7 ms·

It's surprising to me that such an obviously common-sense viewpoint is being treated as if it's extraordinary. Nonetheless, it's commendable that he hasn't succ

by kome 3y ago

It's surprising to me that such an obviously common-sense viewpoint is being treated as if it's extraordinary. Nonetheless, it's commendable that he hasn't succumbed to the delusions of grandeur and immortality.

tourist2d 3y ago
If you asked the population if they would want immortality, the common answer wouldn't be "no".
- fomine3 3y ago
  Is it? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179928-only-one-in-five-uk-adults-would-choose-to-live-forever-if-they-could/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179928-only-one-in-fiv...
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    You beat me because I was selecting quotes.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  According to surveys your intuition is wrong. USA: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-... > Researchers from the university separated respondents into three groups, based on age. One group was younger people, between the ages of 18 and 29, another group of senior citizens whose average age was 72, and a third group made up of individuals whose average age was 88. 18 - 29: 34% Yes, 40% No, 26% unsure Average age 72: 32% Yes, 43% No, 25% unsure Average age 88: 24% Yes, 59% No, 17% unsure > Differences in responses emerged along gender lines as well, with more men saying they would take the pill than women. And ironically: > "If a life extension treatment were to become available that effectively stopped ageing, young adults may be likely to use such a treatment to avoid reaching the ages at which older cohorts say they would prefer to live forever," the study determined.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    I wonder how many of those people who want immortality currently avoid smoking, drinking, drugs, air pollution, junk food, get long sleep every night and regular exercise - all those things that are much easier than immortality and can meaningfully increase the chances of adding one, two, three decades of quality life. And then avoid social media, clickbait, ragebait, idling, gossipping, and live in a deliberate and conscious way to make the best use of their time (best according to their own metrics). (Given that 66% of people are overweight, seeing 59% say they would like immortality suggests there's overlap. Not that I'm preaching, I don't do much of that stuff, and there is argument to want immortality to fritter away on enjoyments and relaxing and that maybe people are unhealthy because they are 'driving it like they stole it' for their limited time - but it's possible to play the finite lifetime cards we're dealt a lot better than than most of us do, without even getting to extremes and maximising things).
    - epups 3y ago
      Not sure this is equivalent. Those decades of life are usually worst ones, and merely doubling your lifespan with sacrifice is not equivalent to multiplying it indefinitely.
      - jodrellblank 3y ago
        Handwaving away 15-25% of your adult life with "usually the worst bit" doesn't sit well with me, neither does the "merely" in "merely doubling your lifespan". Y'know, given that "multiplying it indefinitely" is not actually an available option, whereas not dying at 72 from lung problems from a lifetime of smoking after several years of being nearly housebound then almost chairbound is an available option.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
What's so common-sense about it? Or even commendable? Earth's carrying capacity is a problem to be solved, there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place. Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
- upwardbound 3y ago
  I think Woz's point is that no matter how much the carrying capacity of the Earth (or even the entire solar system, or galaxy) is increased, it will always be finite. It's possible that we might be lucky enough to live through a great era of spaceward expansion during which even our best efforts at population growth are slower than the than the even faster growth of population capacity, and that would be amazing. That's the type of historical era in which a slogan of "be fruitful and multiply" is really good advice. But unless the universe has infinite future potential -- specifically, a way to access a limitless source of negentropy (either through time travel or magitech or something equally reality-warping) -- then eventually the population capacity would stop growing.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Extended to the limit, it's a fair point, but this type of thinking is arguably far from common-sense (since it's uncommon for people to engage in universe-scale hypotheticals), and arguably a problem for the future - i.e. for when we start outgrowing the galaxy or something.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      It's not a problem for the future, it's where we are at now until sufficiently advanced technology (or sufficiently peaceful international relations) intervenes.
      - fastball 3y ago
        Ok but if you're goal is actually some form of altruism, wouldn't keeping a clearly innovative person around forever be more useful than rolling your dice with whoever is taking his spot? Statistically, they are going to be not as useful (depending on your definition of useful of course).
worklaptopacct 3y ago
I don't know if it's universally a common sense standpoint with regard to everyone. Some people have a purpose to provide to their family and leave a legacy; this is a goal that can be fulfilled. But what if your life motive is to learn, create and put your skills to a common good?
jojobas 3y ago
>delusions of grandeur and immortality Jobs took over his share of that.
jollofricepeas 3y ago
Good point. We say many altruistic things when we’re happy and healthy. There’s a great opinion article from a doctor that says people faced with death that come into a hospital usually change their minds about receiving care that would prolong their lives. I have seen this many times as a caretaker for my own family members. It’s only at the doorstep of death that we know how we truly feel about death itself. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directives-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directive...
renegade-otter 3y ago
It's probably NOT that uncommon, but modern civilization allows so many creature comforts for the ultra-rich that they feel literally in heaven. They get the best of everything, almost instantly. Luxurious cars, an army of help, private planes, the latest technology, privacy and large mansions, beautiful partners, and the non-stop adulation and drooling over by the public. It's trivial to develop the god complex with that kind of life and the desire to prolong it as much as possible. They know what they have, and they want to keep it forever. Why hedge on the unproven promise of eternal life if you can live in paradise already? https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-immortality https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-im... Not surprisingly, it's the kind of people who, if allowed to eternally accumulate wealth and power, will eventually cause catastrophic damage to humanity if they feel not adored enough. Many don't even need multiple lifetimes do get there. Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits.
- upwardbound 3y ago
  > Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits. Exactly.

