Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arguing for Immortality

vincentwoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#81

Post by yesbabyyes »

michaelchisari wrote: post #33
yesbabyyes wrote: post #15

Death cleans out old ideas. I have a hard time getting over the feeling that an older civilization is also more conservative. Especially a civilization where the people with money and power are the ones who are older. "Death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent, it clears out the old to make way for the new." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_ptbiPoXM

I have a hard time getting over the feeling that an older civilization is also more conservative. I'd assume most conservatism would die with the generation which rejects longevity. Those who embrace it are more likely to be interested in human progress and advancement.

Or they are more likely to be interested in keeping their privileged positions. I fear few things more than a ruling class that never dies.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#82

Post by rsaarelm »

yters wrote: post #31

Isn't immortality physically impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Sure, we can live for a much, much longer time. But, "long" is relative, mostly based on what we expect. I.e. now we believe living 80 years is a long time, whereas centuries ago 40 may have seemed a long time. What I'm saying is that surviving until heat death may seem long now, but that's only because it is currently impossible. Such "imm…

Freeman Dyson's got some ideas about how some type of life could keep going for an arbitrarily long time even in an universe undergoing heat death: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson_ad/dyson_ad_index.html

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#83

Post by maqr »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #28

I noticed a lot of people confuse "realistic" immortality (which is presumably achievable through advances in medicine, but does not imply an infinite life span - only a very very long one and the absence of mortal disease) with forced (mandatory) immortality (which means you are sentenced to live forever, you can't die no matter what you do). I am perpetually surprised how few people realize that only the first kind…

> I am perpetually surprised how few people realize that only the first kind can be discussed rationally, while the second kind is at best a purely theoretical hypothesis.

Depends on how you define the immortal part. For example, my disk drive can't be immortal, but with proper care, the data contained on it can be.

Does data-dumped me count as immortality? I think it should. If you eliminate all the wacky religious stuff people believe in (though I assume most HN'ers are atheist), aren't we just big biological stores of information?

If so, "you can't die no matter what you do" is essentially true, in that you could be restored from a recent backup -- the same way as when a hard drive fails.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#84

Post by yesbabyyes »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #48
yesbabyyes wrote: post #15

Death cleans out old ideas. I have a hard time getting over the feeling that an older civilization is also more conservative. Especially a civilization where the people with money and power are the ones who are older. "Death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent, it clears out the old to make way for the new." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd_ptbiPoXM

I'm pretty sure the benefits would outweigh any perceived drawbacks: 1. Like elves in Tolkien's works, people who can only die by disease or by being slain might be much more careful about starting wars that could kill them (politicians probably wouldn't, but those who have to do the fighting might). 2. Imagine a world where the Einsteins, Hawkings, etc. don't die just as they've come to master their field, but conti…

1. Yes. They might. The thing is, the politicians are much more likely to be immortal than the soldiers.

2. Yes, I agree that would be pretty sweet. Einstein was conservative too, though. It seems to me he refused to accept quantum physics because of a stagnating mind. I might be totally wrong.

3. I think we might become better at avoiding to repeat bad choices. I also think a lot of the people in their 20s who think immortality is just great underestimates the changes it would entail to human culture.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#85

Post by delinquentme »

colanderman wrote: post #68
delinquentme wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nice downvote... how about an explanation?? this quote is fodder.

Someone (not I) downvoted you presumably because you didn't indicate what was your issue with the quoted material. Do you want a clarification? Do you disagree? Do you think it was a typo? Are you offended? A sole question mark does not content make.

ah, ( i guess ) theres nothing substantiating why these humans would be "pets"

is this presuming that we all get Alzheimers? That theres a cap in mental capacity? ??

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#86

Post by delinquentme »

evgen wrote: post #67
delinquentme wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the possibility of super long lives happens to have really interesting social repercussions ... I see no reason why after but a single generation this idea of popping kids out pre 30 wouldnt just go away

The idea would not go away, but there is a lot of strong evidence that it would diminish significantly. Two hundred years ago an average woman in the US would have had 7-8 live births by the time she was 30, a hundred years ago it was 3.5, and today it is around 2. Better birth control and better options for how women want to live their lives can explain a large part of the second drop, but the drop from 1800-1900 wa…

as soon as you can tell a girl: " you've got the option to have healthy kids at age 200 and you're probably going to live to be 1000", and the gravity of that sinks in...

Enormous cascading effects, and comparing these possibility to past events ... im sorry the scale simply pales in comparison.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#87

Post by jonshea »

It’s a bit of a spoiler to post it here, but Nick Bostrom’s “The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant” (Journal of Medical Ethics, 2005, Vol. 31, No. 5) is the single most influential essay that I have ever read. It completely changed how I think of aging.

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#88

Post by Florin_Andrei »

maqr wrote: post #83
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #28

I noticed a lot of people confuse "realistic" immortality (which is presumably achievable through advances in medicine, but does not imply an infinite life span - only a very very long one and the absence of mortal disease) with forced (mandatory) immortality (which means you are sentenced to live forever, you can't die no matter what you do). I am perpetually surprised how few people realize that only the first kind…

> I am perpetually surprised how few people realize that only the first kind can be discussed rationally, while the second kind is at best a purely theoretical hypothesis. Depends on how you define the immortal part. For example, my disk drive can't be immortal, but with proper care, the data contained on it can be. Does data-dumped me count as immortality? I think it should. If you eliminate all the wacky religious…

> Does data-dumped me count as immortality? I think it should.

It depends on what consciousness ultimately is.

Even if consciousness goes with the data, this "wet" instance of it has still gone through death irreversibly.

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#89

Post by jokermatt999 »

mannicken wrote: post #32

Death and life are fluid points, not black-and-white absolutes as some like to see them. Then only thing that could distinguish me from a rock is self-awareness. One can argue that self-awareness is enjoyable but he is merely repeating words of gurus who achieved self-awareness. Without the slightest realization of what they are actually saying. In reality, self-awareness requires introspective meditation and there i…

As much as I dislike the phrase... "Obligatory XKCD": http://xkcd.com/610/

I'm pretty sure most people think the same way. It's a rather solipsistic view, isn't it?

Re: Arguing for Immortality

#90

Post by mannicken »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #89
mannicken wrote: post #32

Death and life are fluid points, not black-and-white absolutes as some like to see them. Then only thing that could distinguish me from a rock is self-awareness. One can argue that self-awareness is enjoyable but he is merely repeating words of gurus who achieved self-awareness. Without the slightest realization of what they are actually saying. In reality, self-awareness requires introspective meditation and there i…

As much as I dislike the phrase... "Obligatory XKCD": http://xkcd.com/610/ I'm pretty sure most people think the same way. It's a rather solipsistic view, isn't it?

Actually, I'm not truly conscious either. I think self-awareness is like love or a perfect circle, or a perfect line.. an idea that can never be achieved in reality.

PS. I am particularly half-conscious since I woke up five minutes ago :))

Post reply on HN