People can make scientific progress over their lifetimes way more easier than ethical progress. Ethical progress is much more dependent on newer generations.
So, imagine a world with the technology of today, but with the people of the year 1200 instead.
And I could give you a 100 more reasons why death is a necessary evil. Immortality = too much power for a flawed mortal. Imagine if Genghis Khan had been immortal.
When one realizes how far life is from the rosy picture that is often painted, one has a much easier time accepting death, even while still fearing it or still wanting to live as long as possible.
Personally, I’ve been hearing all my life about the Serious Philosophical Issues posed by life extension, and my attitude has always been that I’m willing to grapple with those issues for as many centuries as it takes.
Stopping aging would also have an effect on what I am saying. You would have a stagnant population, so, again, imagine the technology of today with the population of the year 1200.
Even stopping aging creates power unbalances. Who tells you that we would be able to kill Genghis Khan? Or what if we only suceeded after 10000 years?
(Lol the amount of dislikes on my first comment… It’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.)
Death strikes down the good and the bad alike. For every monster stopped, a saint also. Or perhaps it is ten monsters for every saint. Or ten saints for every monster. Who can say? Whence your assurance that it is better to slaughter a billion people every decade than risk the evil that they might do?
BTW, while accounts differ over how Genghis Khan died, he was in his late 60s. While 67 is not 37, he did not die of old age, and his empire outlived him anyway.
t’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.
Is that really the only reason you can think of that you got downvoted?
Your comment didn’t say there’s at least one downside to life extension. It said the downsides outweigh the upsides and it did not make a well-argued case that that was so.
edit: Instead of “well-argued” I originally had the word “convincing”. I changed it because a comment does not have to be convincing or correct to get upvotes (or at least to not get downvotes). In fact, I predict that a comment or post that summarized a lot of downsides people should consider when forming their opinions about life extension in a non-preachy “you guys are so wrong about this” sort of way would be highly upvoted.
“Ah, the ancient Greeks getting Science right, and starting a scientific and industrial revolution more than 2000 years ago!
Yes please!”
Ah, gladiators living thousand year lifespans with injury-related chronic pain, having taken millions of heads and faced millions of moments of the most extreme torment, yes please!
Being a slave for 50.000 years, yes please!
But of course, this wouldn’t happen, right? We all know that life is simple, just office work, eating McDonald’s and watching TV.
Or even better, those Greeks then would just naturally “become good people” (because we all know how easyyyyyy it is for people to change morally and/or to give up on their power) and just create utopia for all anyway. Right?
I’ll say it again: only such unrealistic times could ever produce such unrealistic thoughts.
Ah, gladiators living thousand year lifespans with injury-related chronic pain, having taken millions of heads and faced millions of moments of the most extreme torment, yes please!
You think that a scientific and industrial revolution would leave all of society fixed in amber?
“You think that a scientific and industrial revolution would leave all of society fixed in amber?”
In moral terms, mostly. Unless you’re naive enough to think that people easily change morally or easily give up their power. Which you definitely are, I get it.
In fact you don’t even need to travel to ancient Greece to see how horrific your dream would be. Just go anywhere outside our modern Western bubble or comfort and semi-decency, really. There’s still plenty of slavery and concentration camps to choose from.
Just a reminder, in this argument we are not the modern people who get to feel all moral and righteous about themselves, we are the Greeks. Do you really want to die for some hypothetical moral improvement of future generations? If so, you can go ahead and be my guest, but myself I’d very much rather not to.
Like the popular saying goes, you either die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain. We are flawed beings, and unfortunately (yes, unfortunately, I would like to live forever as well (I mean, at least my present self, I’m pretty sure after a couple centuries I’d have gone insane even with all the memory-editing and cell-rejuvenating tech you can imagine (maybe that would extend it to a few millenia))) death is a necessary balancer of power.
So, no, I don’t wanna die for future generations, but I better do someday. Personality needs coherence, that’s why we’re advert to change (some more, some less). That’s why new beings are important to keep the power balance, if there is even any balance in this chaotic world.
