10 ms·

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done. I discuss this

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done. I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument. And sure, there are plenty of dystopian movies about how all of your friends die while you live on. But you know, you can make new friends. As someone who has moved often and had to make new friends often: it's not that bad. Friendships come and go. Just imagine the things you could get done if you weren't pressured by time. You could witness the colonization of other planets, the unification of humanity. And if everyone were immortal, we wouldn't have to worry about things like pensions anymore, and I bet that we'd see an extreme lowering of crime and violence. The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconion measures to regulate it.

wefarrell 5y ago
There's the problem of the elderly continuing to accumulate wealth and power without ceding any to the younger generations. It's already happening. Look no further than the geriatric US lawmakers and how out of touch they are with the future.
- drran 5y ago
  Create a startup and disrupt them with a new technology.
  - wefarrell 5y ago
    Disrupt the US government or wealth inequality?
  - Mandelmus 5y ago
    Of course there exists no problem that HN won’t unironically propose solving with a startup.
aerovistae 5y ago
I, too, would rather not die. But "the only real problem" you see being overpopulation speaks to a limited effort in thinking out the consequences. Let's imagine such a solution was available. Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people, a mere "stay alive and subsist" drug. So it's probably safe to assume that a literal immortality treatment would be only available to the most wealthy and powerful. So, what we'd get is Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Biden, Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Clarence Thomas, and many others still alive by the year 2250, with no signs of slowing down. Just imagine how much the world would cease to change if the people running it never experienced turnover. "The unification of humanity" - yeah right! We can't even get a minimum wage increase, and Russia is actively planning an invasion. The only hope for these things is that these people will die, and be replaced by younger generations who grew up with different ideals. I hope to be cryogenically frozen and one day awake into a world like that of the Culture in the books of Iain Banks, but I know on some level that this isn't just decades or centuries away: it's millennia.
- aksss 5y ago
  Just as likely you’d awaken to planet of the apes or morlocks.
- robocat 5y ago
  > Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people If you are talking about the US, then it is a structural problem of your healthcare system: https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/insulin-prices-8x-higher-in-the-us-compared-to-similar-nations https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/insulin-prices-8x-higher-in... If you are talking about many countries with socialised healthcare systems (both rich and poor), then it is free or minimal cost to the user. In New Zealand I have diabetic friends that get virtually free checkups and prescriptions (although they do have other out of pocket expenses like time off work, or replacing expensive electronic monitors). If you are talking worldwide, then many poor people in some countries can’t afford insulin but neither can they afford other critical goods. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-i...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dcow 5y ago
If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer? Society would be down right miserable. Think about it in terms other than “yourself transcending all your peers” for a moment. It may sound cool to you to live to see the day we colonize planets, but your entire comment reeks of narcissism and maybe regret. I’ll give you that there are perhaps a few scenarios where extended longevity would be convenient, like allowing a research group a little extra time to achieve a likely breakthrough, but beyond that I really can’t imagine society where everyone lives forever looking remotely like it does today. If the only problem you can imagine is overpopulation then you aren't really thinking critically at all. Why do Tolkien elves always fade away? We’re supposed to invest our resources as a human race into raising the next generation to achieve the things we collectively dream of but couldn't in out generation. Sure if we can extend lifetimes gradually over time and reduce deterioration and suffering that’s one thing and I believe we’d adapt naturally. But arguing for immortality by default right now? That is perverse and not remotely biologically appropriate. You’ve got one shot on this earth to make a difference. Don’t squander it. Don’t steal from future generations. Listen to the wisdom of others around you. And learn to embrace your mortality, because you will die.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  This a dumb argument. Steve Jobs was a boomer and created the reality we live in today. He definitely wasn't lacking for any innovation or ideas.
  - dcow 5y ago
    I like the Apple Pencil.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      It's pretty great -- I agree! :)
- kiba 5y ago
bodhi_mind 5y ago
What makes us human, aka the “human condition” would definitely change. Motivation, knowledge, relationships, resources. It would be an evolutionary change in a non evolutionary timeline. Pretty crazy.
godelski 5y ago
I think it's because people think they stop growing. I was listening to Levitt's People I (Mostly) Admire and on a recent show he was talking about progress. How everyone will say in the last 10 years they've changed but if you ask them what they'll be in the next 10 years they think they'll be the same. But there's a lot of insight we often ignore. I think similarly people ignore political and cultural progress. It's easy to blame the lack of progress on the old guard. But if we look at history we go much faster than that. One great example of this is the legalization of gay marriage. Pee [0] tracks support of it and it's clear that attitude is changing faster than the old people dying. Also I think part of the problem is we've all gotten used to the Dragon Tyrant[1] that we accept our fate. [0] https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... [1] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY
ypcx 5y ago
> The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconian measures to regulate it. Like, for example, releasing a weaponized virus from a lab. Oh wait...

