My first thought is that the number of years lived is relatively arbitrary. 100, 1000, whatever. I’d imagine someone smarter than I could come up with a logical number. Maybe when you could meet your great grandkids or something. Don’t know. 10 seems way too small & 1,000,000 way too big, but that is likely just because I’m anchored to 75-85 as an average lifespan.
I think my choice to cease conscious experience would involve a few components:
Realization of the end of true novelty. I’ve read some good stuff on why this might not be an issue given sufficient technology, but I’m ultimately not convinced. It seems to me a perpetual invention of new novelties (new challenges to be overcome, etc.) is still artificial and would not work to extend novelty to the extent I was aware it was artificial. I suspect it might feel like how a particular sandbox video game tends to lose its appeal...and even sandbox video games in general lose their appeal. All this despite the potential for perpetual novelty within the games’ engines.
I suppose this is related to the first, but it feels a bit separate in my mind… All risk would be lost. With a finite period of time in which to work, all my accomplishments and failures have some scope. I have the body and mind I’ve been given, and X amount of years to squeeze as much lemonade as I can out of the lemons life throws at me. With the option for infinite time, I’d imagine everything would become an eventuality. Once in a lifetime experiences would be mathematically bound to occur given enough time, of which I’d have an innumerable sum. I’d sum this component up by saying that games are not fun if you can’t lose… in fact, they aren’t even games. During a philosophical discussion, a former co-worker of mine told me he thought life’s meaning was in overcoming obstacles and challenges and finding joy in it. I thought that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard at the time, but now I basically agree. Infinite availability of time makes this whole purpose kinda moot, in my view.
One other component I can think of is a recognition of what death really means. It is only the end of my conscious experience. It is not, in a very real & literal sense, the end of the world. All that happens (presumably) is that I no longer observe. Period. Death isn’t nearly as scary or grandiose as we make it out to be.
Given a choice between remaining alive for as long as novelty and risk and challenges and obstacles to overcome and joy remain present, or dying before that point, would you choose to die before that point?
I’d imagine I’d like to live as long as life had the potential for those things, even if they weren’t present at a given moment. My concern isn’t necessarily that they’d run out, rather that they don’t really exist in a world where immortality is an option.
And again, being conscious vs. not being conscious is not a world-ending difference to me. I think consciousness is just a localized emergence from a particalur meat-computer. I enjoy/tolerate a persistent illusion of “self” that can change drastically with injury or illness. It is a fragile little state of affairs and I think it is weird (though very natural) to seek to solidify it in a (literally) permanent state.
being conscious vs. not being conscious is not a world-ending difference to me.
Sure. I’m clear on that part, I’m just trying to elicit your preferences on the matter.
My concern isn’t necessarily that they’d run out, rather that they don’t really exist in a world where immortality is an option.
Eh? I don’t really get this. I can understand how, in principle, immortality means that I might eventually reach a point where nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful. I don’t understand how the option of immortality means that right now nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful.
But, OK… I guess I can accept that this is the way it is for you, even if I don’t understand it, and therefore you would prefer not to have that option.
My concern isn’t necessarily that they’d run out, rather that they don’t really exist in a world where immortality is an option.
Eh?
I don’t really get this.
I can understand how, in principle, immortality means that I might eventually reach a point where nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful.
I don’t understand how the option of immortality means that right now nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful.
There would be some novelty at first. But as soon as you became aware life was of an infinite duration and could understand the implications, what would be the motivation for anything? Every conceiveable 1-in-a-billion occurance would become an eventuality. How does risk even make sense in this world? What is an obstacle or a challenge when infinity is realized as a possiblity? I’d imagine it would feel like a game you already know you are going to win… and that is very boring, in my view.
But as soon as you became aware life was of an infinite duration and could understand the implications, what would be the motivation for anything?
