3 ms·

Is there any indication that some immortal human species would be superior to what we currently are? My intuition is that it would be worse for said species in

Is there any indication that some immortal human species would be superior to what we currently are? My intuition is that it would be worse for said species in the same way goats with no predators are worse for goats in the end (overpopulation followed by rapid consumption of the environment and the collapse).

echelon 5y ago
It depends on the value system of immortalized humans. Are they democratic, egalitarian, respectful of the environment and biodiversity, and long-term thinkers? Such humans might be better than the short-term, biased mortals we have now. Of course, there's no indication it would turn out that way. Given the prevalence of fascism and monopolization of power, bad outcomes seem more probable. Selfish, egotistical, power-hungry immortals that feed off the backs of mortals sounds like a dystopia that could happen. Should AGI or brain uploads happen before human body life extension becomes limitless, we'll probably see a rapid proliferation of a "monoclonal intelligence" that has a singular disposition towards the rest of us. Who can say what that will be?
alisonkisk 5y ago
Immortality is good for individuals. It's the ultimate selfishness.
wruza 5y ago
Why do you humans always connect immortality of new intelligent species to overpopulation or a similar viral or negative trait? Wouldn’t it be nice to not feel the urge to reproduce and just live in comfort for eons with millions of friendly non-competing peers? The only thing to overcome is your destructive all-consuming nature, which harms the nature itself.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Why do you believe we are capable of this friendly world with immortality when we are not capable of it without? History has already shown us that made bad ideas only went away bad we cause people died. It’s not exactly controversial to say immortality will lengthen the time in which bad ideas persist, environmental concerns aside.
  - wruza 5y ago
    That is a valid question, but not what I believe. A friendly world begins with a reduced demand, and demand is driven up by reproduction, not by mortality (quite the opposite). Your species’ logistic map could autobalance around some happy value even with reproduction still on, but you throw all your forces to both reproduction and a reduction of starvation factors. There is no stable point to converge to with these parameters, and humans will always fluctuate from cleanup to rebuild to shortages to destruction. You consume too much, too effectively and double in size in quickly decreasing intervals, that’s the problem.

echelon 5y ago

It depends on the value system of immortalized humans. Are they democratic, egalitarian, respectful of the environment and biodiversity, and long-term thinkers? Such humans might be better than the short-term, biased mortals we have now. Of course, there's no indication it would turn out that way. Given the prevalence of fascism and monopolization of power, bad outcomes seem more probable. Selfish, egotistical, power-hungry immortals that feed off the backs of mortals sounds like a dystopia that could happen. Should AGI or brain uploads happen before human body life extension becomes limitless, we'll probably see a rapid proliferation of a "monoclonal intelligence" that has a singular disposition towards the rest of us. Who can say what that will be?

alisonkisk 5y ago

Immortality is good for individuals. It's the ultimate selfishness.

wruza 5y ago

Why do you humans always connect immortality of new intelligent species to overpopulation or a similar viral or negative trait? Wouldn’t it be nice to not feel the urge to reproduce and just live in comfort for eons with millions of friendly non-competing peers? The only thing to overcome is your destructive all-consuming nature, which harms the nature itself.

endisneigh 5y ago
Why do you believe we are capable of this friendly world with immortality when we are not capable of it without? History has already shown us that made bad ideas only went away bad we cause people died. It’s not exactly controversial to say immortality will lengthen the time in which bad ideas persist, environmental concerns aside.
- wruza 5y ago
  That is a valid question, but not what I believe. A friendly world begins with a reduced demand, and demand is driven up by reproduction, not by mortality (quite the opposite). Your species’ logistic map could autobalance around some happy value even with reproduction still on, but you throw all your forces to both reproduction and a reduction of starvation factors. There is no stable point to converge to with these parameters, and humans will always fluctuate from cleanup to rebuild to shortages to destruction. You consume too much, too effectively and double in size in quickly decreasing intervals, that’s the problem.