> If people like you (technologists) can get out of the pessimism of pro-aging trance, a lot can be accomplished in the next 20 to 40 years.

I'm a technologist, but I'm easily admit I'm just as useful as a brick-layer when it comes to stopping the progress of aging.

Well said. +1 for mentioning Aubrey.

If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality.

You have not offered any argument, you have simply said "if you don't see it my way, you should reconsider".

Why should I reconsider? What about your view do you feel is better than living healthier for longer?

The way I see it, if you take advantage of doctors at all you are already competing against your own ideals.

We have made huge leaps in health such that even if we die at 80, our lives will have been much more healthy and active up until that point.

If I can be healthy and active until 80 and then die at 100, then I will do that. It isn't immortality they are after, it's just more high quality life.

There is nothing graceful, or more respectable, about succumbing to death because it is the social norm at a certain age. I will cling on to life until I can no longer.

One argument is that death and limited lifespans are advantageous for the species overall. More sex, gene mixing and having offspring is better and allows for faster adaptations.

Plus ideas can change faster as culture changes.

That said, there may be ways to overcome this and I still think it's worth working on not having to die. Though trying to determine purpose behind existential questions becomes difficult pretty quickly.

Even if we figure it out since sex and having children is core to biological life and the basis for the replicating genetic code that eventually lead to us - not sure how we'd solve that. Guess we also better get working on space colonization for our start trek future.

Advantageous for species in general, maybe, but for an increasingly knowledge-based species, I don't think this still holds true. We spend our first 20+ years in training just to be able to contribute to society, and then only have 40-50 productive years left to work. This seems incredibly wasteful.

I'd be interested to know how our species' life span has changed over the past few million years. We live significantly longer than other great apes, that's probably relevant.

> ...advantageous for the species...

What about saving premature babies and babies with congenital diseases?

Asking for someone to offer an argument for the claim that "it is worth while considering other life philosophies other than those that lead to chasing immortality and viewing the end of one's own life as a negative", is kinda, well, quite frankly you sound either too naive to the world to understand the wisdom in such a claim, or you are too stubborn to allow any world view other than yours to be entertained.

Either way, life philosophies that would reflect such a claim don't have comment length "arguments" that would be convincing to anyone on any level. Some things do not lend themselves to logic. Some things require more than a few paragraphs and an argument. And sometimes, those things, are best served by parsimony, rather than loquacious debate.

So your response is that if a cute soundbite is not enough to have me nodding agreeably maybe I am not wordly enough?

You have made the exact same argument that you are defending, it boils down to "you do not understand my world view, if you understood more maybe you would."

I understand not everything fits in a comment box, but when you choose to participate in a discussion then a one line excerpt of "wisdom" is hardly useful. You cannot just imply someone is wrong and not discuss why. This isn't twitter, there is room to get started.

All I ask is some substance above "Have you considered that you might be wrong?"

Because yes, I have considered that, and I am eager to talk about it.

HN is, barely, a step above twitter. If one were to pick the bottom 20% of comments from HN, it would be ignorant, biased, group think, poor logic, borderline bigoted (but mainly ignorant).

I don't expect that you'd be nodding agreeably. But I do think one with a bit more perspective might engage in a more productive manner.

All I have done is suggest that the parent comment's argument was shallow and ultimately unhelpful. The intention was to illicit some in depth discussion, hence my questions and my views added afterwards.

All you have done in both your comments is slight the platform and slight myself, adding nothing.

I believe I understand his argument; It would be a waste to spend life chasing immortality, as you would waste the only life you had in search of more of it, thus getting to truly enjoy neither.

But I am still glad there are people chasing it, as it means we get to enjoy more life than if they were not.

The parent comment's sentiment only really makes sense if you yourself are chasing more life, and even then only if you are destined to fail. The last 50 years alone should show us that more quality life is an extremely reasonable goal. Adding nearly 20 years to the average life expectancy, from 60 to 80 for males in Australia for example.

If you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be, then I respectfully disagree with you [0].

[0] https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/...

eventually even atoms will stop spinning. i think what the commenter was getting at, is that, immortality is impossible, and so finding meaning in a life that must eventually end, is still important.

also, your argument, red herring. the commenter didn't say, let's all be happy that old age is crap. at all. that was you. you said that. why? idk.

Again you're not making much sense. 'To reconsider getting old and dying as negative' is as close to 'consider philosophies in which old age and dying is not negative' as it can get.