Enjoyment. It’s possible to enjoy something despite knowing exactly how it’s going to turn out. For example, when you’re about to take a bite of food you like, you know how it’s going to taste, but that doesn’t eliminate your motivation to eat it.
soon as you became aware life was of an infinite duration and could understand the implications, what would be the motivation for anything?
But we’ve already established that life needn’t be of infinite duration. I can end it at any time, that’s implicit in the question of when I would choose to die. It’s of indefinite duration, which isn’t the same thing at all.
That aside, though… what are your motivations for doing things now?
But we’ve already established that life needn’t be of infinite duration. I can end it at any time, that’s implicit in the question of when I would choose to die. It’s of indefinite duration, which isn’t the same thing at all.
I’m assuming you’d have the choice to end your life, or the option to continue it forever. Of course, if you were stuck living forever, that would suck. Do you agree? Why or why not?
That aside, though… what are your motivations for doing things now?
I assume the lionshare is in my animal-nature programming. I’m evolved to derive some pleasure from the sorts of activities that benefit the replicators I carry.
I’m assuming you’d have the choice to end your life
And, further, you’ve asserted that you would choose to end it when certain conditions arose, which on your view are guaranteed to arise eventually. So your life would be predictably finite.
Of course, if you were stuck living forever, that would suck. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Generally, I prefer to have choices about things. That said, there are situations where I would willingly give up certain choices, including the choice to die. So it would depend on the situation.
But sure, all else being equal, I would rather have the choice to die.
That said, I’d also rather have the choice to live, which the current arrangement is pretty much guaranteed to deprive me of pretty soon.
Because situations might arise in which I preferred death to continued life, and in the absence of that choice I’d be unable to effect that preference. That said, situations might also arise in which I transiently chose to die despite an average preference to continue living, so it depends on what alternatives I have available. I can imagine options superior to my having this choice.
Do you think anything similar to the “end of novelty” could happen within a human’s current lifespan? And by “end of novelty” I mean actual end of novelty, not something that could seem similar to it, like depression. Also, is novelty necessary to have a life with positive value? Could you not imagine yourself living a routine for x number of years (where x is less than the current human lifespan, but greater than 10) and being happy? If so, why do you think this would change for a sufficiently large value of x, and why don’t you think that you’d be able to find a new routine? Also, what would be artificial about a “perpetual invention of novelties”—what makes perpetual novelty artificial that isn’t also the case for current novelty?
If potential new experiences are created faster than you can experience them, does the problem remain? (E.g., Even if you read as many books as you felt comfortable reading, the total number of books unread by you would increase every year.) Also, why would immortality mean that you can’t lose? You can’t lose your life, but you can lose money, once-in-a-lifetime experiences, etc.
Death isn’t the end of the world in an objective sense, but it prevents you from enjoying anything you value—so, if someone said that they’d put you in a steel box with a lifetime supply of oxygen, food, and sleep medication (if you want to take it), then shoot you into space, would you object to that? It would be similar to death because the world would go on, but you wouldn’t be able to enjoy it.
Do you think anything similar to the “end of novelty” could happen within a human’s current lifespan?
I don’t think that could practically happen. Though I suppose people do often end up feeling that is the case in their own lives.
Also, is novelty necessary to have a life with positive value? Could you not imagine yourself living a routine for x number of years (where x is less than the current human lifespan, but greater than 10) and being happy?
I do think novelty is a key component in happiness. Not necessarily that you have new stuff in every moment or day, but at least that their is the potential for novelty.
If so, why do you think this would change for a sufficiently large value of x, and why don’t you think that you’d be able to find a new routine?
Perhaps for any non-infinite value of x, you’d be okay. Once x could be infinite, I think there could be the realization that everything is pretty meaningless. And I don’t see much reason why any non-infinite years as a lifespan is better than any other. I suppose reaching an age where you could have kids or grandkids might be a good benchmark. But the difference between 100 years and 200 seems arbitrary. As does the difference between 1000 and 1,000,000.
Also, what would be artificial about a “perpetual invention of novelties”—what makes perpetual novelty artificial that isn’t also the case for current novelty?