wefarrell 5y ago

There's the problem of the elderly continuing to accumulate wealth and power without ceding any to the younger generations. It's already happening. Look no further than the geriatric US lawmakers and how out of touch they are with the future.

drran 5y ago
Create a startup and disrupt them with a new technology.
- wefarrell 5y ago
  Disrupt the US government or wealth inequality?
- Mandelmus 5y ago
  Of course there exists no problem that HN won’t unironically propose solving with a startup.

aerovistae 5y ago

I, too, would rather not die. But "the only real problem" you see being overpopulation speaks to a limited effort in thinking out the consequences. Let's imagine such a solution was available. Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people, a mere "stay alive and subsist" drug. So it's probably safe to assume that a literal immortality treatment would be only available to the most wealthy and powerful. So, what we'd get is Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Biden, Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Clarence Thomas, and many others still alive by the year 2250, with no signs of slowing down. Just imagine how much the world would cease to change if the people running it never experienced turnover. "The unification of humanity" - yeah right! We can't even get a minimum wage increase, and Russia is actively planning an invasion. The only hope for these things is that these people will die, and be replaced by younger generations who grew up with different ideals. I hope to be cryogenically frozen and one day awake into a world like that of the Culture in the books of Iain Banks, but I know on some level that this isn't just decades or centuries away: it's millennia.

aksss 5y ago
Just as likely you’d awaken to planet of the apes or morlocks.
robocat 5y ago
> Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people If you are talking about the US, then it is a structural problem of your healthcare system: https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/insulin-prices-8x-higher-in-the-us-compared-to-similar-nations https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/insulin-prices-8x-higher-in... If you are talking about many countries with socialised healthcare systems (both rich and poor), then it is free or minimal cost to the user. In New Zealand I have diabetic friends that get virtually free checkups and prescriptions (although they do have other out of pocket expenses like time off work, or replacing expensive electronic monitors). If you are talking worldwide, then many poor people in some countries can’t afford insulin but neither can they afford other critical goods. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-i...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dcow 5y ago

If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer? Society would be down right miserable. Think about it in terms other than “yourself transcending all your peers” for a moment. It may sound cool to you to live to see the day we colonize planets, but your entire comment reeks of narcissism and maybe regret. I’ll give you that there are perhaps a few scenarios where extended longevity would be convenient, like allowing a research group a little extra time to achieve a likely breakthrough, but beyond that I really can’t imagine society where everyone lives forever looking remotely like it does today. If the only problem you can imagine is overpopulation then you aren't really thinking critically at all. Why do Tolkien elves always fade away? We’re supposed to invest our resources as a human race into raising the next generation to achieve the things we collectively dream of but couldn't in out generation. Sure if we can extend lifetimes gradually over time and reduce deterioration and suffering that’s one thing and I believe we’d adapt naturally. But arguing for immortality by default right now? That is perverse and not remotely biologically appropriate. You’ve got one shot on this earth to make a difference. Don’t squander it. Don’t steal from future generations. Listen to the wisdom of others around you. And learn to embrace your mortality, because you will die.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
This a dumb argument. Steve Jobs was a boomer and created the reality we live in today. He definitely wasn't lacking for any innovation or ideas.
- dcow 5y ago
  I like the Apple Pencil.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    It's pretty great -- I agree! :)
kiba 5y ago

bodhi_mind 5y ago

What makes us human, aka the “human condition” would definitely change. Motivation, knowledge, relationships, resources. It would be an evolutionary change in a non evolutionary timeline. Pretty crazy.

godelski 5y ago

I think it's because people think they stop growing. I was listening to Levitt's People I (Mostly) Admire and on a recent show he was talking about progress. How everyone will say in the last 10 years they've changed but if you ask them what they'll be in the next 10 years they think they'll be the same. But there's a lot of insight we often ignore. I think similarly people ignore political and cultural progress. It's easy to blame the lack of progress on the old guard. But if we look at history we go much faster than that. One great example of this is the legalization of gay marriage. Pee [0] tracks support of it and it's clear that attitude is changing faster than the old people dying. Also I think part of the problem is we've all gotten used to the Dragon Tyrant[1] that we accept our fate. [0] https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... [1] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY

ypcx 5y ago

> The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconian measures to regulate it. Like, for example, releasing a weaponized virus from a lab. Oh wait...