I apologize for hacking you. I would have hoped that it to be understood as harmless and helpful. Nonetheless I apologize for not seeing that it was invasive.
I doubt many anti-deathist LessWrongers think death has absolutely no good consequences,
Probably.
I now see that I wrote the post in a state of rejection of unbalanced positivism I saw in LW posts. I should have written it as a pro-contra piece that would have argued for a balance better than trying to move toward a balance which is bound to trigger counterforce.
I probably shouldn’t have written it. I already wondered if there should be a warning of certain topics in LW. Like the no-politics policy.
I find your folk psychology arguments for unconvincing.
They are not convicing. I shouldn’t have used them.
There are evolutionary adaptive things we don’t want to have in a modern civilization. And there are things that were adaptive in the ancestral environment that aren’t adaptive anymore.
Agreed. Group selection benefits of aging apply beyond genes though.
These are different things that are only contingently related to each other, but conflating them lets you make arguments that fall apart once one notices the equivocation on “aging”. “Aging(3) is good, but aging(2) ends in death, therefore death is good.”
Interesting point. In the context of this post it is 2 (though you shouldn’t have chosen a derogative).
I don’t think someone would name 1 when asked about the biological (or colloquial) meaning of aging. And 3 would seldom be cited alone but probably more often as compensation aspect of 2.
I apologize for hacking you. I would have hoped that it to be understood as harmless and helpful. Nonetheless I apologize for not seeing that it was invasive.
Probably.
I now see that I wrote the post in a state of rejection of unbalanced positivism I saw in LW posts. I should have written it as a pro-contra piece that would have argued for a balance better than trying to move toward a balance which is bound to trigger counterforce.
I probably shouldn’t have written it. I already wondered if there should be a warning of certain topics in LW. Like the no-politics policy.
They are not convicing. I shouldn’t have used them.
Agreed. Group selection benefits of aging apply beyond genes though.
What do you mean by aging?
The passage of time without dying.
Accumulating decreptitude.
Accumulating experience, knowledge, expertise, wisdom.
These are different things that are only contingently related to each other, but conflating them lets you make arguments that fall apart once one notices the equivocation on “aging”. “Aging(3) is good, but aging(2) ends in death, therefore death is good.”
Interesting point. In the context of this post it is 2 (though you shouldn’t have chosen a derogative).
I don’t think someone would name 1 when asked about the biological (or colloquial) meaning of aging. And 3 would seldom be cited alone but probably more often as compensation aspect of 2.
“Decreptitude” is descriptive, not derogative. Decrepit: wasted and weakened by or as if by the infirmities of old age (Merriam-Webster Online).
That’s decrepitude. Your use with “t” implied a derogative with “creep”. But it seems to have been a typo. Sorry for misinterpreting this.