5 ms·
This just sounds like rationalization to me, just-so stories we tell ourselves to feel better about something we can't change anyway, so isn't it lucky that eve
by sho 1y ago
This just sounds like rationalization to me, just-so stories we tell ourselves to feel better about something we can't change anyway, so isn't it lucky that everything is perfect just the way it is!
I think it's nonsense. Society is the way it is because of the prevailing conditions. We haven't really had to deal with getting rid of dead wood in science because death always did that anyway, if death goes away then we'll just adapt. That witticism from Planck is just an observation of the times, not some universal, uh, constant.
> There is plenty of reason to welcome death
Maybe we should welcome it even faster then! If death speeds up science so much, then maybe society shouldn't provide health care to scientists at all. In fact maybe we should euthanize all scientists at age 50 - or earlier. Right?
- ethbr1 1y agoAsk yourself if most older people reliably update their beliefs as the world changes. If the answer is "No, they don't," then it follows that part of progress is newer generations moving into positions of authority and bringing their new ideas with them.
- modeless 1y agoPart of curing aging would be restoring youthful brain characteristics such as openness to change. Which honestly seems like a small and easy task when compared to the whole endeavor of curing aging.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoIt's not that old people are not open to change, they just very reasonably disregard all the bullshit that contradicts their experience. To achieve plasticity of beliefs people will have to forget stuff. Which closes the circle, nature already invented all that: your kids are a version of you that's free from both the baggage of harmful mutations and the baggage of harmful presuppositions. Not at all clear to me why we want to reinvent an inferior version of this process, it works remarkably well.
- ben_w 1y ago> Not at all clear to me why we want to reinvent an inferior version of this process, it works remarkably well. That sounds like something that someone who is not open to change would say.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoAbsolutely. Progress is a delicate balance of accepting change and being conservative. Not all change is worth accepting, but if I'm wrong about this one my death will eventually put an end to me being wrong.
- card_zero 1y agoThat's an inversion of Pascal's wager. Pascal says if I'm right about this my death will reward me, therefore I believe, and you've come up with if I'm wrong about this my death will criticise me, therefore I believe.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoDo you agree with the Pascal's wager then? I don't and if mine is an inversion, I don't see a problem with it. It's not scary to make a mistake if any decision you make is temporary anyhow. Knowing that I die no matter what I do with my life gives me so much more freedom in how I can live it.
- card_zero 1y agoI think it's the same kind of idea, because it shuts down any duty to worry about whether you are right. You get to be a dogmatist, since dogmatists die eventually. The second sentence deserves some response, but I don't know what to make of it. Mistakes are good, surely? More mistakes faster. Well, I suppose you mean something like life-ruining mistakes, but in the first place I'm not sure there really can be any - unless you have a low threshold for "ruined" - and in the second place, immortality gives you endless hope of staging a comeback.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoYes. Older people are much more flexible as they have had to adopt new thinking, been exposed to much more new ideas, realized the mistakes dogmatic young them did. Young people seem much more rigid and dogmatic to their much shorter held and therefore often much lesser informed positions.
- alexey-salmin 1y ago> In fact maybe we should euthanize all scientists at age 50 - or earlier. Right? I understand you're trying to perform reductio ad absurdum but I would like to point out that the proposition is less absurd than you make out. E.g. if Ancel Keys died at 50 then health risks of sugar consumption would have been accepted by the scientific community decades earlier saving tens of millions of lives. I certainly don't suggest to euthanize anyone however I'm glad he died eventually. In fact I'm glad everyone dies eventually me included.
- card_zero 1y agoSo you advocate a traditional, orderly, socially acceptable form of killing everybody, by maintaining traditional death against possible ways to overcome it.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoCorrect
- card_zero 1y agoIt's got a certain appeal, but I'm undecided. Will I be allowed to opt out?
- alexey-salmin 1y agoIt's a bit far, but I think countries and societies will be split around this question if or when such a technology comes. You'll definitely find a place to opt out, I would stick/move to a country where immortality is illegal. Now if my world model is correct, the immortal societies will see a decline akin to the Byzantine empire (which never actually declined, just progressed slower than it's neighbors). As the result they will either succumb and integrate into their mortal counterparts or perhaps continue existing like some sort of native tribal reservations. If I'm wrong, the inverse will happen. In the end the more effective and stable socioeconomic model wins because it's the only thing that matters in the long run. It may take a while to reach the equilibrium though.