Can we live 1000 years? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#101

Post by sadfsa » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 11:46 PM UTC

DabAsteroid wrote: post #90

cabalamat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would probably be laws against that. If people were immortal, perhaps the law would say every two humans can have one child between them; that way population could only double once.

Why would one want population to stop growing? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource

Because, unlike Julian Simon, some people know that the planet is made of matter, and they know about the Law of Matter/Energy Conservation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and other physical properties of the Universe, any of which by itself would make it impossible for natural resources to be infinite.

Some people have also heard the story of Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants discovered that natural resources are NOT infinite, shortly before their deaths.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#102

Post by sadfsa » Fri, Dec 19, 2008, 11:49 PM UTC

newt0311 wrote: post #66

russell wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a study that found that the average lifespan for immortals would be 2500 years because of fatal accidents.

Better medical technology = an accident that is fatal now may not be fatal a hundred years into the future. All these studies are complete bullshit because none of them can predict the social factor and over a period as long as 2500 years, it dominates everything else.

This social factor includes murders and other petty crimes, as well as holocausts, wars, and things of that sort, all of which have a tendency to reduce lifespan, and none of which would stop just because we live 2500 years.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#103

Post by sadfsa » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 12:31 AM UTC

russell wrote: post #53

patio11 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the implications for wealth, too. If the means of life extension is not hideously expensive, then anyone past a certain age with even the smallest bit of sense will be rich beyond the dreams of mortal men. Compound interest works. This would have interesting social ramifications. As it is, most states are organized such that the old are relatively rich, the young are relatively poor, and the young's income su…

Regardless of lifespan we are going to move into a post scarcity economy, where wealth won't mean what it does today. We must do it because we can already see the decline of extracted resources like oil and minerals. We will do it because we can. The internet has enabled telecommuting. Telecommuting enables the move to smaller communities where housing is cheaper. As robots get more capable they will take over the ma…

The only problem with your 10-hour workweek is that, as living expenses go down and people try to stop working, wages drop also (because workers won't complain as much if the cuts won't put them out on the street), so you'll still have to work two full-time jobs to keep your cheap house surrounded by endless farmland.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#104

Post by sadfsa » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 12:42 AM UTC

swombat wrote: post #49

Were it to do so, it would undermine what it means to be human. They oppose the idea of life extension and anti-ageing research on ethical, moral and ecological grounds. the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual Seriously, if you think that dying will give meaning to your life, go ahead and do it. No one's stopping you.

These statements (especially the one about "meaning") show how religion affects a person's view of science. For it to mean something to be human, there has to be someone who intends for it to mean something. Once you accept that God is imaginary, the problem of "meaningless humanity" disappears.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#105

Post by newt0311 » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 6:30 AM UTC

sadfsa wrote: post #102

newt0311 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better medical technology = an accident that is fatal now may not be fatal a hundred years into the future. All these studies are complete bullshit because none of them can predict the social factor and over a period as long as 2500 years, it dominates everything else.

This social factor includes murders and other petty crimes, as well as holocausts, wars, and things of that sort, all of which have a tendency to reduce lifespan, and none of which would stop just because we live 2500 years.

Maybe maybe not but who here is willing to make any bet on what technology we will have in 2500 years? I certainly am not. And thats just one example of something that could (and is likely to) change drastically.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#106

Post by DabAsteroid » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 4:45 PM UTC

sadfsa wrote: post #101

DabAsteroid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would one want population to stop growing? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource

Because, unlike Julian Simon, some people know that the planet is made of matter, and they know about the Law of Matter/Energy Conservation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and other physical properties of the Universe, any of which by itself would make it impossible for natural resources to be infinite. Some people have also heard the story of Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants discovered that natural resources are NOT infi…

Would it matter if humans were also creative of resources, rather than simply consumptive of resources? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0...

Our whole evolution up to this point shows that human groups spontaneously evolve patterns of behavior, as well as patterns of training people for that behavior, which tend on balance to lead people to create rather than destroy. Humans are, on net balance, builders rather than destroyers. The evidence is clear: the civilization which our ancestors have bequeathed to us contains more created works than the civilization they were bequeathed.

In short, humankind has evolved into creators and problem-solvers. Our constructive behavior has counted for more than our using-up and destructive behavior, as seen in our increasing length of life and richness of consumption.

This view of the average human as builder conflicts with the view of the average human as destroyer which underlies the thought of many doomsdayers. From the latter view derive such statements as "The U.S. has 5 percent of the population, and uses 40 percent of resources," without reference to the creation of resources by the same U.S. population. (Also involved here is a view of resources as physical quantities waiting for the plucking, rather than as the services that humankind derives from some combination of knowledge with physical conditions.) If one notices only the using-up and destructive activities of humankind, without understanding that constructive patterns of behavior must have been the dominant part of our individual-cum-social nature in order for us to have survived to this point, then it is not surprising that one would arrive at the conclusion that resources will grow scarcer in the future.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#107

Post by sadfsa » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 9:18 PM UTC

DabAsteroid wrote: post #106

sadfsa wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, unlike Julian Simon, some people know that the planet is made of matter, and they know about the Law of Matter/Energy Conservation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and other physical properties of the Universe, any of which by itself would make it impossible for natural resources to be infinite. Some people have also heard the story of Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants discovered that natural resources are NOT infi…

Would it matter if humans were also creative of resources, rather than simply consumptive of resources? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... Our whole evolution up to this point shows that human groups spontaneously evolve patterns of behavior, as well as patterns of training people for that behavior, which tend on balance to lead people to create rather than destroy. Humans are, on net bal…

We don't really create-- we merely transform physical resources from one form to another, increasing total entropy in the process. Because entropy can only increase and never decrease, our creative activities are outweighed by the destruction that is a direct consequence of it.

