10 ms·

I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of uph

by Jochim 4y ago

I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. Death provides an opportunity for change. Often in the form of upheaval to political structures but more frequently in opening up social opportunities. Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted.

at_a_remove 4y ago
Or, conversely, having to plan long-term because you'll be around for it. Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well. Humans do okay with certain rates of change, but right now, the more nightmarish business is a problem for your great grandkids.
- palata 4y ago
  > Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well. I think that's an unfortunate example: burning fossil fuels is a much bigger problem, and it is not even long-term (most of us will be around for the consequences). Still we do it virtually without planning at all.
m_fayer 4y ago
I grant all of your points. But I think there would be some very clear upsides as well, assuming that longevity is available to more than just a few billionaires. Years spent observing a field or topic with a well-trained eye is incredibly valuable. But by the time you're an expert, you typically have at best 3 decades and often much less to practice before serious decline kicks in. It would be a very different world where the number of experts and veterans rose by an order of magnitude. Also, as I've come to see with my own advancing years, humans are very good at forgetting history and its lessons. The best way to maintain historical awareness is to simply have people around who lived through it. The current historical moment is an illustration of this - the world is sliding toward large-scale war just as the last of those who saw ww2 with their own eyes are leaving the scene. I don't think that's a coincidence.
digging 4y ago
> Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted. In our world, barring catastrophic collapse (which IMO is not at all unlikely within Bezos's lifespan), the latter seems almost certain.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Honestly the current inequalities are already pretty striking. Even within the rich western world.
melling 4y ago
Yeah, I know. We’ve been having this inane conversation for a long time. I blogged about it 6 years ago. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-be-banned-from-hacker-news-immortality/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
naasking 4y ago
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. Death provides an opportunity for change Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. > Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. While that moment may provide an opportunity, my view is that a ossification will set in more broadly in the long term. > Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons. Possessing the capability for change is not the same as possessing the desire to see that change through. Those with power seek to hold on to it. An extreme example would be that of dictatorships and monarchies. Death ultimately limits the harm those people can cause while also providing a moment of instability which may be seized to alter the system. Unless practical immortality coincides with fundamental and extreme shifts in our society and economy, it'd be a catastrophe.
  - balfirevic 4y ago
    > it'd be a catastrophe. Phew, so lucky we got this alternative scenario where literally everyone dies.
- tsol 4y ago
  >There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. Pretty sure this problem has been around since the dawn of civilization. It's not simple to keep money and power from concentrating in society
amelius 4y ago
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. But what if Einstein had lived a few more decades?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  All I can see are activists billionaires deciding my fate. Depending upon your political bogeyman, Koch brothers or Soros would only continue to amass power.
  - vt85 4y ago
    [dead]
- allturtles 4y ago
  Probably nothing special would have happened. Einstein did his great work between 1905 and 1915. Then he lived for 40 more years.
amelius 4y ago
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. I think we'd have to ban compound interest, somehow.
jareklupinski 4y ago
I think you will like the show Altered Carbon :)
zemvpferreira 4y ago
Sure, but forgive me for saying, you first.
FredPret 4y ago
Simple. Inflation. Some new competitor will eventually crush MS and Amazon. To stay extremely rich forever, Bezos and Gates will have to also be great investors. Then some other person like Musk comes with new ideas that blow even their massive fortunes out of the water. Long term dominance in an eternal-life society is certainly not possible.
- bjt 4y ago
  Assuming a well regulated market with the rule of law and minimal barriers to entry and plenty of innovation happening, sure. Take those things away through bad/ineffective government and you could very easily end up in a society where those in power use their power to stop others from innovating or accumulating any wealth. Long lived institutions focused on consolidating and preserving their power can have a similar effect to long-lived people. The Catholic church's role in the Middle Ages, for example.
- rafark 4y ago
  Exactly. And people living longer means everyone has a bigger chance to succeed.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  Or just mildly competent investors. If the economy is growing their wealth will compound. If the economy is shrinking they’ll still be rich and everyone will suffer.
rafark 4y ago
Why does this topic always comes up when talking about longevity? Did people read about this in a book or something? So what if they don’t die? I don’t consider those people evil, I’m not rich either. The thought of living forever or for a much longer period of time gets me very excited. I don’t care if the elite live longer or not.
- fuckingkike 4y ago
  [dead]
mr_toad 4y ago
> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place. Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world.
- havelhovel 4y ago
  > I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place The desire to retire may have something to do with mortality. > Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world It's hard to understand why you went in this direction. The parent comment didn't mention race or sex, and there are entire continents of people that ought to disprove your world view.

by Jochim 4y ago

at_a_remove 4y ago

Or, conversely, having to plan long-term because you'll be around for it. Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well. Humans do okay with certain rates of change, but right now, the more nightmarish business is a problem for your great grandkids.

palata 4y ago
> Imagine no statute of limitations on chucking barrels of toxic waste down a well. I think that's an unfortunate example: burning fossil fuels is a much bigger problem, and it is not even long-term (most of us will be around for the consequences). Still we do it virtually without planning at all.

