Also, nobody who doesn’t want to live longer would have to, so life extension technology wouldn’t result in immortal depressed people.
Suicide is already effectively illegal. Many easy, painless methods are outlawed or not given to the mentally ill (drugs, guns, assisted suicide). Suicide-attempters are force-treated. There is tremendous social pressure to not commit suicide, including inflicted guilt. (For detailed arguments, just read Sister Y’s linked blog.)
Personally, I’m not interested in life-extension until life is actually worth living. Several problems (like the harsh, maybe-even-negative-sum social hierarchy) seem unfixable without a major re-engineering of humanity, so I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Having said that, I don’t know how bad life in general is. Maybe some people actually have lives worth living. They can extend their lives if they want. I’m not interested in arguing other people into pessimism, and I have no reference point to understand their preference anyway.
However, I think it’s credible that 30% or more don’t have worthwhile lives. Having more people alive for longer seems like it will only bring back the Malthusian era much faster.
Suicide is already effectively illegal. Many easy, painless methods are outlawed or not given to the mentally ill (drugs, guns, assisted suicide). Suicide-attempters are force-treated. There is tremendous social pressure to not commit suicide, including inflicted guilt. (For detailed arguments, just read Sister Y’s linked blog.)
Even if suicide is discouraged, no-one is likely to compel unhappy people to extend their lives. Most people think life extension is immoral; they won’t object to anyone turning it down.
Feeding tubes are life extension technology and we force those on people all the time. It ends up being really hard to enforce battery causes of action against forced medical care when you’d die without the intervention.
Several problems (like the harsh, maybe-even-negative-sum social hierarchy) seem unfixable without a major re-engineering of humanity, so I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Assuming it is necessary, is there some particular reason we should think this major re-engineering of humanity is unfeasible?
Rebuttal of the rebuttal:
Suicide is already effectively illegal. Many easy, painless methods are outlawed or not given to the mentally ill (drugs, guns, assisted suicide). Suicide-attempters are force-treated. There is tremendous social pressure to not commit suicide, including inflicted guilt. (For detailed arguments, just read Sister Y’s linked blog.)
Personally, I’m not interested in life-extension until life is actually worth living. Several problems (like the harsh, maybe-even-negative-sum social hierarchy) seem unfixable without a major re-engineering of humanity, so I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Having said that, I don’t know how bad life in general is. Maybe some people actually have lives worth living. They can extend their lives if they want. I’m not interested in arguing other people into pessimism, and I have no reference point to understand their preference anyway.
However, I think it’s credible that 30% or more don’t have worthwhile lives. Having more people alive for longer seems like it will only bring back the Malthusian era much faster.
Even if suicide is discouraged, no-one is likely to compel unhappy people to extend their lives. Most people think life extension is immoral; they won’t object to anyone turning it down.
Feeding tubes are life extension technology and we force those on people all the time. It ends up being really hard to enforce battery causes of action against forced medical care when you’d die without the intervention.
Assuming it is necessary, is there some particular reason we should think this major re-engineering of humanity is unfeasible?