5 ms·

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

lm28469 2y ago
Everything would scale with it, 30 or 300 years, as long as you're running the same system it wouldn't matter Not even talking about the fact that we live in a very finite system
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I like knowing that the worlds biggest assholes sometimes lie awake at night fearfully pondering their own death. I don't want to deprive them of that.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  The Great Equalizer
9dev 2y ago
Well. How would you like a 290 years old Putin keeping a tight grip on Russia in the 23rd century?
- all2 2y ago
  I see, so this is where the God-Emporer of Man comes from. purge the xenos
prometheus76 2y ago
Wouldn't any change we make to who dies when also be natural? How is that not natural selection? Did earlier generations not attempt to stay alive?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 2y ago
> We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection We certainly have not. > If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. True, but if you lived forever that would mean that it wouldn't be realistic for new people to come into the world, which means far fewer new ideas and ways of looking at the world. That would a net loss for humanity.
- Filligree 2y ago
  That sounds like a more tractable problem than death.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  1) There's no danger of overpopulation. People have a natural tendency to reproduce slower when they feel safer. 2) Trivial argument: if people already lived indefinitely would you advocate murdering them to "make room"? Telling people they shouldn't be able to pursue a longer life is equivalent. Making that decision for yourself is perfectly fine; making it for others is not. 3) 150k people die every day, nearly 2 people per second. If fixing that tragedy creates new problems, bring them on; we'll solve those problems too.
  - achierius 2y ago
    1) Is not clearly true. Yes, 'feeling safer' pushes down on reproduction rates. But the _total_ effect on population growth could still be positive if the total death-rate drops enough -- we don't know enough to say for sure. And frankly, I think the most likely outcome is that people would be more likely to have kids if they didn't have to worry about missing out on their chance at XYZ dream. 2) Not true from most moral perspectives, including 'common sense morality'. In a pure utilitarian sense, sure, but most people don't subscribe to that. For example, choosing to not save someone from a burning fire is not the same as choosing to burn them to death. Both the actor and their intention matter. 3) I don't disagree with the first half of your point (that this is a tragedy) but I cannot share your optimism re.: us solving the consequent problems. If there's anything that the last fifty years of modernity have shown, it's that we're actually quite bad at solving broader social problems, with new and even-worse problems often arising well after we thought the original problem settled. Consider global warming (to which the 'solution' looks to be the further impoverishment of the third world, and probably mass deaths due to famine/drought/heat waves), or how we in the US 'solved' mobility by destroying main streets and replacing established public transportation with cars and mazes of concrete. Now we've "solved" loneliness by giving everyone a phone and -- well, I'm sure you know how that went.
ryandvm 2y ago
> If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. Spoiler: The haves are not going to get any more generous when they've got thousand year lifespans. You would just have end up having to spend hundreds of years grinding away at the bottom of the ladder instead of 30 or 40.
- SergeyKa 2y ago
  We grind away to keep the body supplied and satiated. A transcended/uploaded mind won't have the earthly needs and would be a lot cheaper to maintain, leaving it to achieve otherwise impossible results.
  - guappa 2y ago
    Want some runtime on the good CPU? Got to work.
bambax 2y ago
Are you serious? Have you been around old rich people? Do you find them generous? People grow more selfish with age, because they care less and less. The only thing to gain by abolishing biological death is perpetual civil war.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Plenty of the most-powerful already keep causing harm just to make number go up even more, well beyond the point at which they can conceivably personally benefit before they die. Imagine if they could conceivably personally benefit from that because they live for centuries. Why would anyone expect that to improve their behavior?
- ericmcer 2y ago
  I think old peoples inward focus is more a result of their physical condition than the amount of time they have been alive. If you could put an 80 year olds mind in a 20 year old body they would probably approach life with the same optimism of other young people. I think our behavior is more a product of our environment than some internal 'self' that is built over our lifetime. If you altered the environment from "75 years old, achy and slow body, limited future" to "25 years old, infinite future, healthy body" I would be amazed if there was not a humongous shift in behavior as well.

