4 ms·

But immortality for the individual is not progress for mankind but the opposite. Stagnation. Death is an evolutionary mechanism, it's a fundamental part of ren

But immortality for the individual is not progress for mankind but the opposite. Stagnation. Death is an evolutionary mechanism, it's a fundamental part of renewal of the species. Biological life dies to introduce novelty, in a cultural sense it is what gives urgency to human action, creating new life. Human immortality is the same thing as the suppression of forest fire. Fires are bad for some individuals but they're vital for the ecosystem. It's the natural version of creative destruction. If you dislike the idea of an immortal company or an immortal government you should be wary of the idea of immortal individuals. One of the longest lived species on earth is the sponge. It is no accident that they're not a very dynamic species. Good ideas always survive, Galileo's contribution to mankind exists without Galileo, but as scientists often point out, science advances one funeral at a time. And that can be taken quite literally.

madrox 5y ago
I have a hard time with these arguments...mainly because if we already lived in a world with immortality, and someone came along talking about all the great benefits to society that would happen if we instituted a global end of life program, no one would take them up on it. Consider that while thinking "good ideas always survive."
- Xplune13 5y ago
  But we don't, do we? We wouldn't even know if we would have anything like today's world. So basing the possible scenario based on a hypothetical situation won't lead us anywhere. It is the same like "If I was the emperor of the world from the start, I would do this and this". My point is, how would you know what you would do when you haven't experienced it yourself? You're basing what you would do on your model of the world which was formed this way (present way) and not the "already emperor" way. So, you wouldn't know anything about how things would be in that hypothetical scenario. I don't know what category I fall into right now, but I do understand that there might be potentially huge (bad) changes because of this that can stagnate the whole species rather than pushing forward. These possible scenarios are based on the real world, so they must be taken into account.
  - madrox 5y ago
    If you're saying the point is moot because it's hypothetical, I don't find that terribly convincing. We conduct thought experiments all the time. If you're saying immortality shouldn't be allowed because it could lead to negative change, well...feel free to opt out should the option arrive. To paraphrase Cory Doctorow, no one need convince you...simply outlive you. However, I don't think you would. I think you'd opt in and deal with the consequences later, since at least you'll be alive to experience them. We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough.
    - Xplune13 5y ago
      Sorry for the late reply, but those thought experiments are exactly that... a thought experiment, most of them never come anywhere close to reality. I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but that is a huge leap in one's understanding of the world. The possible effects of leap should be thoroughly studied before making those leaps, because it can backfire due to unseen consequences. Blindly following immortality as a way to live isn't a right way in my opinion. > We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough. Not all changes are equal and arguably immortality would be the biggest change humanity has ever faced, so I don't think this is a matter of "We'll see things afterwards", but of "let's first study the possible good and bad consequences of that and then decide if we want to do this or not". Advancement for the sake of advancement isn't a right way to go in my opinion, especially not when majority of changes will now affect ALL the people on Earth as we're all connected now. On the topic of, will I opt in? It depends on the consequences. I would prefer not to be a tester of such thing, so I won't opt in if I'm in the trial batch or even first public batch. Feel free to do so if you want to, but try not to say "what you think others will do" based on an internet comment because that again is based on the mental model you have right now which is a narrow slice (same for everyone). Now, would I like to live a good life (90-100 years)? Yeah sure, but I really don't feel like I want to live beyond that. I might want to extend that life if I find some purpose later in life, but even after that I don't think I'll ever want to live forever.

madrox 5y ago

I have a hard time with these arguments...mainly because if we already lived in a world with immortality, and someone came along talking about all the great benefits to society that would happen if we instituted a global end of life program, no one would take them up on it. Consider that while thinking "good ideas always survive."

Xplune13 5y ago
But we don't, do we? We wouldn't even know if we would have anything like today's world. So basing the possible scenario based on a hypothetical situation won't lead us anywhere. It is the same like "If I was the emperor of the world from the start, I would do this and this". My point is, how would you know what you would do when you haven't experienced it yourself? You're basing what you would do on your model of the world which was formed this way (present way) and not the "already emperor" way. So, you wouldn't know anything about how things would be in that hypothetical scenario. I don't know what category I fall into right now, but I do understand that there might be potentially huge (bad) changes because of this that can stagnate the whole species rather than pushing forward. These possible scenarios are based on the real world, so they must be taken into account.
- madrox 5y ago
  If you're saying the point is moot because it's hypothetical, I don't find that terribly convincing. We conduct thought experiments all the time. If you're saying immortality shouldn't be allowed because it could lead to negative change, well...feel free to opt out should the option arrive. To paraphrase Cory Doctorow, no one need convince you...simply outlive you. However, I don't think you would. I think you'd opt in and deal with the consequences later, since at least you'll be alive to experience them. We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough.
  - Xplune13 5y ago
    Sorry for the late reply, but those thought experiments are exactly that... a thought experiment, most of them never come anywhere close to reality. I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but that is a huge leap in one's understanding of the world. The possible effects of leap should be thoroughly studied before making those leaps, because it can backfire due to unseen consequences. Blindly following immortality as a way to live isn't a right way in my opinion. > We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough. Not all changes are equal and arguably immortality would be the biggest change humanity has ever faced, so I don't think this is a matter of "We'll see things afterwards", but of "let's first study the possible good and bad consequences of that and then decide if we want to do this or not". Advancement for the sake of advancement isn't a right way to go in my opinion, especially not when majority of changes will now affect ALL the people on Earth as we're all connected now. On the topic of, will I opt in? It depends on the consequences. I would prefer not to be a tester of such thing, so I won't opt in if I'm in the trial batch or even first public batch. Feel free to do so if you want to, but try not to say "what you think others will do" based on an internet comment because that again is based on the mental model you have right now which is a narrow slice (same for everyone). Now, would I like to live a good life (90-100 years)? Yeah sure, but I really don't feel like I want to live beyond that. I might want to extend that life if I find some purpose later in life, but even after that I don't think I'll ever want to live forever.