3 ms·

I find the way you summarized the discussion unhelpful, because your goal is to present very reasonable critiques to living forever in the most absurd way, and

by i000 5y ago

I find the way you summarized the discussion unhelpful, because your goal is to present very reasonable critiques to living forever in the most absurd way, and insult those who have those opinions "Man up, save your family, save yourself"? Was it really necessary to insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? I do not even where one would start to debate this. > More people make more progress faster. Really? Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area? > Stop having kids Even if this were a viable solution (history teaches us it is not) dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives? > If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then. What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse? What about those who will suffer the many disadvantages? > Old people suck. No, they don't. Whoever makes this argument does not deserver a response. What is true however is that most old people seem to have less flexibility to adapting to change, and with accelerating progress the chasm between the generation widens. The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.

xvector 5y ago
> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird. > Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area? Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact. > dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives? It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Many people would find life much more meaningful choosing the former. > What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse? The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress. It is absurd to justify the cost of progress with death. If people lived for 10k+ years in a static society, you would be called a monster if you implied that they should be dying slowly and painfully at 80 so some aspects of their society evolve faster. > The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision. Again, this is not worth the deaths of literally BILLIONS of people! It is mad scientist talk to say that death on such a massive scale is acceptable for any cost.
- i000 5y ago
  Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices? I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different. You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a reference for your "This is pretty much a fact"? > It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever? > The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress. Acceptable by whom? I understand it is not acceptable to you, and I value your perspective, but why do you write it as if it was some form of consensus. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017736094 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440177360...
  - xvector 5y ago
    > The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is. > Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever? Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. > Acceptable by whom? Consider a society in which everyone lives forever. You start saying that they should all start slowly dying for the sake of progress, that they likely won't even be around to see. You'd be regarded as somewhat crazy. We shouldn't have to have (billions of) people die to accomplish our goals. That's like trying to hammer in a nail with a meteoroid.
    - i000 5y ago
      > But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated. > Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.

by i000 5y ago

xvector 5y ago

> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird. > Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area? Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact. > dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives? It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Many people would find life much more meaningful choosing the former. > What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse? The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress. It is absurd to justify the cost of progress with death. If people lived for 10k+ years in a static society, you would be called a monster if you implied that they should be dying slowly and painfully at 80 so some aspects of their society evolve faster. > The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision. Again, this is not worth the deaths of literally BILLIONS of people! It is mad scientist talk to say that death on such a massive scale is acceptable for any cost.

i000 5y ago
Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices? I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different. You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a reference for your "This is pretty much a fact"? > It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever? > The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress. Acceptable by whom? I understand it is not acceptable to you, and I value your perspective, but why do you write it as if it was some form of consensus. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017736094 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440177360...
- xvector 5y ago
  > The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is. > Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever? Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. > Acceptable by whom? Consider a society in which everyone lives forever. You start saying that they should all start slowly dying for the sake of progress, that they likely won't even be around to see. You'd be regarded as somewhat crazy. We shouldn't have to have (billions of) people die to accomplish our goals. That's like trying to hammer in a nail with a meteoroid.
  - i000 5y ago
    > But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated. > Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.