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

Immortality vs. Society (2016)

grishka.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#71

Post by hardyhooa »

maria_weber23 wrote: post #3

Wow, the author must be a bit depressed or something. I don't even know where to start. > If I’m going to cease to exist, it doesn’t matter what would be in a world without me. Oh yeah, egoism at its best lol. If I die, why shouldn't everyone else? > children make a human a slave of circumstances for at least 15 years. For what? For nothing, just because. Okay... He is also realizing that children are not his "helper…

...so you are very, very invested in childrearing, and feel so attacked that you must bubble up a mini-listicle of specious arguments to "prove" this opposite worldview is a sign of mental illness, and close with a wish for its adherents to be eradicated for your happiness.

Egoism, meet egotism.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#72

Post by knodi123 »

rayiner wrote: post #15
XiJInPaddington wrote: post #4

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…

Here's a modest proposal: All these benefits to a <100 year lifespan would be even more dramatic with a <50 year lifespan. Just think how much more meaningful each year would be, if you only got half as many! Think of how many more "firsts" there would be if we execute people who turn 50!

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#73

Post by knodi123 »

Foxmilk wrote: post #59

Without trying to imply any criticism of the life extension movement, when I read about arguments in support of technological immortality, they usually rest of the notion that death is a bad thing. Which seems intuitive. But I frequently wonder to myself: why is life preferable to death? Obviously we're all been programmed through evolution to fear and avoid death, since if we didn't we wouldn't be here reading this…

From a certain point of view, we're all biological machines designed to spread life, and the reason we want to be alive is because the creatures who didn't, didn't fight hard enough to get here today. So from that point of view, sure - choosing to be alive for as long as possible is about as meaningful as trying to get the highest score on an arcade game.

So sure, a person ought to be free to step off of the biological treadmill and come up with their own goal and purpose. But what alternate purpose do you propose? I've come up with quite a few that appeal to me, and for all of the ones I like, living longer is still beneficial.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#74

Post by gwn7 »

pixl97 wrote: post #46
amarant wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never met a parent tho didn't regret having children! I've also never met I've who would admit to regretting it openly. Now ask them if they would recommend it for you, and they'll spill the beans for you...

I'll have to say your experience is an anecdote and not data. I've met parents that were regretful of having children, but I have meet people who's only regret is they did not have more children than they did. You may live in an environment where you have a limited set differing world experiences, keep that in mind when making any important decisions.

> your experience is an anecdote

Yes, all personal experiences are anecdotes. That's by definition.

> your experience is an anecdote and not data

As if there is something wrong with sharing anecdotes in a forum like this. This is not a scientific journal.

> I've met parents that were regretful of having children, but I have meet people who's only regret is they did not have more children than they did.

"Your experience is an anecdote, and you shouldn't share anecdotes here, but here's an anecdote from me to counter your anecdote"

> You may live in an environment where you have a limited set differing world experiences,

All they did was to acknowledge the existence of a fact they experienced personally. They don't have to see the whole world to do that. This sounds patronising. Maybe it's you who live in an environment where you have a limited set of differing world experiences? Have you never met anybody who regretted having children? How can you even believe that everyone who had children are happy with that decision, and have no regrets? I won't start with my own anecdotes, but there are many.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#75

Post by [deleted] »

Foxmilk wrote: post #59

Without trying to imply any criticism of the life extension movement, when I read about arguments in support of technological immortality, they usually rest of the notion that death is a bad thing. Which seems intuitive. But I frequently wonder to myself: why is life preferable to death? Obviously we're all been programmed through evolution to fear and avoid death, since if we didn't we wouldn't be here reading this…

[deleted]

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#76

Post by edanm »

runsWphotons wrote: post #37
Nursie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massive, sweeping, baseless assertions there.

Yes but what do you want on this topic? Speculating about immortality is also baseless.

I mean, I think it should be more probable that most people would prefer living longer over not, considering the fact that, at any given moment, most people do prefer to continue living.

That in our society wanting immortality is somehow the "fringe" view (not to mention often depicted as evil) is pretty crazy IMO.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#77

Post by _Microft »

XiJInPaddington wrote: post #4

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…

> Our acquiescence of death is the greatest tragedy ever and collectively we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Death is a tragedy for relatives of the deceased but for society it is the most rejuvenating thing one could imagine. Change is so much easier when old ideas just die out.

Immortality/longevity might be great on an individual level but it is stagnation and death on a societal one.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#78

Post by edanm »

rayiner wrote: post #15
XiJInPaddington wrote: post #4

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…

Thought experiment - one day aliens come to earth. It turns out they have incredibly long lifespans (practically immortal by our standards). They also have very very few children. This kind of setup has been imagined in plenty of SF novels.

This kind of scenario seems to contradict your post. Here are options that I see, which do you think is correct (or am I missing something):

1. This kind of scenario, while fun to imagine, is actually impossible. They can't actually be happy without children or with such long lives.

2. This kind of scenario is certainly possible for aliens, but impossible for humans specifically.

3. You would actually recommend to the aliens to die after 100 years instead, as that would make their lives more meaningful.

4. Something else...?

Also, to answer one specific point you raise:

> 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 happy.

I mean, sure, I imagine what would make me happy if I lived forever. But I'm perfectly happy if most people did more of what made them happy, and I'm perfectly aware that doesn't mean most people would read Shakespeare. Who cares? Let them read / watch / do whatever they want, just like they do in life right now. Most of what I enjoy wouldn't make most people happy, and it's not reading Shakespeare either.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#79

Post by 1penny42cents »

This argument is only valid from an egocentric perspective. It's like saying when you close your eyes, the world ceases to exist because you can't see it. I want my loved ones to be happy when my eyes are closed, as much as I want them to be alive and well when I die. There is something left behind.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#80

Post by thefounder »

1penny42cents wrote: post #79

This argument is only valid from an egocentric perspective. It's like saying when you close your eyes, the world ceases to exist because you can't see it. I want my loved ones to be happy when my eyes are closed, as much as I want them to be alive and well when I die. There is something left behind.

>> I want my loved ones to be happy when my eyes are closed

Well, they will die too so they won't do any better..or even worse they will die before you.

Post reply on HN