A $3B bet on finding the fountain of youth

Post by kiba » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #80

paulluuk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done. I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument. And sure, there are plenty of dystopian…

If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer ? Society would be down right miserable. Think about it in terms other than “yourself transcending all your peers” for a moment. It may sound cool to you to live to see the day we c…

Post by aksss » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

aerovistae wrote: post #74

paulluuk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done. I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument. And sure, there are plenty of dystopian…

I, too, would rather not die. But "the only real problem" you see being overpopulation speaks to a limited effort in thinking out the consequences. Let's imagine such a solution was available. Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people, a mere "stay alive and subsist" drug. So it's probably safe to assume that a literal immortality treatment would be only available to the most wealthy and p…

Post by dcow » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #91

dcow wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer ? Society would be down right miserable. Think about it in terms other than “yourself transcending all your peers” for a moment. It may sound cool to you to live to see the day we c…

We’re supposed to invest our resources as a human race into raising the next generation to achieve the things we collectively dream of but couldn't in out generation. Sure if we can extend lifetimes gradually over time and reduce deterioration and suffering that’s one thing and I believe we’d adapt naturally. But arguing for immortality by default right now? That is perverse and not remotely biologically appropriate.…

Post by moralestapia » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

openknot wrote: post #61

moralestapia wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the better they seem, the worse they are Is this common knowledge? I've seen it empirically but I don't know how much is that a widespread feeling. (Not being snark or sarcastic).

I suspect the recent Elizabeth Holmes conviction of investor fraud at Theranos might contribute to the idea of flashy names propping up an unsustainable idea (e.g. with so many high-ranking names in the US military establishment previously supporting the company). I'm not aware of other recent high-profile examples, though I would be interested in learning about them.

Post by varelse » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC