There's nothing wrong with your thinking. In my humble opinion it shows your personal desires without much concern for everyone else. I guess this is the rub I get from most people that extol the Silicon Valley dream of extending the lives*
*of those that will inevitably be able to pay for it.
Oh shush. You know, I've got a 93-year-old grandmother with a damned sharp wit who should not fucking need assisted living and should be able to remember what we were talking about five minutes ago. I've also got a 68-or-so uncle who came down with Parkinson's Disease almost instantly upon his retirement from a lifetime of practicing medicine.
That's not to mention the in-laws with fibromyalgia and the step-father with several "bad lifestyle" diseases.
If your argument in favor of aging and death is, "Indiscriminately inflicting extreme suffering to randomly-selected people for every moment of their lives really helps to freshen up the world", you should reconsider. The problems I mentioned are not unique and special things that happened like a car accident happens. They're just what happens to everyone from living long enough. The bit at the end where you go to sleep and never wake up is nothing; the problem is the decades of suffering followed by that.
Dragon Flys only live for 4 weeks, but its enough time to reproduce and that's all "mother nature" cares about, and hardly anyone would suggest that living 4 weeks is long enough; so we need to understand our lifespans are just as arbitrary.
So what? We humans care.
For whatever reason, hardcoded death was the more successful route for a species to take. (with some notable exceptions. I believe there are species of lobsters that won't die if you put them in the right environment, I believe a species of jellyfish as well, and then some microorganisms as well)
Purely biological success knows nothing of the societies we have built and the knowledge, ability to experience, and the complex contexts within which we all live our lives. Death really doesn't make sense for an individual, and no one is really itching for Humans V1.1 so the idea of letting evolution continue doesn't make much sense either.
If I could stop aging right now, I would be content with what I am capable of. Even if I die in 30 years from bus to head syndrome, I will have been fit and active for those years and that is a much better situation than slowly deteriorating to death.
That is the reality medicine has given us already, and anti-aging is only the focusing of a subset of general health issues that tend to cause problems as we age. It isn't the search for the imoral and exclusive elixr of life as some people seem to claim it is.
Then why are we spending so much energy trying to augment ourselves? Better exercise, better diets, better schools, less disease, etc.
I would say that almost everyone can name something about themselves that they wish evolution had optimized more. (And if not evolution, then direct intervention).
Perhaps the version was number a bad way to express that though!
Basically you are saying that it's better we die so that a new generation can come and then die for others come around just to die to make way for others.
Whats the purpose of that for the individual? Why is that by any metrics desirable for humans to die for other humans to come along to just die for yet others?
But what is the purpose of that?
Questions about life's purpose are silly, just like asking "what's the purpose of Mount Blanc?" is silly.
Living longer wouldn't change the notion of "purpose" or anything around it anyway.
If if immortality didn't have negative consequences as severe as stunting an entire species, we'd probably see more species that were capable of immortal individuals. Such species do exist, but not in the Mammal kingdom as far as I'm aware.
But I also think it sets a good guideline. Death improves a species, because it leaves room for more children + more generations (for a given set of resources), which means more opportunity for improvements to evolutionary fitness.
edit: another commenter pointed out something I think is fairly profound. When a group of cells in your body decides to pursue immortality, it's usually cancer. And if you don't address it, it kills you, and them too. Science theoretically has a way to grant our individual cells immortality without causing cancer, but it'd have to be orchestrated carefully.
Good luck...
On the other hand, humanity loses out on a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience with each death.
Imagine if Einstein were alive today, for instance. Or Richard Feynman. Or Carl Sagan.
It's also a damned shame that my grandfather, who is precisely nobody on the world stage, but still somebody, and currently in the hospital and I might get a text any minute saying he's dead, is on the brink of exiting the world, joining the hundred billion or so other humans who've ceased to exist for no good reason other than that the blind god Nature doesn't care about anything we care about. What Nature has ordained, she has ordained without reference to meaning or wisdom or the interests of those who live and die within her system, and we will be doing right when we remake her.