One way to accept death is simply thinking how bad things could get beyond this current unusual normalcy (which won’t last long). Cancer patients want to die. Slaves want to die. Imagine denying death to those least fortunate. That would be way worse than mortality. (And yes, you could probably cure cancer or any pain in a world with immortality, but the problem are the slaves, of those denied the treatment… i.e., the problem is the tyranny, which would be greatly amplified in a deathless world, and being naive to the point of not considering it.)
You’re fighting a strawman (nobody’s going to deny death to anyone, and except for seriously ill most people who truly want to die now have an option to do so; myself I’m actually pro-euthanasia). And, once again, you want to inflict on literally everyone a fate you say you don’t want for yourself. Also, I don’t accept the premise there’s any innate power balance in the universe that we ought to uphold even at the cost of our lives, we do not inhabit a Marvel movie. And you’re assuming the knowledge which you can’t possibly have, about exactly how human consciousness functions and what alterations to it we’ll be able to make in the next centuries or millennia.
“you’re assuming the knowledge which you can’t possibly have”
Naturally, I can’t predict the future (unfortunately). But neither can you:
“nobody’s going to deny death to anyone”
You’re making just as much assumptions as myself. The only difference is that you want to spin the heaven/hell wheel of fortune (this is a metaphor), while I don’t—at least not until we’ve had a hell of a lot more time to study it (aka no immortality in a foreseeable future).
>When one realizes how far life is from the rosy picture that is often painted, one has a much easier time accepting death, even while still fearing it or still wanting to live as long as possible.
Do you truly estimate your life as not worth or barely worth living? If yes, I’m deeply sorry about that and I hope you’ll find a way to improve it. Let me assure you that there’s many people, myself included, who truly genuinely love life and enjoy it.
If it’s just a comforting lie you believe in believing to make the thought of death more tolerable, well, I can understand that, death really is terrifying, but then consider maybe not to use it as an argument.
I see this argument more often but I don’t think it’s always fear of death that is the driving force of not wanting to live forever.
Can you tell me if there’s something wrong with the following metaphor:
I immensely enjoy a mountain hiking trip but after a few weeks it needs to end because my body is aching and even the beauty of the mountains becomes mundane.
Isn’t life somehow the same way?
Some burdens seem only carry-able because they’re temporary and some beauty is only (or more) beautiful because it’s fleeting.
(By the way I would jump on the opportunity of
an increased life span to say 200-300 years, 80 seems really short, but not indefinite extension)
Maybe it’s a mind projection fallacy? I can’t relate to that at all. I never tire of doing something new, or trying again something I enjoyed before. And there is so much to do in the universe… I could spend millions of years and not run out of things to do.
>By the way I would jump on the opportunity of an increased life span to say 200-300 years, 80 seems really short, but not indefinite extension
Ok that’s honestly good enough for me, I say lets get there and then argue whether we need more extension.
I’m no therapist and not even good as a regular human being at talking about carrying burdens that make one to want to kill themselves eventually, you should probably seek advice of someone who can do a better job at it.
“Do you truly estimate your life as not worth or barely worth living? If yes, I’m deeply sorry about that and I hope you’ll find a way to improve it. Let me assure you that there’s many people, myself included, who truly genuinely love life and enjoy it.”
Nah, I’ve been lucky myself. But this isn’t about myself or any individual, but life is general. I keep saying this: people today live in this rare modern oasis of comfort, which gives them these naive perspectives. Until they develop an excruciatingly painful chronic disease at least (and I mean, don’t even need to mention the massive modern dark clouds over our heads that anyone in this forum should know about).
So your argument is that people should die for their own good, despite what they think about it themselves? Probably not since it’d be a almost a caricature villain, but I don’t see where else are you going with this. And the goal of “not developing an excruciatingly painful chronic disease” is not exactly at odds with the goal “combat aging”.
People can make scientific progress over their lifetimes way more easier than ethical progress. Ethical progress is much more dependent on newer generations.
So, imagine a world with the technology of today, but with the people of the year 1200 instead.