It’s a good question. I don’t know. I can just imagine coming to the realization that (a) I could live forever if I choose, and (b) everything could be done given enough time, of which I have a limitless supply. If these are the circumstances, every challenge would only appear to be a challenge.
If potential new experiences are created faster than you can experience them, does the problem remain?
This is the concept I’ve read which makes me wonder if supply of novelty might always be able to exceed demand.
Also, why would immortality mean that you can’t lose? You can’t lose your life, but you can lose money, once-in-a-lifetime experiences, etc.
I’m not smart enough to think through what “money” would mean in an economy where immortality is available. As far as once-in-a-lifetime experiences, they’d be cheapened necessarily. What were once a once-in-a-million-lifetimes experiences would be become bound to happen eventually. One-in-a-billion odds would mean nothing.
By “can’t lose” I meant that you couldn’t “bet” your life on things (i.e. invest your time) since you have an inexhaustable source of time. Playing games and winning is fun because losing is an option. Winning is meaningless without losing.
Death isn’t the end of the world in an objective sense, but it prevents you from enjoying anything you value—so, if someone said that they’d put you in a steel box with a lifetime supply of oxygen, food, and sleep medication (if you want to take it), then shoot you into space, would you object to that? It would be similar to death because the world would go on, but you wouldn’t be able to enjoy it.
I mean death isn’t the end of anyone else’s conscious experience. It does end yours. As Hitchens said, “It isn’t that the party is over. Rather, the party will continue, and you’ve been asked to leave.” This end of my personal conscious experience is only as big as my ego makes it. It really isn’t that big a deal.
I’m not smart enough to think through what “money” would mean in an economy where immortality is available.
Suppose tomorrow a philanthropist introduces a free shot that grants people immortality for as long as they want it. - so the world would be the same as it would be today, except everyone is immortal. Why would money disappear? People would still want goods and services, and having a medium of exchange would still be convenient.
What were once a once-in-a-million-lifetimes experiences would be become bound to happen eventually.
The birth of any particular person would only happen once—so the birth of your child would still be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. You’d only see them grow up once. You’d only be able to meet someone for the first time once. Etc.
As for investing your time, you could still do that even if you have infinite time. If something goes wrong, you may get another chance at it (if it’s not a once-in-a-lifetime experience) but in the meantime, things could be quite unpleasant. If you gamble your house away, you could probably live long enough to make enough money to buy another house, but in the meantime you would have lost something, and that would be bad.
I mean death isn’t the end of anyone else’s conscious experience. It does end yours.
Yes, and the end of your conscious experience prevents you from enjoying anything ever again. Isn’t that an enormous loss?
Suppose tomorrow a philanthropist introduces a free shot that grants people immortality for as long as they want it. - so the world would be the same as it would be today, except everyone is immortal. Why would money disappear? People would still want goods and services, and having a medium of exchange would still be convenient.
I don’t know. Economy implies some scarcity. I suppose it would depend on what was required to remain immortal. Would we need some currency to pay for future injections or upgrades? In that sense, would we even be immortal? Wouldn’t we still be in a similar survival mode to what we are in now? Would only the rich truly be immortal while the poor had the potential, but not the ongoing means for eternal life?
The birth of any particular person would only happen once—so the birth of your child would still be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. You’d only see them grow up once. You’d only be able to meet someone for the first time once. Etc.
Birth of immortal children? You could have a billion of them. You’d meet new people infinite times if you wanted.
As for investing your time, you could still do that even if you have infinite time. If something goes wrong, you may get another chance at it (if it’s not a once-in-a-lifetime experience) but in the meantime, things could be quite unpleasant. If you gamble your house away, you could probably live long enough to make enough money to buy another house, but in the meantime you would have lost something, and that would be bad.
I think we have very different view about a future that includes immortality. Probably my lack of imagination.
Yes, and the end of your conscious experience prevents you from enjoying anything ever again. Isn’t that an enormous loss?
