7 ms·

No, it isn’t sad that we die. It’s extremely important that we do — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans.

xvector 2y ago
It is not an issue to me if <bad human> lives longer, if I get to enjoy more time with my loved ones, watch humanity build Dyson spheres, explore the galaxy, etc. Bad humans then become social issues - and those, we can solve.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Name one social issue our species has comprehensively solved in the last century.
  - zo1 2y ago
    We haven't. Even simple ones like poverty, hunger, homelessness that are just a matter of admin and money. We've been captured by self-perpetuating and effectively immortal institutions (NGO's and arguably governments) that will not let us solve them because that would mean their own death.
    - xvector 2y ago
      Sounds like dying isn't very effective at solving social issues either, then, so the argument that it helps is somewhat moot.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      I agree with the spirit of your argument but maybe not the villains you've chosen. Given legislative capture is absolutely a thing I think your criticism is more effectively pointed at the individuals and organizations responsible for funding reelection campaigns for the politicians that aren't obviously servicing the needs of their notional constituency.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Comprehensive, as in extensively but not necessarily totally? And why as a species rather than as countries, given we don't have a single world government? Equality issues still exist, but compared to 1924? Is literacy is a social issue or not? 31% to 87%. Is extreme poverty? 54% of about 2 billion, now 10% of about 8 billion, reduced in absolute numbers and not just as a percentage.
- jajko 2y ago
  You live in society, not alone on far side of the moon. In any society including worst communism terror Earth has seen, the worst and most potent humans bubble up to the top, always, without exception. No mechamism to wipe this clean means absolute dictatorship with no end in sight, you always see it even in democracies, strong persons tend to bend rules as they like and the only stopping power is re-election force, or you end up eith some form of forever putin. Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly. Even for just avoiding endless dictatures its necessary.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly. There is no real correction though. Because for every person who you think that you helped, you should know that those people are going to eventually die anyway, meaning that it was all for naught.
  - _w1tm 2y ago
    I think you are mixing up concepts. Curing mortality doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be killed. Authoritarian regimes don’t end because the dictator gets old and dies, they end because the people rise up against the oppressive government. If mortality was the liberator you imagine it to be then North Korea would already be rid of their nightmare.
D-Coder 2y ago
> No, it isn’t sad that we die. It’s extremely important that we do — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans. So, kill off all of humanity to make sure you get rid of the worst ones? To me that seems... non-optimal.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  It may be non-optimal but it certainly beats the shit out of most of the alternatives.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  Consider this, those that command most resources will be able to get this tech, not you. This isn't everyone gets an iPhone. It's the richest get the best health insurance.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    If it was invented in isolation of all other tech, it would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it. More users, more awareness of limitations and side effects and how to treat them. Longer working lives for the labour force, less need for expensive pensions and expensive old age care. But this isn't in isolation, the changes to AI and robotics, even without AGI/ASI or von Neumann replication, will make us unfathomably better off by 2050 (and with, no more labour). What does "rich" even mean when anti-aging stops being a choice between "snake oil" and "in mice"?
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      > It would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it. Why though? More users? Economy is already moving to a free-to-pay model. You earn more catering to rich people than the middle class/poor. Look at hardware nVidia is earning more extracting money from the richest people buying 4090 and 4080 than from rest, and that's dwarfed by their AI offerings. The way I see it, basically you earn money from whales, rich people and you toss breadcrumbs to the rest.
blkhawk 2y ago
Most of the worst humans do not die of old age. I doubt we will ever solve death (aka entropy) completely.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  Death is not really the result of entropy. No life we know of is the opposite of a closed system.

xvector 2y ago

It is not an issue to me if <bad human> lives longer, if I get to enjoy more time with my loved ones, watch humanity build Dyson spheres, explore the galaxy, etc. Bad humans then become social issues - and those, we can solve.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Name one social issue our species has comprehensively solved in the last century.
- zo1 2y ago
  We haven't. Even simple ones like poverty, hunger, homelessness that are just a matter of admin and money. We've been captured by self-perpetuating and effectively immortal institutions (NGO's and arguably governments) that will not let us solve them because that would mean their own death.
  - xvector 2y ago
    Sounds like dying isn't very effective at solving social issues either, then, so the argument that it helps is somewhat moot.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I agree with the spirit of your argument but maybe not the villains you've chosen. Given legislative capture is absolutely a thing I think your criticism is more effectively pointed at the individuals and organizations responsible for funding reelection campaigns for the politicians that aren't obviously servicing the needs of their notional constituency.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Comprehensive, as in extensively but not necessarily totally? And why as a species rather than as countries, given we don't have a single world government? Equality issues still exist, but compared to 1924? Is literacy is a social issue or not? 31% to 87%. Is extreme poverty? 54% of about 2 billion, now 10% of about 8 billion, reduced in absolute numbers and not just as a percentage.
jajko 2y ago
You live in society, not alone on far side of the moon. In any society including worst communism terror Earth has seen, the worst and most potent humans bubble up to the top, always, without exception. No mechamism to wipe this clean means absolute dictatorship with no end in sight, you always see it even in democracies, strong persons tend to bend rules as they like and the only stopping power is re-election force, or you end up eith some form of forever putin. Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly. Even for just avoiding endless dictatures its necessary.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly. There is no real correction though. Because for every person who you think that you helped, you should know that those people are going to eventually die anyway, meaning that it was all for naught.
- _w1tm 2y ago
  I think you are mixing up concepts. Curing mortality doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be killed. Authoritarian regimes don’t end because the dictator gets old and dies, they end because the people rise up against the oppressive government. If mortality was the liberator you imagine it to be then North Korea would already be rid of their nightmare.

D-Coder 2y ago

> No, it isn’t sad that we die. It’s extremely important that we do — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans. So, kill off all of humanity to make sure you get rid of the worst ones? To me that seems... non-optimal.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
It may be non-optimal but it certainly beats the shit out of most of the alternatives.
Ygg2 2y ago
Consider this, those that command most resources will be able to get this tech, not you. This isn't everyone gets an iPhone. It's the richest get the best health insurance.
- ben_w 2y ago
  If it was invented in isolation of all other tech, it would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it. More users, more awareness of limitations and side effects and how to treat them. Longer working lives for the labour force, less need for expensive pensions and expensive old age care. But this isn't in isolation, the changes to AI and robotics, even without AGI/ASI or von Neumann replication, will make us unfathomably better off by 2050 (and with, no more labour). What does "rich" even mean when anti-aging stops being a choice between "snake oil" and "in mice"?
  - Ygg2 2y ago
    > It would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it. Why though? More users? Economy is already moving to a free-to-pay model. You earn more catering to rich people than the middle class/poor. Look at hardware nVidia is earning more extracting money from the richest people buying 4090 and 4080 than from rest, and that's dwarfed by their AI offerings. The way I see it, basically you earn money from whales, rich people and you toss breadcrumbs to the rest.

blkhawk 2y ago

Most of the worst humans do not die of old age. I doubt we will ever solve death (aka entropy) completely.

rowanG077 2y ago
Death is not really the result of entropy. No life we know of is the opposite of a closed system.