8 ms·

I'm young, and most older people I know have peace with the idea of death, so I could be totally wrong. Yet, I never understand the idea that curing death would

I'm young, and most older people I know have peace with the idea of death, so I could be totally wrong. Yet, I never understand the idea that curing death would be a bad thing. There is so much in the world to experience - what does it feel like to: * master tennis? * hitchhike through snowy Hokkaido? * craft an oak desk with just your hands? * fall so deeply in love you feel whole? * direct a movie with just your dreams? * completely understand the ins and outs of a field of study? * make friends with someone you've read for decades? I would love to experience all of these things and more, but it would take huge amounts of dedication, risk, and luck to get close to a full list. By curing death, this gets way more achievable and accessible to everyone. One of my favorite book quotes: > “Science is not enough, religion is not enough, art is not enough, politics and economics is not enough, nor is love, nor is duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing short of everything will really do.” - Aldous Huxley

evo_9 4y ago
It’s not about a single person - aka mastering tennis. How are we as a species suppose to take to the stars if our lifespan is relatively short? I would wager that this is another step in becoming an interstellar race. Aka the challenge is not just about bending space-time. What if Einstein lived to 500 or was still alive? Anyway, I think people need to step way back on the true necessity of solving aging. At a minimum it’s about ensuring we have a high quality of life while living out our final days and long term it’s about the human species viability as an interstellar civilization.
- Qem 4y ago
  > What if Einstein lived to 500 or was still alive? The flipside would be, what if Aristotle or Ptolemy lived to 2500 and were still alive? Would we still be arguing if everything revolves around Earth, or if fire, earth, water and air constitute everything?
- zem 4y ago
  8<---------------- "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History 8<---------------- if you want to improve the net intellectual progress of humanity solving inequality will do a lot more than solving aging.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    Why not both?
    - zem 4y ago
      well, if current trends are any indication, anti-aging research will tend to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and if anything increase the percentage of resources that flow upwards. the potential einsteins labouring in a mine or field are even less likely to be helped if they are not made a systemic priority.
Upvoter33 4y ago
Curing death would have obvious downsides. Most people would not be able to procreate - the world would overcrowd. The really bad people of history could find themselves in permanent long-lasting power (think Putin for a modern example). I think you can come up with 100 reasons why curing death would be bad. As Steve Jobs said, death is life's greatest invention.
- kiba 4y ago
  The really bad people of history could find themselves in permanent long-lasting power (think Putin for a modern example). I think you can come up with 100 reasons why curing death would be bad. As Steve Jobs said, death is life's greatest invention. On the contrary, Putin showed how dictatorships are vulnerable to defeat, if not collapse. It seems more like we're justifying death rather than solving challenges.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    Hilarious to hear that we are justifying something that naturally occurs, but let's indulge the train of thought-- The elimination of death would necessitate that each individual would consume indefinitely, whereas the planet has finite resources. So, at some point, children must stop being born, and governments must either enforce infertility or make having sex illegal.
    - gallerdude 4y ago
      Animals viciously murdering each other for food is also natural, that doesn’t mean it’s preferable. I would imagine if death were cured, a very small percentage of people would actually want to live forever. I imagine most people would want to live between 1x and say, 5x an average lifespan.
      - kiba 4y ago
        It's a silly question to ask. Do you think about where you will go to the restroom 20 years into the future? No. Same thing with lifespan questions. You'll presumably die in some sort of accident.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
Plenty of arguments can be made here: 1. A lifetime is enough to experience everything that you listed. 2. Honestly, not everyone is interested to experience everything that you think everyone should experience. 3. What is the point of experiencing them? 4. Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death.
- kiba 4y ago
  4. Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death. Not true by any stretch of imagination.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    Why not?
- gallerdude 4y ago
  1. Maybe, but I’m sure there’s more that I want to do in life than what I listed out in about 10 minutes 2. My point isn’t that they should experience those things, it’s that there’s so much to experience. 3. What’s the point of anything? 4. When I think of the relationships in my life that went too long or too short, the ones that went on for too long I don’t feel too bad about. The ones that went too short are a completely different class - I feel far more regret and sadness.
- pawelmurias 4y ago
  4.Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death. Nope. They would be more valuable if they where not time-limited.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Elora 4y ago
> One of my favorite book quotes: > > “Science is not enough, religion is not enough, art is not enough, politics and economics is not enough, nor is love, nor is duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing short of everything will really do.” - Aldous Huxley This is what AGI will go. It will know everything, and at an above best-human level at that.
karaterobot 4y ago
The practical problem is resource scarcity. We're already destroying our only planet with 7 billion people living only 72 years on average. If we manage to get through the problems we've already created, it'll be a miracle, and it is safe to say that without a lot of other problems besides longevity being solved, there is zero chance that a significantly larger population would make it. And those problems have to be solved first, we couldn't just say "well, let's multiply the population, then figure out what to do about it later". I'm also very skeptical that, given an indefinitely extended lifespan, people would suddenly do all of those nice-sounding things you list. More likely they'd just do the exact same things they do now, for longer. It sort of reminds me of the philosophy around the early internet: imagine if people could get access to all information and communicate with anyone, anywhere. Imagine how smart we'll become, how civilized! That's what we thought would happen, but look at what we actually did: yell at each other and watch porn. My guess is that if we lived forever, we wouldn't suddenly become interesting, enlightened people if we weren't already.
- mLuby 4y ago
  > We're already destroying our only planet with 7 billion people living only 72 years on average. Because we only live a short while, we don't take a long view and there's a soft cap on society's accumulated wisdom. (In a smaller scale it's like companies losing "institutional knowledge" when employees leave.) People would act differently if they knew they'd be around for 700y instead of 70. > That's what we thought would happen [with the Internet], but look at what we actually did You're not seriously suggesting humanity is better without the Internet…
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    > You're not seriously suggesting humanity is better without the Internet… I cannot speak for karaterobot, but that seems to be an unwarranted inference from the post you are replying to, which merely points out that the internet did not lead to the more cooperative and altruistic world that some idealists predicted. You posit that humanity would step up to the challenges of a ten-fold increase in longevity, but I haven't seen what I would regard as persuasive evidence for that view. The fact that the internet has been a net benefit (a view I accept) is not that evidence, IMHO.
palijer 4y ago
I've always been a fan of this story and on the side of "it's logical to spend all human effort curing death" but lately I've just developed hesitations around the argument for that. Mainly stemming from all of the societal issues we have that ultimately are based on human nature and our tribal instincts. Living longer isn't going to make things like universal basic income happen or accelerate us into some post-scarcity economy. Humans already behave poorly enough when provided a knowingly limited lifespan, I can't see people improving provided an unlimited natural lifespan. We're not wired for it.
cshokie 4y ago
These questions were explored somewhat in the Scythe trilogy[0]. Natural death was conquered so some people are tasked with going around and enforcing unnatural death. I enjoyed reading it and thinking over some of the implications. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28954189-scythe https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28954189-scythe

