I would like to flat out ask Brin and PZ what the optimal lifespan is for the good of society. If they don’t have a specific range which they can justify, then they are not in a position to reject immortality on that basis.
I am pro-immortality, but the above isn’t entirely valid. It’s possible not to know the optimal human lifespan, while still believing, for instance, that 500 years is too much.
I am pro-immortality, but the above isn’t entirely valid. It’s possible not to know the optimal human lifespan, while still believing, for instance, that 500 years is too much.
I think this is a good point but I think my argument still applies: Brin and PZ should provide a range, which could be rough, (perhaps an order of magnitude as jaibot suggests) and defend it. This would force them to look at the pros and cons and estimate them. Or admit that such things are extremely difficult to estimate. Arguably a serious analysis of this issue requires no less.
IAWYC, but I see a potential objection.
I am pro-immortality, but the above isn’t entirely valid. It’s possible not to know the optimal human lifespan, while still believing, for instance, that 500 years is too much.
I’d settle for a 90% confidence interval. Maybe an order of magnitude?
I think this is a good point but I think my argument still applies: Brin and PZ should provide a range, which could be rough, (perhaps an order of magnitude as jaibot suggests) and defend it. This would force them to look at the pros and cons and estimate them. Or admit that such things are extremely difficult to estimate. Arguably a serious analysis of this issue requires no less.