3 ms·

I agree that life is way too short to NOT be screwing around, and people should be doing what they feel makes a difference (and have fun doing it). It's hard to

by Udo 15y ago

I agree that life is way too short to NOT be screwing around, and people should be doing what they feel makes a difference (and have fun doing it). It's hard to agree with this one, however: And shorter yet are the "productive years"; that period in your life when you can make a difference, when your knowledge, experience, and influence add up to something. Advances in both biomedical research and the culture of work will mean that we can expect to look forward to the "productive/creative years" lasting the majority of our total lifespan. Of course, you can always opt out, as I've seen with many middle-aged friends recently: have kids, build house, and then wait for death in a cushy bourgeois setting.

Tichy 15y ago
That promised land of perfect health at high age is not here yet, though. It's a nice perspective, but no guarantee.
- Udo 15y ago
  That's right, it depends on the priorities we set as a society for this kind of thing. Not just living longer, but extending the enjoyable and productive period of a person's life. Of course, I'm in the minority (otherwise I wouldn't have gotten modded into oblivion while the guy who says that he doesn't want to have an impact on the world is praised and congratulated) but I still firmly believe it's worthwhile. What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating. As a med student I saw so many people wasting away in retirement homes, many of them were not even that old. With advances in biotech, I hope we'll give my generation a much more active and empowered existence when we come into this age group.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I don't think people are opposed, just skeptical.
    - Udo 15y ago
      Sure they are, I debated enough to recognize that. I even debated with medical professionals and scientists to this effect. They think it's "unnatural" (whatever that means). For a short while there, my post had a negative score. They don't like to engage, but they are opposed.
      - ams6110 15y ago
        So suppose you can keep old people healthy, strong, mentally sharp, etc. at what point do they get out of the way? 100 years? 110? 150? You must see that at some point the population becomes unsustainable if the old never die off.
        Udo 15y ago
        Somehow it must be possible to talk about the extension of productive life without people trailing off into condescending statements about population control or throwing hissy fits about the drummed up ecological aspects of immortality as if this was the most pressing concern right now. First of all, we're not even talking about making people live longer, just keeping them in shape for longer. There is absolutely zero moral outrage to be had about this one, except maybe if you want to shout something about old people taking our jobs, pointlessly and morbidly arguing that without death, disability and general human misery the global economy would suffer. Second, of course this kind of research eventually arrives at measures that prolong (productive) life, which gives traditional people even more to scream about. We will devour the earth! Never mind falling birth rates in industrial nations which would doubtlessly be the only countries experiencing those extended lifespans. However, my argument is more basic than that. Because, you guessed it, I'm all for longevity research as well. It's a basic ethical appeal to not waste perfectly good minds to decay and oblivion. Conjuring up economic problems that may or may not be even remotely applicable to this type of future society seems callous and short-sighted to me.
      - sanderjd 15y ago
        Well, here's why I'm skeptical (or let's just say opposed if you prefer) - overpopulation is already a problem, and substantially lengthening life expectancy will only make that worse. Basically, I'm afraid we're closer to solving our medical problems than we are to solving our planet-supporting-our-population problems. If we solve the latter in tandem, then I'm on board. Or are you only talking about quality-of-life improvements, rather than lengthening life expectancy? Assuming this is even possible, I think the problem with it would be the psychological toll of a death to the survivors - while always sad, the death of an elderly loved one is less jarring than the death of a loved one in their prime ("it was his time") - so keeping everyone in their prime right up until their death would eliminate a powerfully useful coping mechanism.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating. I think it's an Ugh Field: http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/. The prospect of having your body and mind slowly fall apart is appalling, and most people really really don't want to think about it, to the point of dismissing possible solutions. Which reminds me, it's about time for another donation to SENS.
    - Udo 15y ago
      That's an interesting thought, thanks for sharing this link! I never thought about it this way before.

by Udo 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

That promised land of perfect health at high age is not here yet, though. It's a nice perspective, but no guarantee.

Udo 15y ago
That's right, it depends on the priorities we set as a society for this kind of thing. Not just living longer, but extending the enjoyable and productive period of a person's life. Of course, I'm in the minority (otherwise I wouldn't have gotten modded into oblivion while the guy who says that he doesn't want to have an impact on the world is praised and congratulated) but I still firmly believe it's worthwhile. What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating. As a med student I saw so many people wasting away in retirement homes, many of them were not even that old. With advances in biotech, I hope we'll give my generation a much more active and empowered existence when we come into this age group.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I don't think people are opposed, just skeptical.
  - Udo 15y ago
    Sure they are, I debated enough to recognize that. I even debated with medical professionals and scientists to this effect. They think it's "unnatural" (whatever that means). For a short while there, my post had a negative score. They don't like to engage, but they are opposed.
    - ams6110 15y ago
      So suppose you can keep old people healthy, strong, mentally sharp, etc. at what point do they get out of the way? 100 years? 110? 150? You must see that at some point the population becomes unsustainable if the old never die off.
      - Udo 15y ago
        Somehow it must be possible to talk about the extension of productive life without people trailing off into condescending statements about population control or throwing hissy fits about the drummed up ecological aspects of immortality as if this was the most pressing concern right now. First of all, we're not even talking about making people live longer, just keeping them in shape for longer. There is absolutely zero moral outrage to be had about this one, except maybe if you want to shout something about old people taking our jobs, pointlessly and morbidly arguing that without death, disability and general human misery the global economy would suffer. Second, of course this kind of research eventually arrives at measures that prolong (productive) life, which gives traditional people even more to scream about. We will devour the earth! Never mind falling birth rates in industrial nations which would doubtlessly be the only countries experiencing those extended lifespans. However, my argument is more basic than that. Because, you guessed it, I'm all for longevity research as well. It's a basic ethical appeal to not waste perfectly good minds to decay and oblivion. Conjuring up economic problems that may or may not be even remotely applicable to this type of future society seems callous and short-sighted to me.
    - sanderjd 15y ago
      Well, here's why I'm skeptical (or let's just say opposed if you prefer) - overpopulation is already a problem, and substantially lengthening life expectancy will only make that worse. Basically, I'm afraid we're closer to solving our medical problems than we are to solving our planet-supporting-our-population problems. If we solve the latter in tandem, then I'm on board. Or are you only talking about quality-of-life improvements, rather than lengthening life expectancy? Assuming this is even possible, I think the problem with it would be the psychological toll of a death to the survivors - while always sad, the death of an elderly loved one is less jarring than the death of a loved one in their prime ("it was his time") - so keeping everyone in their prime right up until their death would eliminate a powerfully useful coping mechanism.
- orangecat 15y ago
  What I don't get is why many people are so violently opposed to this. I'm not even talking about transhumanism or anything as controversial as that, just preventing "old" people from degenerating. I think it's an Ugh Field: http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/21b/ugh_fields/. The prospect of having your body and mind slowly fall apart is appalling, and most people really really don't want to think about it, to the point of dismissing possible solutions. Which reminds me, it's about time for another donation to SENS.
  - Udo 15y ago
    That's an interesting thought, thanks for sharing this link! I never thought about it this way before.