9 ms·

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the joy they bring, a stagnation in all societal structures, no turnover of ideas (loosely quoting "agendas don't die; people die"). I'm sure such a civilization would be very stable, but won't have any extreme sports.

d_burfoot 6y ago
> Imagine life with no kids People will still be able to have kids. In fact in many cases people will be able to have as many kids as they normally would. As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Places like South Korean have a fertility rate of 1 c/w, which would produce a mere doubling of the total population.
- yesbabyyes 6y ago
  > As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Converge to what? How?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I think they mean the infinite sequence of Σ (generation_n) always converges to some finite number when generation_(n+1) = k * generation_n has k < 1, which is equivalent to <2 immortal children per woman. I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time.
    - s7atic 6y ago
      > I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time. This argument assumes the offspring behaves in the same way as their parents. I don't see that necessarily being true. Even if that is the case, there are legislative solutions.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    To population 0. 1.9 children / woman is a .95 multiplier on human population per generation, like a -5% interest rate. Assuming birth rate is constant < 2, it converges to 0.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Not "if no one dies" which was part of GGP's claim.
      - reducesuffering 6y ago
        Correct, my mistake. Other comments with summations are the accurate convergence then.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  This is correct. For example: Let's say the population is P and the net reproduction rate (the number of daughters a woman has in her lifetime) is 0.9. The next generation would have 0.9P people, the next one would have 0.9², then 0.9³, etc. Even with immortality you would get lim_(i→∞)∑ᵢ0.9ⁱP = 9P. So as long as the net reproduction rate is less than one the population stabilises at a finite number even if everyone is immortal.
vimy 6y ago
Why do you assume there would be no kids? How else will we populate our solar system.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  I remember the times where colonizing the solar system was a means for our collective survival, not an endgame for which we irreversibly change our society. That aside, we could populate the solar system just as well with people who live a healthy century. It only takes a few months to get to Mars with the current technology.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    We could populate it equally well with people who live a healthy half-century. And think of the progress that would be possible with that sort of population turnaround! Will you join me in making this dream come true?
- adrianN 6y ago
  Eventually there would be a lot fewer kids. The new worlds we can colonize scale quadratically with the volume of space we can reach, but the number of potentially procreating humans scales cubically. Although I'd assume that we have left our biological bodies behind before that.
xwdv 6y ago
The best time to be alive is when longevity break throughs first appear. You have the advantages of experiencing the old ways of living and get to live unexpectedly longer and see the world adapt to the new normal. Fortunately that is what we are positioned for.
- nynx 6y ago
  You're getting some downvotes, but I actually agree with this. The next ten or twenty years are going to be the most exciting so far, and then it only goes up from there.
  - Vinceo 6y ago
    How long time do you think it's realistic that we reach longevity escape velocity? And what current longevity research do you think is the most promising?
    - lachlan-sneff 6y ago
      I have no idea, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a transhumanist.
    - xwdv 6y ago
      Probably about 20 years, just try to hold on until then.
      - return1 6y ago
        Did people say that 20 years ago?
        funnybeam 6y ago
        Yes we did. I was on transhumanist mailing lists twenty years ago and the exact same comments were being made then as are in this thread today
lachlan-sneff 6y ago
Do you not want to live longer?
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  I also don’t want to pay taxes but here I am, grudgingly paying them for the benefit of our societal structure. Would I want to live in a world where people don’t have kids, where people can take as much time as they want because time is infinite, a world where you wouldn’t even go out on the street for the chance something would happen to you and deprive you of eternal existence? I’m not sure, and in any case, it will be a vastly different future. Imagine Mark Zuckerberg running his empire for 900 years straight.
  - echelon 6y ago
    You do you. I want to live 900 years and explore every discipline under the sun. I want to travel the world twenty times, read every book, see a hundred thousand sunsets. Don't tell me I or anyone else doesn't deserve that. Evolution left us with bodies that don't permit it, but we'll escape that limit someday.
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      Do you have kids? I think my view on this radically changed as a father. I feel like my generation sticking around forever would come at the expense of our children (or their children, which by proxy is the same thing). With kids around, there’s just something biologically soothing that tells you “you’ve done your part. You can leave this world at peace”. I know it’s not the same for everyone but on a humankind level, that’s exactly how it works. “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
      - bpizzi 6y ago
        Those are beliefs from the past. Given time it will change. What human kind is biologically hardwired for is personal survival ability, not leaving the world for youngsters as soon as possible, and those two precepts are mutually exclusive.
kgin 6y ago
I would ask why 80 just happens to be the best lifespan for humans. If we’re optimizing for things you listed, imagine how much more child-inspired joy and new idea throughput we could get if we had kids at 18 and died at 40? I’m still unclear on the point of life, but I’m not convinced it’s that kind of optimization exercise.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I would look at this as something where the interests of the society or species as a whole diverge from the interests of individuals. It may be quite reasonable for someone to prefer a more dynamic society and social structures caused by an average life span of 50 years, while at the same time preferring themselves and their loved ones to live for 100+ years on average. The question of "do you want to live much longer" is not the same as "do you want everyone to live much longer"; accepting that death and "forced turnover" has some positive role in how societies function (e.g. that you can't have eternal dictators because, in the worst case, eventually they die of old age) is compatible with still wanting death to be something that happens only to someone else whom you don't know or don't like. It's hypocritical but realistic - there's no reason to assume that longevity advances will be distributed to be evenly available.
  - acituan 6y ago
    > I would look at this as something where the interests of the society or species as a whole diverge from the interests of individuals. This is spot on, and exactly what is going at the genetic level. The reason we have sexual reproduction as opposed to mere cloning ourselves is the fact that environment that the initial set of genes worked well changes over time and the genes have to continuously innovate and experiment to have a chance in adapting to the new environment. Sexual reproduction introduces this variability to build these A/B/C... tests in the form of mini niches we are constructing. Granted, humans don't only reproduce genetically but also memetically, to borrow from Dawkins. And the memetic transmission is complicated, on one hand technology makes it trivial for ideas to spread, on the other hand 1-1 care of grandparents and parents still matter a lot for example in child development. But at the genetic level, wishing to extend life means essentially "cloning" one's genes more and more into the future.
rantwasp 6y ago
I would not fear it. Technology has the potential to make us immortal and to help us transcend out biological beginnings. Humans that live for extended periods of time would be able to make progress and keep knowledge alive for longer periods of time facilitating an acceleration of progress made -> repeat. You are also assuming that we fix aging but we make no progress in other domains. Would you really care how old you were if you could "download" yourself in a new replica at will? ie technology was so advanced that we would maintain our biological form only because we would like to experience things our ancestors did, not because it would be necessary. --- Also, when people say longevity there are at least 2 things that are mingled together. One is: living longer but the other one is just improving the quality of life. So whenever you are afraid of this new future, picture people living 20% longer only, but their life quality into their 80s and 90s would be the same as a person today in their 40s. Who would not want to have a better quality of life and instead of spending their last decades watching as their body fails and things get worse and worse?
kiba 6y ago
Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Enhancing health basically means you live longer. If you don't want to live longer then don't be healthy.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
I don't have to convince you or death-desirers of anything. I simply have to outlive you. (loosely quoting Cory Doctorow)
hyko 6y ago
There’s nothing to fear really. Why would there be no kids? Why would biologically “young” people have no new ideas? I didn’t like extreme sports when I was young, but maybe if I was 10,000 years old, I’d think screw it and have a go at BASE jumping...
accurrent 6y ago
I don't know why you got down voted. Its perfectly honest to express what you feel.

