4 ms·

Death can't be "solved" because it's not a problem, it's a solution. If we defeat death (and we may) then a host of terrifying problems will arise from that, st

by bambax 5y ago

Death can't be "solved" because it's not a problem, it's a solution. If we defeat death (and we may) then a host of terrifying problems will arise from that, starting from the sharing of resources, who gets to enjoy that technology, etc. Defeating death is a great plot idea for a dystopian novel, but in reality it's the ultimate selfish pursuit.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
I very much doubt that most people will actually live forever even if it becomes possible. At some point you are just done, and if you accept that, you’ll die. It may be at 50, 100, 150, maybe 200. But I don’t think humans are mentally made for spans of time much larger than that.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Greg Egan's novel "Incandescence" has a short story prequel/teaser named "Riding the Crocodile" which sets the backdrop for the novel in the form of a post-human couple's last big journey, they set out to do something and at the end of the story they decide that even though their success opens up many exciting new possibilities they are not the ones to pursue those possibilities and so they just slip away and die. https://www.gregegan.net/INCANDESCENCE/00/Crocodile.html https://www.gregegan.net/INCANDESCENCE/00/Crocodile.html
rowanG077 5y ago
And any other technology is not the ultimate selfish pursuit? The reason we have nice electricity, cities, running water is purely so we can live in more comfort. This is just as, if not more, selfish as wanting a longer healthy lifespan.
- astrange 5y ago
  Was that the original reason for Western cities? They were famously diseased and covered in horse poop until modernity happened. But public goods like that are shared with other people; it’s not like you keep all the water in your single-family house. That house though…
solveit 5y ago
How nice that nature has chosen the correct solution for your host of terrifying problems. If we were immortal and truly wise, I'm sure we also would have decided it was reasonable to kill literally everyone in order to share resources better.
- bambax 5y ago
  If we were immortal we wouldn't exist, because how would natural selection work in a world where individuals live forever? And if you don't think natural selection is what powers nature, then the question becomes, why did God choose to kill his creatures?
  - nopeNopeNooope 5y ago
  - scarby2 5y ago
    > how would natural selection work in a world where individuals live forever? So it would likely be pretty unchanged from our current levels. Just about everyone survives to produce children these days (with some people i wonder how). Also i don't think when people say conquer death they mean true immortality, they mean Negligible senescence i.e. we are no more likely to die due to aging, people would still die (accidents, violence, natural disaster etc).
Comevius 5y ago
Defeating death would ironically cause us to die out. Death is essential to avoid stratification. Our minds are not compatible with living forever. In a way we are illusions, we don't exist without each other, so there is no reason keeping a person alive forever. The human race, our communities are what's important. They are the key to the future, not any person. The person is just a cell. The cell is not important, the structures we form are. Luckily death is really hard to defeat. Dying is always on the menu.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
archibaldJ 5y ago
On the contrary, world leaders who can live 1000 years will be much further-sighted than those we have now. And we may actually be able to solve hard problems like safe and sustainable nuclear energy, how to build a modern soceity that encourages mindfulness and collective enlightenment (instead of driven by mindless comsumerism and stress-coping mechanisms), etc. Also, there is something about compassion and love that we do not understand that are physiologically benefit to the person. I do believe we live in a world where niceness eventually prevails, and if someone is able to live a healthy long age, they likely have embraced death wholeheartedly, and are good and kind, (esp as they age and learn from their mistakes instead of getting stuck in behavioural patterns).
- archibaldJ 5y ago
  Maybe it's not about you avoiding death. You don't avoid death. It has always been about death avoiding you, if you allow some mythicism in this thing called existence. So this has always been a journey about learning to accept and embrace death with compassion and love for the world. Maybe that's what life is. And so long existential time comes and goes at the whim of itself. Technology is never the cause, but merely an enabler.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "On the contrary, world leaders who can live 1000 years will be much further-sighted than those we have now." More like a recipe for an omnipresent gerontocracy, locked into the culture and values of a millennium ago, but wielding immense wealth and power ruling over everything. Sounds like a conservative's wet dream.
  - archibaldJ 5y ago
    > More like a recipe for an omnipresent gerontocracy Sounds like the thinking of a Tier 0 civilization in regards to the ruling class of a Tier 2 civilization (if one day we can prove that such civilizations exist
    - igorkraw 5y ago
r3trohack3r 5y ago
As we march towards extending life - you are still welcome to choose death. You can even start a cult where you recruit followers to your doctrine of death. I’m sure you’ll find many souls willing to part with this world. But you’re going to have a hard time convincing every soul to drink the kool-aid.
- bambax 5y ago
  The reason it's such a great plot idea for a dystopian novel is that the young people, who already resent the old for living this long, will eat them alive if there's no more hope of them ever dying from natural causes.
- astrange 5y ago
  People seem pretty willing to drive cars, drink soda, get suntans and other things that’d mean eventual certain death even if you cured old age. People will keep dying if you just make it sound cool!
tkiolp4 5y ago
For me, defeating death doesn’t mean I get to live 400 years. It means I get to live 100 years free from the fear of dying because of silly accidents, diseases, etc.

