4 ms·

Do you have an argument against that? Certainly: quality of life. Immortality may be a miserable, horrible existence. Most of the things we derive happiness fr

Do you have an argument against that? Certainly: quality of life. Immortality may be a miserable, horrible existence. Most of the things we derive happiness from in life are an integral part of our normal life-death cycle of events, disrupting that cycle may not be very pleasant long-term unless we can supplant those innate desires with something equally fulfilling. We don't really know, it's never happened.

randallsquared 15y ago
disrupting that cycle may not be very pleasant long-term Well, let's think about it for a few hundred years and have this discussion again, okay?
true_religion 15y ago
Death is one way. Immortality is usually not. You can always cease to be if you think that existence is horrible.
cpeterso 15y ago
> Most of the things we derive happiness from in life are an integral part of our normal life-death cycle of events Most? Do you mind elaborating?
- evilduck 15y ago
  Most of your desires and goals are related to the scarcity of time. In a broad sense, having children for example is a rewarding experience for people, we have an innate desire to reproduce and rear children (talk to any childless post-30 woman who didn't explicitly choose that situation, you'll see it's innate), but it's also something we probably wouldn't continue to do should death be removed from humanity, there'd be no need. But in a smaller sense, even something like enjoying a nice meal with friends would be called into question. Your enjoyment of food only exist because we've got a biologically programmed taste for foods that assists in our survival, and social interaction in an infinite time scale even gets weird, everyone would eventually know everyone and know everything there is to know, unique life experiences would become commonality, etc. Things get weird on infinite scales.
  - rcxdude 15y ago
    there's a lot of assumptions in that particular view of immortality. It assumes that it would also mean infinite memory, a loss of senses and certain capabilities, and that we cannot modify ourselves to create new urges. All of these are possible and plausible, but for example in the simulated AI situation only the loss of senses is likely to be true (as well as perhaps the inability to modify ourselves, depending on the approach)

randallsquared 15y ago

disrupting that cycle may not be very pleasant long-term Well, let's think about it for a few hundred years and have this discussion again, okay?

true_religion 15y ago

Death is one way. Immortality is usually not. You can always cease to be if you think that existence is horrible.

cpeterso 15y ago

> Most of the things we derive happiness from in life are an integral part of our normal life-death cycle of events Most? Do you mind elaborating?

evilduck 15y ago
Most of your desires and goals are related to the scarcity of time. In a broad sense, having children for example is a rewarding experience for people, we have an innate desire to reproduce and rear children (talk to any childless post-30 woman who didn't explicitly choose that situation, you'll see it's innate), but it's also something we probably wouldn't continue to do should death be removed from humanity, there'd be no need. But in a smaller sense, even something like enjoying a nice meal with friends would be called into question. Your enjoyment of food only exist because we've got a biologically programmed taste for foods that assists in our survival, and social interaction in an infinite time scale even gets weird, everyone would eventually know everyone and know everything there is to know, unique life experiences would become commonality, etc. Things get weird on infinite scales.
- rcxdude 15y ago
  there's a lot of assumptions in that particular view of immortality. It assumes that it would also mean infinite memory, a loss of senses and certain capabilities, and that we cannot modify ourselves to create new urges. All of these are possible and plausible, but for example in the simulated AI situation only the loss of senses is likely to be true (as well as perhaps the inability to modify ourselves, depending on the approach)