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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#91

Post by grishka »

majkinetor wrote: post #90
grishka wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No reason. I must.

You're a conscious being that has free will. Technically, the only thing you "must" obey is physics. Our ability to override these animalistic instincts is one of the things that makes us distinct from animals.

Besides, making life-changing decisions with "no reason" is... I don't know... irresponsible with regard to yourself?

> That still doesn't change my design to want them because of feromones, reproductive system etc.

This doesn't make you want to have kids. This makes you want to have sex.

> Like I said, health span. That is achievable nowdays.

I don't think lifespan and healthspan are separable like you suggest. How do you even imagine that? A 30-year-old-looking person in perfect health just suddenly dying (of what?) at the chronological age of 90? That's not how this works. People die "of old age" because, well, they age, and their health declines as they age. If you don't age, your risk of death doesn't increase. That simple.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#92

Post by snikeris »

thret wrote: 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 used to think life insurance was a waste until I had a family I was supporting. I found myself more concerned about dying. After increasing my life insurance, I was more comfortable with dying. The peace of mind is worth the cost to me.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#93

Post by majkinetor »

grishka wrote: post #91
majkinetor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No reason. I must. You're a conscious being that has free will. Technically, the only thing you "must" obey is physics. Our ability to override these animalistic instincts is one of the things that makes us distinct from animals. Besides, making life-changing decisions with "no reason" is... I don't know... irresponsible with regard to yourself? > That still doesn't change my design to want them because of feromone…

> You're a conscious being that has free will. Technically, the only thing you "must" obey is physics

That's what I do. The branch is biochemistry. Existence o free will is debatable - people are easily controlled via various chemicals: when to eat, sleep, love, hate, believe or to be conscious. As many of those are endogenous, it turns out that humans are spectrum. What you call belief might be nothing more then your body producing higher level of DHT compared to somebody else.

If/when we override all of that, we will no longer be homosapiens.

> Our ability to override these animalistic instincts is one of the things that makes us distinct from animals.

It exists in Dune world and is called Gom Jabar, but every next day in this world it looks more and more to be just another typical anthropomorphic illusion.

> Besides, making life-changing decisions with "no reason" is... I don't know... irresponsible with regard to yourself?

Living in virtual worlds might be irresponsible too with regard to yourself and others.

And besides, I clearly stated reason does exist, part of it biochemical, part of it because I admire certain parent-only-human-attributes.

> This doesn't make you want to have kids. This makes you want to have sex.

Semantncs. Sex is prereq for kids at this moment. I guess you didn't hear for oxy also ?

> I don't think lifespan and healthspan are separable like you suggest.

Of course they are. You can live 90 years like a champ and drop dead next day. Or you can treat your body like garbage can and live 70 years but half of it wished you were never born. Would you switch places with Hawking ?

I am sure Kurzweil would not agree with you. :-)

> Technically, the only thing you "must" obey is physics

Technically, if we are being pedantic, this is also questionable and thing of faith. Simulation theory ?

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#94

Post by monkeycantype »

_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.

The decades of middle then old age, tired, first from scrambling to establish ourselves, then raise children, and then as they come to adulthood, we find ourselves an exhausted hollow shadow of what we had hoped to be. It’s not that people need to die so culture can evolve, it’s that we spend so much of our lifetime in decline, what we need is to give people decades or centuries of vitality. It takes so long for us to learn the basics of what others have done before us, decades in school for a short window in which to add to the frontier, its a heartbreaking waste, Longer healthy lives might mean, decades or centuries of flexible open minded thinking, centuries to learn more and become wiser, longer lives, and more robust repairable bodies put the stars and back in reach in a lifetime

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#95

Post by thefounder »

1penny42cents wrote: post #89
thefounder wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There would be no song to evaluate once it dies/is forgotten. Of course it could have some value for the people that heard it but that values goes to zero once they die as well.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#96

Post by c22 »

majewsky wrote: post #48
mcguire wrote: post #45

As for me, I'm not so in love with myself or the world that the idea of immortality sounds even moderately appealing. Spending eternity in the company of immortal people? Bleah.

Immortality in any practical sense of the word does not mean eternal life. Even if we have fountain-of-youth-type medicine, people are still going to get run over by buses.

Honestly the bus problem sounds easier to solve than the fountain of youth thing.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#97

Post by pixl97 »

gwn7 wrote: post #74
pixl97 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 experien…

Did you even read what I wrote? I never said 'everyone' was happy having children. Yet that is exactly how you interpreted it.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#98

Post by gwn7 »

pixl97 wrote: post #97
gwn7 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 experien…

Did you even read what I wrote? I never said 'everyone' was happy having children. Yet that is exactly how you interpreted it.

Oops, you're right. Apparently you said that you've "met parents that were regretful of having children", so I was really mistaken to interpret it the way I did. Taking back the last part of my comment back and apologize for the straw man.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#99

Post by rayiner »

Nursie wrote: post #58
runsWphotons wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Speculation is indeed somewhat baseless, however I think it's a bit off to attribute all joy in the world to kids!

Not all of the joy, but a lot of it. My dad was born in a village in Bangladesh. Like a real village. They practiced subsistence agriculture and didn’t get electricity until the 1990s. One out of every three children died before age 5. They lacked of everything a typical child-free American would need to consider life tolerable. But believe it or not, most were pretty happy.

As of 2016, the average income in Bangladesh was around $2/day: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/bangladesh/annual-hous....

The same year, 66% of people reported they were “very happy” with their life. https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/bangladesh-tops-list-.... Sure, Bangladeshis aren’t as happy as Americans. But the average Bangladeshi lives an existence that would drive your typical child-free American to suicidal despair. What do they have?

Post reply on HN