evo_9 4y ago

It’s not about a single person - aka mastering tennis. How are we as a species suppose to take to the stars if our lifespan is relatively short? I would wager that this is another step in becoming an interstellar race. Aka the challenge is not just about bending space-time. What if Einstein lived to 500 or was still alive? Anyway, I think people need to step way back on the true necessity of solving aging. At a minimum it’s about ensuring we have a high quality of life while living out our final days and long term it’s about the human species viability as an interstellar civilization.

Qem 4y ago
> What if Einstein lived to 500 or was still alive? The flipside would be, what if Aristotle or Ptolemy lived to 2500 and were still alive? Would we still be arguing if everything revolves around Earth, or if fire, earth, water and air constitute everything?
zem 4y ago
8<---------------- "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History 8<---------------- if you want to improve the net intellectual progress of humanity solving inequality will do a lot more than solving aging.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  Why not both?
  - zem 4y ago
    well, if current trends are any indication, anti-aging research will tend to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and if anything increase the percentage of resources that flow upwards. the potential einsteins labouring in a mine or field are even less likely to be helped if they are not made a systemic priority.

Upvoter33 4y ago

Curing death would have obvious downsides. Most people would not be able to procreate - the world would overcrowd. The really bad people of history could find themselves in permanent long-lasting power (think Putin for a modern example). I think you can come up with 100 reasons why curing death would be bad. As Steve Jobs said, death is life's greatest invention.

