So many answers here. For example: maybe without death, reproduction rates fall off a cliff, society ages, culture shifts from “explore” to “exploit”, we never leave Earth, we waste the vast majority of our potential as a species. Later, our sun dies, everyone survives the experience, we realize that we’re in a philosophical hypothetical and the thought experiment ends in bathos.
Oh no, what if me and everyone I care about would only get to live 5 billion instead of 80 years. And all that only to find out it was a half-assed hypothetical.
I would prefer to have this conversation without the sarcasm. Maybe I encouraged it with my “half-assed hypothetical”. If so, please consider this an attempt to reset the tone.
Dangerous proposition in what sense? Someone may die? Everyone may die? I have, um, not very good news for you...
I read this as a claim that it is impossible for the elimination of death, aging, or mortality to be dangerous because it can only decrease the danger of dying. I replied by pointing out that there are other dangers, such as the danger of astronomical waste. Another danger is suffering risk. The story in Surface Detail points in that direction.
If I misread you then you were probably saying something I agree with.
Oh no, what if me and everyone I care about would only get to live 5 billion instead of 80 years.
I read this as a statement that you aren’t concerned about astronomical waste. That’s a completely reasonable response, many philosophers agree with you.
Dangerous proposition in what sense? Someone may die? Everyone may die? I have, um, not very good news for you...
So many answers here. For example: maybe without death, reproduction rates fall off a cliff, society ages, culture shifts from “explore” to “exploit”, we never leave Earth, we waste the vast majority of our potential as a species. Later, our sun dies, everyone survives the experience, we realize that we’re in a philosophical hypothetical and the thought experiment ends in bathos.
Oh no, what if me and everyone I care about would only get to live 5 billion instead of 80 years. And all that only to find out it was a half-assed hypothetical.
I would prefer to have this conversation without the sarcasm. Maybe I encouraged it with my “half-assed hypothetical”. If so, please consider this an attempt to reset the tone.
I read this as a claim that it is impossible for the elimination of death, aging, or mortality to be dangerous because it can only decrease the danger of dying. I replied by pointing out that there are other dangers, such as the danger of astronomical waste. Another danger is suffering risk. The story in Surface Detail points in that direction.
If I misread you then you were probably saying something I agree with.
I read this as a statement that you aren’t concerned about astronomical waste. That’s a completely reasonable response, many philosophers agree with you.