4 ms·

Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. We should search for ideas that mak

Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. We should search for ideas that make the finite life on this planet significantly better. A longer life is dangerous. If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse since the desire to accumulate wealth over that time would be insane.

deanc 2y ago
> Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. I'd say we should search for medical advances that improve health span, not lifespan.
typewithrhythm 2y ago
If I consider the global society I will be living in, I would prefer to see what an extra 30-50 years of high cognitive function for the people most rewarded by our current system produces, rather than trying to define what a good finite life is from some authoritarian.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > for the people most rewarded by our current system This includes people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who would make the world better off by the cognitive nonexistance.
  - typewithrhythm 2y ago
    Tech billionaires are always a weird focus for this kind of sentiment... Compared to the likes of the Rothschilds (just as a well known example) they are harmless, transparent, and meritocratic.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Still a net negative.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  How about an extra 30-50 years under a highly cognitively functioning authoritarian?
theoreticalmal 2y ago
Is there much difference between an individual living and accumulating wealth over 200 years vs 3 generations of a family living and accumulating wealth over that time? External factors that change fortunes would mostly still stay the same. Biggest difference I can think of would be less change of an incompetent younger generation throwing the wealth away
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Well the "throwing wealth away" is a big difference. And it's not just a matter of wealth. It's what people do with that wealth, such as influence the world negatively. The top 1% of those hell-bent on doing strange things usually don't have children that are similarly obsessed. And finally, it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich The hypothesis is exploitation scales with population?
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Yes, it does, if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation Well yes, if you change definitions I am a pink elephant. There is no evidence “exploitation by the rich” of everyone else scales with population. (There is some evidence for the opposite.) Even if we talk environmentalism, economies of scale mean larger populations tend to be more efficient ceteris paribus. And the whole premise is foundational wrong: longer adult lifespans predict lower childbirth and population declines. Not increases.
throwuxiytayq 2y ago
> A longer life is dangerous. If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse since the desire to accumulate wealth over that time would be insane. I honestly think this meme is way more dangerous and insane than the idea of having a longer and healthier life
- yladiz 2y ago
  Why?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Why? If 150 years is dangerous, why not 80?
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80? Yes. This is why a thousand years probably isn’t dangerous.
hasbot 2y ago
Apparently they'd agree. From their Project Details page: > At the Dog Aging Project, we’re focused on healthy aging not just lifespan extension. We want to understand the biological and environmental factors that influence aging and intervene to prevent debilitating decline. We imagine a future in which we maximize healthspan—the period of life spent in good health and free from disease—allowing us many more years with high quality of life.
paulcole 2y ago
> A longer life is dangerous. Just so we know, at what point should we have stopped searching for medical advances that make life significantly longer? I’m assuming you’re anti-chemotherapy?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Industrial civilization has brought about a massive increase in human population which is destructive. One way or another, life on this planet would be much better for a smaller number of humans.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    Just so we know, at what point should we have stopped searching for medical advances that make life significantly longer? I’m assuming you’re anti-chemotherapy? And what specifically should the “smaller number of humans” be?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Obviously most people disagree I’d argue this is the popular take. With almost any medical research. “Don’t play god” and all that. At least while the benefit is hypothetical. > If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse Climate change would become a peach. We love to talk about thinking of the children, but self interest is more powerful among most. Longer lives mean longer-term thinking.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  No, it wouldn't, because no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future Care to substantiate that claim? Modern history flies straight in the face of it, from savings to childbirth rates correlating negatively with longevity. To be clear: I’m not suggesting longer healthspans are a panacea. We are amply capable of screwing it up, e.g. by entrenching powerful people. But dynasties and aristocracies already exist. For every great builder of fortunes there are a hundred squanderers, even in the same lifetime. And despite it all, there is something to be said for age granting wisdom for most all the way up to senility, which an extended healthspan should forestall.
sundarurfriend 2y ago
Worse, that wealth accumulation will also lead to cultural stagnation: just like "science advances one funeral at a time", it's a harsh reality that culture also advances one funeral at a time. Older generations try to take in new ideas - about homosexuality, racial equality, universal human rights, whatever else you can think of - and raise their children with those ideas in place too. And most often, those children find out later that the older generation didn't really believe in what they were saying, at least not to the extent of being able to overcome their own childhood programming. But because this new generation was raised with these new ideas, they're actually able to internalize them and progress society further. Having older people with stagnant ideas and larger and larger accumulated wealth and power, would be a disastrous headwind against social progress.
- xapata 2y ago
  Like elves in _Shadowrun_.
542354234235 2y ago
So instead of fixing problems with wealth inequality, just let people die. Should we ban healthcare after 55 so people won’t take up valuable resources staying alive? I personally would prefer existing and experiencing all life has to offer.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I personally would prefer existing and experiencing all life has to offer Almost as much as that, I’d prefer people having a longer time horizon on which they draw their lives.

