Yes, the discussion should have been more focused. Otherwise there is just way too much ground to cover in an hour. There was not enough back and forth over the key points. Still it was pretty interesting (given the participants, how could it not be!)
As far as the argument itself goes, I would have made the following points:
If we get to the point where practical immortality is feasible, so much else will have changed about the world that it’s extremely hard to predict what the impact of immortality would be. When you are predicting the future, it’s very hard to get out of one’s current mindset. Which is why the clothing in 1960s sci fi television looks very 60s-ish.
I don’t think there is a choice between immortality and unlimited reproduction. Even without immortality, unlimited reproduction is a problem. Immortality only makes it a bit worse. We don’t see the reproduction problem right now because it’s only in the last 50 or 100 years that it’s become possible to reproduce ad libitum. Right now, less than 1% of the world’s population is taking advantage of this opportunity.
I agree with Yudkowsky 100% about the silver lining phenomenon. It’s too much of a coincidence to think that we are pretty close to the optimal lifespan for the good of society. 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 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.
Yes, the discussion should have been more focused. Otherwise there is just way too much ground to cover in an hour. There was not enough back and forth over the key points. Still it was pretty interesting (given the participants, how could it not be!)
As far as the argument itself goes, I would have made the following points:
If we get to the point where practical immortality is feasible, so much else will have changed about the world that it’s extremely hard to predict what the impact of immortality would be. When you are predicting the future, it’s very hard to get out of one’s current mindset. Which is why the clothing in 1960s sci fi television looks very 60s-ish.
I don’t think there is a choice between immortality and unlimited reproduction. Even without immortality, unlimited reproduction is a problem. Immortality only makes it a bit worse. We don’t see the reproduction problem right now because it’s only in the last 50 or 100 years that it’s become possible to reproduce ad libitum. Right now, less than 1% of the world’s population is taking advantage of this opportunity.
I agree with Yudkowsky 100% about the silver lining phenomenon. It’s too much of a coincidence to think that we are pretty close to the optimal lifespan for the good of society. 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.
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.