No. Death is neutral. The idea that life is necessarily optimal is simply hardwired into your animal-nature. If it were another way, you wouldn’t have made it this far. This was my point orignally on this thread. The “lifeism” on LW, as I’ll call it, is weird to me. Life is really cool and I hope it continues for a while for me, but I do not view my death as “bad”.
Cryonics and the desire for immortality in tranhumanism circles reminds me very much of my background in Evangelical Christianity. Nowhere else have I seen such irrational fear of death (i.e. fear of no longer experiencing consciousness).
There would still be scarcity. Perhaps you would not longer need to eat or drink to live, but you would still want to do it for enjoyment from time to time, and resources would still be limited. If you want to buy a house, there is still a limited number of houses and good places to live. You’d want to be protected from criminals, so you’d want to pay for police and courts, etc. If you wanted to live out in the street without any clothes, you could do that for as long as you wanted, but if you want more than that, you’d run into scarcity much like you do today.
Birth of immortal children? You could have a billion of them. You’d meet new people infinite times if you wanted.
But they’d be unique children, and their birth would be a unique event. Just like now you could theoretically have 20 kids, but a moment with each would be unique.
The idea that life is necessarily optimal is simply hardwired into your animal-nature.
Sure, but why does that make it wrong? I like sweet and fatty food for evolutionary reasons too—does that mean that if it’s a result of evolution, my preference is wrong? But in the case of life, it goes beyond just being hardwired—enjoying good things is good, and death prevents that, so logically death is bad.
I think we have a profoundly different expectation for what a future with sufficient technology for immortality might be like. It seems you think it will look alot like 2014, but with immortality. I’d imagine it will be basically unrecognizeable from our current world, so much so that it is relatively useless to speculate about the details.
I also think you are discounting how powerful an aspect of experience novelty can be, and therefore how trivial giving birth to your 100th, let alone 10,000th child might be.
As far as taking pleasure from your animal-nature: Cool. It isn’t bad. I’d argue your desire for life is fundamentally identical to your love of fatty food. It serves an ultimate purpose (pass on the replicators), and simply basing your (wannabe eternal) existence off of the hedonistic side-effects of these sorts of drives will lose its appeal over the course of eons.
The idea that death is bad ’cuz good stuff could be happening in our potential lives after we are gone is not compelling to me at all. It’s an opportunity cost argument, right? Okay. Except you cease to exist in this particular case.
Anyway, good to chat with you. I’d love to hear any other thoughts you have. At this point, I’m tapping, as I don’t have anything else to say in this discussion with you.
I agree that a world in which immortality would be possible would look very different from today’s, but that’s because the development of immortality would require technological advances (maybe nanotechnology) that would change the world by themselves even if they didn’t lead to immortality. Immortality by itself wouldn’t make the world look that different, though—funeral homes would go out of business, and maybe hospitals as well, but other than that, it wouldn’t make a huge difference.
I think novelty is highly overrated as a source of value. Certainly, it’s nice to play a good new game or something like that, but as far as possible sources of value, it’s quite low on the list. Regarding having children, the parent-child bond is part of human nature, so I don’t think it’ll ever become trivial. As for hedonism, I don’t expect it to ever lose its appeal, especially as new fun things are created.
It’s an opportunity cost argument, right? Okay. Except you cease to exist in this particular case.
Yes, it is an opportunity cost, and the fact that you wouldn’t exist is the problem, because it means that instead of getting something positive, you’d be getting nothing.
My first thought is that the number of years lived is relatively arbitrary. 100, 1000, whatever. I’d imagine someone smarter than I could come up with a logical number. Maybe when you could meet your great grandkids or something. Don’t know. 10 seems way too small & 1,000,000 way too big, but that is likely just because I’m anchored to 75-85 as an average lifespan.