In other words, the only ways we can be "creative of resources" are to create energy from nothing, create matter from nothing, or to reduce entropy without increasing it elsewhere. All three of these are known to be impossible.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#108

Post by DabAsteroid » Sat, Dec 20, 2008, 11:07 PM UTC

sadfsa wrote: post #107

DabAsteroid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it matter if humans were also creative of resources, rather than simply consumptive of resources? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... Our whole evolution up to this point shows that human groups spontaneously evolve patterns of behavior, as well as patterns of training people for that behavior, which tend on balance to lead people to create rather than destroy. Humans are, on net bal…

We don't really create -- we merely transform physical resources from one form to another, increasing total entropy in the process. Because entropy can only increase and never decrease, our creative activities are outweighed by the destruction that is a direct consequence of it. In other words, the only ways we can be "creative of resources" are to create energy from nothing, create matter from nothing, or to reduce…

We don't really create-- we merely transform physical resources from one form to another

If I were to give you an equal mass of rocks in exchange for everything that you own, would you be equally wealthy (equally secure)?

If society were instantly given equal masses of rock and mud in echange for all of the artifacts that it had created over the past 100,000 years, and if in the same instant all of any otherwise technology gains of the past 100,000 years were also lost, would the 6.7 billion people alive today be equally as secure as before that instant change? If not, why not?

If humans have been able, over the past 100,000 years, to transform matter and energy into forms that better serve their security, why might they suddenly no longer be able to do that?

If nothing has been created, the how is it that 6.7 billion people today exist in relatively high security where previously only a handful of thousands could exist and in relatively low security? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080425101050.cni2ks3...

Regarding energy:

Did our developed energy resources exist before humans created them? Are they imminently running out? Is general entropy imminent?

.

The matter/energy that exists naturally tends to either be too general to best serve human security, or if specific tends to be so in suboptimal directions. Do humans not improve their own security by transforming general and chaotically-specific resources into specific and orderly ones tailored to their own security needs? Are humans running out of general resources and chaos with which to transform into security-enhancing resources? Are humans running out of the creativity that has been driving this 100,000+ -year-long improvement in human security?

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#109

Post by sadfsa » Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 2:56 AM UTC

DabAsteroid wrote: post #108

sadfsa wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really create -- we merely transform physical resources from one form to another, increasing total entropy in the process. Because entropy can only increase and never decrease, our creative activities are outweighed by the destruction that is a direct consequence of it. In other words, the only ways we can be "creative of resources" are to create energy from nothing, create matter from nothing, or to reduce…

We don't really create-- we merely transform physical resources from one form to another If I were to give you an equal mass of rocks in exchange for everything that you own, would you be equally wealthy (equally secure)? If society were instantly given equal masses of rock and mud in echange for all of the artifacts that it had created over the past 100,000 years, and if in the same instant all of any otherwise tech…

I'll answer the questions in order:

1: If humans lost all technology today, the vast majority of them would die off within a month, because only modern, high-energy farming can get enough food out of the ground to feed them. However, this high-energy farming is only possible because of oil, which not only transports the food, but provides the pesticides without which insects would be eating instead of humans. (Another finite, nonrenewable natural resource with no possible substitute provides fertilizer, without which our food wouldn't even grow).

2: Because, like other species before them, humans are destined to exhaust the resources on which they depend.

3: Nothing has been created (IOW, entropy has not decreased, and matter and energy are still conserved)-- we're merely better at transforming matter and energy than we used to be.

4: Before our developed energy resources were built, they existed as undeveloped energy resources and raw materials. For example, oil drills are made of steel from the ground, not steel magicked into existence, and they are built to remove oil from the ground, not to create oil out of thoughts.

4a: Since the aforementioned resources are finite, they are most certainly running out. The only scientific theory on the timing was formulated by one M. King Hubbert in the 1950s.

4c: General entropy is irrelevant. We're still over a trillion years away from seeing the entire universe burn out. The entropy of this planet, WRT its ability to sustain an ever-increasing human population, is increasing rapidly, as evidenced by global warming, desertification, deforestation, and other very obvious symptoms.

5: Yes, humans are running out of general resources (because they are finite) to transform into security-enhancing resources. No, humans are not running out of chaos, they are creating plenty of it: Polluted drinking water, fishless oceans, coalless coal mines, a toxic atmosphere, and dry oil fields (among other things) are all perfectly useless to our security. Eventually, there isn't going to be anything left but rocks and mud, and then the situation I described in (1) above will exist.

5a: 100,000 years is not a long time compared to the length of the history of life on Earth. There have been other species that lasted longer, but are gone today.

Re: Can we live 1000 years?

#110

Post by JeffL » Sun, Dec 21, 2008, 7:51 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #24

patio11 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the implications for wealth, too. If the means of life extension is not hideously expensive, then anyone past a certain age with even the smallest bit of sense will be rich beyond the dreams of mortal men. Compound interest works. This would have interesting social ramifications. As it is, most states are organized such that the old are relatively rich, the young are relatively poor, and the young's income su…

Consider investments in, e.g., a german bank in 1900. Today worth what? Over the past 1000 years, we've seen major epidemics that wiped out big chunks of the world (e.g., 95% of the population of the americas, 30% of eurasia), deranged dictators who confiscated wealth, revolutions and all sorts of total collapses of society. Over 1000 years, the risk of losing everything becomes significant.

Hopefully one would diversify among many countries and also with some gold.