If everyone was immortal and healthy by default, do you think it would even occur to you suggest death as a harmless alternative?
If someone tried to convince you that a 50 year lifespan is better than what we have now, what would be your reaction? Don’t you find it interesting that your intuitions support a very narrow optimum that just happens to be what you already have?
Do you argue that “death is just the end of your conscious experience” in the case of anyone who dies prematurely? Try to imagine actual deaths in real life and their outcomes.
If everyone was immortal and healthy by default, do you think it would even occur to you suggest death as a harmless alternative?
Good question. I’d suggest death is a harmless alternative, and it would only be analogous with actual, literal, harmless alternatives. (Also, I notice you are conflating non-healthyness and mortality.)
If a reality like death didn’t exist, I guess it would be like any other non-existent, yet imaginable state. In fact, death is a state of non-existence, it is imaginable, and it is harmless.
If someone tried to convince you that a 50 year lifespan is better than what we have now, what would be your reaction?
Most arguments for which exact lifespan is better would seem arbitrary to me. I can see some merit to a lifespan that allowed you to have kids, or grandkids. Maybe a lifespan where you reached full, mature adulthood makes some sense. But 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years… arbitrary.
Don’t you find it interesting that your intuitions support a very narrow optimum that just happens to be what you already have?
Yes, very interesting. Though it is also your intuition, and intuition generally, that opposes (and fears?) death so intensely. It is part of our eons-evolved programming. This death-avoidance intuition exists so that we will be best equipped as vehicles for the replicators we carry. That is all is was designed for. The fact you are arguing for some intrinsic value to indefinitely extended consciousness beyond its instrumental value as a tool of the replicators is simply a glitch; a side-effect to the necessary importance every surviving organism and species must attach to surviving.
Do you argue that “death is just the end of your conscious experience” in the case of anyone who dies prematurely? Try to imagine actual deaths in real life and their outcomes.
I don’t “argue” it. That seems tacky, since I would be arguing only with the deceased friends or loved ones… since the deceased themselves would be...dead.
I do, however, think it is a helpful meditation to ponder the implications of death, immortality, etc. I read and discuss my understanding of Buddhism with lots of people (these, for example), and I find explorations to better understand the human desire for permanence and striving for lasting satisfaction to be very insightful and helpful.
From your cited fable...
Stories about aging have traditionally focused on the need for graceful accommodation. The recommended solution to diminishing vigor and impending death was resignation coupled with an effort to achieve closure in practical affairs and personal relationships. Given that nothing could be done to prevent or retard aging, this focus made sense. Rather than fretting about the inevitable, one could aim for peace of mind.
Today we face a different situation. While we still lack effective and acceptable means for slowing the aging process, we can identify research directions that might lead to the development of such means in the foreseeable future. “Deathist” stories and ideologies, which counsel passive acceptance, are no longer harmless sources of consolation. They are fatal barriers to urgently needed action....
...The argument is not in favor or life-span extension per se. Adding extra years of sickness and debility at the end of life would be pointless. The argument is in favor of extending, as far as possible, the human health-span. By slowing or halting the aging process, the healthy human life span would be extended. Individuals would be able to remain healthy, vigorous, and productive at ages at which they would otherwise be dead.
I did not read the whole fable, though I skimmed it (I get it, I think) and read the moral of the story.
What I notice is that the author appears to be conflating the nasty parts of aging with death. They are not at all the same. They are not the same problem, and the should not be confused.
I am 100% for bringing about technologies that eliminate gratuitous suffering. That includes much of what happens we humans age. People often end up in horrible mental and physical states for years, or decades, near the end of their lives. I am all for getting rid of Alzheimer’s, for instance. And, as a personal example, my grandmother spent the last eight years of her life effectively paralyzed and unable to speak due to a series of massive strokes—I am 100% for technology that would make this never happen to anyone ever again.
None of that has anything to do with the end of a human’s localized meat-computer-generated conscious experience. Healthyness does not = no death.
I love that he called it “Deathism”, the “ideologies that counsel passive acceptance”. I’ve often thought the sort of “stay alive at any cost” thinking I often encounter on LW could be appropriately labeled “Lifeism”, and now I feel validated for thinking so.
