3 ms·

Bad ideas die one generation at a time. I’m all for a limited lifespan.

jacquesm 6y ago
Not only, that death serves as a moment in time when there is some redivision of resources, and as a way of making room for the next generation(s). A million years * the per-capita-per-annum-consumption and your best contribution to society and the environment would be to jump off a bridge. Nobody would have children for fear of further dividing that meager pie. Earth's population would skyrocket.
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  Let's worry about pushing the average lifespan to 150 before we start talking about the end of civilization. Let's increase our lifespan a little bit and see what happens, rather than theorize about it.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    150 isn't 'a little bit'. That's disruptive if there ever was something disruptive. A little bit would be to raise the average lifespan by 5 years. Prediction: all of our pension systems would collapse immediately.
    - epicureanideal 6y ago
      But that's solvable by people working longer if their health lasts longer.
jtsiskin 6y ago
Yes, it would be interesting to know how much of progress (on racial issues, gay marriage, etc) drives from the new generation replacing the old vs people from the wrong side of history changing their minds.
echelon 6y ago
Don't dismiss the idea for a shortage of imagination about the application. If we had the technology, I imagine we'd also have the technology to forget some percentage of what we knew every year, or at some cadence. Or perhaps better, forget everything to experience the world fresh, then at some point have previous knowledge restored and available for reintegration. Perhaps you could merge conscious entities. Or divide them. Install experiences. Delete them. Maybe an artificial god in the future can perfectly simulate the universe to recreate everyone who has ever lived and died. That would be so weird and amazing, or would really suck if they were malevolent.
newen 6y ago
Mainly because people in power die off. There are many ways to solve this including pushing people out of power after they have been there for some period of time. Example, 50 year tenure limit for professors after which they can't be professors any more or they're forced out to a different industry. Similar for politicians, etc.
c1ccccc1 6y ago
By the time we have "immortality", we'll probably be able to have space elevators, and a fleet of space stations orbiting the sun where people can live. Just make a rule that once you are 120 years old, you have to leave Earth and live in space. Such a rule would allow for the continued progress of Earth culture, and instead of dying, people can go off and live in space. Each group of like-minded people could go a live in their own space station, so there would likely be very little conflict based on differing ideas. (And maybe immortals would be better than we think at changing their minds and adopting new ideas.)

Not only, that death serves as a moment in time when there is some redivision of resources, and as a way of making room for the next generation(s). A million years * the per-capita-per-annum-consumption and your best contribution to society and the environment would be to jump off a bridge. Nobody would have children for fear of further dividing that meager pie. Earth's population would skyrocket.

epicureanideal 6y ago
Let's worry about pushing the average lifespan to 150 before we start talking about the end of civilization. Let's increase our lifespan a little bit and see what happens, rather than theorize about it.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  150 isn't 'a little bit'. That's disruptive if there ever was something disruptive. A little bit would be to raise the average lifespan by 5 years. Prediction: all of our pension systems would collapse immediately.
  - epicureanideal 6y ago
    But that's solvable by people working longer if their health lasts longer.

jtsiskin 6y ago

Yes, it would be interesting to know how much of progress (on racial issues, gay marriage, etc) drives from the new generation replacing the old vs people from the wrong side of history changing their minds.

echelon 6y ago

Don't dismiss the idea for a shortage of imagination about the application. If we had the technology, I imagine we'd also have the technology to forget some percentage of what we knew every year, or at some cadence. Or perhaps better, forget everything to experience the world fresh, then at some point have previous knowledge restored and available for reintegration. Perhaps you could merge conscious entities. Or divide them. Install experiences. Delete them. Maybe an artificial god in the future can perfectly simulate the universe to recreate everyone who has ever lived and died. That would be so weird and amazing, or would really suck if they were malevolent.

newen 6y ago

Mainly because people in power die off. There are many ways to solve this including pushing people out of power after they have been there for some period of time. Example, 50 year tenure limit for professors after which they can't be professors any more or they're forced out to a different industry. Similar for politicians, etc.

c1ccccc1 6y ago

By the time we have "immortality", we'll probably be able to have space elevators, and a fleet of space stations orbiting the sun where people can live. Just make a rule that once you are 120 years old, you have to leave Earth and live in space. Such a rule would allow for the continued progress of Earth culture, and instead of dying, people can go off and live in space. Each group of like-minded people could go a live in their own space station, so there would likely be very little conflict based on differing ideas. (And maybe immortals would be better than we think at changing their minds and adopting new ideas.)