I'm sorry for your eventual loss but immortality does not appeal to me the way I guess it appeals to others. Cycles in nature don't seem like a disease to me that need curing. Alleviating the pain and suffering of aging is fine and that's what these guys seem to be doing.
Oh, I see. You mean we should be able to run on to 200 don't you? ;)
But in two to seven decades, when they have this problem, I doubt they will see it as a moral choice to kill (/refuse to save) people because a lot of them will be conservative.
And I don't mean to suggest that we should accept death or not pursue the escape of death, but most species (with some notable exceptions) who have enjoyed evolutionary success have death hardcoded into their genome.
Which suggests to me that over a sufficient timescale (probably dozens to thousands of generations), death is beneficial to a species. Death means that there are more resources available to younger generations, and means that you get more cycles of genetic optimization. That makes the species more successful as a whole.
Humans may find some way to get optimization cycles that don't involve death, but I hold the opinion that if we don't continuously pursue optimization cycles, we'll eventually be out-competed evolutionary by something that does. We have a huge head start, but in the fable, so did the dragon.
More over, human values are not the same as the objectives of evolution, nor should they be.
> but I hold the opinion that if we don't continuously pursue optimization cycles
We can undermine the optimization of evolution just fine, without ending death from aging--
I seem to recall that both of us wear corrective lenses, thus largely excluding the selective pressure for naturally better eyesight that we might otherwise be subjected to. :)
With that in mind, it's something of a false choice that you present: It's not like mankind is subject to the full force of evolutionary pressure with aging and completely free of it without.
Besides, I seem to recall the the rate for accidental death in adults suggests that we'd end up with a roughly 500 year life span even if we completely cured all aging related issues. A lot longer in human terms, but hardly anything for evolution.
Another perspective would be that the biggest threat to mankinds survival isn't anything evolution is well equip to protect us from-- us killing ourselves with phenomenal weapons and bad policy. Because our bad decisions could wipe our mankind worldwide evolution has no real chance to fabricate less problematic future humans. ... But perhaps humans acting in their own perpetually immortal interest might just behave a little more prudently.
I think we're pretty safe. Evolution works really, really slowly. Even the earliest humans recorded optimized their lives much faster than evolution. That's our advantage - a brain that can do the iterations in abstract, many orders of magnitude faster than nature does in matter.
Statistically speaking, anti-aging isn't going to be the defining factor in your mortality, if that's what you want to do with your extended lifetime.
"I f*cked up spectacularly" is an acceptable way to go. "I watched a lot of TV" is not. 80 years is not long enough to attempt all the spectacular things.
I also find it at least a bit disturbing that WoW is so high on that list. Then again, if you have all the time in the world ...
Depending on the solution, normal dying might indeed be impossible. I remember a piece of dystopian fiction (I think it was an Outer Limits episode) where characters couldn't even kill themselves anymore because nanobots would instantly repair any damage.
Not that this scenario is extremely likely but there might be ramifications we can't think about yet. Immortality after all isn't a particularly well-trodden path.
Black Mirror's "White Christmas" covered a similar theme with uploaded consciousness, where the victim obviously couldn't self-terminate in any way.
I love thinking about this concept. I hope that over the next 20 years, they figure out how to extend life to 125 years, so that then in the following 20-40 years they can extend life indefinitely. Here's to hoping.
He has his reasons for wanting to kill leopards, but eventually humans are going to kill them all and that can't be right.
Like you, I'm excited by the idea of living longer, but it's selfish. For the world it would be better if we lived even shorter. You'd have a faster churn of ideas. Think of ignorant people consuming ivory or rhino horn out of ignorance. This ignorant generation is going to wipe out these animals outside zoos and tiny protected reserves. Their children would likely be more educated and likely not follow the ignorant behaviour of their parents. But the parents(we) live too long.
I'm sure there is an analogue in my appetite for beef and the destruction of the Amazon or my desire to own and drive a fossil fuel driven vehicle.