deanc 2y ago

> Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. I'd say we should search for medical advances that improve health span, not lifespan.

typewithrhythm 2y ago

If I consider the global society I will be living in, I would prefer to see what an extra 30-50 years of high cognitive function for the people most rewarded by our current system produces, rather than trying to define what a good finite life is from some authoritarian.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> for the people most rewarded by our current system This includes people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who would make the world better off by the cognitive nonexistance.
- typewithrhythm 2y ago
  Tech billionaires are always a weird focus for this kind of sentiment... Compared to the likes of the Rothschilds (just as a well known example) they are harmless, transparent, and meritocratic.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Still a net negative.
ericjmorey 2y ago
How about an extra 30-50 years under a highly cognitively functioning authoritarian?

theoreticalmal 2y ago

Is there much difference between an individual living and accumulating wealth over 200 years vs 3 generations of a family living and accumulating wealth over that time? External factors that change fortunes would mostly still stay the same. Biggest difference I can think of would be less change of an incompetent younger generation throwing the wealth away

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Well the "throwing wealth away" is a big difference. And it's not just a matter of wealth. It's what people do with that wealth, such as influence the world negatively. The top 1% of those hell-bent on doing strange things usually don't have children that are similarly obsessed. And finally, it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich The hypothesis is exploitation scales with population?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    Yes, it does, if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation Well yes, if you change definitions I am a pink elephant. There is no evidence “exploitation by the rich” of everyone else scales with population. (There is some evidence for the opposite.) Even if we talk environmentalism, economies of scale mean larger populations tend to be more efficient ceteris paribus. And the whole premise is foundational wrong: longer adult lifespans predict lower childbirth and population declines. Not increases.

throwuxiytayq 2y ago

> A longer life is dangerous. If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse since the desire to accumulate wealth over that time would be insane. I honestly think this meme is way more dangerous and insane than the idea of having a longer and healthier life

yladiz 2y ago
Why?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Why? If 150 years is dangerous, why not 80?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80? Yes. This is why a thousand years probably isn’t dangerous.

hasbot 2y ago

Apparently they'd agree. From their Project Details page: > At the Dog Aging Project, we’re focused on healthy aging not just lifespan extension. We want to understand the biological and environmental factors that influence aging and intervene to prevent debilitating decline. We imagine a future in which we maximize healthspan—the period of life spent in good health and free from disease—allowing us many more years with high quality of life.

paulcole 2y ago

> A longer life is dangerous. Just so we know, at what point should we have stopped searching for medical advances that make life significantly longer? I’m assuming you’re anti-chemotherapy?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Industrial civilization has brought about a massive increase in human population which is destructive. One way or another, life on this planet would be much better for a smaller number of humans.
- paulcole 2y ago
  Just so we know, at what point should we have stopped searching for medical advances that make life significantly longer? I’m assuming you’re anti-chemotherapy? And what specifically should the “smaller number of humans” be?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Obviously most people disagree I’d argue this is the popular take. With almost any medical research. “Don’t play god” and all that. At least while the benefit is hypothetical. > If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse Climate change would become a peach. We love to talk about thinking of the children, but self interest is more powerful among most. Longer lives mean longer-term thinking.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
No, it wouldn't, because no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future Care to substantiate that claim? Modern history flies straight in the face of it, from savings to childbirth rates correlating negatively with longevity. To be clear: I’m not suggesting longer healthspans are a panacea. We are amply capable of screwing it up, e.g. by entrenching powerful people. But dynasties and aristocracies already exist. For every great builder of fortunes there are a hundred squanderers, even in the same lifetime. And despite it all, there is something to be said for age granting wisdom for most all the way up to senility, which an extended healthspan should forestall.

sundarurfriend 2y ago

Worse, that wealth accumulation will also lead to cultural stagnation: just like "science advances one funeral at a time", it's a harsh reality that culture also advances one funeral at a time. Older generations try to take in new ideas - about homosexuality, racial equality, universal human rights, whatever else you can think of - and raise their children with those ideas in place too. And most often, those children find out later that the older generation didn't really believe in what they were saying, at least not to the extent of being able to overcome their own childhood programming. But because this new generation was raised with these new ideas, they're actually able to internalize them and progress society further. Having older people with stagnant ideas and larger and larger accumulated wealth and power, would be a disastrous headwind against social progress.

xapata 2y ago
Like elves in _Shadowrun_.

542354234235 2y ago

So instead of fixing problems with wealth inequality, just let people die. Should we ban healthcare after 55 so people won’t take up valuable resources staying alive? I personally would prefer existing and experiencing all life has to offer.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I personally would prefer existing and experiencing all life has to offer Almost as much as that, I’d prefer people having a longer time horizon on which they draw their lives.