Being against death reveals a profound misunderstanding about what life is about, which is: finiteness, urgency, novelty, creativity.
We don't need room for new people with new ideas, room isn't the issue: as far as we know so far, the Universe is virtually infinite. When we come around to defeating death (it's bound to eventually happen) we'll start terraforming, doing generation-ships to reach even further, and the rate of growth of human knowledge will reach an even more unimaginably fast pace.
And then we existentially argue "Does any of it matter?" :)
You're seeing it as the key to suffering, but its equally reasonable to view it as what it will likely become - an instrument of power.
Congratulations: you've managed to point out one of the very, very few nice things about having your body slowly but unstoppably degrade for six decades starting in your mid-20s.
This is a classic example of a limited rationalised mindset. Imagine how much more enriched people lives would be if they got to know their great grandparents and more. Death is a tragedy, there is nothing stopping you and others who share your beliefs from ending life at any moment they want. This is about options, think about the potential -- it would change society is so many ways.
Something I've been thinking about for a while is: what would it mean for peoples' willingness to save another person from a burning building, or swim to rescue someone drowning at sea, or donate a kidney, etc, if we all developed a sense of entitlement that we should be able to live forever?
When so many people at all levels of society are unable to enjoy the lives they have, I feel that life extension research is not something that should be a high priority for investment.
I would gladly sacrifice my life to prevent the rest of the species suffering the physical agony, mental degeneration, poverty, frustration, and violence which result from pandemic senescence.
Your moralizing aesthetic judgements do not justify the misery of billions of people, or inaction in the face of its preventable imminence.
We've been extending our lifespan for the last century through various technological advances. We are just continuing that trajectory, albeit at a faster pace.
This is a really great scifi short story that is kinda relevant to this: http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/GentleSeduction.html
How would people remember everything? How would you spend all that time? What would everyone do?
Is this just for rich people or do poor people get to live for centuries too?
Haven't done the math but if 8 billion people lived for say 500 years each, plus new arrivals constantly, wouldn't we accumulate rather?
What about fertility? Should there be a window on that?
"centuries" is far too short-term; "forever" is the goal, and "centuries" just buys enough time to get there. And of course that lifespan should be available to everyone. If the solution itself doesn't already imply a post-scarcity world, then it'll help that once you have a cure for aging, it's more economical to supply that to everyone than to treat the myriad complications that arise from aging. It's hard to get people to fund such a cure, but it seems far simpler to get funding for "we have a proven cure, let's get it to everyone".
> How would people remember everything?
In the short term, curing aging seems likely to help greatly with many degenerative mental disorders. In the long term, I expect people will find increasingly successful ways to augment their own capabilities. I doubt I'll have the same brain structure a hundred thousand years from now that I do today, if only because I expect we'll eventually run out of effective ways to debug biology in-place.
> How would you spend all that time? What would everyone do?
What wouldn't everyone do? I don't have a finite "bucket list"; my list contains everything positive I can possibly imagine, with a sort order applied, and it will always grow faster than it shrinks. Quite apart from the rest of the universe, other people provide an unbounded source of novelty.
Do you think people thousands of years ago would have asked such questions about a 120-year lifespan, and think it sounded too long?
If you lived for ten thousand years by default, would you think it too long and decide to die at 120? How about if you lived indefinitely?
> "centuries" is far too short-term; "forever" is the goal, and "centuries" just buys enough time to get there. And of course that lifespan should be available to everyone. If the solution itself doesn't already imply a post-scarcity world, then it'll help that once you have a cure for aging, it's more economical to supply that to everyone than to treat the myriad complications that arise from aging. It's hard to get people to fund such a cure, but it seems far simpler to get funding for "we have a proven cure, let's get it to everyone".
You do know that every culture, since the beginning of time, has thought that they would live to be immortal in their lifetime. What makes you think you're different? Sure, you might have a better chance, but it's still a slim chance. Pining for a cure to aging rather than living your life is a sad way to spend something as short and precious as your life.
> > How would people remember everything?
> In the short term, curing aging seems likely to help greatly with many degenerative mental disorders. In the long term, I expect people will find increasingly successful ways to augment their own capabilities. I doubt I'll have the same brain structure a hundred thousand years from now that I do today, if only because I expect we'll eventually run out of effective ways to debug biology in-place.
> > How would you spend all that time? What would everyone do?
> What wouldn't everyone do? I don't have a finite "bucket list"; my list contains everything positive I can possibly imagine, with a sort order applied, and it will always grow faster than it shrinks. Quite apart from the rest of the universe, other people provide an unbounded source of novelty.
I don't think so. Wanting to live forever is a childish thing, it's a fear of death mixed with a type of greed. Actually living forever would be a greater hell than anything I can imagine. After the first few hundred years, when you realise that it's never going to end, after you've read every book and done all you've wanted to do, what then?
> Do you think people thousands of years ago would have asked such questions about a 120-year lifespan, and think it sounded too long?
No, because the maximum lifespan of a human hasn't fundamentally changed. The only difference is that more people are living to old age.
A slim chance is infinitely better than no chance at all. How many cultures had even the remotest chance of actually doing something about it?
And no, I'm not certain it'll happen in my lifetime. I'd say that I'd be sad and disappointed if that didn't happen, but really if that doesn't happen then I won't be anything at all. But I still consider it by far the most important problem that could possibly be solved, and worth putting incredible effort and resources towards. I also consider it worth advocating, to encourage others to push for the same goal, or at the very least discourage others from perpetuating arguments that shut down such efforts.
> Actually living forever would be a greater hell than anything I can imagine.
