3 ms·

Leonardo da Vinci imagined flying machines. When most people may have believed it to be a priori impossible during his time, instead da Vinci probably believed

Leonardo da Vinci imagined flying machines. When most people may have believed it to be a priori impossible during his time, instead da Vinci probably believed it to be simply another (solvable) engineering problem. That being said, even if da Vinci had absolute certainty that his viewpoint was correct, that heavier-than-air flying machines were a factual inevitability... what could da Vinci have done to capitalize on this knowledge? Other than draw some diagrams and hope future generations pick it up, but in his own contemporary timeframe, this knowledge of the inevitable future would still be generally useless to him. It would not affect his daily life, it likely would not change a single decision that he would make otherwise. Likewise, let's say you're right, that conquering death is an inevitably solvable engineering problem. So what would you do with that knowledge, right now? Of the cases called out in the article, of people who could not live off of ECMO, how does having this knowledge of inevitable immortality that's coming 100s of years later, how would that change the decision-making rubric today for those patients or whether those ECMO machines are better used on someone else? I venture to say that, even if you knew with absolute certainty that engineered-immortality would be achieved by a known future date, say 200 years from now (though it took ~400 years between da Vinci and heavier-than-air flight)... IMHO it shouldn't make any difference at all to the present-day decisions of how those ECMO patients should be treated today. Only if you knew the date of pending immortality was let's say, <10 years away, would you make some kind of drastic push to try and keep everyone alive barely long enough to benefit from that breakthrough. ... In fact, I vaguely remember reading a short story about this very conceit, of generations of humans in a fictional setting, working towards immortality, and how at a certain point, they reached a stage of awareness that, achieving immortality was likely going to happen soon in the next generation, so what would they do with that "last generation" of humans to ever need to face death? How would people feel, how would they react, if they knew that they were just a little bit too early to benefit from the breakthrough that might come 20 years from now? Sadly can't recall what that story was called or any more details that would make it easier to search for.

feoren 2y ago
For your analogy to hold, let's assume that everyone on Earth in 1500 A.D. had a strongly vested interested in heavier-than-air flight (as they do with not dying today), and Leonardo da Vinci was completely convinced it was possible. You assert it wouldn't have made a difference. I assert it could have changed the course of human history. Leonardo would have done what everyone like him did around that time: convinced a wealthy patron to fund his experiments. If he had gotten many very rich nobles convinced as well, he may have gotten tons of money to hire lots of people to build and test various designs. We might have had heavier-than-air flight 400 years earlier. Of course, without powered engines, they wouldn't have had nearly the success they have today, but one can imagine some pretty elaborate gliders, or possibly hot air balloons, showing up hundreds of years earlier than they actually did. So I absolutely reject your notion of "it would never have made any difference." The fallacy that history must always have gone exactly as it did is a common one, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. > Likewise, let's say you're right, that conquering death is an inevitably solvable engineering problem. So what would you do with that knowledge, right now? I already told you: organize a nation-wide (or international) Moon-landing level effort to make ECMO machines 100x cheaper, more portable, and more widely available by the end of the decade. Spend 4% of GDP on it. Keep spending 4% of GDP on similar research. > Only if you knew the date of pending immortality was let's say, <10 years away, would you make some kind of drastic push to try and keep everyone alive barely long enough to benefit from that breakthrough. It's not one date. It's a long path with many problems to solve along the way. It may indeed take hundreds of years to achieve complete agelessness. But every year that we wait to start (and we are waiting, because of our belief that it's not possible), is another year that people are needlessly dying. Every problem solved along the way is a few more years for many more people. > I vaguely remember reading a short story about this very conceit, Yes, bad sci-fi has used the inevitability of death as a plot element for a long time, along with the silly argument "do we really want to live forever!? BUT EVIL!!" It's never really held up to scrutiny.
- epcoa 2y ago
  > complete agelessness I'm still puzzled why you think an ECMO machine of all things is related to this at all. It's no more sensible than thinking a tourniquet has anything to do with prolonging lifespan. They both might save your/a life in the moment, but people still age, they get old, and no one basically even knows where to begin on that one even if they agree with you that it may be possible. I would go even further that those that sincerely imagine it is possible in the foreseeable future have no specialized knowledge of how it would actually work or be done (people like 4000 supplements and alkaline water Ray Kurzweil only prove out this point). You don't even know what you don't know. And even if possible there is no sane reason to think that ECMO has any role in prolonging lifespan any more so than a ventilator or dialysis, you've completely lost the plot on that one. > But every year that we wait to start (and we are waiting, because of our belief that it's not possible), is another year that people are needlessly dying. Amusing that when dealing with eternity, what difference does it make if its 100 years, 400 years or 1000 years. Unless you have a better prediction than 1. build a better heart-lung machine 2. ??? 3. eternal life, chances are it's not going to be in your lifetime, so it really is of no consequence to you or your peers. And I'll guess you have little practical or actionable to add to this body of "research".
- wolfendin 2y ago
  You get very close to the real issue here: The important part of a flying machine wasn’t the machine itself, but the engine to run the machine itself. We’ve had flying machine designs for centuries but it only took 27 years after the Otto engine was invented to put one in the air. ECMO is the flying machine design
  - feoren 2y ago
    What is the engine we are missing?