m_fayer 4y ago

I grant all of your points. But I think there would be some very clear upsides as well, assuming that longevity is available to more than just a few billionaires. Years spent observing a field or topic with a well-trained eye is incredibly valuable. But by the time you're an expert, you typically have at best 3 decades and often much less to practice before serious decline kicks in. It would be a very different world where the number of experts and veterans rose by an order of magnitude. Also, as I've come to see with my own advancing years, humans are very good at forgetting history and its lessons. The best way to maintain historical awareness is to simply have people around who lived through it. The current historical moment is an illustration of this - the world is sliding toward large-scale war just as the last of those who saw ww2 with their own eyes are leaving the scene. I don't think that's a coincidence.

digging 4y ago

> Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone; or a new kind of inequality that I can't comprehend being accepted. In our world, barring catastrophic collapse (which IMO is not at all unlikely within Bezos's lifespan), the latter seems almost certain.

dopidopHN 4y ago
Honestly the current inequalities are already pretty striking. Even within the rich western world.

melling 4y ago

Yeah, I know. We’ve been having this inane conversation for a long time. I blogged about it 6 years ago. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-be-banned-from-hacker-news-immortality/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...

naasking 4y ago

> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. Death provides an opportunity for change Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. > Removing death from the equation introduces either: stagnation, if it is made available to everyone Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons.

Jochim 4y ago
> Immortality becoming a possibility is also an opportunity for changing our social structures. There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. While that moment may provide an opportunity, my view is that a ossification will set in more broadly in the long term. > Stagnation follows from an assumption that neuroplasticity is zero. That is one of the problems that need solving for immortality anyway, but I don't see why it's unsolvable. If some technique rejuvenates at the cellular level, it could also work on neurons. Possessing the capability for change is not the same as possessing the desire to see that change through. Those with power seek to hold on to it. An extreme example would be that of dictatorships and monarchies. Death ultimately limits the harm those people can cause while also providing a moment of instability which may be seized to alter the system. Unless practical immortality coincides with fundamental and extreme shifts in our society and economy, it'd be a catastrophe.
- balfirevic 4y ago
  > it'd be a catastrophe. Phew, so lucky we got this alternative scenario where literally everyone dies.
tsol 4y ago
>There's nothing wrong with Bezos or Gates living forever, as long as their social and financial dominance isn't also guaranteed to live forever. Pretty sure this problem has been around since the dawn of civilization. It's not simple to keep money and power from concentrating in society

amelius 4y ago

> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. But what if Einstein had lived a few more decades?

0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
All I can see are activists billionaires deciding my fate. Depending upon your political bogeyman, Koch brothers or Soros would only continue to amass power.
- vt85 4y ago
  [dead]
allturtles 4y ago
Probably nothing special would have happened. Einstein did his great work between 1905 and 1915. Then he lived for 40 more years.

amelius 4y ago

> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. I think we'd have to ban compound interest, somehow.

jareklupinski 4y ago

I think you will like the show Altered Carbon :)

zemvpferreira 4y ago

Sure, but forgive me for saying, you first.

FredPret 4y ago

Simple. Inflation. Some new competitor will eventually crush MS and Amazon. To stay extremely rich forever, Bezos and Gates will have to also be great investors. Then some other person like Musk comes with new ideas that blow even their massive fortunes out of the water. Long term dominance in an eternal-life society is certainly not possible.

bjt 4y ago
Assuming a well regulated market with the rule of law and minimal barriers to entry and plenty of innovation happening, sure. Take those things away through bad/ineffective government and you could very easily end up in a society where those in power use their power to stop others from innovating or accumulating any wealth. Long lived institutions focused on consolidating and preserving their power can have a similar effect to long-lived people. The Catholic church's role in the Middle Ages, for example.
rafark 4y ago
Exactly. And people living longer means everyone has a bigger chance to succeed.
fauxpause_ 4y ago
Or just mildly competent investors. If the economy is growing their wealth will compound. If the economy is shrinking they’ll still be rich and everyone will suffer.

rafark 4y ago

Why does this topic always comes up when talking about longevity? Did people read about this in a book or something? So what if they don’t die? I don’t consider those people evil, I’m not rich either. The thought of living forever or for a much longer period of time gets me very excited. I don’t care if the elite live longer or not.

fuckingkike 4y ago
[dead]

mr_toad 4y ago

> I don't think the world would be a better off if the Bezos' and Gates' were to live forever. I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place. Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world.

havelhovel 4y ago
> I’m not sure those are great examples of people clinging to power forever, considering they’re semi-retired / retired and neither were heavily involved in politics in the first place The desire to retire may have something to do with mortality. > Just because most people with political power are old rich white men doesn’t mean all old rich white men run the world It's hard to understand why you went in this direction. The parent comment didn't mention race or sex, and there are entire continents of people that ought to disprove your world view.