3 ms·

Some things, like duration of an authoritarian leader’s regime (think North Korea), are currently capped by a limited duration of a human life. No one expects

Some things, like duration of an authoritarian leader’s regime (think North Korea), are currently capped by a limited duration of a human life. No one expects Putin to retire from being president of Russia before his health declines or he dies. Without aging, there’s almost no hope of change for people and no reason for him to step down. Overpopulation and planet resource exhaustion also would be much worse if any significant quantity of people cease to age and die.

orangecat 6y ago
The possibility of having to put up with a long-lived dictator doesn't come close to outweighing the terrible humanitarian and economic effects of aging. Suppose we didn't naturally age, and we did have the problems you mention. Would your solution be to release a virus that crippled everyone's bodies and minds over several decades, which would both severely reduce their quality of life and require them to consume much more medical resources?
- coolspot 6y ago
  The only logical solution is population control where unlimited population growth is not allowed. See the movie “In time”.
nullc 6y ago
Even if people were medically immortal that doesn't mean they'd be functionally immortal. There are always accidents, and I expect "accidents" would tend to befall terrible dictators at a greater rate than the general population, especially among people whos will isn't already being crushed by their inevitable death.
pantelisk 6y ago
This is how real change happens as well. When Gallileo claimed the earth spins, people didn't look at the facts, thought about it, then came back and congratulated him on his discovery! They accused him of heresy, imprisoned him and would burn him at the stake if he didn't "repent". Only by those generations fading away, paving way for new less-biased and more open minded people, ideas/trends/facts finally got recognized. (Galileo died in house arrest, and only 300 years later his teachings got accepted). Dying and letting go is crucial. Nature choosing to make new creatures rather than repairing and keeping the existing ones is how things evolve and move forward. It's so simple and elegant. What terrible backward ideas and status quo would aeon-old minds strive to keep-alive on this world otherwise.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  Just curious why you think new is always better then old? I firmly believe this is not always the case. The only reason we have been able to drive improvement the last centuries has been because of the rapid evolution of tech and the economy. I don't feel this has much to do with the fact that we replenish people.
  - pantelisk 6y ago
    Depends how you define improvement. Technology would still boom maybe even more so, but society and culture would remain mostly stagnant. People's beliefs rarely change. It's the younger generations that further define culture and bring change. The older generations strive to maintain status quo. Thought experiment: In the past people openly discriminated against lgbt people. Today LGBT rights and acceptance have won (and will keep winning)! It's not the racist old uncle that thinks it's a disease, that incited that change. It is the newer generations that first learn everything their parents know, and then they learn from their parents mistakes. As time passes the balance of acceptance shifts and a societal shift has occurred! Now of course, this doesn't mean that old people are evil, or incapable of change, or that everything will be perfect because each generation is always better. This only means that this is one of the ways change can happen. In a world of immortals, only violent uprisings could challenge the status quo. The world would have no incentive to change. If 100 years ago everybody suddenly became immortal and sterile (no deaths/no births), would the world of today have still invented punk rock? Answer's no (not without youthful rebellion)
    - rowanG077 6y ago
      > People's beliefs rarely change Do you have a source for this? I feel like peoples beliefs change all the time. > Today LGBT rights and acceptance have won (and will keep winning)! This is true. But in contrast racism and sexism is increasing, in the western world at least. > In a world of immortals, only violent uprisings could challenge the status quo. The world would have no incentive to change. I don't buy this at all. The world has even more incentive to change. You are not making the world better for anyone else in the future. You are doing it for YOURSELF. Because you will most likely still be around in 200 years. > Would the world of today have still invented punk rock? Maybe, Maybe not. Hard to say. But the world would have invented something new.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
A good counter-argument to commonly cited objections to biological immortality: https://youtu.be/GoJsr4IwCm4 https://youtu.be/GoJsr4IwCm4 Also, there are a myriad of ways to circumvent and/or dislodge the power of entrenched political leaders, like physical emigration, virtual emigration (cyberspace, cryptocurrency), and disruption (new technologies enabling commercial leaprogging, or political revolution).

orangecat 6y ago

The possibility of having to put up with a long-lived dictator doesn't come close to outweighing the terrible humanitarian and economic effects of aging. Suppose we didn't naturally age, and we did have the problems you mention. Would your solution be to release a virus that crippled everyone's bodies and minds over several decades, which would both severely reduce their quality of life and require them to consume much more medical resources?

coolspot 6y ago
The only logical solution is population control where unlimited population growth is not allowed. See the movie “In time”.

nullc 6y ago

Even if people were medically immortal that doesn't mean they'd be functionally immortal. There are always accidents, and I expect "accidents" would tend to befall terrible dictators at a greater rate than the general population, especially among people whos will isn't already being crushed by their inevitable death.

pantelisk 6y ago

This is how real change happens as well. When Gallileo claimed the earth spins, people didn't look at the facts, thought about it, then came back and congratulated him on his discovery! They accused him of heresy, imprisoned him and would burn him at the stake if he didn't "repent". Only by those generations fading away, paving way for new less-biased and more open minded people, ideas/trends/facts finally got recognized. (Galileo died in house arrest, and only 300 years later his teachings got accepted). Dying and letting go is crucial. Nature choosing to make new creatures rather than repairing and keeping the existing ones is how things evolve and move forward. It's so simple and elegant. What terrible backward ideas and status quo would aeon-old minds strive to keep-alive on this world otherwise.

rowanG077 6y ago
Just curious why you think new is always better then old? I firmly believe this is not always the case. The only reason we have been able to drive improvement the last centuries has been because of the rapid evolution of tech and the economy. I don't feel this has much to do with the fact that we replenish people.
- pantelisk 6y ago
  Depends how you define improvement. Technology would still boom maybe even more so, but society and culture would remain mostly stagnant. People's beliefs rarely change. It's the younger generations that further define culture and bring change. The older generations strive to maintain status quo. Thought experiment: In the past people openly discriminated against lgbt people. Today LGBT rights and acceptance have won (and will keep winning)! It's not the racist old uncle that thinks it's a disease, that incited that change. It is the newer generations that first learn everything their parents know, and then they learn from their parents mistakes. As time passes the balance of acceptance shifts and a societal shift has occurred! Now of course, this doesn't mean that old people are evil, or incapable of change, or that everything will be perfect because each generation is always better. This only means that this is one of the ways change can happen. In a world of immortals, only violent uprisings could challenge the status quo. The world would have no incentive to change. If 100 years ago everybody suddenly became immortal and sterile (no deaths/no births), would the world of today have still invented punk rock? Answer's no (not without youthful rebellion)
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    > People's beliefs rarely change Do you have a source for this? I feel like peoples beliefs change all the time. > Today LGBT rights and acceptance have won (and will keep winning)! This is true. But in contrast racism and sexism is increasing, in the western world at least. > In a world of immortals, only violent uprisings could challenge the status quo. The world would have no incentive to change. I don't buy this at all. The world has even more incentive to change. You are not making the world better for anyone else in the future. You are doing it for YOURSELF. Because you will most likely still be around in 200 years. > Would the world of today have still invented punk rock? Maybe, Maybe not. Hard to say. But the world would have invented something new.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

A good counter-argument to commonly cited objections to biological immortality: https://youtu.be/GoJsr4IwCm4 https://youtu.be/GoJsr4IwCm4 Also, there are a myriad of ways to circumvent and/or dislodge the power of entrenched political leaders, like physical emigration, virtual emigration (cyberspace, cryptocurrency), and disruption (new technologies enabling commercial leaprogging, or political revolution).