Let me ask: Can you imagine any scenario, say, a billion years into your life, when you might opt for permanently switching off your consciousness (i.e. death)? Why or why not? What would be different at one billion years vs. one million? One million vs. 100,000? 100,000 vs. 10,000? (I’m not asking rhetorically...)
Are you sure you didn’t think you were replying to someone else? You made a lot of false assumptions about my mindstate.
I’d suggest death is a harmless alternative
So what has made you decide to live so far?
Also, I notice you are conflating non-healthyness and mortality
I combined two situations because I thought that would be more acceptable to you. That doesn’t mean I’m conflating them. I do think there are good deaths and bad immortalities.
Most arguments for which exact lifespan is better would seem arbitrary to me.
If I couldn’t think of any interesting long term goals, I would have to agree. If that’s not how you mean it, then I don’t understand what you mean by arbitrary.
Though it is also your intuition, and intuition generally, that opposes (and fears?) death so intensely
It’s a value, and yes it’s programmed by the blind idiot god called evolution, but my core values don’t go away if I just think about them hard enough and why should they?
This death-avoidance intuition exists so that we will be best equipped as vehicles for the replicators we carry. That is all is was designed for
Why exactly does it matter why the value is there? It wasn’t designed for anything or by anything. It just is, and the genes were just selected for and thus they are. Genes have goals no more than they can plan and even if they did I have no reason to privilege them. Evolution is an unplanned process not optimizing anything in particular, how could it possibly glitch and why should I care?
“stay alive at any cost” thinking
Not my thinking.
Can you imagine any scenario, say, a billion years into your life, when you might opt for permanently switching off your consciousness
Any situation where my future could be expected to be net negative. Of course I can’t imagine such a scenario specificly, as I can’t reliably imagine what life is like even 20 years from now, so the extra years add nothing to the scenario. I can think of several situations that would make me end my life right now or a few years from now.
You made a lot of false assumptions about my mindstate.
Sorry.
So what has made you decide to live so far?
I’m alive. It is my default state.
I combined two situations because I thought that would be more acceptable to you. That doesn’t mean I’m conflating them. I do think there are good deaths and bad immortalities.
I’m talking about (1) aging and disease and suffering vs. (2) death. They have zero to do with one another and should not be combined in this discussion.
If I couldn’t think of any interesting long term goals, I would have to agree. If that’s not how you mean it, then I don’t understand what you mean by arbitrary.
Please give me an example of a long term goal that would require 10 Billion years? How about 1 Billion? 1 Million?
It’s a value, and yes it’s programmed by the blind idiot god called evolution, but my core values don’t go away if I just think about them hard enough and why should they?
Why exactly does it matter why the value is there? It wasn’t designed for anything or by anything. It just is, and the genes were just selected for and thus they are. Genes have goals no more than they can plan and even if they did I have no reason to privilege them. Evolution is an unplanned process not optimizing anything in particular, how could it possibly glitch and why should I care?
It does affect me quite a bit to know why my instincts and drives exist. Maybe it does nothing for you. Okay. That is interesting.
I meant only that I am alive, and I see no reason that death is preferable at this point.
If that’s how you want to have your definitions, I can live with that.
There is a difference beyond definitions here. We may have different definitions of death—I think it is the end of individual consciousness. But the suffering caused by aging and disease is separate from any definition of death. It is an important distinction that goes overlooked oft times.
No need for that. Just always have plans for tomorrow.
Fighting to live; living to fight. I see this a hamster wheel. It has some novelty, but I see no need to prolong it indefinitely. Or, if it can be prolonged, it shouldn’t be at the top of the list of problems facing humanity/the universe.
Why/how they exist and what for are different things. Conflating the two leads just to confusion in this case.
I’m not sure I understand what your point is.
I’m tapping on our conversation now. I’d be pleased to hear any responses you have.
I meant only that I am alive, and I see no reason that death is preferable at this point.
This could easily describe my preferences as well. Perhaps we just have different thresholds for logging out.
But the suffering caused by aging and disease is separate from any definition of death.
