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

How should we pursue human longevity?

milan.cvitkovic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#11

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rantwasp wrote: post #9
ssivark wrote: post #2

I think that the consideration of arguments against extending human longevity is very flippant, and deserves some serious pushback. As Max Planck pointed out, ”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Regardless of that, given the veneer of rationality in discu…

i am going to guess you are somewhat young (<60). watch how your opinion shifts as you get older

Exactly. I’m 63. I have an autoimmune disease, and am a cancer survivor, but I’m reasonably healthy, am enjoying life, and there is no way I would choose to die at this point. If it happens, it happens, but I’d rather stick around.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#12

Post by stephc_int13 »

rantwasp wrote: post #9
ssivark wrote: post #2

I think that the consideration of arguments against extending human longevity is very flippant, and deserves some serious pushback. As Max Planck pointed out, ”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Regardless of that, given the veneer of rationality in discu…

i am going to guess you are somewhat young (<60). watch how your opinion shifts as you get older

I am 44, not really juvenile, and while my view of death changed a lot over time I would still choose to live longer if I can.

I fully understand the central role of death in the evolution of life.

At the same time, this is incredibly wasteful for a species like us.

Life is usually preserving knowledge with DNA copies over generations, but individual knowledge is lost and in our case it is not negligible.

Most of it is really lost.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#13

Post by rantwasp »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #12
rantwasp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am going to guess you are somewhat young (<60). watch how your opinion shifts as you get older

I am 44, not really juvenile, and while my view of death changed a lot over time I would still choose to live longer if I can. I fully understand the central role of death in the evolution of life. At the same time, this is incredibly wasteful for a species like us. Life is usually preserving knowledge with DNA copies over generations, but individual knowledge is lost and in our case it is not negligible. Most of it…

DNA is overrated. I think we have already transcended out biological roots. Some information we generate as a civilization is already long lived.

I am not sure if it’s wasteful. In the current context maybe.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#14

Post by stephc_int13 »

When discussing this topic with friends, many used the socio-economic argument against it.

And this is valid up to a point.

If you think about it, all technologies are first available to a minority and then to a much larger population, and eventually to almost everyone.

I think most dystopia are simplistic and wrong on this topic.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#15

Post by Nursie »

DethNinja wrote: post #3

Here is another bad argument missing from appendix: Organisms are evolved to utilise short life-spans to quickly adapt changing environmental conditions. Let’s assume humanity finds a cure to death and also without dwelling into dystopia that this finding is cheaply available to everyone. What will most likely happen is that bad ideas will haunt the humanity forever as older generations won’t die and remove their bad…

Why would you think there is an "other side" to see?

I'd take boredom over non-existence.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#16

Post by mwcvitkovic »

ssivark wrote: post #2

I think that the consideration of arguments against extending human longevity is very flippant, and deserves some serious pushback. As Max Planck pointed out, ”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Regardless of that, given the veneer of rationality in discu…

First of all, I'm thrilled someone looked at the footnotes - thanks :)

I was flippant about the arguments against longevity only because other authors (linked in the appendix) have done such a thorough job of making the case already. The goal of this piece was to help push the longevity discussion past that a bit.

Completely agree that the arguments against longevity should be taken seriously. I just happen to think they're wrong.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#18

Post by turing_complete »

DethNinja wrote: post #3

Here is another bad argument missing from appendix: Organisms are evolved to utilise short life-spans to quickly adapt changing environmental conditions. Let’s assume humanity finds a cure to death and also without dwelling into dystopia that this finding is cheaply available to everyone. What will most likely happen is that bad ideas will haunt the humanity forever as older generations won’t die and remove their bad…

I don't understand this fundamental anti-human worldview. People are able to change their mind. Just think about how much more accepted homosexuality is today compared to 25 years ago. I changed during the last 10 years, everyone else I know did as well. Did you?

Think about how much people will change, how many lives they will live over 300 years.

Also keep in mind a society that is able to develop and sustain anti-aging medicine has to be by definition more advanced than ours.

Boredom is not valid, since nobody talks about people being forced to live. However, I don't think I would be ever bored. There is so much to do. So much space so many things and so many minds to explore. The tragedy, the insult of the brevity of life outweighs the dangers of boredom infinitely.

Re: How should we pursue human longevity?

#20

Post by stephc_int13 »

rantwasp wrote: post #13
stephc_int13 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am 44, not really juvenile, and while my view of death changed a lot over time I would still choose to live longer if I can. I fully understand the central role of death in the evolution of life. At the same time, this is incredibly wasteful for a species like us. Life is usually preserving knowledge with DNA copies over generations, but individual knowledge is lost and in our case it is not negligible. Most of it…

DNA is overrated. I think we have already transcended out biological roots. Some information we generate as a civilization is already long lived. I am not sure if it’s wasteful. In the current context maybe.

The existence of civilization is the proof that not everything is lost when we die, at least not for everyone.

Nonetheless, learning is still a long and painful process, even when it is about knowledge that has been known for centuries. And when a master in a field dies, his unique mix of knowledge and views dies with him, without any ways to transfer it.

Human language is a powerful tool but still weak and unreliable to transfer knowledge.

Post reply on HN