3 ms·

> - The lack of control young people experience when it comes to their own lives (voting, etc) will worsen, if the median age is 80+ or older. This is a really

> - The lack of control young people experience when it comes to their own lives (voting, etc) will worsen, if the median age is 80+ or older. This is a really strong status-quo bias shared by many people who are pro-death. Imagine a world where no one dies, but young people were indeed very sad, depressed, and generally unhappy because of the reasons you stated. Seeing this unfortunate situation, someone says "I have an idea. What if we killed everyone over 82?" There is an almost infinite number of things you could try that aren't that. The fact that we happen to live in a world where an imperfect partial solution to young people being unhappy is "statistically everyone over 82 dies" doesn't make it a good world; it just means we have to fix unhappy young people in addition to fixing everyone dying. This critique applies to most of your questions, with the exception of the finitude of resources. But if we can live just until the stars burn out, I'll call that a win over the current situation.

KrautFox 2y ago
Maybe i didn't communicate well enough what i am trying to say: I don't see how it would improve life overall, except for duration. I see many areas where life would become worse because of it, so i am biased, true. But your scenario implies that it is already a reality, which it is not, and that i would be in favor of killing people, which i am not. I am simply suggesting one thing: Maybe we shouldn't be able to live as long as we want, maybe we should not try to make this a reality.
- afthonos 2y ago
  > I don't see how it would improve life overall, except for duration. I think we differ here because to me, if life is good, extending duration is enough; it doesn't need to be even better. > But your scenario implies that it is already a reality, which it is not, and that i would be in favor of killing people, which i am not. I apologize, I tried hard to avoid implying that. I am only saying that if we were in my preferred world, very few people would advocate to turn it into this one. They would try to improve the preferred world in other ways to fix the problems that exist there. By symmetry, I argue that it means at a minimum that turning our world into that one is an improvement. (Though there may be other, different, ways to improve it!)
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
RadioLab had a great podcast on this, and their punchline was: MARIA PAZ: Chris says, in a world where nothing dies ... CHRIS SCHELL: Life essentially halts at a standstill. And yeah, everything is alive to exist in this new reality, but it doesn't change. It doesn't morph. It doesn't evolve. It isn't dynamic. The extravagant, extraordinary biomes that we currently have that exist on this planet, they all stop. MARIA PAZ: It would be as if we were living in a photograph of the world as we know it, just frozen in time. Episode: Cheating Death 9 Feb 2024 https://radiolab.org/podcast/cheating-death/transcript https://radiolab.org/podcast/cheating-death/transcript
- afthonos 2y ago
  I believe my critique applies: if you don't want to be static, don't be static. You can choose to change yourself.

KrautFox 2y ago

Maybe i didn't communicate well enough what i am trying to say: I don't see how it would improve life overall, except for duration. I see many areas where life would become worse because of it, so i am biased, true. But your scenario implies that it is already a reality, which it is not, and that i would be in favor of killing people, which i am not. I am simply suggesting one thing: Maybe we shouldn't be able to live as long as we want, maybe we should not try to make this a reality.

afthonos 2y ago
> I don't see how it would improve life overall, except for duration. I think we differ here because to me, if life is good, extending duration is enough; it doesn't need to be even better. > But your scenario implies that it is already a reality, which it is not, and that i would be in favor of killing people, which i am not. I apologize, I tried hard to avoid implying that. I am only saying that if we were in my preferred world, very few people would advocate to turn it into this one. They would try to improve the preferred world in other ways to fix the problems that exist there. By symmetry, I argue that it means at a minimum that turning our world into that one is an improvement. (Though there may be other, different, ways to improve it!)

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

RadioLab had a great podcast on this, and their punchline was: MARIA PAZ: Chris says, in a world where nothing dies ... CHRIS SCHELL: Life essentially halts at a standstill. And yeah, everything is alive to exist in this new reality, but it doesn't change. It doesn't morph. It doesn't evolve. It isn't dynamic. The extravagant, extraordinary biomes that we currently have that exist on this planet, they all stop. MARIA PAZ: It would be as if we were living in a photograph of the world as we know it, just frozen in time. Episode: Cheating Death 9 Feb 2024 https://radiolab.org/podcast/cheating-death/transcript https://radiolab.org/podcast/cheating-death/transcript

afthonos 2y ago
I believe my critique applies: if you don't want to be static, don't be static. You can choose to change yourself.