11 ms·

Does anti-ageing = universal good for everyone? Most of the major causes of suffering have already been fixed by 'biotechnology' eg vaccines, condoms, sanitati

by Gatsky 14y ago

Does anti-ageing = universal good for everyone? Most of the major causes of suffering have already been fixed by 'biotechnology' eg vaccines, condoms, sanitation, basic nutrition, obstetrics. But we still fail to apply them in many places due to well, negligent barbarianism as you put it. Will it really fix these problems if we start embalming billionaires and dictators? Your blog seems free of any consideration of the social consequences of anti-ageing technology. Do you worry about it? For example, Neil Armstrong died today, and by all accounts he was a great man. But recently he stood up and decried NASA funding private space ventures like SpaceX. Now if the next dragon probe punches a hole in the ISS he may turn out to be right. But all these historical figures who are proven to be wrong or misguided won't be historical figures if you make them live forever... is this unequivocally positive? And if it isn't, how do we deal with it?

tryitnow 14y ago
Doesn't your Neil Armstrong argument kind of undermine itself given that Armstrong did live long, did decry private space venture, and yet private space ventures are happening anyways? I don't follow your point.
- rosser 14y ago
  I think the GP's point is that, as more people live longer, more people with "antiquated", or even "Luddite" world-views will be around, creating friction for the technophiliacs and their notions of how things "should be." Yes, my characterization is hyperbolic, and pretty blatantly so. I'm trying to stand out from the subtle ageism, couched as progress-ism, in the GP post and countless other poorly thought-out screeds like it. Your point that progress occurs regardless of that friction is exactly the right counter-argument. In fact, I'd even suggest that the friction being decried is a necessary sanity check on our progress. With every advance we make, we should be asking ourselves how it improves the world, and if the improvement it brings is worth its cost, or its consequences. For private spaceflight, that's a pretty unqualified yes in most peoples' books (Armstrong notwithstanding), but consider all the pharmaceuticals given fast-track approval that turn out to have horrible side-effects, which even token further testing could have uncovered.
uvdiv 14y ago
But all these historical figures who are proven to be wrong or misguided won't be historical figures if you make them live forever... is this unequivocally positive? And if it isn't, how do we deal with it? We already have political dissenters: how do you currently "deal with it"? Do you murder them? Do you selectively deny them life-saving medical treatment, so as to silence their views and improve society? I have a modest proposal. Why not just let poor Neil Armstrong live, and merely censor his writings? The effects are the same, and there's less blood.

by Gatsky 14y ago

tryitnow 14y ago

Doesn't your Neil Armstrong argument kind of undermine itself given that Armstrong did live long, did decry private space venture, and yet private space ventures are happening anyways? I don't follow your point.

rosser 14y ago
I think the GP's point is that, as more people live longer, more people with "antiquated", or even "Luddite" world-views will be around, creating friction for the technophiliacs and their notions of how things "should be." Yes, my characterization is hyperbolic, and pretty blatantly so. I'm trying to stand out from the subtle ageism, couched as progress-ism, in the GP post and countless other poorly thought-out screeds like it. Your point that progress occurs regardless of that friction is exactly the right counter-argument. In fact, I'd even suggest that the friction being decried is a necessary sanity check on our progress. With every advance we make, we should be asking ourselves how it improves the world, and if the improvement it brings is worth its cost, or its consequences. For private spaceflight, that's a pretty unqualified yes in most peoples' books (Armstrong notwithstanding), but consider all the pharmaceuticals given fast-track approval that turn out to have horrible side-effects, which even token further testing could have uncovered.

uvdiv 14y ago

But all these historical figures who are proven to be wrong or misguided won't be historical figures if you make them live forever... is this unequivocally positive? And if it isn't, how do we deal with it? We already have political dissenters: how do you currently "deal with it"? Do you murder them? Do you selectively deny them life-saving medical treatment, so as to silence their views and improve society? I have a modest proposal. Why not just let poor Neil Armstrong live, and merely censor his writings? The effects are the same, and there's less blood.