3 ms·

Or just leave it the fuck alone?

• ben_w 5y ago
  No, what you’ve listed are all reasons for shorter lifespans. There are other reasons for longer lifespans, but you’re implicitly saying all of them combined are not enough to counter the reasons you give. Now, I’m not certain either way about the broader social impacts — I personally very much want to live longer, and yet I am also aware that my personal interests are not always aligned with group interests, e.g. tragedy of commons, Nash equilibrium, prisoners’ dilemma — but it is extremely unlikely that any negative consequences are perfectly balanced to positives either personally or collectively, so I am absolutely certain that the one thing we should not do is leave lifespan as is.
  • BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    If you want to take my arguments as extolling murder, that's on you buddy. I'm arguing for nonintervention, based on the precautionary principle. This technology has substantial potential for social harm and should not be pursued until all of those concerns are addressed.
    • ben_w 5y ago
      > I'm arguing for nonintervention, based on the precautionary principle. That’s fine, but not what you wrote before. > This technology has substantial potential for social harm Yup, like everything. > and should not be pursued until all of those concerns are addressed. Nope. Because death itself has direct harm — indeed, it is widely regarded as the either the worst or among the worst things one person can do to another — the burden of proof is on those who say it would be bad to delay death as much as possible. I mean, we already delay death as much as possible with all kinds of medical interventions.