by bambax 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aeolun 5y ago

I very much doubt that most people will actually live forever even if it becomes possible. At some point you are just done, and if you accept that, you’ll die. It may be at 50, 100, 150, maybe 200. But I don’t think humans are mentally made for spans of time much larger than that.

tialaramex 5y ago
Greg Egan's novel "Incandescence" has a short story prequel/teaser named "Riding the Crocodile" which sets the backdrop for the novel in the form of a post-human couple's last big journey, they set out to do something and at the end of the story they decide that even though their success opens up many exciting new possibilities they are not the ones to pursue those possibilities and so they just slip away and die. https://www.gregegan.net/INCANDESCENCE/00/Crocodile.html https://www.gregegan.net/INCANDESCENCE/00/Crocodile.html

rowanG077 5y ago

And any other technology is not the ultimate selfish pursuit? The reason we have nice electricity, cities, running water is purely so we can live in more comfort. This is just as, if not more, selfish as wanting a longer healthy lifespan.

astrange 5y ago
Was that the original reason for Western cities? They were famously diseased and covered in horse poop until modernity happened. But public goods like that are shared with other people; it’s not like you keep all the water in your single-family house. That house though…

solveit 5y ago

How nice that nature has chosen the correct solution for your host of terrifying problems. If we were immortal and truly wise, I'm sure we also would have decided it was reasonable to kill literally everyone in order to share resources better.

bambax 5y ago
If we were immortal we wouldn't exist, because how would natural selection work in a world where individuals live forever? And if you don't think natural selection is what powers nature, then the question becomes, why did God choose to kill his creatures?
- nopeNopeNooope 5y ago
- scarby2 5y ago
  > how would natural selection work in a world where individuals live forever? So it would likely be pretty unchanged from our current levels. Just about everyone survives to produce children these days (with some people i wonder how). Also i don't think when people say conquer death they mean true immortality, they mean Negligible senescence i.e. we are no more likely to die due to aging, people would still die (accidents, violence, natural disaster etc).

Comevius 5y ago

Defeating death would ironically cause us to die out. Death is essential to avoid stratification. Our minds are not compatible with living forever. In a way we are illusions, we don't exist without each other, so there is no reason keeping a person alive forever. The human race, our communities are what's important. They are the key to the future, not any person. The person is just a cell. The cell is not important, the structures we form are. Luckily death is really hard to defeat. Dying is always on the menu.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

archibaldJ 5y ago

On the contrary, world leaders who can live 1000 years will be much further-sighted than those we have now. And we may actually be able to solve hard problems like safe and sustainable nuclear energy, how to build a modern soceity that encourages mindfulness and collective enlightenment (instead of driven by mindless comsumerism and stress-coping mechanisms), etc. Also, there is something about compassion and love that we do not understand that are physiologically benefit to the person. I do believe we live in a world where niceness eventually prevails, and if someone is able to live a healthy long age, they likely have embraced death wholeheartedly, and are good and kind, (esp as they age and learn from their mistakes instead of getting stuck in behavioural patterns).

archibaldJ 5y ago
Maybe it's not about you avoiding death. You don't avoid death. It has always been about death avoiding you, if you allow some mythicism in this thing called existence. So this has always been a journey about learning to accept and embrace death with compassion and love for the world. Maybe that's what life is. And so long existential time comes and goes at the whim of itself. Technology is never the cause, but merely an enabler.
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "On the contrary, world leaders who can live 1000 years will be much further-sighted than those we have now." More like a recipe for an omnipresent gerontocracy, locked into the culture and values of a millennium ago, but wielding immense wealth and power ruling over everything. Sounds like a conservative's wet dream.
- archibaldJ 5y ago
  > More like a recipe for an omnipresent gerontocracy Sounds like the thinking of a Tier 0 civilization in regards to the ruling class of a Tier 2 civilization (if one day we can prove that such civilizations exist
  - igorkraw 5y ago

r3trohack3r 5y ago

As we march towards extending life - you are still welcome to choose death. You can even start a cult where you recruit followers to your doctrine of death. I’m sure you’ll find many souls willing to part with this world. But you’re going to have a hard time convincing every soul to drink the kool-aid.

bambax 5y ago
The reason it's such a great plot idea for a dystopian novel is that the young people, who already resent the old for living this long, will eat them alive if there's no more hope of them ever dying from natural causes.
astrange 5y ago
People seem pretty willing to drive cars, drink soda, get suntans and other things that’d mean eventual certain death even if you cured old age. People will keep dying if you just make it sound cool!

tkiolp4 5y ago

For me, defeating death doesn’t mean I get to live 400 years. It means I get to live 100 years free from the fear of dying because of silly accidents, diseases, etc.