I fully agree with this distinction, but it doesn’t matter much to my preferences. I think permanent cessation of consciousness is bad. Some things in life are worse though, and could override this preference. Outcomes that we value don’t have to be directly experienced, and death is no exception. For example I don’t have to experience pain to want to avoid it. In addition living is instrumental to most of my goals.
It has some novelty, but I see no need to prolong it indefinitely.
I’m not bored yet. I can’t imagine how I could be. I wouldn’t choose immortality without the option of death however for various reasons. My ability to make long term plans will increase with technology. I might have million year plans, but can’t imagine what they could be. Imagination is a very limited tool.
I’m not sure I understand what your point is.
You seemed to think we exist for our genes. This is simply wrong. Evolution explains how we came to be, not what for. Cryopreserving some of your cells in a jar or backing up your sequenced genome in the cloud might maximize your genetic fitness but would feel strangely unsatisfying, don’t you think?
‘Let me ask: Can you imagine any scenario, say, a billion years into your life, when you might opt for permanently switching off your consciousness (i.e. death)? Why or why not? What would be different at one billion years vs. one million? One million vs. 100,000? 100,000 vs. 10,000? (I’m not asking rhetorically...)’
Yes*. And I can imagine it at one million as well, and 100,000, and 10,000. What I can’t do is know a priori which it’ll end up being, and I certainly wouldn’t want the decision to be made for me.
*Well, maybe. This actually might be one of the few scenarios in which I’d voluntarily undergo wireheading (as an alternative to death).
If everyone was immortal and healthy by default, do you think it would even occur to you suggest death as a harmless alternative?
If someone tried to convince you that a 50 year lifespan is better than what we have now, what would be your reaction? Don’t you find it interesting that your intuitions support a very narrow optimum that just happens to be what you already have?
Do you argue that “death is just the end of your conscious experience” in the case of anyone who dies prematurely? Try to imagine actual deaths in real life and their outcomes.
Have you read this fable by Bostrom?
Good question. I’d suggest death is a harmless alternative, and it would only be analogous with actual, literal, harmless alternatives. (Also, I notice you are conflating non-healthyness and mortality.)
If a reality like death didn’t exist, I guess it would be like any other non-existent, yet imaginable state. In fact, death is a state of non-existence, it is imaginable, and it is harmless.
Most arguments for which exact lifespan is better would seem arbitrary to me. I can see some merit to a lifespan that allowed you to have kids, or grandkids. Maybe a lifespan where you reached full, mature adulthood makes some sense. But 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years… arbitrary.
Yes, very interesting. Though it is also your intuition, and intuition generally, that opposes (and fears?) death so intensely. It is part of our eons-evolved programming. This death-avoidance intuition exists so that we will be best equipped as vehicles for the replicators we carry. That is all is was designed for. The fact you are arguing for some intrinsic value to indefinitely extended consciousness beyond its instrumental value as a tool of the replicators is simply a glitch; a side-effect to the necessary importance every surviving organism and species must attach to surviving.
I don’t “argue” it. That seems tacky, since I would be arguing only with the deceased friends or loved ones… since the deceased themselves would be...dead.
I do, however, think it is a helpful meditation to ponder the implications of death, immortality, etc. I read and discuss my understanding of Buddhism with lots of people (these, for example), and I find explorations to better understand the human desire for permanence and striving for lasting satisfaction to be very insightful and helpful.
From your cited fable...
I did not read the whole fable, though I skimmed it (I get it, I think) and read the moral of the story.
What I notice is that the author appears to be conflating the nasty parts of aging with death. They are not at all the same. They are not the same problem, and the should not be confused.
I am 100% for bringing about technologies that eliminate gratuitous suffering. That includes much of what happens we humans age. People often end up in horrible mental and physical states for years, or decades, near the end of their lives. I am all for getting rid of Alzheimer’s, for instance. And, as a personal example, my grandmother spent the last eight years of her life effectively paralyzed and unable to speak due to a series of massive strokes—I am 100% for technology that would make this never happen to anyone ever again.
None of that has anything to do with the end of a human’s localized meat-computer-generated conscious experience. Healthyness does not = no death.
I love that he called it “Deathism”, the “ideologies that counsel passive acceptance”. I’ve often thought the sort of “stay alive at any cost” thinking I often encounter on LW could be appropriately labeled “Lifeism”, and now I feel validated for thinking so.
