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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#81

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

I think you need both of them because one of the few novel things that long-lived beings can do is expand into the universe around them and reveal its secrets.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#82

Post by unishark »

_Microft wrote: post #77
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.

Id say this goes in the same category with the benefits of war. Death is also a tragedy for the person who dies. That adds up to a heck of a lot of tragedy.

Perhaps old people would be far less resistant to change if their mortality wasn't breathing down their necks and they knew they had all the time in the universe to change to new careers, enjoy those societal change benefits, etc.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#83

Post by 1penny42cents »

thefounder wrote: post #80
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.

A song isn't worthless because it ends. The value of a life is more than its end result.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#84

Post by thefounder »

_Microft wrote: post #77
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.

Just put the old people on a different planet and solve this rejuvenation issue

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#85

Post by [deleted] »

knodi123 wrote: post #72
rayiner wrote: 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…

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!

[deleted]

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#86

Post by thefounder »

rayiner wrote: post #25
kiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lol...I'm pretty sure people would actually be happier.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#87

Post by thefounder »

1penny42cents wrote: post #83
thefounder wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

A song isn't worthless because it ends. The value of a life is more than its end result.

Well if the song dies/it's lost it's pretty much worthless.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#88

Post by Aicy »

thefounder wrote: post #84
_Microft wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just put the old people on a different planet and solve this rejuvenation issue

Ah, the "just move" argument

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#89

Post by 1penny42cents »

thefounder wrote: post #87
1penny42cents wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A song isn't worthless because it ends. The value of a life is more than its end result.

Well if the song dies/it's lost it's pretty much worthless.

I don't think anyone really evaluates a song on whether they think it'll survive the lifespan of the universe. It's a very narrow definition of value.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#90

Post by majkinetor »

grishka wrote: post #66
majkinetor wrote: post #19

> 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…

> My body is designed so that it can do this. Hence, not having children is against the design. Your body is also designed to age and die, by the way. What is the reason to follow that design, anyway? Why not change it to serve your own interests better? > I do want to have a health span (not life span) So why exactly would you like to die?

> Your body is also designed to age and die, by the way. What is the reason to follow that design, anyway?

No reason. I must. I am sure tech is here already to rise babies externally. That still doesn't change my design to want them because of feromones, reproductive system etc. When we are able to change that design (via viral patches for example) then we can talk about alternatives.

> So why exactly would you like to die?

I wouldn't like to die. I must die by design. There are many good reasons for it nowdays. When we have access to unlimited resources by becoming type 3 civilization, then we can talk about non dying.

Even then, its unknown what infinite life brings to table. What if it backfires someway like in altered carbon ? Would you like that kind of society ?

Like I said, health span. That is achievable nowdays. Lets be realistic or we can talk about pink elephants on the Mars too.

Post reply on HN