But probably not human created stuff like raids and video games, because new ones will be made. Well languages maybe, because of consolidation.
http://www.hhgproject.org/entries/wowbagger.html (That site sucks to read, btw. White text on black background, ugh.)
I've felt this way since I was 20, and I haven't seen much.
Yea, there are typically trees, bushes, rocks and dirt on every trail. But, they're different. Even the same trail changes over time. Trees fall, views change. Sometimes you see a deer. Sometimes you find a crazy looking flower, or bug, or plant. Sometimes it's just exhilarating to hike quickly and elevate your heartrate in the crisp cold mountain air.
I know what you're saying though. I have been on a trail, where it was the first time on that trail, and I though, geez, same ol' same ol'. But, I quickly forgot that a few minutes later as I left the highway, and got deeper in the wilderness.
I love it. As I mentioned earlier, I work a full time. Sitting at a desk. So, these times on the trail are so refreshing.
Part of the whole agelessness thing is that some of the mechanics of how our cells breakdown and begin to fail would need to be cured. At which point, our bones, and muscles, if cured of that deterioration, would lead to curing death, but it would also lead to the ability to maintain your health and body. As long as you continue to exercise, and eat well, you'd probably have a body similar to an average fit modern 40 year old I'd expect. Or somewhere between the crazy metabolism of 20 year olds, and the deterioration of 70 year olds.
I don't know any of the science though, so just speculating based on what I've read, and my opinions.
It's like playing a game with all the cheats on. Sure, they let you "win" super easily, but because it was super easy, it stops being fun.
You could still just as easily get hit by a car when you are 90 and look 20. Or 1000 and look 20, assuming that's even possible. What's really interesting is if people could actually prolong their lifespan indefinitely but we have the same limited bodies. Then you'll see people trying really hard to say alive to comical effect.
I think Aronofsky's The Fountain is a really great outlook on death. It is a disease and like any disease we may as well try hard to defeat it. Doesn't mean it isn't very natural.
Hell, if age couldn't kill you, then you could chose your death, which is less random than a heart attack or stroke.
I tend to see human-lifespan rationalizations as simple fatalism. It's okay to think you'd get bored after a million years, but dooming every living human to die because you'd be bored is kind of insane if you think about it.
But you are very mortal and you are at most a few decades old. Your perspective would probably change drastically in your third century or millenia.
It makes conjecture like this as good as worthless because as mortals we do not have the ability to see it from another perspective.
I'd rather have that opportunity than not.
No, if we lived forever, we would have to make a lot more hard choices, because we would have so much more time to be exposed to them.
That feels scarier to me.
Imagine you could chose to die on your 75th birthday, but in return keep your full 20-something health until then. I'd do it right away.
Ultimately all the human race will die. Over a short or a long span only learning will matter.
On the contrary, talking to my 82-year old professor who is sharper than most college kids but has constant health problems and I wish we could beat aging.
You're right, we shouldn't be afraid of different experiences, but that doesn't also mean that fighting aging is bad. We could apply your arguments to all medical care, but we don't because there's no point in needlessly suffering.
If it is possible to live healthy life past 75 - that would be even better.
Unfortunately none of that is possible to accomplish in the timeframe that would benefit us personally.
Tell people you want to cure cancer and you're a hero. Tell people you want to cure age-related decline and eventually death and you're a weirdo extremist.
Aubrey De Grey calls it the "pro aging trance"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#Pro-aging_tranc...
Besides, lifestyle needs to be addressed first. Reduce/eliminate risky behaviors, eat correctly (whatever that may be), and exercise regularly. Then perhaps look into supplements and treatments.
Churchill: I drink and smoke and I am 200 percent fit.
Evolution is a constant processes of competition. When members of a species start living longer, the upgrading of their gene pool slows down. The older members maintain their old ideas and ways of life, and they soak up resources that crowd out the younger members.
