3 ms·

As a disclaimer, I really dislike this train of thought to the point of feeling "icky" about discussing it. But that's my personal problem, and you are making g

As a disclaimer, I really dislike this train of thought to the point of feeling "icky" about discussing it. But that's my personal problem, and you are making good arguments in good faith, which I really like, so... Rather than trying to address each point I'm going to try to address directly what I think is a misunderstanding. I don't know how other people think about anti-aging. I really don't think it's fair to talk about anti-aging as a community or a group or even an ideology, when at its core it's just the idea that we should try to actively solve aging as a problem in itself, rather than wait for the slow march of technology and medicine to do its thing. There are two differences I can tell between me and your image of anti-aging. First and most important, I don't think technology is going to work like you think it will. Most likely there are several causes of aging, and while some may be expensive to fix, I'm pretty sure some won't. I'm reasonably sure at least one, maybe several treatments will be at the level of a 5 dollar pill that will increase lifespan by about a decade. Either something like a cheap pill that does metabolic tweaking, or CRISPR-based one time treatment. I also think you're underestimating the power of tech - MRI machines are some of the most state of the art pieces of technology one can imagine, and yet they're still affordable to the point where everybody has at least a couple done during his lifetime. TBH, I have issues imagining how a truly expensive treatment might look like - maybe growing organs over printed scaffolding? So I both don't see anti-aging as a pricing thing, and I don't see it doing big disruptions any time soon. It'd just mean more life for everybody, and more _productive_ years, which might bring some pretty amazing gains at society level. After all, we don't really know how good a professional can become with an extra decade to learn stuff. And as far as the expensive treatments go, the ones for the billionaires, they'll basically be sponsoring tech development for the rest of us. Any industry needs somebody to pay for the expensive and shitty prototypes in order to reach quality mass production. You literally can't skip this step - trying to just pour government money until you get a product... shudder we definitely won't live to see this happen. And second, I don't think we should drop everything and start working on anti-aging. And I really think this is a very dishonest argument, btw. We're at the level where anti-aging applied research isn't even legal, and not really in the Overton window either. It's a bit early to say "but we should leave some resources for something else".

danShumway 5y ago
> I don't think we should drop everything and start working on anti-aging. And I really think this is a very dishonest argument, btw I definitely don't mean to paint every anti-aging proponent with this brush, and I agree that there's danger here in responding to people who say "I just think death is bad" with "why does this guy over here claim more than that?" You're not responsible for Bostrom's writing, you don't have a responsibility to answer for every person in the anti-aging movement, and I definitely don't mean to create the impression of a monoculture, I apologize for doing that. But Bostrom is literally making the argument that we should drop everything, the text even advocates accepting significant compromises and costs in other areas in order to end aging. So to the extent that the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is a formative text in the anti-aging movement, then there should be some grappling with or at least acknowledgement of the fact that a formative text in the movement has these problems. I don't think I'm being dishonest at all about that; if Dragon-Tyrant is actually representative of anti-aging views then those views have got some pretty toxic baggage attached to them. Of course if someone is just advocating "we should research slowing/stopping aging", then go wild, I don't have a problem with that or you. My objection is specifically to the phrasing of The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant. I don't believe the text is a neutral argument that death is bad, I think it has a lot of political assumptions/values built into it, and (worse) that it phrases those political values as a moral imperative for anyone who believes that death is bad. But you are not the text. ---- > Test-missiles were fired but fell dead to the ground or flew off in the wrong direction. In one tragic accident, a wayward missile landed on a hospital and killed several hundred patients and staff. But there was now a real seriousness of purpose, and the tests continued even as the corpses were being dug out from the debris. [...] > The king had undergone a personal transformation from his earlier frivolous and thoughtless self. He now spent as much time as he could in the laboratories and the manufacturing plants, encouraging the workers and praising their toil. Sometimes he would bring a sleeping bag and spend the night on a noisy machine floor. He even studied and tried to understand the technical aspects of their work. Yet he confined himself to giving moral support and refrained from meddling in technical and managerial matters. (emphasis mine) ---- The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is filled with quotes like this that are advocating for pretty specific political/moral worldviews far beyond "death is bad". I definitely don't want to paint people with a broad brush and (while I suspect you are over-optimistic about both technology and treatment cost), I don't have a problem with people researching anti-aging technology. At the same time, I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest, deceptive, or bad faith in my reading of Bostrom's work, I think I'm applying a very straightforward interpretation of the text.

danShumway 5y ago

> I don't think we should drop everything and start working on anti-aging. And I really think this is a very dishonest argument, btw I definitely don't mean to paint every anti-aging proponent with this brush, and I agree that there's danger here in responding to people who say "I just think death is bad" with "why does this guy over here claim more than that?" You're not responsible for Bostrom's writing, you don't have a responsibility to answer for every person in the anti-aging movement, and I definitely don't mean to create the impression of a monoculture, I apologize for doing that. But Bostrom is literally making the argument that we should drop everything, the text even advocates accepting significant compromises and costs in other areas in order to end aging. So to the extent that the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is a formative text in the anti-aging movement, then there should be some grappling with or at least acknowledgement of the fact that a formative text in the movement has these problems. I don't think I'm being dishonest at all about that; if Dragon-Tyrant is actually representative of anti-aging views then those views have got some pretty toxic baggage attached to them. Of course if someone is just advocating "we should research slowing/stopping aging", then go wild, I don't have a problem with that or you. My objection is specifically to the phrasing of The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant. I don't believe the text is a neutral argument that death is bad, I think it has a lot of political assumptions/values built into it, and (worse) that it phrases those political values as a moral imperative for anyone who believes that death is bad. But you are not the text. ---- > Test-missiles were fired but fell dead to the ground or flew off in the wrong direction. In one tragic accident, a wayward missile landed on a hospital and killed several hundred patients and staff. But there was now a real seriousness of purpose, and the tests continued even as the corpses were being dug out from the debris. [...] > The king had undergone a personal transformation from his earlier frivolous and thoughtless self. He now spent as much time as he could in the laboratories and the manufacturing plants, encouraging the workers and praising their toil. Sometimes he would bring a sleeping bag and spend the night on a noisy machine floor. He even studied and tried to understand the technical aspects of their work. Yet he confined himself to giving moral support and refrained from meddling in technical and managerial matters. (emphasis mine) ---- The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is filled with quotes like this that are advocating for pretty specific political/moral worldviews far beyond "death is bad". I definitely don't want to paint people with a broad brush and (while I suspect you are over-optimistic about both technology and treatment cost), I don't have a problem with people researching anti-aging technology. At the same time, I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest, deceptive, or bad faith in my reading of Bostrom's work, I think I'm applying a very straightforward interpretation of the text.