4 ms·
> Excuse me, but I do want to live in a world where death is inevitable and will choose that option at any time. This feels a little like saying "I like death,
by feoren 2y ago
> Excuse me, but I do want to live in a world where death is inevitable and will choose that option at any time.
This feels a little like saying "I like death, therefore everyone else must die too." Besides, you'd always be able to choose that option at any time. I'm not talking about some cursed-monkey-paw version of immortality.
> the current system with auto-refreshing humans has got us very far
The system of hunter-gathering got us pretty far too, and switching over to agriculture was indeed not 100% positive at first. The system of feudal/clan-based government and labor-and-wood-based energy economy got us very far, too, and switching to the industrial revolution also had its early downsides. Just because systems are working doesn't mean they can't be improved.
> importantly [Senescence] solves scientific, engineering and social problems.
Again I ask: if we already lived forever, and we were running into those scientific, engineering, and social problems that death supposedly "solves", then would your solution be to start killing everyone approaching 100 years old? Another solution to all our problems is that the sun goes supernova and the Earth is completely annihilated. That's along the same line of "solution" as yours.
Besides, I haven't seen any convincing argument that such problems would necessarily occur, or at least be insurmountable.
> A mistaken scientist dies and so does his theory. A tyrant dies and so does his regime. A liar dies and no one maintains his lies.
This is unfortunately quite accurate for the time being. But death is a rather blunt solution to these problems, and I believe there are better ones. I also believe people would be more interested in ousting tyrants if they didn't think they just need to wait for them to die.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago> This feels a little like saying "I like death, therefore everyone else must die too." Well you sound like "I'm so scared of death that I'm ready to pay for immortality with eternal suffering for the rest of humanity". I don't like death in particular but I can admit I enjoy being born in the XX century and not being a slave in the mines of Ramses II. And I'm not too bothered by death because I'm already immortal in a sense. My kids are literally a piece of me that keep on living, I see no reason to worry much about the meatbag I currently reside in. > Again I ask: if we already lived forever, and we were running into those scientific, engineering, and social problems that death supposedly "solves", then would your solution be to start killing everyone approaching 100 years old? You ask it like some smart theoretical brain teaser whereas it's simple reality. Your gametes don't age and it cost nothing to nature, however the rest of you do age. Ever think why is that? That is THE solution found by natural selection, literally kill everyone nearing 100 years old. And no, reset of body and consciousness to a clean state is not the same as end of life by supernova, it's the opposite. It's a way to ensure continuation of life. > This is unfortunately quite accurate for the time being. But death is a rather blunt solution to these problems, and I believe there are better ones The problem is I don't see another solution for corruption of humans. If humans are the ones who are responsible of implementing the solution then they'll just corrupt it too. It's like trying to reason your way out of insanity, doesn't work because your reasoning mechanism is affected. Solution has to be outside of our control like death is now. Conquering death would be a mistake even though I don't really see a way to prevent it long term.