I think my choice to cease conscious experience would involve a few components:
Realization of the end of true novelty. I’ve read some good stuff on why this might not be an issue given sufficient technology, but I’m ultimately not convinced. It seems to me a perpetual invention of new novelties (new challenges to be overcome, etc.) is still artificial and would not work to extend novelty to the extent I was aware it was artificial. I suspect it might feel like how a particular sandbox video game tends to lose its appeal...and even sandbox video games in general lose their appeal. All this despite the potential for perpetual novelty within the games’ engines.
I suppose this is related to the first, but it feels a bit separate in my mind… All risk would be lost. With a finite period of time in which to work, all my accomplishments and failures have some scope. I have the body and mind I’ve been given, and X amount of years to squeeze as much lemonade as I can out of the lemons life throws at me. With the option for infinite time, I’d imagine everything would become an eventuality. Once in a lifetime experiences would be mathematically bound to occur given enough time, of which I’d have an innumerable sum. I’d sum this component up by saying that games are not fun if you can’t lose… in fact, they aren’t even games. During a philosophical discussion, a former co-worker of mine told me he thought life’s meaning was in overcoming obstacles and challenges and finding joy in it. I thought that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard at the time, but now I basically agree. Infinite availability of time makes this whole purpose kinda moot, in my view.
One other component I can think of is a recognition of what death really means. It is only the end of my conscious experience. It is not, in a very real & literal sense, the end of the world. All that happens (presumably) is that I no longer observe. Period. Death isn’t nearly as scary or grandiose as we make it out to be.
Given a choice between remaining alive for as long as novelty and risk and challenges and obstacles to overcome and joy remain present, or dying before that point, would you choose to die before that point?
I’d imagine I’d like to live as long as life had the potential for those things, even if they weren’t present at a given moment. My concern isn’t necessarily that they’d run out, rather that they don’t really exist in a world where immortality is an option.
And again, being conscious vs. not being conscious is not a world-ending difference to me. I think consciousness is just a localized emergence from a particalur meat-computer. I enjoy/tolerate a persistent illusion of “self” that can change drastically with injury or illness. It is a fragile little state of affairs and I think it is weird (though very natural) to seek to solidify it in a (literally) permanent state.
Sure. I’m clear on that part, I’m just trying to elicit your preferences on the matter.
Eh?
I don’t really get this.
I can understand how, in principle, immortality means that I might eventually reach a point where nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful.
I don’t understand how the option of immortality means that right now nothing is novel, or risky, or challenging, or an obstacle, or joyful.
But, OK… I guess I can accept that this is the way it is for you, even if I don’t understand it, and therefore you would prefer not to have that option.
There would be some novelty at first. But as soon as you became aware life was of an infinite duration and could understand the implications, what would be the motivation for anything? Every conceiveable 1-in-a-billion occurance would become an eventuality. How does risk even make sense in this world? What is an obstacle or a challenge when infinity is realized as a possiblity? I’d imagine it would feel like a game you already know you are going to win… and that is very boring, in my view.
Enjoyment. It’s possible to enjoy something despite knowing exactly how it’s going to turn out. For example, when you’re about to take a bite of food you like, you know how it’s going to taste, but that doesn’t eliminate your motivation to eat it.
But we’ve already established that life needn’t be of infinite duration. I can end it at any time, that’s implicit in the question of when I would choose to die. It’s of indefinite duration, which isn’t the same thing at all.
That aside, though… what are your motivations for doing things now?
I’m assuming you’d have the choice to end your life, or the option to continue it forever. Of course, if you were stuck living forever, that would suck. Do you agree? Why or why not?
I assume the lionshare is in my animal-nature programming. I’m evolved to derive some pleasure from the sorts of activities that benefit the replicators I carry.
And, further, you’ve asserted that you would choose to end it when certain conditions arose, which on your view are guaranteed to arise eventually. So your life would be predictably finite.
Generally, I prefer to have choices about things. That said, there are situations where I would willingly give up certain choices, including the choice to die. So it would depend on the situation.
But sure, all else being equal, I would rather have the choice to die.