And I could give you a 100 more reasons why death is a necessary evil. Immortality = too much power for a flawed mortal. Imagine if Genghis Khan had been immortal.
When one realizes how far life is from the rosy picture that is often painted, one has a much easier time accepting death, even while still fearing it or still wanting to live as long as possible.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TZsXNaJwETWvJPLCE/rationality-quotes-august-2010?commentId=nboCCze5EjRxwHYzn
But I don’t think we are discussing immortality—just stopping aging. Stopping aging won’t prevent someone from killing the next Genghis Khan.
You didn’t specify that in your post.
Stopping aging would also have an effect on what I am saying. You would have a stagnant population, so, again, imagine the technology of today with the population of the year 1200.
Even stopping aging creates power unbalances. Who tells you that we would be able to kill Genghis Khan? Or what if we only suceeded after 10000 years?
Today we’re discussing stopping aging, tomorrow we’ll be discussing physical invulnerability.
(Lol the amount of dislikes on my first comment… It’s funny how much people in these circles don’t wanna die, never stopping to consider at least 1 bad consequence of that.)
Death strikes down the good and the bad alike. For every monster stopped, a saint also. Or perhaps it is ten monsters for every saint. Or ten saints for every monster. Who can say? Whence your assurance that it is better to slaughter a billion people every decade than risk the evil that they might do?
BTW, while accounts differ over how Genghis Khan died, he was in his late 60s. While 67 is not 37, he did not die of old age, and his empire outlived him anyway.
Is that really the only reason you can think of that you got downvoted?
Your comment didn’t say there’s at least one downside to life extension. It said the downsides outweigh the upsides and it did not make a well-argued case that that was so.
edit: Instead of “well-argued” I originally had the word “convincing”. I changed it because a comment does not have to be convincing or correct to get upvotes (or at least to not get downvotes). In fact, I predict that a comment or post that summarized a lot of downsides people should consider when forming their opinions about life extension in a non-preachy “you guys are so wrong about this” sort of way would be highly upvoted.
Ah, the ancient Greeks getting Science right, and starting a scientific and industrial revolution more than 2000 years ago!
Yes please!
“Ah, the ancient Greeks getting Science right, and starting a scientific and industrial revolution more than 2000 years ago!
Yes please!”
Ah, gladiators living thousand year lifespans with injury-related chronic pain, having taken millions of heads and faced millions of moments of the most extreme torment, yes please!
Being a slave for 50.000 years, yes please!
But of course, this wouldn’t happen, right? We all know that life is simple, just office work, eating McDonald’s and watching TV.
Or even better, those Greeks then would just naturally “become good people” (because we all know how easyyyyyy it is for people to change morally and/or to give up on their power) and just create utopia for all anyway. Right?
I’ll say it again: only such unrealistic times could ever produce such unrealistic thoughts.
You think that a scientific and industrial revolution would leave all of society fixed in amber?
“You think that a scientific and industrial revolution would leave all of society fixed in amber?”
In moral terms, mostly. Unless you’re naive enough to think that people easily change morally or easily give up their power. Which you definitely are, I get it.
In fact you don’t even need to travel to ancient Greece to see how horrific your dream would be. Just go anywhere outside our modern Western bubble or comfort and semi-decency, really. There’s still plenty of slavery and concentration camps to choose from.
Just a reminder, in this argument we are not the modern people who get to feel all moral and righteous about themselves, we are the Greeks. Do you really want to die for some hypothetical moral improvement of future generations? If so, you can go ahead and be my guest, but myself I’d very much rather not to.
Like the popular saying goes, you either die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain. We are flawed beings, and unfortunately (yes, unfortunately, I would like to live forever as well (I mean, at least my present self, I’m pretty sure after a couple centuries I’d have gone insane even with all the memory-editing and cell-rejuvenating tech you can imagine (maybe that would extend it to a few millenia))) death is a necessary balancer of power.
