4 ms·

I hadn't considered my greatest fear, but now I recognize it: Finding ways to extend human life indefinitely should be our generation's "Space Race." We alre

by davidu 15y ago

I hadn't considered my greatest fear, but now I recognize it: Finding ways to extend human life indefinitely should be our generation's "Space Race." We already suffer from over-population and pollution. Death is a key piece of the demographic shift, and just about every other anthropological process related to the change and evolution of culture and society. Living longer would not increase our society's capability or capacity, it would almost assuredly decrease it, not to mention life would be exceptionally crowded, everywhere.

cydonian_monk 15y ago
I never said it would be easy. Life changes. Human life before the Industrial Revolution was considerably different than now. Birth rates would have to fall. We would have to find ways to support more of us on fewer resources. Major sacrifices and changes in lifestyle would be absolutely required. Our species as it is now would likely not survive such a transition. But, as Carl Sagan said: "It will not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and the other nearby stars. It will be a species very like us, but with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses."
lsparrish 15y ago
We already have a solution to overpopulation: birth control. Longer lived people have more memories and skills, so of course our capacity would increase -- if not counteracted by neurological senescence. The trick is to regenerate the person to a youthful state, where they can be productive and creative yet retain their knowledge and skills. I don't expect it to be easy, but people in cryostasis can afford to wait a while.
monkeypizza 15y ago
>Living longer would not increase our society's capability or capacity, it would almost assuredly decrease it, not to mention life would be exceptionally crowded, everywhere. I think it would improve our capacity. Look at how much investment is put into someone before they can productively give back to the economy - kids take years of being raised, teacher's time, plus years of experience before they start paying their own way. I think life extension would spread that capital cost out over a much longer productive life - right now say years 1-20 you are a resource drain, and the same for years 65-90. So you are producing stuff for society just half of your life (yet, this is enough for a surplus - the quality of goods output today in the world is continuously increasing) If we double lifespan it would double the productive years, so each life would be MUCH more productive. That's not even including the fact that the second (doubled) productive section could take advantage of the first section's experience. So if we doubled each individual's productive lifetime, (by increasing total lifespan by just 50%) it would most likely more than double their total output. Imagine how valuable someone who had 40 years of experience, plus a 20 year old's fast mind would be? [note that by productivity I mean the amount of human / natural resources a person takes up; kids take up parents & teacher's time, older people take up highly trained doctor's time. People who are "productive" are generating more valuable services than they're taking up. So, people spending longer within that middle section would make them even more of a gain for the world]
xmmm 15y ago
I fail to understand how overpopulation or any other negative consequence of eternal life can be worse than death. Death is final. Other things we can deal with.
jcfrei 15y ago
birth rates in all modern western countries are declining, in a few to the point where reproduction is not guaranteed (eg. fewer than two children per couple). I believe this trend will likely continue to the point where we don't reproduce and instead (hopefully) cease to die.

by davidu 15y ago

cydonian_monk 15y ago

I never said it would be easy. Life changes. Human life before the Industrial Revolution was considerably different than now. Birth rates would have to fall. We would have to find ways to support more of us on fewer resources. Major sacrifices and changes in lifestyle would be absolutely required. Our species as it is now would likely not survive such a transition. But, as Carl Sagan said: "It will not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and the other nearby stars. It will be a species very like us, but with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses."

lsparrish 15y ago

We already have a solution to overpopulation: birth control. Longer lived people have more memories and skills, so of course our capacity would increase -- if not counteracted by neurological senescence. The trick is to regenerate the person to a youthful state, where they can be productive and creative yet retain their knowledge and skills. I don't expect it to be easy, but people in cryostasis can afford to wait a while.

monkeypizza 15y ago

>Living longer would not increase our society's capability or capacity, it would almost assuredly decrease it, not to mention life would be exceptionally crowded, everywhere. I think it would improve our capacity. Look at how much investment is put into someone before they can productively give back to the economy - kids take years of being raised, teacher's time, plus years of experience before they start paying their own way. I think life extension would spread that capital cost out over a much longer productive life - right now say years 1-20 you are a resource drain, and the same for years 65-90. So you are producing stuff for society just half of your life (yet, this is enough for a surplus - the quality of goods output today in the world is continuously increasing) If we double lifespan it would double the productive years, so each life would be MUCH more productive. That's not even including the fact that the second (doubled) productive section could take advantage of the first section's experience. So if we doubled each individual's productive lifetime, (by increasing total lifespan by just 50%) it would most likely more than double their total output. Imagine how valuable someone who had 40 years of experience, plus a 20 year old's fast mind would be? [note that by productivity I mean the amount of human / natural resources a person takes up; kids take up parents & teacher's time, older people take up highly trained doctor's time. People who are "productive" are generating more valuable services than they're taking up. So, people spending longer within that middle section would make them even more of a gain for the world]

xmmm 15y ago

I fail to understand how overpopulation or any other negative consequence of eternal life can be worse than death. Death is final. Other things we can deal with.

jcfrei 15y ago

birth rates in all modern western countries are declining, in a few to the point where reproduction is not guaranteed (eg. fewer than two children per couple). I believe this trend will likely continue to the point where we don't reproduce and instead (hopefully) cease to die.