 years worth of experience, connections, and wealth? What happens when people have so much time to amass power that at some point you realize you, the younger generation, no longer stand any chance? Today's model of society isn't adapted for this. Postponing the effects of aging but maintaining the same lifespan within reason is one thing, greatly extending the lifespan* is quite another and we're definitely not ready for this one more than we're ready to become 4m tall from one generation to the next. *with the multitude of options - the young and old phases are proportional to today's but longer, the young phase is just as long as today and you get to "enjoy" a longer old phase, or the opposite.

lm28469 7y ago

This is a pretty naive take on the subject, I think it's a much deeper problem on many level (moral, philosophical, economical, &c.), if we "cure" ageing tomorrow it'll concern everyone, even the people who don't want to be part of it. It's as if oil and fracking companies told you to shut up about pollution and just "keep your decisions for yourself". People would be much better off by focusing on their quality of life rather than their lifespan. One is a very actionable thing, the other one is a pure gamble (and ""curing"" it is 100% sci-fi for now). Or as Seneca would put it "But tell me, pray, do you consider it fairer that you should obey Nature, or that Nature should obey you? And what difference does it make how soon you depart from a place which you must depart from sooner or later? We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul."

meowface 7y ago
You should try to optimize for the best quality of life for the longest amount of time possible (you could consider the expected value quality * time). I'd rather live a mostly pretty good life for many years than a good life for half of those years. If the people working on aging treatments are right (and I imagine they probably are if you set a long time horizon), we'll eventually be able to live for hundreds of years without any of the effects of aging. Eliminating aging and most disease would improve the average quality of life far more than probably anything else we could possibly do within the same time span. Of course dramatically extending lifespans will have a huge impact on the world, but we'll almost certainly have other shock absorbers by then to minimize the externalities. (The same things we'd be doing to deal with overpopulation from birth rates, etc.) And once/if the technology is universally available, free, and safe, the majority of people will almost certainly opt in to it within a generation or sooner. You can be a conscientious objector if you like, but that doesn't mean you have a right to try to prevent a near-uncountable number of total hours of human flourishing. Comparing eliminating aging to retaining pollution is a much more naive take than what the parent posted, I think. I would consider it the opposite: hindering funding and progress towards treatment of aging is like blocking initiatives to fight climate change and fossil fuel proliferation, except possibly with even more dire consequences for humans in the long term than what climate change might pose.