The environment is constantly changing. Thanks to all the other organisms that are evolving, it's not enough to become the apex predator and then stagnate. Organisms are always finding a new way to take advantage of their environment, which includes the other organisms.
For this reason, I do not think that any single individual will ever be immortal, and probably not even a collective. That would require gaining control of the universe's resources in a way that guarantees they never lose it.
Decentralization is inherent to the functioning of the universe. The speed of light ensures that multiple decisions be made in parallel. Those that make the most self interested decisions will be competitive, and while that often means participating as a group, no biological group that I know of is entirely devoid of selfish behavior among its members.
Immortality is largely incompatible with evolution and competition.
That's an incredibly good argument in favor of immortality. "Evolution" and "competition" are not gods. They do not have any moral authority over us. Our entire civilization has been built on the principle of not subjecting ourselves to Darwinian survival-selection.
That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology.
I don't believe it's something you can escape. It largely boils down to the idea of infinite wants vs. finite resources. Bostrom and co. like to talk about how there's enough energy in the universe to power 10^XX human lifetimes, but I strongly don't believe that a human is going to be the ultimate lifeform. Already we can see that the average first-world human today uses substantially more energy than the average human 1000 years ago.
Unless we hit a ceiling on complexity (not currently in sight), there will always be people who want access to more energy. Since energy is finite, there will be competition between them for that energy. And that will more or less result in Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest, at least as far as some individuals/groups/organisms/species will be better at getting access to individuals as others.
I guess the other alternative is that we hit an entirely egalitarian society, but I think that's exceedingly unlikely, as it would require everybody to agree 100% to limit their energy consumption to exactly what they've been allocated, and not to try to acquire more.
> That aside, you should probably go count ducks in a swamp or do some other ecological fieldwork before talking about the evolutionary fitness of organisms or ecosystems. You sound atrocious at biology.
I appreciate the criticism, and apologize for the sloppy metaphors. Evolution thus far though has very clearly favored death as the primary means of design. Few species have remained unchanged over the past XX million years, and even fewer are theoretically capable of immortality (barring some sort of medical intervention). Most organisms have aging hardcoded into their genome.
Once again, you sound atrocious at biology. Using terms like "ultimate lifeform" isn't even real biology, it's anime and video game "biology(tm)". Real-world evolution has no teleology built into it: there's no "ultimateness" to reach towards.
>Evolution thus far though has very clearly favored death as the primary means of design.
Evolution doesn't really favor anything, as such. Death happens because the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes even the most robust systems (and life is really robust, actually) break down eventually.
>I guess the other alternative is that we hit an entirely egalitarian society
So to be clear, you think an "egalitarian society" (your words) is even less likely than human immortality, despite the fact that relatively egalitarian human societies have been observed in, say, Sweden, while immortality has not.
Have you considered that you may be Ebeneezer Scrooge?
Imagine a cell in your body that thinks this way.
What would you call that cell ?
It starts with a "c" ...
Also, the cell you mean is not the one that refuses to die, but one that wants to aggressively reproduce.
Because nobody ever seems to go around funding peer-reviewed medical science done in well-controlled labs with large sample sizes to study how to fight aging.
This is not a problem that a startup company can solve. This is a problem for steady, difficult progress over decades. But people go for the sexy headline rather than the eventual working solution.
This seems like a thing that is being under-funded and under-researched, and more money, and particularly attention, being given to it is a good thing even if you don't think the particular method is likely to be effective.
[citation needed]
I think, like everyone else, you expect a reasonable lifespan and would fight to achieve that. From there, its just a matter of how much is enough.
Admittedly I am also of the school of 'be safe as long as it doesn't take too much mental stress'. I'll live as long as I live, given flu shots and careful driving. But I'm not going to obsess about it either.
If we achieve this, but don't reduce input, longer life will just mean we live to see the crash. So in order to have long life how can we stop the growth, and ideally reduce, the human population without totalitarian approaches?
Before solving aging we need to solve achieving a genuinely sustainable number for the planet and its biosphere.