5 ms·

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 l

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    Given the great success of trickle down economics, benevolent dictators etc. throughout history, I call this out as the bad rhetorical technique of "no, but this time it is different". The very framing of dividing "civilizations" into "tiers" where one is clearly superior to the other shows some implicit assumptions that not everyone might share, as well as the idea that there will be or should be a "ruling class". If people reject this, we do not get to thinly veil "just accept your technological superior you luddite" like some 1920s robber baron. That's been done, and they got pushed back, and we have no obligation to enable the fabulous wealth and power of some elite to last forever without provable commitments that this will benefit all of us
    - adamisom 4y ago
      > I call this out as the bad rhetorical technique of "no, but this time it is different". A lot of things are going to be different if longevity tech is successful.
    - archibaldJ 4y ago
      > ...the idea that there will be or should be a "ruling class". There will always be a "ruling class" the same way that there will always be dependency hierarchy in the cost structure of things (eg from compiler design to the way a solar system works). > ... and we have no obligation to enable the fabulous wealth and power of some elite ... Indeed. But let's be pragmatic for a second. What can an individual (or a collective of people) do to not enable (ie disable) existing wealth and power (ie the status quo)? Unfortunately the answer is by gaining wealth and power themselves. (eg in the cultural-economic form or socio-politically or militarily, etc). To change the dynamics of the system. Anything else is just ignoring reality and encouraging hypernormalization [1]. The world is in a huge mess now because many highly capable people chose not to make the hard decisions. (eg with the current RU & China situations) ... and the world will only become a better place (eg in the sense of reducing suffering, and for the pursuit of universal human & animal rights, etc) when hard decisions are made and executed to bring forth a paradigm shift (that which can be measured game-theoretically e.g. compare modern day France to 18th century France) > ... without provable commitments that this will benefit all of us Proof is useful but it is not enough in the same way the map is useful but it is not the territory. In some sense I've just elaborated your points above but from the angle that the world is going to collapse soon if we don't reach Tier 1 as a cilivisation fast enough. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

archibaldJ 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
  Given the great success of trickle down economics, benevolent dictators etc. throughout history, I call this out as the bad rhetorical technique of "no, but this time it is different". The very framing of dividing "civilizations" into "tiers" where one is clearly superior to the other shows some implicit assumptions that not everyone might share, as well as the idea that there will be or should be a "ruling class". If people reject this, we do not get to thinly veil "just accept your technological superior you luddite" like some 1920s robber baron. That's been done, and they got pushed back, and we have no obligation to enable the fabulous wealth and power of some elite to last forever without provable commitments that this will benefit all of us
  - adamisom 4y ago
    > I call this out as the bad rhetorical technique of "no, but this time it is different". A lot of things are going to be different if longevity tech is successful.
  - archibaldJ 4y ago
    > ...the idea that there will be or should be a "ruling class". There will always be a "ruling class" the same way that there will always be dependency hierarchy in the cost structure of things (eg from compiler design to the way a solar system works). > ... and we have no obligation to enable the fabulous wealth and power of some elite ... Indeed. But let's be pragmatic for a second. What can an individual (or a collective of people) do to not enable (ie disable) existing wealth and power (ie the status quo)? Unfortunately the answer is by gaining wealth and power themselves. (eg in the cultural-economic form or socio-politically or militarily, etc). To change the dynamics of the system. Anything else is just ignoring reality and encouraging hypernormalization [1]. The world is in a huge mess now because many highly capable people chose not to make the hard decisions. (eg with the current RU & China situations) ... and the world will only become a better place (eg in the sense of reducing suffering, and for the pursuit of universal human & animal rights, etc) when hard decisions are made and executed to bring forth a paradigm shift (that which can be measured game-theoretically e.g. compare modern day France to 18th century France) > ... without provable commitments that this will benefit all of us Proof is useful but it is not enough in the same way the map is useful but it is not the territory. In some sense I've just elaborated your points above but from the angle that the world is going to collapse soon if we don't reach Tier 1 as a cilivisation fast enough. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation