Live data from Hacker News

Immortality vs. Society (2016)

grishka.me

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#21
post #15

I would give so much to live in a society where people like Aubrey de Gray are heroes like Elon Musk is in ours. The fact that people die does not have to be immutable fate. We look back at people seeking the fountain of youth or the philosophers stone with sneering contempt but at least they had the right goal. Our acquiescence of death is the greatest tragedy ever and collectively we ought to be ashamed of ourselve…

Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live. People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people ha…

Massive, sweeping, baseless assertions there.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#23

> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…

Your body isn't designed to do anything. We are like viruses in the sense of whatever works, works. While folks who don't reproduce are summarily eliminated from the gene pool.

Not because they don't have value, but because they don't 'work'.

The fact that you find having children fulfilling is about you, not about anybody else.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#24
post #13

I do agree with this thesis in the sense that leaving an inheritance has no benefit to you. I've tried to explain to people that life insurance is a waste of money for this very reason but it is hard to put into words. I think they are undervaluing procreation though. You should do it because it makes you happy - I have never met a parent who regretted having children.

> I think they are undervaluing procreation though. You should do it because it makes you happy - I have never met a parent who regretted having children

People do but a small proportion: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... About 90% of people 45+, if they had to do it again, would have kids. The 7% who had kids but would choose not to have done so is basically cancelled out by the more than half of people who had no kids but wish they had.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#25
post #17
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live. People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people ha…

Excuse me? Lot of people enjoyed life without having children.

It’s not about individuals having children, but a society that collectively has few to no children. 9 out of 10 people age 45+, if they had to do it all again, would have had children: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... Only 1 in 10 wouldn’t have had kids if they had to do it over. Immortality would universalize the experience of the 10% to the other 90% of the population.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#26
post #15

I would give so much to live in a society where people like Aubrey de Gray are heroes like Elon Musk is in ours. The fact that people die does not have to be immutable fate. We look back at people seeking the fountain of youth or the philosophers stone with sneering contempt but at least they had the right goal. Our acquiescence of death is the greatest tragedy ever and collectively we ought to be ashamed of ourselve…

Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live. People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people ha…

I think we’d find something to do. Play ball!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17776

https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#28
People treat happiness as a good unto itself. Why? "People like being happy"? That's circular. "There's no other point to life"? So?

Desire for immortality reads as a cope. You have picked a goal in life that is truly pointless. You recognize that. You therefore want to compensate by trying to get as much of it as you can. Unfortunately, you can't compensate for pointlessness with volume. (Just as you can't compensate for losing money on each sale with volume). If you pursue something worthwhile, then you need precisely however much time it takes to do that thing, then you're done. You won't reach the end and still feel anguish at having no time left.

I see pursuit of immortality as deeply immoral. There are other human beings waiting to be born into the world. We have limited space and resources, capable of supporting a certain maximum number of people at a time. You want to take as much of that time and space for yourself, even at the cost of preventing others from being born. This frequently coming from supposed altruists. Cryonics is similarly deplorable. You, like everyone who came before you, are going to die. But right before you die, you are going to have your body frozen in time, at the moment before your death. Then you are going to demand that the people of the future, who themselves face the inevitability of death, unfreeze you and extend your life, rather than bringing their own children into the world.

Of course, if we look at it from the other perspective, immortality is not only currently achievable but trivial. And, furthermore, it costs your ancestors nothing. The trick is to perceive the universe as being made up of little cells of spacetime. You're goal is to put something into one of those cells. Once you've done so, it will stay there for the rest of all eternity. In fact, you do this every day (every instant), so there is no trouble in putting things in these spacetime cells. Rather, the trouble is deciding what to put in them. Naturally, if they are going to last for the rest of all eternity, you ought to pick something pretty special to go in them.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf (section 10) "In complexity theory, the difference between space and time manifests itself in the straightforward fact that you can reuse the same memory cells over and over, but you can’t reuse the same moments of time." (so make the most of them)

http://thecodelesscode.com/case/234 "TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE/The code beside persisting to the last—/as permanent as aught upon this sphere—"

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#29

> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…

I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children? You mention having a child is an experience in which you wish to take part; you relish the thought of being less self-centered.

Too little weight is given to the fact that no consciousness exists because it has willed itself into existence. Put another way, nothing consents to being given life.

A feeling mind will come into being, suffer throughout life, likely watch you die, and eventually die itself because you wanted to feel fulfilled. I want a child, therefore I will bring one into this world. Often, it's said having a child is an act of selflessness. I see it the opposite way.

On the flip side, adopting a child is the most selfless thing you can do, in my opinion. Why do only 4% of American households w/ children have an adopted child*? The OP's blog post is surmising it's because we procreate to achieve some tangible sense of immortality, as we consider the passing of our genetic material to be the next best thing to actual in-the-flesh eternal life.

The anthropologist Earnest Becker wrote a book in the '70s called The Denial of Death which reaches much the same conclusion, only broader: that all of civilization is an effort to achieve symbolic if not literal immortality.

* https://adoptionnetwork.com/knowledge-hub/adoption-myths-fac...

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#30

The first part rings dangerously close to solipsism in my ears, and once you’re there nothing much matters. Just trash the planet, use people and move on. Cause once you’re dead it doesn’t matter? I might be wrong but you can’t build a civilization in that way. Second thing is that immortality creates conservatism. Old age does too, but it seems to me immortality over-indexes self-preservation over progress of civili…

No, because if you want to live forever, you can't trash the planet.

You got to keep nature in check as long as possible.

Post reply on HN