3 ms·

This makes me wonder if society would be improved by radical life-extension therapies or technologies. Detractors generally say it would result in stagnation,

This makes me wonder if society would be improved by radical life-extension therapies or technologies. Detractors generally say it would result in stagnation, but at least people would have a very good incentive to think long-term if they knew they had a good chance of still being alive in 200 or 1000 years and having to deal with the long-term effects of current policy.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
I think it would also allow "careers" to detach from mistakes like papers published on the wrong side of a paradigm as "junior" mistakes.
pjc50 2y ago
That incentivizes not so much long-term thinking as the politics of the permanent stagnation bunker. You'd get a caste of mortal disposable workers who live in the flood plains, working for a tiny group of immortals who have locked down the top positions and made themselves effective rulers for life. Think Japanese stagflation but for centuries. Reiwa era 200.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  This seems to assume that only the very richest people would have access to life-extension technologies. This makes about as much sense to me as the idea that only the very richest people have access to computers, telecommunications, and software.
thanksgiving 2y ago
To play the devil's advocate, imagine if politicians (US senators / House members) could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing. Or Xi of Mainland China...
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing. I think it's a good thing: if the people continue to elect them, then obviously the people want those politicians to continue representing them for that long. Why should they be deprived of that? Objecting to this seems like objecting to democracy. If this produces bad results long-term, that's the fault of the voters. Democratic systems are only as good as the voters who choose its leaders. When the voters are idiots, you get bad leaders. If the people don't like their 1000-year-old senator, they should vote for someone else. As we've seen in the USA, people don't have much trouble voting for a new President when they're mad at the current one for whatever reason (and the US also switched many seats in Congress in that same election). >Or Xi of Mainland China... Unfortunately, that's a possibility too, but by the same token, if Deng Xiaoping had been immortal, he could have stayed in that position and Xi might never have gained power and things in China (and worldwide in things related to China) would be a lot better right now. Basically, your objection is one I usually see raised when the idea of immortality or radical life-extension comes up, but I honestly don't see how it'd be that much different either way.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

I think it would also allow "careers" to detach from mistakes like papers published on the wrong side of a paradigm as "junior" mistakes.

pjc50 2y ago

That incentivizes not so much long-term thinking as the politics of the permanent stagnation bunker. You'd get a caste of mortal disposable workers who live in the flood plains, working for a tiny group of immortals who have locked down the top positions and made themselves effective rulers for life. Think Japanese stagflation but for centuries. Reiwa era 200.

shiroiushi 2y ago
This seems to assume that only the very richest people would have access to life-extension technologies. This makes about as much sense to me as the idea that only the very richest people have access to computers, telecommunications, and software.

thanksgiving 2y ago

To play the devil's advocate, imagine if politicians (US senators / House members) could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing. Or Xi of Mainland China...

shiroiushi 2y ago
>could live for and hold their positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a good thing. I think it's a good thing: if the people continue to elect them, then obviously the people want those politicians to continue representing them for that long. Why should they be deprived of that? Objecting to this seems like objecting to democracy. If this produces bad results long-term, that's the fault of the voters. Democratic systems are only as good as the voters who choose its leaders. When the voters are idiots, you get bad leaders. If the people don't like their 1000-year-old senator, they should vote for someone else. As we've seen in the USA, people don't have much trouble voting for a new President when they're mad at the current one for whatever reason (and the US also switched many seats in Congress in that same election). >Or Xi of Mainland China... Unfortunately, that's a possibility too, but by the same token, if Deng Xiaoping had been immortal, he could have stayed in that position and Xi might never have gained power and things in China (and worldwide in things related to China) would be a lot better right now. Basically, your objection is one I usually see raised when the idea of immortality or radical life-extension comes up, but I honestly don't see how it'd be that much different either way.