d_burfoot 6y ago

> Imagine life with no kids People will still be able to have kids. In fact in many cases people will be able to have as many kids as they normally would. As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Places like South Korean have a fertility rate of 1 c/w, which would produce a mere doubling of the total population.

yesbabyyes 6y ago
> As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Converge to what? How?
- ben_w 6y ago
  I think they mean the infinite sequence of Σ (generation_n) always converges to some finite number when generation_(n+1) = k * generation_n has k < 1, which is equivalent to <2 immortal children per woman. I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time.
  - s7atic 6y ago
    > I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time. This argument assumes the offspring behaves in the same way as their parents. I don't see that necessarily being true. Even if that is the case, there are legislative solutions.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  To population 0. 1.9 children / woman is a .95 multiplier on human population per generation, like a -5% interest rate. Assuming birth rate is constant < 2, it converges to 0.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Not "if no one dies" which was part of GGP's claim.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      Correct, my mistake. Other comments with summations are the accurate convergence then.
0-_-0 6y ago
This is correct. For example: Let's say the population is P and the net reproduction rate (the number of daughters a woman has in her lifetime) is 0.9. The next generation would have 0.9P people, the next one would have 0.9², then 0.9³, etc. Even with immortality you would get lim_(i→∞)∑ᵢ0.9ⁱP = 9P. So as long as the net reproduction rate is less than one the population stabilises at a finite number even if everyone is immortal.

vimy 6y ago

Why do you assume there would be no kids? How else will we populate our solar system.

flyinglizard 6y ago
I remember the times where colonizing the solar system was a means for our collective survival, not an endgame for which we irreversibly change our society. That aside, we could populate the solar system just as well with people who live a healthy century. It only takes a few months to get to Mars with the current technology.
- antepodius 6y ago
  We could populate it equally well with people who live a healthy half-century. And think of the progress that would be possible with that sort of population turnaround! Will you join me in making this dream come true?
adrianN 6y ago
Eventually there would be a lot fewer kids. The new worlds we can colonize scale quadratically with the volume of space we can reach, but the number of potentially procreating humans scales cubically. Although I'd assume that we have left our biological bodies behind before that.

xwdv 6y ago

The best time to be alive is when longevity break throughs first appear. You have the advantages of experiencing the old ways of living and get to live unexpectedly longer and see the world adapt to the new normal. Fortunately that is what we are positioned for.