That said, I’d also rather have the choice to live, which the current arrangement is pretty much guaranteed to deprive me of pretty soon.
Why would it be bad to be unable to choose to stop living?
Because situations might arise in which I preferred death to continued life, and in the absence of that choice I’d be unable to effect that preference.
That said, situations might also arise in which I transiently chose to die despite an average preference to continue living, so it depends on what alternatives I have available. I can imagine options superior to my having this choice.
For example, it’s better to die than to be tortured forever.
Many questions:
Do you think anything similar to the “end of novelty” could happen within a human’s current lifespan? And by “end of novelty” I mean actual end of novelty, not something that could seem similar to it, like depression. Also, is novelty necessary to have a life with positive value? Could you not imagine yourself living a routine for x number of years (where x is less than the current human lifespan, but greater than 10) and being happy? If so, why do you think this would change for a sufficiently large value of x, and why don’t you think that you’d be able to find a new routine? Also, what would be artificial about a “perpetual invention of novelties”—what makes perpetual novelty artificial that isn’t also the case for current novelty?
If potential new experiences are created faster than you can experience them, does the problem remain? (E.g., Even if you read as many books as you felt comfortable reading, the total number of books unread by you would increase every year.) Also, why would immortality mean that you can’t lose? You can’t lose your life, but you can lose money, once-in-a-lifetime experiences, etc.
Death isn’t the end of the world in an objective sense, but it prevents you from enjoying anything you value—so, if someone said that they’d put you in a steel box with a lifetime supply of oxygen, food, and sleep medication (if you want to take it), then shoot you into space, would you object to that? It would be similar to death because the world would go on, but you wouldn’t be able to enjoy it.
I don’t think that could practically happen. Though I suppose people do often end up feeling that is the case in their own lives.
I do think novelty is a key component in happiness. Not necessarily that you have new stuff in every moment or day, but at least that their is the potential for novelty.
Perhaps for any non-infinite value of x, you’d be okay. Once x could be infinite, I think there could be the realization that everything is pretty meaningless. And I don’t see much reason why any non-infinite years as a lifespan is better than any other. I suppose reaching an age where you could have kids or grandkids might be a good benchmark. But the difference between 100 years and 200 seems arbitrary. As does the difference between 1000 and 1,000,000.
It’s a good question. I don’t know. I can just imagine coming to the realization that (a) I could live forever if I choose, and (b) everything could be done given enough time, of which I have a limitless supply. If these are the circumstances, every challenge would only appear to be a challenge.
I have to think about the first set of questions.
To the last two:
This is the concept I’ve read which makes me wonder if supply of novelty might always be able to exceed demand.
I’m not smart enough to think through what “money” would mean in an economy where immortality is available. As far as once-in-a-lifetime experiences, they’d be cheapened necessarily. What were once a once-in-a-million-lifetimes experiences would be become bound to happen eventually. One-in-a-billion odds would mean nothing.
By “can’t lose” I meant that you couldn’t “bet” your life on things (i.e. invest your time) since you have an inexhaustable source of time. Playing games and winning is fun because losing is an option. Winning is meaningless without losing.
I mean death isn’t the end of anyone else’s conscious experience. It does end yours. As Hitchens said, “It isn’t that the party is over. Rather, the party will continue, and you’ve been asked to leave.” This end of my personal conscious experience is only as big as my ego makes it. It really isn’t that big a deal.
Suppose tomorrow a philanthropist introduces a free shot that grants people immortality for as long as they want it. - so the world would be the same as it would be today, except everyone is immortal. Why would money disappear? People would still want goods and services, and having a medium of exchange would still be convenient.
The birth of any particular person would only happen once—so the birth of your child would still be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. You’d only see them grow up once. You’d only be able to meet someone for the first time once. Etc.
As for investing your time, you could still do that even if you have infinite time. If something goes wrong, you may get another chance at it (if it’s not a once-in-a-lifetime experience) but in the meantime, things could be quite unpleasant. If you gamble your house away, you could probably live long enough to make enough money to buy another house, but in the meantime you would have lost something, and that would be bad.
