4 ms·

“ because there is a survival advantage to elders sticking around and helping raising new generations with their wisdom (memetic transfer). ” “I think the burd

“ because there is a survival advantage to elders sticking around and helping raising new generations with their wisdom (memetic transfer). ” “I think the burden is on the immortalist to make an argument why they should live (longer) “ I would like to tie these two strings together here because there is a natural precedent for old age. You said it yourself, the previous generation can instruct the new one. We could extend the period of doing serious lifelong work. Engage in more pleasure and leisure as well as personal development and research. You seem to hang on this notion that people are merely consumers, especially those who want to live longer, so they must die. A tortoise can live for 200 years. Why not yourself? You approach this in utilitarian terms and I still ask so what? People want more pleasure? Why not? I won’t deny that I have a hedonistic streak in me but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument against hedonism which doesn’t take an extreme view of it. Your vocabulary set suggest an appreciation and maybe even training in science but the feeling is puritanical and punitive. I don’t share your misgivings and the burden of proof is not on the immoralist because there are no gods to judge us. Life extension would be our own decision to make. To deny it for your reasons infantilizes humanity, judging us as incapable of agency in our own lives. You would in fact render people as short lived consumers who are unable to chose. Peter Pan is on you after all. You want the natural order to crystallize as it is now, an eternal infancy of the human race as short lived by choice. I don’t demand for you to be remembered nor do I expect you to earn your keep for eternity. I want everyone to live the life they want for as long as they want. Life extension is a part of that.

acituan 6y ago
> You seem to hang on this notion that people are merely consumers, especially those who want to live longer, so they must die. That is not an intrinsic property to people. But so far, at this scale, the only normativity we were able to organize human endeavour around has been the normativity of market. Religions are gone, particular states don't matter much, and so little else is left with purpose. Just the market. This naturally makes consumers of us. Pretending we will use the extra time to "engage in more pleasure and leisure as well as personal development and research." is self-deception in my opinion. Longer lifespans also amplify accumulatory dynamics of rent-seeking, causing greater inequality. Whatever potential we have right now that we are wasting, will go onto be waster at large scale while a select few, distributed by power laws, will "enjoy" that time of leisure and pleasure. In short, we can't even organize the time and talent we have wisely, and the dynamics that create this imbalance would only be amplified with longer lifespans. > People want more pleasure? Why not? I won’t deny that I have a hedonistic streak in me but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument against hedonism which doesn’t take an extreme view of it. Here is my best argument; pleasure itself is a poor goal to organize one's life around. It is ephemeral, it is prone to confuse proximal rewards with actual goals behind it and therefore the meaning it can provide is a very narrow one. Life of any addict is a proof of this dynamic. Porn (proximal reward) is not intimacy. Hyperpalatable junk food is not nutrition. Cocaine is not a real win in life. In fact, all of those prevent the actual goals to be attained. > the feeling is puritanical and punitive. I don’t share your misgivings and the burden of proof is not on the immoralist because there are no gods to judge us. I am not suggesting any purity codes, nor complete exclusion of erotic consumption. But existence itself is punitive if you optimize for the wrong criteria. Reality is the god to judge all of us, the consequences of our choices and the lesser gods we thought we could identify with, like the god of pleasure or god of immortality, potentially misleading that we can cheat reality. At the bottom of that reality is that we are humans, all of which had and will have a taste of death.

acituan 6y ago

> You seem to hang on this notion that people are merely consumers, especially those who want to live longer, so they must die. That is not an intrinsic property to people. But so far, at this scale, the only normativity we were able to organize human endeavour around has been the normativity of market. Religions are gone, particular states don't matter much, and so little else is left with purpose. Just the market. This naturally makes consumers of us. Pretending we will use the extra time to "engage in more pleasure and leisure as well as personal development and research." is self-deception in my opinion. Longer lifespans also amplify accumulatory dynamics of rent-seeking, causing greater inequality. Whatever potential we have right now that we are wasting, will go onto be waster at large scale while a select few, distributed by power laws, will "enjoy" that time of leisure and pleasure. In short, we can't even organize the time and talent we have wisely, and the dynamics that create this imbalance would only be amplified with longer lifespans. > People want more pleasure? Why not? I won’t deny that I have a hedonistic streak in me but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument against hedonism which doesn’t take an extreme view of it. Here is my best argument; pleasure itself is a poor goal to organize one's life around. It is ephemeral, it is prone to confuse proximal rewards with actual goals behind it and therefore the meaning it can provide is a very narrow one. Life of any addict is a proof of this dynamic. Porn (proximal reward) is not intimacy. Hyperpalatable junk food is not nutrition. Cocaine is not a real win in life. In fact, all of those prevent the actual goals to be attained. > the feeling is puritanical and punitive. I don’t share your misgivings and the burden of proof is not on the immoralist because there are no gods to judge us. I am not suggesting any purity codes, nor complete exclusion of erotic consumption. But existence itself is punitive if you optimize for the wrong criteria. Reality is the god to judge all of us, the consequences of our choices and the lesser gods we thought we could identify with, like the god of pleasure or god of immortality, potentially misleading that we can cheat reality. At the bottom of that reality is that we are humans, all of which had and will have a taste of death.