lm28469 2y ago

Everything would scale with it, 30 or 300 years, as long as you're running the same system it wouldn't matter Not even talking about the fact that we live in a very finite system

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

I like knowing that the worlds biggest assholes sometimes lie awake at night fearfully pondering their own death. I don't want to deprive them of that.

portaouflop 2y ago
The Great Equalizer

9dev 2y ago

Well. How would you like a 290 years old Putin keeping a tight grip on Russia in the 23rd century?

all2 2y ago
I see, so this is where the God-Emporer of Man comes from. purge the xenos

prometheus76 2y ago

Wouldn't any change we make to who dies when also be natural? How is that not natural selection? Did earlier generations not attempt to stay alive?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

JohnFen 2y ago

> We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection We certainly have not. > If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. True, but if you lived forever that would mean that it wouldn't be realistic for new people to come into the world, which means far fewer new ideas and ways of looking at the world. That would a net loss for humanity.

Filligree 2y ago
That sounds like a more tractable problem than death.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
1) There's no danger of overpopulation. People have a natural tendency to reproduce slower when they feel safer. 2) Trivial argument: if people already lived indefinitely would you advocate murdering them to "make room"? Telling people they shouldn't be able to pursue a longer life is equivalent. Making that decision for yourself is perfectly fine; making it for others is not. 3) 150k people die every day, nearly 2 people per second. If fixing that tragedy creates new problems, bring them on; we'll solve those problems too.
- achierius 2y ago
  1) Is not clearly true. Yes, 'feeling safer' pushes down on reproduction rates. But the _total_ effect on population growth could still be positive if the total death-rate drops enough -- we don't know enough to say for sure. And frankly, I think the most likely outcome is that people would be more likely to have kids if they didn't have to worry about missing out on their chance at XYZ dream. 2) Not true from most moral perspectives, including 'common sense morality'. In a pure utilitarian sense, sure, but most people don't subscribe to that. For example, choosing to not save someone from a burning fire is not the same as choosing to burn them to death. Both the actor and their intention matter. 3) I don't disagree with the first half of your point (that this is a tragedy) but I cannot share your optimism re.: us solving the consequent problems. If there's anything that the last fifty years of modernity have shown, it's that we're actually quite bad at solving broader social problems, with new and even-worse problems often arising well after we thought the original problem settled. Consider global warming (to which the 'solution' looks to be the further impoverishment of the third world, and probably mass deaths due to famine/drought/heat waves), or how we in the US 'solved' mobility by destroying main streets and replacing established public transportation with cars and mazes of concrete. Now we've "solved" loneliness by giving everyone a phone and -- well, I'm sure you know how that went.

ryandvm 2y ago

> If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. Spoiler: The haves are not going to get any more generous when they've got thousand year lifespans. You would just have end up having to spend hundreds of years grinding away at the bottom of the ladder instead of 30 or 40.

SergeyKa 2y ago
We grind away to keep the body supplied and satiated. A transcended/uploaded mind won't have the earthly needs and would be a lot cheaper to maintain, leaving it to achieve otherwise impossible results.
- guappa 2y ago
  Want some runtime on the good CPU? Got to work.

bambax 2y ago

Are you serious? Have you been around old rich people? Do you find them generous? People grow more selfish with age, because they care less and less. The only thing to gain by abolishing biological death is perpetual civil war.

vundercind 2y ago
Plenty of the most-powerful already keep causing harm just to make number go up even more, well beyond the point at which they can conceivably personally benefit before they die. Imagine if they could conceivably personally benefit from that because they live for centuries. Why would anyone expect that to improve their behavior?
ericmcer 2y ago
I think old peoples inward focus is more a result of their physical condition than the amount of time they have been alive. If you could put an 80 year olds mind in a 20 year old body they would probably approach life with the same optimism of other young people. I think our behavior is more a product of our environment than some internal 'self' that is built over our lifetime. If you altered the environment from "75 years old, achy and slow body, limited future" to "25 years old, infinite future, healthy body" I would be amazed if there was not a humongous shift in behavior as well.