Let me ask: Can you imagine any scenario, say, a billion years into your life, when you might opt for permanently switching off your consciousness (i.e. death)? Why or why not? What would be different at one billion years vs. one million? One million vs. 100,000? 100,000 vs. 10,000? (I’m not asking rhetorically...)
Are you sure you didn’t think you were replying to someone else? You made a lot of false assumptions about my mindstate.
So what has made you decide to live so far?
I combined two situations because I thought that would be more acceptable to you. That doesn’t mean I’m conflating them. I do think there are good deaths and bad immortalities.
If I couldn’t think of any interesting long term goals, I would have to agree. If that’s not how you mean it, then I don’t understand what you mean by arbitrary.
It’s a value, and yes it’s programmed by the blind idiot god called evolution, but my core values don’t go away if I just think about them hard enough and why should they?
Why exactly does it matter why the value is there? It wasn’t designed for anything or by anything. It just is, and the genes were just selected for and thus they are. Genes have goals no more than they can plan and even if they did I have no reason to privilege them. Evolution is an unplanned process not optimizing anything in particular, how could it possibly glitch and why should I care?
Not my thinking.
Any situation where my future could be expected to be net negative. Of course I can’t imagine such a scenario specificly, as I can’t reliably imagine what life is like even 20 years from now, so the extra years add nothing to the scenario. I can think of several situations that would make me end my life right now or a few years from now.
Sorry.
I’m alive. It is my default state.
I’m talking about (1) aging and disease and suffering vs. (2) death. They have zero to do with one another and should not be combined in this discussion.
Please give me an example of a long term goal that would require 10 Billion years? How about 1 Billion? 1 Million?
It does affect me quite a bit to know why my instincts and drives exist. Maybe it does nothing for you. Okay. That is interesting.
Stop eating. Let’s see how default it is.
If that’s how you want to have your definitions, I can live with that.
No need for that. Just always have plans for tomorrow.
Why/how they exist and what for are different things. Conflating the two leads just to confusion in this case, because the what for doesn’t exist.
I meant only that I am alive, and I see no reason that death is preferable at this point.
There is a difference beyond definitions here. We may have different definitions of death—I think it is the end of individual consciousness. But the suffering caused by aging and disease is separate from any definition of death. It is an important distinction that goes overlooked oft times.
Fighting to live; living to fight. I see this a hamster wheel. It has some novelty, but I see no need to prolong it indefinitely. Or, if it can be prolonged, it shouldn’t be at the top of the list of problems facing humanity/the universe.
I’m not sure I understand what your point is.
I’m tapping on our conversation now. I’d be pleased to hear any responses you have.
This could easily describe my preferences as well. Perhaps we just have different thresholds for logging out.
I fully agree with this distinction, but it doesn’t matter much to my preferences. I think permanent cessation of consciousness is bad. Some things in life are worse though, and could override this preference. Outcomes that we value don’t have to be directly experienced, and death is no exception. For example I don’t have to experience pain to want to avoid it. In addition living is instrumental to most of my goals.
I’m not bored yet. I can’t imagine how I could be. I wouldn’t choose immortality without the option of death however for various reasons. My ability to make long term plans will increase with technology. I might have million year plans, but can’t imagine what they could be. Imagination is a very limited tool.
You seemed to think we exist for our genes. This is simply wrong. Evolution explains how we came to be, not what for. Cryopreserving some of your cells in a jar or backing up your sequenced genome in the cloud might maximize your genetic fitness but would feel strangely unsatisfying, don’t you think?
‘Let me ask: Can you imagine any scenario, say, a billion years into your life, when you might opt for permanently switching off your consciousness (i.e. death)? Why or why not? What would be different at one billion years vs. one million? One million vs. 100,000? 100,000 vs. 10,000? (I’m not asking rhetorically...)’
Yes*. And I can imagine it at one million as well, and 100,000, and 10,000. What I can’t do is know a priori which it’ll end up being, and I certainly wouldn’t want the decision to be made for me.
*Well, maybe. This actually might be one of the few scenarios in which I’d voluntarily undergo wireheading (as an alternative to death).