4 ms·

Not sure why "lindyman" is on the front page but it's not too surprising. He's talking about the transhumanist plan. Very well, let's talk about that. Hormones,

Not sure why "lindyman" is on the front page but it's not too surprising. He's talking about the transhumanist plan. Very well, let's talk about that. Hormones, anti-aging, even cryonics are not the plan, but rather short-terms tactics. The transhumanist plan is to change nature – to restructure reality so that morality becomes as intrinsic as gravitation. Death, per transhumanism, is an evil, or even the only true evil. So it follows morally that death must be excised from reality itself. That's the plan. (How's that for impracticality?) Everything else is just doing a hecking science. If that sounds cool then the places to find out about it and to talk about it are Less Wrong and Scott Alexander's substack. In no way do I consider myself affiliated to transhumanism as a movement, but I do, still strongly encourage exploring the ideas.

ForHackernews 6y ago
Is Scott Alexander into transhumanism? He's never seemed particularly focused on it to me. I guess it's part of that whole self-proclaimed rationalist milieu.
- topynate 6y ago
  He was on LW for a good while, but it's not his focus, no. However, his substack is a good place to have a chat about it.
bondarchuk 6y ago
I don't see what restructuring reality to make morality as intrinsic as gravity has to do with anything. If the plan is "to not die" then that does not have to be inspired by anything deeper than the basic human instinct that makes us not want to die.
- topynate 6y ago
  This would make Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, a transhumanist. His fear of death had him seeking an immortality potion. This was about 2200 years ago. But this wasn't an "-ism" – just instinct, as you say.
  - bondarchuk 6y ago
    Are you saying it's not exactly the same, then? What's the difference, besides the technology we have now?
    - topynate 6y ago
      It's not the technology as such, because the technology to defeat death doesn't exist right now. It's the systematisation of the anti-death instinct, creating an ideology that logically justifies that instinct and fleshes out the full implications of being thoroughly against death. Qin didn't do that of course – this was the "burning of books and burying of scholars" dude. I think modern technology is a prerequisite for transhumanism in the sense of making it possible to think in a transhuman way, but that doesn't make transhumanism identical to technology, or to using technology to live longer.
      - bondarchuk 6y ago
        I guess it's just a matter of perspective. In my view the systematisation of anything is a part of modern technology, and if Qin was alive today he would surely do the same.
    - sinenomine 6y ago
      This time there are several treatments that extend life [1] in a small laboratory mammal - mouse, sometimes by double digit percentages: >The NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) has to date reported on four drugs with consistent major effects on mouse lifespan in one or both sexes and found evidence for significant but less dramatic effect of four other drugs. >Rapamycin, started at 9 months of age, was found to increase median lifespan by as much as 26% in females and 23% in males, and to retard many aspects of age‐related pathological change (Harrison et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2014). Surprisingly, similarly strong lifespan effects were seen even in mice not given rapamycin until 20 months of age (Harrison et al., 2009). >Acarbose can lead to an increase of 22% in median lifespan in male mice, and to a significant, but smaller, 5% increase in female mice (Harrison, 2014; Strong, 2016). Both rapamycin and acarbose improve longevity in the oldest age‐groups, as indicated by a statistical test that compares the proportion of control and drug‐treated mice surviving to the 90th percentile age of the joint distribution, the Wang/Allison test (Wang, Li, Redden, Weindruch, & Allison, 2004). Acarbose produces significant longevity increases, including survival to the 90th percentile, in both sexes, when started as late as 16 months of age (Strong, 2016). >A third drug, 17‐α‐estradiol (17aE2), a nonfeminizing congener of the well‐known estrogen 17‐β‐estradiol, increases lifespan of male mice by 19% (Harrison, 2014; Strong, 2016) and has a significant effect on survival to the 90th percentile age, but has no significant effect on female mice. Male mice given 17aE2 live significantly longer than female mice whether or not the females have been exposed to 17aE2. >Lastly, NDGA (nordihydroguaiaretic acid) has been shown to increase lifespan of male mice only, with an increase of 12% in median in two independent experimental groups (Strong, 2016; Strong et al., 2008), without a significant effect in female mice. Nordihydroguaiaretic acid, at the doses used, did not lead to significant changes in survival to the 90th percentile age. This is not an exhaustive list, for an expanded list of positive findings read an infobox on NIA ITP trials in [2] and read [3]. So, it's a well-replicated fact that there are substances delaying aging in mice, the question is - are humans really that different kind of mammal that none of these substances works on us, at least with the effect in the same direction? We'll see the answer this decade. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6516426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6516426/ 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0067-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0067-7 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197652/
Vinnl 6y ago
> death must be excised from reality itself. That's the plan. I feel like I must be missing something in your comment, but... Saying how something must be doesn't sound like a plan? It's a goal, but it seems like a plan should detail how to achieve that goal?
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  “That's the plan” is a colloquialism – like “that's the idea”, but for goals.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    Ah OK, thanks - not a native speaker here.
rrdharan 6y ago
You meant immortality, not morality, right?
- topynate 6y ago
  It's a two-step manoeuvre: one, morality is "immanentised", meaning, it's made into an essential and necessary part of reality, and two, immortality is taken as the moral Good. You can also refine this by justifying immortality as the Good on utilitarian grounds (for example, so that euthanasia isn't ruled out a priori).
  - goatlover 6y ago
    Immortality isn’t achievable. It’s a statistical certainty something will kill you eventually. And on the extremely rare chance that anyone lives long enough, the heat death of the universe will ensure it. As such, basing morality on immortality is foolishness.