nynx 6y ago
You're getting some downvotes, but I actually agree with this. The next ten or twenty years are going to be the most exciting so far, and then it only goes up from there.
- Vinceo 6y ago
  How long time do you think it's realistic that we reach longevity escape velocity? And what current longevity research do you think is the most promising?
  - lachlan-sneff 6y ago
    I have no idea, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a transhumanist.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    Probably about 20 years, just try to hold on until then.
    - return1 6y ago
      Did people say that 20 years ago?
      - funnybeam 6y ago
        Yes we did. I was on transhumanist mailing lists twenty years ago and the exact same comments were being made then as are in this thread today

lachlan-sneff 6y ago

Do you not want to live longer?

flyinglizard 6y ago
I also don’t want to pay taxes but here I am, grudgingly paying them for the benefit of our societal structure. Would I want to live in a world where people don’t have kids, where people can take as much time as they want because time is infinite, a world where you wouldn’t even go out on the street for the chance something would happen to you and deprive you of eternal existence? I’m not sure, and in any case, it will be a vastly different future. Imagine Mark Zuckerberg running his empire for 900 years straight.
- echelon 6y ago
  You do you. I want to live 900 years and explore every discipline under the sun. I want to travel the world twenty times, read every book, see a hundred thousand sunsets. Don't tell me I or anyone else doesn't deserve that. Evolution left us with bodies that don't permit it, but we'll escape that limit someday.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    Do you have kids? I think my view on this radically changed as a father. I feel like my generation sticking around forever would come at the expense of our children (or their children, which by proxy is the same thing). With kids around, there’s just something biologically soothing that tells you “you’ve done your part. You can leave this world at peace”. I know it’s not the same for everyone but on a humankind level, that’s exactly how it works. “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
    - bpizzi 6y ago
      Those are beliefs from the past. Given time it will change. What human kind is biologically hardwired for is personal survival ability, not leaving the world for youngsters as soon as possible, and those two precepts are mutually exclusive.

kgin 6y ago

I would ask why 80 just happens to be the best lifespan for humans. If we’re optimizing for things you listed, imagine how much more child-inspired joy and new idea throughput we could get if we had kids at 18 and died at 40? I’m still unclear on the point of life, but I’m not convinced it’s that kind of optimization exercise.

PeterisP 6y ago
I would look at this as something where the interests of the society or species as a whole diverge from the interests of individuals. It may be quite reasonable for someone to prefer a more dynamic society and social structures caused by an average life span of 50 years, while at the same time preferring themselves and their loved ones to live for 100+ years on average. The question of "do you want to live much longer" is not the same as "do you want everyone to live much longer"; accepting that death and "forced turnover" has some positive role in how societies function (e.g. that you can't have eternal dictators because, in the worst case, eventually they die of old age) is compatible with still wanting death to be something that happens only to someone else whom you don't know or don't like. It's hypocritical but realistic - there's no reason to assume that longevity advances will be distributed to be evenly available.
- acituan 6y ago
  > I would look at this as something where the interests of the society or species as a whole diverge from the interests of individuals. This is spot on, and exactly what is going at the genetic level. The reason we have sexual reproduction as opposed to mere cloning ourselves is the fact that environment that the initial set of genes worked well changes over time and the genes have to continuously innovate and experiment to have a chance in adapting to the new environment. Sexual reproduction introduces this variability to build these A/B/C... tests in the form of mini niches we are constructing. Granted, humans don't only reproduce genetically but also memetically, to borrow from Dawkins. And the memetic transmission is complicated, on one hand technology makes it trivial for ideas to spread, on the other hand 1-1 care of grandparents and parents still matter a lot for example in child development. But at the genetic level, wishing to extend life means essentially "cloning" one's genes more and more into the future.

rantwasp 6y ago

I would not fear it. Technology has the potential to make us immortal and to help us transcend out biological beginnings. Humans that live for extended periods of time would be able to make progress and keep knowledge alive for longer periods of time facilitating an acceleration of progress made -> repeat. You are also assuming that we fix aging but we make no progress in other domains. Would you really care how old you were if you could "download" yourself in a new replica at will? ie technology was so advanced that we would maintain our biological form only because we would like to experience things our ancestors did, not because it would be necessary. --- Also, when people say longevity there are at least 2 things that are mingled together. One is: living longer but the other one is just improving the quality of life. So whenever you are afraid of this new future, picture people living 20% longer only, but their life quality into their 80s and 90s would be the same as a person today in their 40s. Who would not want to have a better quality of life and instead of spending their last decades watching as their body fails and things get worse and worse?

kiba 6y ago

Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Enhancing health basically means you live longer. If you don't want to live longer then don't be healthy.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

I don't have to convince you or death-desirers of anything. I simply have to outlive you. (loosely quoting Cory Doctorow)

hyko 6y ago

There’s nothing to fear really. Why would there be no kids? Why would biologically “young” people have no new ideas? I didn’t like extreme sports when I was young, but maybe if I was 10,000 years old, I’d think screw it and have a go at BASE jumping...

accurrent 6y ago

I don't know why you got down voted. Its perfectly honest to express what you feel.