feoren 2y ago

For your analogy to hold, let's assume that everyone on Earth in 1500 A.D. had a strongly vested interested in heavier-than-air flight (as they do with not dying today), and Leonardo da Vinci was completely convinced it was possible. You assert it wouldn't have made a difference. I assert it could have changed the course of human history. Leonardo would have done what everyone like him did around that time: convinced a wealthy patron to fund his experiments. If he had gotten many very rich nobles convinced as well, he may have gotten tons of money to hire lots of people to build and test various designs. We might have had heavier-than-air flight 400 years earlier. Of course, without powered engines, they wouldn't have had nearly the success they have today, but one can imagine some pretty elaborate gliders, or possibly hot air balloons, showing up hundreds of years earlier than they actually did. So I absolutely reject your notion of "it would never have made any difference." The fallacy that history must always have gone exactly as it did is a common one, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. > Likewise, let's say you're right, that conquering death is an inevitably solvable engineering problem. So what would you do with that knowledge, right now? I already told you: organize a nation-wide (or international) Moon-landing level effort to make ECMO machines 100x cheaper, more portable, and more widely available by the end of the decade. Spend 4% of GDP on it. Keep spending 4% of GDP on similar research. > Only if you knew the date of pending immortality was let's say, <10 years away, would you make some kind of drastic push to try and keep everyone alive barely long enough to benefit from that breakthrough. It's not one date. It's a long path with many problems to solve along the way. It may indeed take hundreds of years to achieve complete agelessness. But every year that we wait to start (and we are waiting, because of our belief that it's not possible), is another year that people are needlessly dying. Every problem solved along the way is a few more years for many more people. > I vaguely remember reading a short story about this very conceit, Yes, bad sci-fi has used the inevitability of death as a plot element for a long time, along with the silly argument "do we really want to live forever!? BUT EVIL!!" It's never really held up to scrutiny.

epcoa 2y ago
> complete agelessness I'm still puzzled why you think an ECMO machine of all things is related to this at all. It's no more sensible than thinking a tourniquet has anything to do with prolonging lifespan. They both might save your/a life in the moment, but people still age, they get old, and no one basically even knows where to begin on that one even if they agree with you that it may be possible. I would go even further that those that sincerely imagine it is possible in the foreseeable future have no specialized knowledge of how it would actually work or be done (people like 4000 supplements and alkaline water Ray Kurzweil only prove out this point). You don't even know what you don't know. And even if possible there is no sane reason to think that ECMO has any role in prolonging lifespan any more so than a ventilator or dialysis, you've completely lost the plot on that one. > But every year that we wait to start (and we are waiting, because of our belief that it's not possible), is another year that people are needlessly dying. Amusing that when dealing with eternity, what difference does it make if its 100 years, 400 years or 1000 years. Unless you have a better prediction than 1. build a better heart-lung machine 2. ??? 3. eternal life, chances are it's not going to be in your lifetime, so it really is of no consequence to you or your peers. And I'll guess you have little practical or actionable to add to this body of "research".
wolfendin 2y ago
You get very close to the real issue here: The important part of a flying machine wasn’t the machine itself, but the engine to run the machine itself. We’ve had flying machine designs for centuries but it only took 27 years after the Otto engine was invented to put one in the air. ECMO is the flying machine design
- feoren 2y ago
  What is the engine we are missing?