I agree that evolution will continue for the human race, though I think a lot of it will become memetic rather than.
However, it’s hard to tell what’s an improvement and what isn’t.
I admit to concerns about increased no-pause longevity—the same people could stay in charge for a very long time. Institutions are less likely to get refreshed with new ideas.
Cryonics is relatively safe for that problem—people aren’t going to be able to sustain power if they’re gone for decades. (Or at least there’s some interesting science fiction work to be done figuring out how they could.)
My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.
In particular, artists aren’t fungible, and I think it would be an advantage to continue to get new works from the good ones.
“My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.”
This. I can’t help but feel we are all too often swept into crazy herd behavior. And at least currently we seem trending towards fewer languages and more globalized intellectual currents.
What is that saying? The past is a foreign country.
I admit to concerns about increased no-pause longevity—the same people could stay in charge for a very long time. Institutions are less likely to get refreshed with new ideas.
I’m also concerned by this. Particularly troublesome is the observation that moral progress seems to require multiple generations. When we defeat aging, we will have to develop the art of evolving one’s terminal values so that everyone can participate in moral progress.
‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ — Max Planck
Of course, it is the purpose of this site (in some ways) to make Planck wrong, but there’s a lot of work ahead.
I agree that evolution will continue for the human race, though I think a lot of it will become memetic rather than.
However, it’s hard to tell what’s an improvement and what isn’t.
I admit to concerns about increased no-pause longevity—the same people could stay in charge for a very long time. Institutions are less likely to get refreshed with new ideas.
Cryonics is relatively safe for that problem—people aren’t going to be able to sustain power if they’re gone for decades. (Or at least there’s some interesting science fiction work to be done figuring out how they could.)
My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.
In particular, artists aren’t fungible, and I think it would be an advantage to continue to get new works from the good ones.
“My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.”
This. I can’t help but feel we are all too often swept into crazy herd behavior. And at least currently we seem trending towards fewer languages and more globalized intellectual currents.
What is that saying? The past is a foreign country.
—L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between
—Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything (commenting on the effect of time-travel)
—yours truly
Voted up for pithiness—“The past is a foreign country”, I will definitely remember that.
It’s very useful to have one-liners for important concepts like this, helps to keep the meme propogation going.
I’m also concerned by this. Particularly troublesome is the observation that moral progress seems to require multiple generations. When we defeat aging, we will have to develop the art of evolving one’s terminal values so that everyone can participate in moral progress.
‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ — Max Planck
Of course, it is the purpose of this site (in some ways) to make Planck wrong, but there’s a lot of work ahead.