3 ms·

Have you considered that civilization might be better off if people don't live a long time? Even ignoring resource constraints, old people hold onto outdated id

by heurist 12y ago

Have you considered that civilization might be better off if people don't live a long time? Even ignoring resource constraints, old people hold onto outdated ideas and morals while generally also holding the most power and wealth. I don't see how that can be good for future societies.

kolev 12y ago
I agree. Evolution designed us to die and pass information to newer and less flawed offsprings. But my point was that we need to be able to contribute unique benefits otherwise will be nothing, but burden. Look at Stephen Hawing, for example. His brain regardless of physical condition is contributing greatly to our civilization. So, again, the filter should always be - are you worthy of living long or not. Given the fact that most of people who live today contribute nothing, but a ton of shit (literally speaking) in their lifetime, unconditional life extension looks like a terrible idea (unless we advance to the interstellar level and use more resources than what's available on our sorry planet). Unfortunately, a reasonable thing like this would be considered unethical given today's standards although our society is indeed more unethical than ever. Until we grow to a level where the benefit of the group if above the benefit of niches, we'll be confined on this planet, we'll be suffering from our broken system, which is based on dollars and not merits. I highly recommend for hackers to get familiar with The Venus Project [0] and the philosophy of Jacque Fresco [1], who many call the Leonardo da Vinci of the modern day. Although my ideas are different, we have a very common theme - the current system is terribly broken. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco

by heurist 12y ago

kolev 12y ago

I agree. Evolution designed us to die and pass information to newer and less flawed offsprings. But my point was that we need to be able to contribute unique benefits otherwise will be nothing, but burden. Look at Stephen Hawing, for example. His brain regardless of physical condition is contributing greatly to our civilization. So, again, the filter should always be - are you worthy of living long or not. Given the fact that most of people who live today contribute nothing, but a ton of shit (literally speaking) in their lifetime, unconditional life extension looks like a terrible idea (unless we advance to the interstellar level and use more resources than what's available on our sorry planet). Unfortunately, a reasonable thing like this would be considered unethical given today's standards although our society is indeed more unethical than ever. Until we grow to a level where the benefit of the group if above the benefit of niches, we'll be confined on this planet, we'll be suffering from our broken system, which is based on dollars and not merits. I highly recommend for hackers to get familiar with The Venus Project [0] and the philosophy of Jacque Fresco [1], who many call the Leonardo da Vinci of the modern day. Although my ideas are different, we have a very common theme - the current system is terribly broken. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco