4 ms·

Would be great if they'd add: Reverse human aging. (Maybe a sub-topic under "Engineer Better Medicines".)

dag100 2mo ago
Why not just add 'mind control' while you're at it. Only death stops stagnation in the end. Without death, especially if death can be avoided by the rich and powerful but not the poor, life will get much, much worse for the average person (until only the rich and their automated capital remain I suppose, in which scenario they will simply turn on each other).
- octoberfranklin 2mo ago
  This is the classic "without death, authoritarian depots will be in power forever". But it's actually the wrong way around. Hope that the despot will soon die saps peoples' will to do the difficult and dangerous job of removing them. Take away that hope and they are forced to find the courage.
  - dag100 2mo ago
    Forced to find the courage or die trying to. And I really doubt that knowledge that their despot will eventually die has much effect on people's motivation to rebel as in most cases there is a clear line of succession. In many cases there isn't even a single despot to point to. This isn't even considering how such anti-aging technology would prevent despots' mental acuity from deteriorating as they aged - in fact they would probably grow sharper as they gained more experience so to speak. And aging/succession have almost always been one of the greatest destabilizers of a successful authoritarian regime.
  - scottyah 2mo ago
    People might be willing to give their known-to-be-finite lives in pursuit of the Greater Good, but the equation changes greatly when you're giving up an eternity for the chance of making things better. More of the population would be aged too, so I think it'd be a lot harder to find the kids that usually die in wars. Especially true if it is the AIs that get us the immortality- it definitely won't be equally spread, and any incumbents have a massive advantage. I think more people would settle for worse conditions to stay alive. Do you think you'd be more likely to revolt at 150yrs old when all your family and yourself can live extremely long to forever? Or do you think the threat of death by killing wouldn't be an issue?
    - octoberfranklin 2mo ago
      I don't think anybody wants to live forever in an old person's body. Frankly, I'm not interested in extending my lifespan unless I can stay young or regain youth. Also, if you eliminate all the aging-related causes of death the average lifespan is still only like 1000 years or something. Nobody's getting eternity. And yeah, for the chance to make a big enough change of the right kind to society I would indeed give up a 1000-year lifespan. My memes have fully subjugated my genes, and I'm at peace with that.
- marand23 2mo ago
  I would take stagnation if I didn't have to die on a fucking schedule like now.
  - dkarbayev 2mo ago
    You’re assuming that the immortality will be available to you, not just to the political elite and billionaires.
mullingitover 2mo ago
At a population level, humans getting rid of their off switch is about as good of a thing as your own pancreas cells getting rid of theirs.
- octoberfranklin 2mo ago
  I know you're gesturing emphatically at some kind of analogy to cancer, but malignant cancer requires replication not immortality.
  - mullingitover 2mo ago
    Seems very naive to think that people who have access to immortality technology aren't going to have children, and if you're immortal of course you're not going to watch your children grow old and die, so you share it with them. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to count out how many generations you need to run this until it's 'oops, all self-replicating individuals with broken off switches.'

Why not just add 'mind control' while you're at it. Only death stops stagnation in the end. Without death, especially if death can be avoided by the rich and powerful but not the poor, life will get much, much worse for the average person (until only the rich and their automated capital remain I suppose, in which scenario they will simply turn on each other).

octoberfranklin 2mo ago
This is the classic "without death, authoritarian depots will be in power forever". But it's actually the wrong way around. Hope that the despot will soon die saps peoples' will to do the difficult and dangerous job of removing them. Take away that hope and they are forced to find the courage.
- dag100 2mo ago
  Forced to find the courage or die trying to. And I really doubt that knowledge that their despot will eventually die has much effect on people's motivation to rebel as in most cases there is a clear line of succession. In many cases there isn't even a single despot to point to. This isn't even considering how such anti-aging technology would prevent despots' mental acuity from deteriorating as they aged - in fact they would probably grow sharper as they gained more experience so to speak. And aging/succession have almost always been one of the greatest destabilizers of a successful authoritarian regime.
- scottyah 2mo ago
  People might be willing to give their known-to-be-finite lives in pursuit of the Greater Good, but the equation changes greatly when you're giving up an eternity for the chance of making things better. More of the population would be aged too, so I think it'd be a lot harder to find the kids that usually die in wars. Especially true if it is the AIs that get us the immortality- it definitely won't be equally spread, and any incumbents have a massive advantage. I think more people would settle for worse conditions to stay alive. Do you think you'd be more likely to revolt at 150yrs old when all your family and yourself can live extremely long to forever? Or do you think the threat of death by killing wouldn't be an issue?
  - octoberfranklin 2mo ago
    I don't think anybody wants to live forever in an old person's body. Frankly, I'm not interested in extending my lifespan unless I can stay young or regain youth. Also, if you eliminate all the aging-related causes of death the average lifespan is still only like 1000 years or something. Nobody's getting eternity. And yeah, for the chance to make a big enough change of the right kind to society I would indeed give up a 1000-year lifespan. My memes have fully subjugated my genes, and I'm at peace with that.
marand23 2mo ago
I would take stagnation if I didn't have to die on a fucking schedule like now.
- dkarbayev 2mo ago
  You’re assuming that the immortality will be available to you, not just to the political elite and billionaires.

mullingitover 2mo ago

At a population level, humans getting rid of their off switch is about as good of a thing as your own pancreas cells getting rid of theirs.

octoberfranklin 2mo ago
I know you're gesturing emphatically at some kind of analogy to cancer, but malignant cancer requires replication not immortality.
- mullingitover 2mo ago
  Seems very naive to think that people who have access to immortality technology aren't going to have children, and if you're immortal of course you're not going to watch your children grow old and die, so you share it with them. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to count out how many generations you need to run this until it's 'oops, all self-replicating individuals with broken off switches.'