ForHackernews 6y ago

Is Scott Alexander into transhumanism? He's never seemed particularly focused on it to me. I guess it's part of that whole self-proclaimed rationalist milieu.

topynate 6y ago
He was on LW for a good while, but it's not his focus, no. However, his substack is a good place to have a chat about it.

bondarchuk 6y ago

I don't see what restructuring reality to make morality as intrinsic as gravity has to do with anything. If the plan is "to not die" then that does not have to be inspired by anything deeper than the basic human instinct that makes us not want to die.

topynate 6y ago
This would make Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, a transhumanist. His fear of death had him seeking an immortality potion. This was about 2200 years ago. But this wasn't an "-ism" – just instinct, as you say.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  Are you saying it's not exactly the same, then? What's the difference, besides the technology we have now?
  - topynate 6y ago
    It's not the technology as such, because the technology to defeat death doesn't exist right now. It's the systematisation of the anti-death instinct, creating an ideology that logically justifies that instinct and fleshes out the full implications of being thoroughly against death. Qin didn't do that of course – this was the "burning of books and burying of scholars" dude. I think modern technology is a prerequisite for transhumanism in the sense of making it possible to think in a transhuman way, but that doesn't make transhumanism identical to technology, or to using technology to live longer.
    - bondarchuk 6y ago
      I guess it's just a matter of perspective. In my view the systematisation of anything is a part of modern technology, and if Qin was alive today he would surely do the same.
  - sinenomine 6y ago
    This time there are several treatments that extend life [1] in a small laboratory mammal - mouse, sometimes by double digit percentages: >The NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) has to date reported on four drugs with consistent major effects on mouse lifespan in one or both sexes and found evidence for significant but less dramatic effect of four other drugs. >Rapamycin, started at 9 months of age, was found to increase median lifespan by as much as 26% in females and 23% in males, and to retard many aspects of age‐related pathological change (Harrison et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2014). Surprisingly, similarly strong lifespan effects were seen even in mice not given rapamycin until 20 months of age (Harrison et al., 2009). >Acarbose can lead to an increase of 22% in median lifespan in male mice, and to a significant, but smaller, 5% increase in female mice (Harrison, 2014; Strong, 2016). Both rapamycin and acarbose improve longevity in the oldest age‐groups, as indicated by a statistical test that compares the proportion of control and drug‐treated mice surviving to the 90th percentile age of the joint distribution, the Wang/Allison test (Wang, Li, Redden, Weindruch, & Allison, 2004). Acarbose produces significant longevity increases, including survival to the 90th percentile, in both sexes, when started as late as 16 months of age (Strong, 2016). >A third drug, 17‐α‐estradiol (17aE2), a nonfeminizing congener of the well‐known estrogen 17‐β‐estradiol, increases lifespan of male mice by 19% (Harrison, 2014; Strong, 2016) and has a significant effect on survival to the 90th percentile age, but has no significant effect on female mice. Male mice given 17aE2 live significantly longer than female mice whether or not the females have been exposed to 17aE2. >Lastly, NDGA (nordihydroguaiaretic acid) has been shown to increase lifespan of male mice only, with an increase of 12% in median in two independent experimental groups (Strong, 2016; Strong et al., 2008), without a significant effect in female mice. Nordihydroguaiaretic acid, at the doses used, did not lead to significant changes in survival to the 90th percentile age. This is not an exhaustive list, for an expanded list of positive findings read an infobox on NIA ITP trials in [2] and read [3]. So, it's a well-replicated fact that there are substances delaying aging in mice, the question is - are humans really that different kind of mammal that none of these substances works on us, at least with the effect in the same direction? We'll see the answer this decade. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6516426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6516426/ 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0067-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0067-7 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197652/

Vinnl 6y ago

> death must be excised from reality itself. That's the plan. I feel like I must be missing something in your comment, but... Saying how something must be doesn't sound like a plan? It's a goal, but it seems like a plan should detail how to achieve that goal?

wizzwizz4 6y ago
“That's the plan” is a colloquialism – like “that's the idea”, but for goals.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  Ah OK, thanks - not a native speaker here.

rrdharan 6y ago

You meant immortality, not morality, right?

topynate 6y ago
It's a two-step manoeuvre: one, morality is "immanentised", meaning, it's made into an essential and necessary part of reality, and two, immortality is taken as the moral Good. You can also refine this by justifying immortality as the Good on utilitarian grounds (for example, so that euthanasia isn't ruled out a priori).
- goatlover 6y ago
  Immortality isn’t achievable. It’s a statistical certainty something will kill you eventually. And on the extremely rare chance that anyone lives long enough, the heat death of the universe will ensure it. As such, basing morality on immortality is foolishness.