4 ms·

Lack of death just means that people won't have the courage to take risks against injustices anymore.

khafra 2y ago
This seems approximately as likely as people not having the courage to enact injustices (since their victims will have unlimited time to plot a perfect revenge and gather all the resources that would require).
- myworkinisgood 2y ago
  Real life accounts always say otherwise. Death is a limited liability card that people can use to commit anything. People who commit injustices, even today, are often confident enough that they will be in a position to kill themselves before suffering at hands of others.
  - khafra 2y ago
    That doesn't contradict my point: universal mortality means the potential losses of an oppressor are bounded, and the bound is acceptably low to many people. Immortality removes that bound.
    - 8372049 2y ago
      Life in itself is worthless. The only reason why life is valuable is because it is a canvas, a vessel through which you can find happiness, meaning and so on. This means that if you have a life that isn't worth living, you are not at risk of losing anything of value, and so the potential loss is still bounded. Sure, there is the potential that life can change in the future, but whether you have 10, 100 or 1000 years left of potential life, you don't really care much about that if your life is an agonizing living hell. Don't ask me how I know.
      - khafra 2y ago
        Sure, lots of philosophers talk about lives barely worth living, and what constitutes the line. Lots of public health researchers work on metrics for quality-adjusted life years, and increasing longevity is useful only insofar as it increases QALY's. But I really do expect most measures which increase population longevity to increase population QALY's. The conflict between hypothetical immortal tyrants and immortal coup-conspiracies would only be a small part of this; material conditions and overall societal wealth would weigh much heavier on the scale.

This seems approximately as likely as people not having the courage to enact injustices (since their victims will have unlimited time to plot a perfect revenge and gather all the resources that would require).

myworkinisgood 2y ago
Real life accounts always say otherwise. Death is a limited liability card that people can use to commit anything. People who commit injustices, even today, are often confident enough that they will be in a position to kill themselves before suffering at hands of others.
- khafra 2y ago
  That doesn't contradict my point: universal mortality means the potential losses of an oppressor are bounded, and the bound is acceptably low to many people. Immortality removes that bound.
  - 8372049 2y ago
    Life in itself is worthless. The only reason why life is valuable is because it is a canvas, a vessel through which you can find happiness, meaning and so on. This means that if you have a life that isn't worth living, you are not at risk of losing anything of value, and so the potential loss is still bounded. Sure, there is the potential that life can change in the future, but whether you have 10, 100 or 1000 years left of potential life, you don't really care much about that if your life is an agonizing living hell. Don't ask me how I know.
    - khafra 2y ago
      Sure, lots of philosophers talk about lives barely worth living, and what constitutes the line. Lots of public health researchers work on metrics for quality-adjusted life years, and increasing longevity is useful only insofar as it increases QALY's. But I really do expect most measures which increase population longevity to increase population QALY's. The conflict between hypothetical immortal tyrants and immortal coup-conspiracies would only be a small part of this; material conditions and overall societal wealth would weigh much heavier on the scale.