There is an unspoken assumption here that immortality is unconditionally good. Pre-written bottom line and such.
Suppose, hypothetically, that a mathematical model of human societies shows that immortality is detrimental to humanity as a whole, in a sense that it slows down progress, increases the odds of stagnation, results in more suffering, etc. Maybe even that it reduces the odds of long-term survival of the human species against freak events that caused extinction of species in the past.
Would you revise your stance on immortality or look for ways to explain the conclusions away?
If someone were to write the same proposal from the point of view of a sequence on how to most effectively maximize animal welfare through research and optimal philanthropy, it would hardly be relevant to discuss whether it is unconditionally good to maximize animal welfare. Sure this discussion might be useful to have, but when an article starts with “Suppose that” you don’t start by fighting this hypothetical.
You know what, you are right. I let my aversion to diego’s writings get the better of me. I still don’t like it when rationality is replaced by advocacy, but he did state it as a hypothetical.
Neither. I’d accept that immortality is bad for the species as a whole but I still wouldn’t want people to die. So I would have to find (or fund) ways to change humanity so immortality doesn’t slow down progress etc.
It might be far easier to modify people to not want to live forever. For example, painlessly and predictably being switched off at, say, 100, without any signs of aging, seems far less unpalatable than the current process of dying slowly and unpredictable over decades.
Would you revise your stance on immortality or look for ways to explain the conclusions away?
I’m pro-immortalist, and think I would revise my stance. I actually think that most immortalists would, since most of us don’t actually expect to become personally immortal within our lifetimes. For example, I’m in my early 20s, and I think there is a less than 10% chance I’ll live long enough for life-extension technologies to come on line.
There is an unspoken assumption here that immortality is unconditionally good. Pre-written bottom line and such.
Suppose, hypothetically, that a mathematical model of human societies shows that immortality is detrimental to humanity as a whole, in a sense that it slows down progress, increases the odds of stagnation, results in more suffering, etc. Maybe even that it reduces the odds of long-term survival of the human species against freak events that caused extinction of species in the past.
Would you revise your stance on immortality or look for ways to explain the conclusions away?
How is this in any way relevant?
If someone were to write the same proposal from the point of view of a sequence on how to most effectively maximize animal welfare through research and optimal philanthropy, it would hardly be relevant to discuss whether it is unconditionally good to maximize animal welfare. Sure this discussion might be useful to have, but when an article starts with “Suppose that” you don’t start by fighting this hypothetical.
You know what, you are right. I let my aversion to diego’s writings get the better of me. I still don’t like it when rationality is replaced by advocacy, but he did state it as a hypothetical.
Neither. I’d accept that immortality is bad for the species as a whole but I still wouldn’t want people to die. So I would have to find (or fund) ways to change humanity so immortality doesn’t slow down progress etc.
It might be far easier to modify people to not want to live forever. For example, painlessly and predictably being switched off at, say, 100, without any signs of aging, seems far less unpalatable than the current process of dying slowly and unpredictable over decades.
But not as palatable as not being switched off. Why are you trying to defend killing everyone?
Besides, if people have to be modified to enjoy the paradise you want to give them, then it isn’t a paradise, just a Brave New World dystopia.
Well, not necessarily, but if your response to wanting something is to stop wanting it… don’t do that to me!
I’d add that harm from immortality would have to be fairly big, and that society will have a variety of other improvements.
Neither. I’d look for ways to do better, ways around whatever obstacles the mathematical model predicted.
This is just another argument of the form, “Suppose X, that you think is good, was bad! Wouldn’t X then be bad?”
I’m pro-immortalist, and think I would revise my stance. I actually think that most immortalists would, since most of us don’t actually expect to become personally immortal within our lifetimes. For example, I’m in my early 20s, and I think there is a less than 10% chance I’ll live long enough for life-extension technologies to come on line.