Please look at a description of 'red herring' [0] and kindly elaborate how it applies to my response.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

The first line from Wikipedia:

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

And, this is exactly why I keep "losing my password" for my HN account, so that I have to take a break from participating. I didn't need to look to Wikipedia know what a Red Herring is. And it's a waste of my time spelling it out for others when they could figure it out themselves.

So, it works like this:

You said: "If you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be, then I respectfully disagree with you."

But the person you were replying to said:"If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality."

their comment.. If P, perhaps Q. P = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" Q = "you should reconsider your philosophy" & "[not] chasing immortality"

and your comment... "If P, then Q." P = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be" Q = "I respectfully disagree with you"

so, the "P"s are at issue, as both "Q"s can roughly be translated into, "no", "false"

P[1] = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" compared to... P[2] = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be"

Not the same.

The original comment simply said, it's not necessarily bad. You said, "you're" arguing it is good, or natural, or the way it's supposed to be.

Again, red herring: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

You're misstatement of the original comment so distorts the issue that we're now arguing about whether "death is natural and inevitable" or "death is good". That is not what the original issue was. So, to reply to your comment, is to be distracted from a relevant or important issue. One would have been misled to go down that path.

logic 101. but hey, you have more karma points than me. so, what does logic really have against that.

Without having too much hope for it, it should be noted that the first one who catches immortality will make your post look very condescending and outright damaging to progress.

They'll have plenty of time to dig through old hacker news comments!

If you consider aging and death in old age as a _positive_, well, go for it.

Well.

I think it has been a good thing so far. Considering who tends to get access to new things first the ones that would still be living would most likely not be the nicest men and women of all times but rather the greediest.

Exactly.

I don't understand this popular craving of immortality. If you look at the current society and add immortality, you just get horrific dystopian future, where by the way majority of the world is still mortal just enslaved by power-hungry immortal overlords.

Right now however sadistic regimes are, we still know that Stalins/Kim Jong Uns of the day will die and there is at least hope.

In currently(!) non-sadistic regimes we have inequality issue where richer just get richer and poor get poorer, but at least money can't be taken to the grave, how is it good to eliminate the grave?

And the reasons people usually give for immortality are either outright egotistical "I don't want to die" or a bit veiled "my grandpa/mother/Steve Jobs was a golden person, I wish they still were around".

Well, kudos to him/her, but I take your dead grandpa over suffering of the millions, thanks.

The same for your fear of death, deal with it.

There are some nuances though:

1. We definitely should work on non-suffering in old ages.

2. This grim outlook applies only if there is no other relevant technological revolution happening at the same time. For instance, if we have free nano-machines making everything out of thin air, hierarchy of the society will already alter enough as to allow immortality being thrown into the mix.

I think immortality, like flying cars, is a goal that will only come incremementally.

It may take 1000 years to make people who can live 10,000 years, and in the interm I doubt we can imagine the social and economic changes that will happen as people progressively live longer.

Take the current world, and allow everyone to live till they are 120 instead of dying in their 70s on average. Is it such a horrible thing?

even if we accomplish all this and more, we have still not answered the question, "what is the 'good life'?" because that is not a technical question. we can put off death. we can increase quality of life during the later years of life. and this is important and beneficial work. but, nothing in this work intrinsically speaks to existential issues we face. we may use these technologies as a paradigm through which to attempt to grapple with existential issues, but none of these issues can only be 'solved' with the correct technical tools.

so when your comment begins: "Every time an existential post is made here, I have to remind people:"

I read that as a global claim (global claims are almost never true) and arrogant (in that you "have to remind people", "thank you for reminding us! what would we do without you!")

First to respond to reasoning behind my first line, maybe I should've said "Every time an existential post _like this_ is made." It's pretty clear that one of the points of the website showing the 52x90 grid is to remind us that we have only a few decades of life left. (And I believe that's the wrong way to look at it in this day and age.) And people responded accordingly in a depressing manner. This has happened multiple times in the past, hence my "I have to remind people".

As for the rest of your response (and after reading your other comments), honestly you're not making a whole lot of sense. Should we stop using technological solutions to make our lives better as much as we can, because they don't solve all your existential issues? (or did I commit a red herring again by thinking you might be committing a 'perfect solution fallacy'?).

Also thanks for the ad hominems.

Re: ad hominem critiques. I thought they were duly deserved. Your comment came across, to me, as condescending and arrogant, both qualities of the person putting forth the argument, rather than the argument. So, the critique will by necessity be "to the man" (or woman).

As to, you not being able to make sense out of my other comments. That's not necessarily my fault.

Existential issues are hard. You know what? I'd like a little extra time to work on them.

Me too. But, again, not the point the commenter was making. Just, noise.