5 ms·

Sure, we Gorillas know that stronger arms and bites are going to be important for future generations. "It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying

Sure, we Gorillas know that stronger arms and bites are going to be important for future generations. "It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying about polite tolerance. It isn't altruistic to value one person's life more than another for their demonstrated ability to contribute what you think is best. That is literally egocentric selfishness, which is pretty much the opposite of altruism. I think the word you want is "utilitarian". A person's ability to contribute is also context dependent. Woz was an innovator, but he also got lucky in multiple respects to have contributed what he did. Picking "Golden Children" tends to have negative sociological and innovative effects.

fastball 3y ago
With regards to the gorilla analogy, I think for all intents and purposes we've already knee-capped the evolutionary process of humanity with modern medicine (not going backwards ala Idiocracy, but not going forwards either). We might need to be a little bit "picky" (read: deliberate) in the future if we want to keep progressing. I believe this is the ethos of trans-humanists. I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't. > I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric. > Intelligent life is not zero-sum No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum. Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Probably I shouldn't play into Godwin's Law, but what the hell. How can you say with a straight face "Hitler liked blue-eyed people, this is very egocentric of him as a person without blue eyes"? Makes no sense. Was Hitler egocentric? Most certainly. Is his ideas of Aryan supremacy a good example of that? Clearly not, as you so succinctly pointed out. Back to the actual point: if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      His ideas of Aryan supremacy fed into his ego-drive for a 'superior race' as his legacy. It is our ego that strives to leave a legacy, and when this ego tramples on or disregards the legacy of others, it is egocentric. When I was looking this up I discovered that Hitler did, apparently, have blue eyes. > if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture. The most proximate cause of the French Revolution was a tax on the aristocratic classes, and increased taxes in general, quite similar to the American Revolution: https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution Another cause was shared with the Russian Revolution: Gradually increasing rights for the hoi polloi that made them acutely aware of the unjustness of the constraints that still existed. The aristocrats provided the wealth, and the hoi polloi provided the numbers. But in an immortality scenario the aristocrats are being given a privilege, not taxed against it. Or if this immortality is available to all, then the old immortals may outnumber the youth. In the case of France, an emperor replaced a king. In the case of Russia, a dictator replaced a czar. In the US the previously existing legislatures continued ruling, but without oversight.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. Also, if we're positing indefinite limits to the number of humans, then an immortal wouldn't be replacing one person, but the whole series of persons their extended life is taking the place of (and would be altering all lineages descended from those persons).

fastball 3y ago

With regards to the gorilla analogy, I think for all intents and purposes we've already knee-capped the evolutionary process of humanity with modern medicine (not going backwards ala Idiocracy, but not going forwards either). We might need to be a little bit "picky" (read: deliberate) in the future if we want to keep progressing. I believe this is the ethos of trans-humanists. I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't. > I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric. > Intelligent life is not zero-sum No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum. Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.
- fastball 3y ago
  Probably I shouldn't play into Godwin's Law, but what the hell. How can you say with a straight face "Hitler liked blue-eyed people, this is very egocentric of him as a person without blue eyes"? Makes no sense. Was Hitler egocentric? Most certainly. Is his ideas of Aryan supremacy a good example of that? Clearly not, as you so succinctly pointed out. Back to the actual point: if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    His ideas of Aryan supremacy fed into his ego-drive for a 'superior race' as his legacy. It is our ego that strives to leave a legacy, and when this ego tramples on or disregards the legacy of others, it is egocentric. When I was looking this up I discovered that Hitler did, apparently, have blue eyes. > if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture. The most proximate cause of the French Revolution was a tax on the aristocratic classes, and increased taxes in general, quite similar to the American Revolution: https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution Another cause was shared with the Russian Revolution: Gradually increasing rights for the hoi polloi that made them acutely aware of the unjustness of the constraints that still existed. The aristocrats provided the wealth, and the hoi polloi provided the numbers. But in an immortality scenario the aristocrats are being given a privilege, not taxed against it. Or if this immortality is available to all, then the old immortals may outnumber the youth. In the case of France, an emperor replaced a king. In the case of Russia, a dictator replaced a czar. In the US the previously existing legislatures continued ruling, but without oversight.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. Also, if we're positing indefinite limits to the number of humans, then an immortal wouldn't be replacing one person, but the whole series of persons their extended life is taking the place of (and would be altering all lineages descended from those persons).