So, no, I don’t wanna die for future generations, but I better do someday. Personality needs coherence, that’s why we’re advert to change (some more, some less). That’s why new beings are important to keep the power balance, if there is even any balance in this chaotic world.
One way to accept death is simply thinking how bad things could get beyond this current unusual normalcy (which won’t last long). Cancer patients want to die. Slaves want to die. Imagine denying death to those least fortunate. That would be way worse than mortality. (And yes, you could probably cure cancer or any pain in a world with immortality, but the problem are the slaves, of those denied the treatment… i.e., the problem is the tyranny, which would be greatly amplified in a deathless world, and being naive to the point of not considering it.)
You’re fighting a strawman (nobody’s going to deny death to anyone, and except for seriously ill most people who truly want to die now have an option to do so; myself I’m actually pro-euthanasia). And, once again, you want to inflict on literally everyone a fate you say you don’t want for yourself. Also, I don’t accept the premise there’s any innate power balance in the universe that we ought to uphold even at the cost of our lives, we do not inhabit a Marvel movie. And you’re assuming the knowledge which you can’t possibly have, about exactly how human consciousness functions and what alterations to it we’ll be able to make in the next centuries or millennia.
“you’re assuming the knowledge which you can’t possibly have”
Naturally, I can’t predict the future (unfortunately). But neither can you:
“nobody’s going to deny death to anyone”
You’re making just as much assumptions as myself. The only difference is that you want to spin the heaven/hell wheel of fortune (this is a metaphor), while I don’t—at least not until we’ve had a hell of a lot more time to study it (aka no immortality in a foreseeable future).
>When one realizes how far life is from the rosy picture that is often painted, one has a much easier time accepting death, even while still fearing it or still wanting to live as long as possible.
Do you truly estimate your life as not worth or barely worth living? If yes, I’m deeply sorry about that and I hope you’ll find a way to improve it. Let me assure you that there’s many people, myself included, who truly genuinely love life and enjoy it.
If it’s just a comforting lie you believe in believing to make the thought of death more tolerable, well, I can understand that, death really is terrifying, but then consider maybe not to use it as an argument.
I see this argument more often but I don’t think it’s always fear of death that is the driving force of not wanting to live forever.
Can you tell me if there’s something wrong with the following metaphor:
I immensely enjoy a mountain hiking trip but after a few weeks it needs to end because my body is aching and even the beauty of the mountains becomes mundane.
Isn’t life somehow the same way?
Some burdens seem only carry-able because they’re temporary and some beauty is only (or more) beautiful because it’s fleeting.
(By the way I would jump on the opportunity of an increased life span to say 200-300 years, 80 seems really short, but not indefinite extension)
Maybe it’s a mind projection fallacy? I can’t relate to that at all. I never tire of doing something new, or trying again something I enjoyed before. And there is so much to do in the universe… I could spend millions of years and not run out of things to do.
Yes, my life does not seem similar to a mountain hiking trip at all.
>By the way I would jump on the opportunity of an increased life span to say 200-300 years, 80 seems really short, but not indefinite extension
Ok that’s honestly good enough for me, I say lets get there and then argue whether we need more extension.
I’m no therapist and not even good as a regular human being at talking about carrying burdens that make one to want to kill themselves eventually, you should probably seek advice of someone who can do a better job at it.
“Do you truly estimate your life as not worth or barely worth living? If yes, I’m deeply sorry about that and I hope you’ll find a way to improve it. Let me assure you that there’s many people, myself included, who truly genuinely love life and enjoy it.”
Nah, I’ve been lucky myself. But this isn’t about myself or any individual, but life is general. I keep saying this: people today live in this rare modern oasis of comfort, which gives them these naive perspectives. Until they develop an excruciatingly painful chronic disease at least (and I mean, don’t even need to mention the massive modern dark clouds over our heads that anyone in this forum should know about).
So your argument is that people should die for their own good, despite what they think about it themselves? Probably not since it’d be a almost a caricature villain, but I don’t see where else are you going with this. And the goal of “not developing an excruciatingly painful chronic disease” is not exactly at odds with the goal “combat aging”.