5 ms·
I guess this was already discussed elsewhere on HN, but I'm pretty confident that the world wouldn't be better with endless human live.
by cryptos 3y ago
I guess this was already discussed elsewhere on HN, but I'm pretty confident that the world wouldn't be better with endless human live.
- GiorgioG 3y agoAgreed. Most (but not all) old people have trouble letting go of old ideas. I can't imagine old powerful people keeping old ideas alive for hundreds of years.
- codr7 3y agoI sure can; without trouble, without even using my imagination.
- ETH_start 3y agoYoung people can create their own spaces, where old people can't exert influence. No need to murder old people, or deny them lifesaving technologies, just to get your experimental spaces. Also, plenty of old people want to explore new ideas and join these experiments, and if they knew they had more time, possibly many more would too. It's the people who don't believe in the potential of humanity, and thus want to keep human life limited, who seem to lack vision and be stuck in their cynical, rigid mindsets.
- ETH_start 3y ago* human capital would improve as the most skilled wouldn't become feeble and die, and would instead see their skills continue to improve * quality of life would massively improve as far fewer people would suffer the tragedy of permanently losing loved ones, and would be saved from the ravages of aging and the anguish of an impending death. Saying nothing about the vastly deeper and greater experiences that much longer lifespans would impart. By world, you mean the environment, due to population growth? By that logic, we should reduce healthcare spending to reduce life expectancy, and with it, the human population. I am pro-humanity, so I want to end death for all people. The problems of overpopulation can be addressed through other means.