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

NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

blog.newlimit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#121

Post by netizen-936824 »

datameta wrote: post #111
jcrben wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Elon Musk that immortality is actually not great, and would instead lead to a static dystopia. New generations need a chance to put their own stamp on the world.

The new generations would be (and are!) quicker to adapt to and create new norms. It used to be that just a few generations ago the middle and elder generations were the carriers of experience and wisdom vital to thriving in the world. This is still true to a certain extent but new societal norms created in large part thanks to the steady (or exponential) march of technological progress are more easily adapted to by…

The idea is that we learn what to do and what not to do from our elders. The older people are, generally they get more stuck in their ways. Most effective way to pivot generational thinking is with turnover (until we can modulate our brain function better, then all bets are off)

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#122

Post by xvector »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #121
datameta wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new generations would be (and are!) quicker to adapt to and create new norms. It used to be that just a few generations ago the middle and elder generations were the carriers of experience and wisdom vital to thriving in the world. This is still true to a certain extent but new societal norms created in large part thanks to the steady (or exponential) march of technological progress are more easily adapted to by…

The idea is that we learn what to do and what not to do from our elders. The older people are, generally they get more stuck in their ways. Most effective way to pivot generational thinking is with turnover (until we can modulate our brain function better, then all bets are off)

I'd rather have people get stuck in their ways than literally dying. The deaths of billions of people is not an acceptable cost of "progress."

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#123

Post by xvector »

i000 wrote: post #87
RichardHeart wrote: post #67

I raised $27M for longevity research (SENS.org). Summary of pro death arguments: Fairness Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew be…

I find the way you summarized the discussion unhelpful, because your goal is to present very reasonable critiques to living forever in the most absurd way, and insult those who have those opinions "Man up, save your family, save yourself"? Was it really necessary to insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? I do not even where one would start to debate this. > More people make more progr…

> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying?

There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird.

> Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area?

Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact.

> dont you think that this wouldnot deprive many from most of the meaningful aspects of their lives?

It would be a choice - live forever or have kids. Many people would find life much more meaningful choosing the former.

> What if longevity causes social changes which are difficult or impossible to reverse?

The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.

It is absurd to justify the cost of progress with death. If people lived for 10k+ years in a static society, you would be called a monster if you implied that they should be dying slowly and painfully at 80 so some aspects of their society evolve faster.

> The generational conflicts may be very high in the ageless society you envision.

Again, this is not worth the deaths of literally BILLIONS of people! It is mad scientist talk to say that death on such a massive scale is acceptable for any cost.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#124

Post by xvector »

RichardHeart wrote: post #67

I raised $27M for longevity research (SENS.org). Summary of pro death arguments: Fairness Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew be…

Richard, besides donating, how can those of us with technical skills help the effort?

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#125

Post by xvector »

kiba wrote: post #66
ghoomketu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I wouldn't even mind if somebody spent billions on finding an 'Upload' like solution where you can just put your consciousness in a computer and live forever like that instead. People generally have a knee jerk hate for such things but I welcome that with open arms too.

I wouldn't push the upload button unless it is a last resort. It's a philosophy problem about consciousness and continuity more than anything else. Call it the star trek teleporter problem.

Gradual replacement uploads would retain continuity of consciousness

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#126

Post by xvector »

supercon wrote: post #39

Mixed feelings. On one hand I can imagine situations where longetivity and its development might really be useful, for example when (if ever) we enter the human space travel era, where the human lifespan will eventually start to factor in. On the other, its hard to not consider the deeper meaning of such pursuits. After all, death is what gives life meaning and pushing it further raises lots of possible negatives e.g…

> death is what gives life meaning

We define the meaning of life, not death. I would find my life perfectly meaningful without death.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#127

Post by i000 »

xvector wrote: post #123
i000 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the way you summarized the discussion unhelpful, because your goal is to present very reasonable critiques to living forever in the most absurd way, and insult those who have those opinions "Man up, save your family, save yourself"? Was it really necessary to insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? I do not even where one would start to debate this. > More people make more progr…

> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird. > Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area? Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact. > don…

Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices?

I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different.

You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a reference for your "This is pretty much a fact"?

> It would be a choice - live forever or have kids.

Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?

> The slow deaths of billions of people, entire generations, is not an acceptable cost for faster progress.

Acceptable by whom? I understand it is not acceptable to you, and I value your perspective, but why do you write it as if it was some form of consensus.

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21582440177360...

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#129

Post by xvector »

i000 wrote: post #127
xvector wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insult, among many, the curage of people who may have no fear of dying? There is no courage in choosing death. If people could live forever, and some people suddenly started choosing death at 80, that wouldn't be seen as "courageous" but just plain weird. > Have you ever seen an urban slum, or an overpopulated rural area? Historically, higher populations do result in faster progress. This is pretty much fact. > don…

Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices? I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different. You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a refer…

> The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial

But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear.

In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is.

> Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will end with an individual who decides to live forever?

Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.

> Acceptable by whom?

Consider a society in which everyone lives forever. You start saying that they should all start slowly dying for the sake of progress, that they likely won't even be around to see.

You'd be regarded as somewhat crazy. We shouldn't have to have (billions of) people die to accomplish our goals. That's like trying to hammer in a nail with a meteoroid.

Re: NewLimit: a company built to extend human healthspan

#130

Post by i000 »

xvector wrote: post #129
i000 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure, again, how to respond to this. Why resort rhetorical devices? I said "courage of people wo have no fear of dying" you said "courage in choosing death", very different. You have not defined what type of "progress" you refer to, but let me just quote one sentence from one random article on that topic [1] "The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial." Care to provide a refer…

> The relationship between population growth and economic growth is controversial But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. In either case, whether technological growth happens or not is irrelevant. It's not worth billions of lives. Nothing is. > Wouldn't this mean that within few generations there would be no more kids, as sooner or later each genealogical line will…

> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear.

Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated.

> Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario.

I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.

Post reply on HN