Then don't. But I'd suggest trying it first, or significantly expanding your imagination.
> After the first few hundred years, when you realise that it's never going to end, after you've read every book and done all you've wanted to do, what then?
With all the imagination you can bring to bear, and a universe full of possibilities, you can only think of a few hundred years worth of things to do before you'd not only get bored but get so bored you'd long for death?
To give even a minimal lower bound based on your own comment, books and stories are already being written today faster than they can be read. And that's only one of myriad possibilities. A few minutes imagination can easily produce far more interesting ones.
Do you currently get bored with life and want it to end? If not, then why do you expect that to change in only a few hundred years?
> A slim chance is infinitely better than no chance at all. How many cultures had even the remotest chance of actually doing something about it?
None, and we're no different. Why would we be?
> And no, I'm not certain it'll happen in my lifetime. I'd say that I'd be sad and disappointed if that didn't happen,
Well, no. You'll be dead. Dead people aren't disappointed.
> I also consider it worth advocating, to encourage others to push for the same goal, or at the very least discourage others from perpetuating arguments that shut down such efforts.
I don't agree that it's worth advocating. Yes, curing diseases and other such things is a worthwhile goal. But the goal of living forever is just selfish. Note that children couldn't exist in a world where people live forever (otherwise we'd run out of resources even faster than we are now).
> > Actually living forever would be a greater hell than anything I can imagine.
> Then don't. But I'd suggest trying it first, or significantly expanding your imagination.
I have a very vivid imagination. That's how I came to that conclusion. Also, how can I "try it"?
> > After the first few hundred years, when you realise that it's never going to end, after you've read every book and done all you've wanted to do, what then?
> With all the imagination you can bring to bear, and a universe full of possibilities, you can only think of a few hundred years worth of things to do before you'd not only get bored but get so bored you'd long for death?
Yes. Why do you think any differently? Evolution has placed a cap on our lifespan, because living longer than that wasn't better for our species. Have you considered that? Why do you think we'd be able to contribute anything meaningful to the world after we are 80 years old? Aside from helping younger generations (which don't exist in your world), we have nothing left to do.
More than 98% of people who ever lived are dead. It's incredibly arrogant (and akin to a tantruming child) to assume that you will survive.
> To give even a minimal lower bound based on your own comment, books and stories are already being written today faster than they can be read. And that's only one of myriad possibilities. A few minutes imagination can easily produce far more interesting ones.
I'm a scientist (as well as programmer). So I can imagine spending several hundred years trying to solve all of the scientific problems that exist. But after a few hundred years, I'll definitely get bored of that. So, I'll have to move on to something else.
> Do you currently get bored with life and want it to end? If not, then why do you expect that to change in only a few hundred years?
No. But that doesn't mean I won't get bored of it eventually. Not to mention that I can see myself being bored with <things I'm interested in now>, and no doubt I'll eventually get bored of all of the things that make me a productive member of society. At that point, I'm a drain on the world's resources. What benefit is there to keeping me alive?
LOL that is for sure. It'll be dirt within 1/1000 of that time.
As for how that might affect psychology: honestly, I'd love to see how the world might change if people adopted drastically different attitudes towards death, but I don't think it likely that this would produce far more risk aversion than we have today. Not least of which because I see no signs of tobacco companies going out of business.
For myself personally, I'm not going to stop leaving the house, but I certainly have no intention of taking up hobbies like hang gliding or motorcycle racing, any more than I plan to start smoking. (Side note: for an interesting measure of risk, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort) I don't think that level of risk aversion qualifies as "a pretty frightened bunch not leaving home much".
Also the fact that life is only a fleeting moment in time is beautiful and again, I believe necessary.
People have done the modeling on what radical life span does to population growth. The answer is a lot less than you think. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ "For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million)."
Most of the objections of the type that you voice can be answered by moving you to 1850 and making the same objections to the progress of medicine, and then seeing that they are obviously false concerns given where we are today. You could argue in 1920 that the same objections exist to building treatments that prevent people dying from heart disease: isn't it just for rich people, won't there be too many people if the old don't die on time, what would they do with all those extra years, isn't the present length of life just right, etc, etc.
Why not? Veterinaries would love novel approaches. Plus the pre-research is always carried in animals.
> How would people remember everything?
You should ask Google's Director of Engineering (Ray Kurzweil) about that. Hint: within 25-30 years your brain could have x1000 capacity via cloud computing (mobile + brain-cloud interfaces).
> Is this just for rich people or do poor people get to live for centuries too?
Your questions are quite common and have been answered hundreds of times in any of the SENS presentations. Answer: humanity as a whole will benefit from this research.
> Haven't done the math but if 8 billion people lived for say 500 years each, plus new arrivals constantly, wouldn't we accumulate rather?
The fact that we live twice as long, and we have duplicated the human lifespan in the last 100 years (in the western world), but now we have less natality tells you something? Overpopulation comes from the 3rd world and decreases as a country starts to develop...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2012/10/16/warning...
> What about fertility? Should there be a window on that?
Ask Apple or Facebook why they are offering female employees to freeze their eggs for $20k...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/apple-face...
We do: we need to realize how horrible it is that we treat it so casually, rather than as a tragedy. Perhaps then we'll do something about it.
> [1] Notice that cancer, heart-disease, Alzheimer, etc research also falls into this category - allowing people to live with less suffering.
All three of which (especially the first and last) have heavy ties to aging. It isn't just about living longer; it's about not aging. We're not talking about getting a few more decades like those in your 90s; we're talking about getting a few more centuries like those in your 30s-40s. (And hopefully that will buy us enough time for the next such improvement, and the next.)