kiba 4y ago
The really bad people of history could find themselves in permanent long-lasting power (think Putin for a modern example). I think you can come up with 100 reasons why curing death would be bad. As Steve Jobs said, death is life's greatest invention. On the contrary, Putin showed how dictatorships are vulnerable to defeat, if not collapse. It seems more like we're justifying death rather than solving challenges.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  Hilarious to hear that we are justifying something that naturally occurs, but let's indulge the train of thought-- The elimination of death would necessitate that each individual would consume indefinitely, whereas the planet has finite resources. So, at some point, children must stop being born, and governments must either enforce infertility or make having sex illegal.
  - gallerdude 4y ago
    Animals viciously murdering each other for food is also natural, that doesn’t mean it’s preferable. I would imagine if death were cured, a very small percentage of people would actually want to live forever. I imagine most people would want to live between 1x and say, 5x an average lifespan.
    - kiba 4y ago
      It's a silly question to ask. Do you think about where you will go to the restroom 20 years into the future? No. Same thing with lifespan questions. You'll presumably die in some sort of accident.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago

Plenty of arguments can be made here: 1. A lifetime is enough to experience everything that you listed. 2. Honestly, not everyone is interested to experience everything that you think everyone should experience. 3. What is the point of experiencing them? 4. Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death.

kiba 4y ago
4. Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death. Not true by any stretch of imagination.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  Why not?
gallerdude 4y ago
1. Maybe, but I’m sure there’s more that I want to do in life than what I listed out in about 10 minutes 2. My point isn’t that they should experience those things, it’s that there’s so much to experience. 3. What’s the point of anything? 4. When I think of the relationships in my life that went too long or too short, the ones that went on for too long I don’t feel too bad about. The ones that went too short are a completely different class - I feel far more regret and sadness.
pawelmurias 4y ago
4.Experiences and relationships are valuable only because they are time-limited, either by change or death. Nope. They would be more valuable if they where not time-limited.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Elora 4y ago

> One of my favorite book quotes: > > “Science is not enough, religion is not enough, art is not enough, politics and economics is not enough, nor is love, nor is duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing short of everything will really do.” - Aldous Huxley This is what AGI will go. It will know everything, and at an above best-human level at that.

karaterobot 4y ago

The practical problem is resource scarcity. We're already destroying our only planet with 7 billion people living only 72 years on average. If we manage to get through the problems we've already created, it'll be a miracle, and it is safe to say that without a lot of other problems besides longevity being solved, there is zero chance that a significantly larger population would make it. And those problems have to be solved first, we couldn't just say "well, let's multiply the population, then figure out what to do about it later". I'm also very skeptical that, given an indefinitely extended lifespan, people would suddenly do all of those nice-sounding things you list. More likely they'd just do the exact same things they do now, for longer. It sort of reminds me of the philosophy around the early internet: imagine if people could get access to all information and communicate with anyone, anywhere. Imagine how smart we'll become, how civilized! That's what we thought would happen, but look at what we actually did: yell at each other and watch porn. My guess is that if we lived forever, we wouldn't suddenly become interesting, enlightened people if we weren't already.

mLuby 4y ago
> We're already destroying our only planet with 7 billion people living only 72 years on average. Because we only live a short while, we don't take a long view and there's a soft cap on society's accumulated wisdom. (In a smaller scale it's like companies losing "institutional knowledge" when employees leave.) People would act differently if they knew they'd be around for 700y instead of 70. > That's what we thought would happen [with the Internet], but look at what we actually did You're not seriously suggesting humanity is better without the Internet…
- mannykannot 4y ago
  > You're not seriously suggesting humanity is better without the Internet… I cannot speak for karaterobot, but that seems to be an unwarranted inference from the post you are replying to, which merely points out that the internet did not lead to the more cooperative and altruistic world that some idealists predicted. You posit that humanity would step up to the challenges of a ten-fold increase in longevity, but I haven't seen what I would regard as persuasive evidence for that view. The fact that the internet has been a net benefit (a view I accept) is not that evidence, IMHO.

palijer 4y ago

I've always been a fan of this story and on the side of "it's logical to spend all human effort curing death" but lately I've just developed hesitations around the argument for that. Mainly stemming from all of the societal issues we have that ultimately are based on human nature and our tribal instincts. Living longer isn't going to make things like universal basic income happen or accelerate us into some post-scarcity economy. Humans already behave poorly enough when provided a knowingly limited lifespan, I can't see people improving provided an unlimited natural lifespan. We're not wired for it.

cshokie 4y ago

These questions were explored somewhat in the Scythe trilogy[0]. Natural death was conquered so some people are tasked with going around and enforcing unnatural death. I enjoyed reading it and thinking over some of the implications. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28954189-scythe https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28954189-scythe