4 ms·

That's a pretty grim statement. You want everyone to die? Would you mind unpacking this a bit? I'd like this material existence I am currently experiencing to

That's a pretty grim statement. You want everyone to die? Would you mind unpacking this a bit? I'd like this material existence I am currently experiencing to have no end (i.e., I hope I never die), so this comes as a shock. I can understand not wanting yourself to live forever, but wanting everyone to die?

joconde 5y ago
Living forever might not be that fun. People we know would still die for accidental reasons all the time. Maybe we can't cope with that for centuries or millennia and morale starts to take hits after a while.
- hackingthelema 5y ago
  I never said anything about fun. I said I don't want to ever die. 'Maybe we can't cope' sounds like a lot to take on faith. I'd rather live centuries or millenia and see for myself.
mediocregopher 5y ago
Life (with a capital "L", the entire phenomenon, not the life of an individual organism) is predicated on death and birth in order to adapt and persist. Without death there is no adaptation, without adaptation Life will perish. We humans sometimes forget we're a part of Life, but we are, and we benefit from death just as much as the rest of Life.
- hackingthelema 5y ago
  Humans adapt all of the time without death or birth. We call it invention and innovation.
  - klipt 5y ago
    Ever heard the phrase "science progresses one funeral at a time"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
    - hackingthelema 5y ago
      I have, but that is just one point of view, which I happen to disagree with. Given a mortal life, you have to cling to what you can carve out. You're going to die and your current ideas are all you're going to get; anyone who overthrows them is a threat to your 'legacy'. With an immortal life -- assuming physical decay is arrested with immortality -- you have endless time to reconsider your ideas and expand on them using your wealth of knowledge and experience. I don't see Planck's principle as inevitable, but an aberration that we can cure.
    - xvector 5y ago
      Why is scientific progress more important than life itself? Would you tell a society of immortals living in an idyllic and peaceful village that they need to die "for science?" Societal issues can be solved without science. Once you tackle scarcity and long+healthy lives, science becomes much less important. Anyways, the pace of scientific progress is irrelevant if you live forever. You would experience infinitely more net progress if you were immortal.
  - mediocregopher 5y ago
    Are you 100% sure that the "set of all changes we'll have to adapt to" is a subset of "set of all changes we can invent our way out of"? I'd also challenge the idea that innovation happens outside of death and birth. It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
    - hackingthelema 5y ago
      Yes, because we also control physical adaptation to a degree. Human adaptation has been disconnected from physical evolution for a long time now. How many type-1 diabetics only live now because of changes we invented our way out of? > It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem. Why does this require death of current people and not simply more eyes that already exist?
      - mediocregopher 5y ago
        I think fundamentally we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I wish you luck on your quest o7
- licebmi__at__ 5y ago
  Yeah, I would like to adapt enough to overcome death.
- xvector 5y ago
  Why is adaptation more important than life itself? The responses in this thread are so callous. Would you tell a loved one that they need to die so humanity can "adapt?" If confronted with a society of people that live forever, but are relatively stagnant, would you propose to them that they all kill themselves every 80 years or so, so they "adapt?" Why is adaptation more important than a life? A life is incredibly precious. Evolutionary adaptation barely works anymore and the cost in blood is immeasurable. Otherwise, adaptation can be achieved easily with technology, without costing so many people their hopes, dreams, and existence.
nosianu 5y ago
Not dying would probably mean even more concentration of wealth and power. I agree with the OP. If we had some idyllic society I might be more tempted to disagree, but as it is, those with power are most likely to be able to afford the necessary treatments and I don't think they are doing a good "leader" job in this world. It would not be the humble people living ordinary lives who will profit the most from longevity treatments. In the interest of the future of humanity, I hope we don't figure out extreme longevity anytime soon. A few more years or even decades, okay, any more and you have even more old people at the top of society with even more power.
- xvector 5y ago
  We already have a concentration of wealth and power. It's frightening that you think the solution to that is literally ending living, breathing, and dreaming beings rather than solving the actual societal issues at hand. It is like using a nuclear explosion - with all the associated death and destruction - to hammer in a nail. Next time we come across a fundamental social issue, should we just kill everyone involved? We can give people long, happy lives - as long as they want - while solving societal issues on a separate track. There is no reason to use death as a sledgehammer for an issue that is not more valuable than life. It is, actually, kind of insulting to imply that people on the opposite spectrum of the rich don't want to live long, don't want to spend time with their family, hopes and loves - that they are expendable in the name of crudely brute-forcing some arbitrary wealth equation which is apparently more important to you than their very lives. I would be quite happy being poor and getting to spend as long as I want with the loves of my life. Being poor barely even registers compared to the upside. No amount of money can compensate for time spent with loved ones, as anyone that has experienced the death of a loved one can attest to.
  - bongoman37 5y ago
salmonfamine 5y ago
Yes, I want everyone to die of natural causes after a long and fulfilling life. You're an animal. You're supposed to die. What do you hope to gain and accomplish, sitting around and consuming years after your prime has come and gone and your children have grown? Don't you know what you are? Don't you have a soul? And please don't mistake this for an argument about materialism. Do you know why you're alive?
- hackingthelema 5y ago
  > What do you hope to gain and accomplish, sitting around and consuming years after your prime has come and gone and your children have grown? 1. If immortality is a reality, the health issues that come with the disease of aging are likely going to make it so your 'prime' lasts forever. 2. I neither have nor want children (Edit: Removed bits on my personal beliefs. I don't want to get into them right now. I do have views on the soul that aren't based in materialism and they result in different conclusions than yours.)

joconde 5y ago

Living forever might not be that fun. People we know would still die for accidental reasons all the time. Maybe we can't cope with that for centuries or millennia and morale starts to take hits after a while.

hackingthelema 5y ago
I never said anything about fun. I said I don't want to ever die. 'Maybe we can't cope' sounds like a lot to take on faith. I'd rather live centuries or millenia and see for myself.

mediocregopher 5y ago

Life (with a capital "L", the entire phenomenon, not the life of an individual organism) is predicated on death and birth in order to adapt and persist. Without death there is no adaptation, without adaptation Life will perish. We humans sometimes forget we're a part of Life, but we are, and we benefit from death just as much as the rest of Life.

hackingthelema 5y ago
Humans adapt all of the time without death or birth. We call it invention and innovation.
- klipt 5y ago
  Ever heard the phrase "science progresses one funeral at a time"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
  - hackingthelema 5y ago
    I have, but that is just one point of view, which I happen to disagree with. Given a mortal life, you have to cling to what you can carve out. You're going to die and your current ideas are all you're going to get; anyone who overthrows them is a threat to your 'legacy'. With an immortal life -- assuming physical decay is arrested with immortality -- you have endless time to reconsider your ideas and expand on them using your wealth of knowledge and experience. I don't see Planck's principle as inevitable, but an aberration that we can cure.
  - xvector 5y ago
    Why is scientific progress more important than life itself? Would you tell a society of immortals living in an idyllic and peaceful village that they need to die "for science?" Societal issues can be solved without science. Once you tackle scarcity and long+healthy lives, science becomes much less important. Anyways, the pace of scientific progress is irrelevant if you live forever. You would experience infinitely more net progress if you were immortal.
- mediocregopher 5y ago
  Are you 100% sure that the "set of all changes we'll have to adapt to" is a subset of "set of all changes we can invent our way out of"? I'd also challenge the idea that innovation happens outside of death and birth. It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
  - hackingthelema 5y ago
    Yes, because we also control physical adaptation to a degree. Human adaptation has been disconnected from physical evolution for a long time now. How many type-1 diabetics only live now because of changes we invented our way out of? > It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem. Why does this require death of current people and not simply more eyes that already exist?
    - mediocregopher 5y ago
      I think fundamentally we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I wish you luck on your quest o7
licebmi__at__ 5y ago
Yeah, I would like to adapt enough to overcome death.
xvector 5y ago
Why is adaptation more important than life itself? The responses in this thread are so callous. Would you tell a loved one that they need to die so humanity can "adapt?" If confronted with a society of people that live forever, but are relatively stagnant, would you propose to them that they all kill themselves every 80 years or so, so they "adapt?" Why is adaptation more important than a life? A life is incredibly precious. Evolutionary adaptation barely works anymore and the cost in blood is immeasurable. Otherwise, adaptation can be achieved easily with technology, without costing so many people their hopes, dreams, and existence.

nosianu 5y ago

Not dying would probably mean even more concentration of wealth and power. I agree with the OP. If we had some idyllic society I might be more tempted to disagree, but as it is, those with power are most likely to be able to afford the necessary treatments and I don't think they are doing a good "leader" job in this world. It would not be the humble people living ordinary lives who will profit the most from longevity treatments. In the interest of the future of humanity, I hope we don't figure out extreme longevity anytime soon. A few more years or even decades, okay, any more and you have even more old people at the top of society with even more power.

xvector 5y ago
We already have a concentration of wealth and power. It's frightening that you think the solution to that is literally ending living, breathing, and dreaming beings rather than solving the actual societal issues at hand. It is like using a nuclear explosion - with all the associated death and destruction - to hammer in a nail. Next time we come across a fundamental social issue, should we just kill everyone involved? We can give people long, happy lives - as long as they want - while solving societal issues on a separate track. There is no reason to use death as a sledgehammer for an issue that is not more valuable than life. It is, actually, kind of insulting to imply that people on the opposite spectrum of the rich don't want to live long, don't want to spend time with their family, hopes and loves - that they are expendable in the name of crudely brute-forcing some arbitrary wealth equation which is apparently more important to you than their very lives. I would be quite happy being poor and getting to spend as long as I want with the loves of my life. Being poor barely even registers compared to the upside. No amount of money can compensate for time spent with loved ones, as anyone that has experienced the death of a loved one can attest to.
- bongoman37 5y ago

salmonfamine 5y ago

Yes, I want everyone to die of natural causes after a long and fulfilling life. You're an animal. You're supposed to die. What do you hope to gain and accomplish, sitting around and consuming years after your prime has come and gone and your children have grown? Don't you know what you are? Don't you have a soul? And please don't mistake this for an argument about materialism. Do you know why you're alive?

hackingthelema 5y ago
> What do you hope to gain and accomplish, sitting around and consuming years after your prime has come and gone and your children have grown? 1. If immortality is a reality, the health issues that come with the disease of aging are likely going to make it so your 'prime' lasts forever. 2. I neither have nor want children (Edit: Removed bits on my personal beliefs. I don't want to get into them right now. I do have views on the soul that aren't based in materialism and they result in different conclusions than yours.)