Yes, and the end of your conscious experience prevents you from enjoying anything ever again. Isn’t that an enormous loss?
I don’t know. Economy implies some scarcity. I suppose it would depend on what was required to remain immortal. Would we need some currency to pay for future injections or upgrades? In that sense, would we even be immortal? Wouldn’t we still be in a similar survival mode to what we are in now? Would only the rich truly be immortal while the poor had the potential, but not the ongoing means for eternal life?
Birth of immortal children? You could have a billion of them. You’d meet new people infinite times if you wanted.
I think we have very different view about a future that includes immortality. Probably my lack of imagination.
No. Death is neutral. The idea that life is necessarily optimal is simply hardwired into your animal-nature. If it were another way, you wouldn’t have made it this far. This was my point orignally on this thread. The “lifeism” on LW, as I’ll call it, is weird to me. Life is really cool and I hope it continues for a while for me, but I do not view my death as “bad”.
Cryonics and the desire for immortality in tranhumanism circles reminds me very much of my background in Evangelical Christianity. Nowhere else have I seen such irrational fear of death (i.e. fear of no longer experiencing consciousness).
There would still be scarcity. Perhaps you would not longer need to eat or drink to live, but you would still want to do it for enjoyment from time to time, and resources would still be limited. If you want to buy a house, there is still a limited number of houses and good places to live. You’d want to be protected from criminals, so you’d want to pay for police and courts, etc. If you wanted to live out in the street without any clothes, you could do that for as long as you wanted, but if you want more than that, you’d run into scarcity much like you do today.
But they’d be unique children, and their birth would be a unique event. Just like now you could theoretically have 20 kids, but a moment with each would be unique.
Sure, but why does that make it wrong? I like sweet and fatty food for evolutionary reasons too—does that mean that if it’s a result of evolution, my preference is wrong? But in the case of life, it goes beyond just being hardwired—enjoying good things is good, and death prevents that, so logically death is bad.
I think we have a profoundly different expectation for what a future with sufficient technology for immortality might be like. It seems you think it will look alot like 2014, but with immortality. I’d imagine it will be basically unrecognizeable from our current world, so much so that it is relatively useless to speculate about the details.
I also think you are discounting how powerful an aspect of experience novelty can be, and therefore how trivial giving birth to your 100th, let alone 10,000th child might be.
As far as taking pleasure from your animal-nature: Cool. It isn’t bad. I’d argue your desire for life is fundamentally identical to your love of fatty food. It serves an ultimate purpose (pass on the replicators), and simply basing your (wannabe eternal) existence off of the hedonistic side-effects of these sorts of drives will lose its appeal over the course of eons.
The idea that death is bad ’cuz good stuff could be happening in our potential lives after we are gone is not compelling to me at all. It’s an opportunity cost argument, right? Okay. Except you cease to exist in this particular case.
Anyway, good to chat with you. I’d love to hear any other thoughts you have. At this point, I’m tapping, as I don’t have anything else to say in this discussion with you.
A last word from me as well, then.
I agree that a world in which immortality would be possible would look very different from today’s, but that’s because the development of immortality would require technological advances (maybe nanotechnology) that would change the world by themselves even if they didn’t lead to immortality. Immortality by itself wouldn’t make the world look that different, though—funeral homes would go out of business, and maybe hospitals as well, but other than that, it wouldn’t make a huge difference.
I think novelty is highly overrated as a source of value. Certainly, it’s nice to play a good new game or something like that, but as far as possible sources of value, it’s quite low on the list. Regarding having children, the parent-child bond is part of human nature, so I don’t think it’ll ever become trivial. As for hedonism, I don’t expect it to ever lose its appeal, especially as new fun things are created.
Yes, it is an opportunity cost, and the fact that you wouldn’t exist is the problem, because it means that instead of getting something positive, you’d be getting nothing.