by kome 3y ago

tourist2d 3y ago

If you asked the population if they would want immortality, the common answer wouldn't be "no".

fomine3 3y ago
Is it? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179928-only-one-in-five-uk-adults-would-choose-to-live-forever-if-they-could/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179928-only-one-in-fiv...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  You beat me because I was selecting quotes.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
According to surveys your intuition is wrong. USA: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-... > Researchers from the university separated respondents into three groups, based on age. One group was younger people, between the ages of 18 and 29, another group of senior citizens whose average age was 72, and a third group made up of individuals whose average age was 88. 18 - 29: 34% Yes, 40% No, 26% unsure Average age 72: 32% Yes, 43% No, 25% unsure Average age 88: 24% Yes, 59% No, 17% unsure > Differences in responses emerged along gender lines as well, with more men saying they would take the pill than women. And ironically: > "If a life extension treatment were to become available that effectively stopped ageing, young adults may be likely to use such a treatment to avoid reaching the ages at which older cohorts say they would prefer to live forever," the study determined.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  I wonder how many of those people who want immortality currently avoid smoking, drinking, drugs, air pollution, junk food, get long sleep every night and regular exercise - all those things that are much easier than immortality and can meaningfully increase the chances of adding one, two, three decades of quality life. And then avoid social media, clickbait, ragebait, idling, gossipping, and live in a deliberate and conscious way to make the best use of their time (best according to their own metrics). (Given that 66% of people are overweight, seeing 59% say they would like immortality suggests there's overlap. Not that I'm preaching, I don't do much of that stuff, and there is argument to want immortality to fritter away on enjoyments and relaxing and that maybe people are unhealthy because they are 'driving it like they stole it' for their limited time - but it's possible to play the finite lifetime cards we're dealt a lot better than than most of us do, without even getting to extremes and maximising things).
  - epups 3y ago
    Not sure this is equivalent. Those decades of life are usually worst ones, and merely doubling your lifespan with sacrifice is not equivalent to multiplying it indefinitely.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      Handwaving away 15-25% of your adult life with "usually the worst bit" doesn't sit well with me, neither does the "merely" in "merely doubling your lifespan". Y'know, given that "multiplying it indefinitely" is not actually an available option, whereas not dying at 72 from lung problems from a lifetime of smoking after several years of being nearly housebound then almost chairbound is an available option.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

What's so common-sense about it? Or even commendable? Earth's carrying capacity is a problem to be solved, there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place. Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.

upwardbound 3y ago
I think Woz's point is that no matter how much the carrying capacity of the Earth (or even the entire solar system, or galaxy) is increased, it will always be finite. It's possible that we might be lucky enough to live through a great era of spaceward expansion during which even our best efforts at population growth are slower than the than the even faster growth of population capacity, and that would be amazing. That's the type of historical era in which a slogan of "be fruitful and multiply" is really good advice. But unless the universe has infinite future potential -- specifically, a way to access a limitless source of negentropy (either through time travel or magitech or something equally reality-warping) -- then eventually the population capacity would stop growing.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Extended to the limit, it's a fair point, but this type of thinking is arguably far from common-sense (since it's uncommon for people to engage in universe-scale hypotheticals), and arguably a problem for the future - i.e. for when we start outgrowing the galaxy or something.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It's not a problem for the future, it's where we are at now until sufficiently advanced technology (or sufficiently peaceful international relations) intervenes.
    - fastball 3y ago
      Ok but if you're goal is actually some form of altruism, wouldn't keeping a clearly innovative person around forever be more useful than rolling your dice with whoever is taking his spot? Statistically, they are going to be not as useful (depending on your definition of useful of course).

worklaptopacct 3y ago

I don't know if it's universally a common sense standpoint with regard to everyone. Some people have a purpose to provide to their family and leave a legacy; this is a goal that can be fulfilled. But what if your life motive is to learn, create and put your skills to a common good?

jojobas 3y ago

>delusions of grandeur and immortality Jobs took over his share of that.

jollofricepeas 3y ago

Good point. We say many altruistic things when we’re happy and healthy. There’s a great opinion article from a doctor that says people faced with death that come into a hospital usually change their minds about receiving care that would prolong their lives. I have seen this many times as a caretaker for my own family members. It’s only at the doorstep of death that we know how we truly feel about death itself. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directives-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directive...

renegade-otter 3y ago

It's probably NOT that uncommon, but modern civilization allows so many creature comforts for the ultra-rich that they feel literally in heaven. They get the best of everything, almost instantly. Luxurious cars, an army of help, private planes, the latest technology, privacy and large mansions, beautiful partners, and the non-stop adulation and drooling over by the public. It's trivial to develop the god complex with that kind of life and the desire to prolong it as much as possible. They know what they have, and they want to keep it forever. Why hedge on the unproven promise of eternal life if you can live in paradise already? https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-immortality https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-im... Not surprisingly, it's the kind of people who, if allowed to eternally accumulate wealth and power, will eventually cause catastrophic damage to humanity if they feel not adored enough. Many don't even need multiple lifetimes do get there. Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits.

upwardbound 3y ago
> Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits. Exactly.