I hope death is cured soon so the boomers can rule the world forever.
Against "Against Life Extension"
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#12I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…
I disagree. This is a rare case where “trickle down” actually would work: If the ultra rich want to pay their way to discovering longevity improvements, it won’t be long before companies everywhere are competing to bring those same discoveries to the masses at ever-lower prices.
If ultra rich want to fund longevity research with their money then bring it on. Their personal spending on research doesn’t subtract from other issues like healthcare policy.
There was a time when things like refrigeration, televisions, and mobile phones were only for the extremely wealthy, too. Imagine if we had halted research on those because we didn’t think it was fair for only rich people to have those things.
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#13I'm in favor of research into life extension. But I don't think this response really deals with the fundamental objection of: "Change is necessary Death creates change Therefore, death is necessary" Perhaps humans are not very capable of change once we reach adulthood and so significantly (or indefinitely) extending human lifespan would result in civilizational stasis. I don't see a simple way to overcome this argume…
The argument is invalid because it ignores the possibility of something other than death creating change. As the article notes, there are plenty of examples of widespread societal change that didn't require previous generations to die off.
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#14Well, when it comes to change, a sad truth is that it's generations who shift attitudes - not individuals. On average, people hold onto their established worldviews, and society evolves primarily because older generations gradually pass away.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/31/societie...
Here's also a cynical take on unicorns: they're immortal, so most of them hold rather outdated views.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sad-truths-mythical-creatu...
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#15I'm in favor of research into life extension. But I don't think this response really deals with the fundamental objection of: "Change is necessary Death creates change Therefore, death is necessary" Perhaps humans are not very capable of change once we reach adulthood and so significantly (or indefinitely) extending human lifespan would result in civilizational stasis. I don't see a simple way to overcome this argume…
There is a logical flaw in that syllogism: Just because death creates change doesn't mean that death is the only thing that creates change. And if you can substitute some other process to create change, then death is not necessary.
It's like this syllogism:
1. We must do something about unemployment.
2. Slavery is something.
3. Therefore, we must do slavery.
Once the syllogism falls apart, it's obvious that there are many (and even better) ways to create change. The entire history of humanity is filled with them.
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#16I agree with this article's arguments, and find in general, arguments philosophically opposed to extending human lifespan to be trivial to knock down (Ones listed in the article and otherwise). The elephant in the room appears to be more can we do it ? And if so, will this involve genome modification (Through molecular bio techniques, or directed evolution as suggested by Dawkins). Optimists hope for treatments for t…
Here’s a counter argument: I don’t want to live in the kind of world implied by a focus on life extension. I’m okay with it “happening in the background” in the way that modern medicine has improved lifespans over the last century. But I wouldn’t want it to be a direct imperative part of everyday life. I don’t inherently have a problem with the idea of people living longer, and I don’t really have an issue with resea…
Bit of a leap there.
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#17I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…
I disagree. This is a rare case where “trickle down” actually would work: If the ultra rich want to pay their way to discovering longevity improvements, it won’t be long before companies everywhere are competing to bring those same discoveries to the masses at ever-lower prices. If ultra rich want to fund longevity research with their money then bring it on. Their personal spending on research doesn’t subtract from o…
Have you looked at the current healthcare market, where even the cheapest and most proven drugs are exorbitantly expensive? This is a laughable pipe dream in this society (read, the society that protects the profits of the ultrarich over the health of average citizens).
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#18I get the sense that the problem with "longevity" research per se is that it is largely driven by the desire of extremely wealthy and selfish people to live forever no matter the cost, rather than to extend every person's healthy lifespan incrementally. The biggest hurdle for the latter is not new research. It's lack of access to affordable healthcare, which would be easy to provide if society weren't so obsequious t…
Look at how much of the developing world has been pulled out of poverty in the last 30 years. Look at the infant mortality rates.
We're looking at the wrong data points.
> It's lack of access to affordable healthcare,
When the leading cause of mortality is heart disease, the solution is not more affordable healthcare. It's healthy eating and living.
When the next leading cause is cancer, the solution is more research not more affordable healthcare.
When the next leading cause is "accidents", and those are then broken down into "poisoning", "falls", and "automotive", the solutions are again not health insurance. Autonomous vehicles will do more to solve automotive mortality than changes to the health insurance industry.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
https://www.statista.com/statistics/526300/deaths-number-uni...
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#19I read the original article. I feel like the author of this retort got nerd sniped. “Cracks knuckles”? I can find better things to grind an axe about. The original article is an opinionated rant. It’s not a scientific or a philosophical treatise, so bringing up things like how diabetes is being cured is far, far outside of the subject matter. So for me this retort is invalid from the get go. The crux of the original…
I agree with everything you say except the “can’t get much worse” part. I think it can get substantially worse, and death is the primary mechanism that prevents power from centralizing on individuals forever.
Every death is a mini-reset in some way.
Re: Against "Against Life Extension"
#20I'm in favor of research into life extension. But I don't think this response really deals with the fundamental objection of: "Change is necessary Death creates change Therefore, death is necessary" Perhaps humans are not very capable of change once we reach adulthood and so significantly (or indefinitely) extending human lifespan would result in civilizational stasis. I don't see a simple way to overcome this argume…
The argument is invalid because it ignores the possibility of something other than death creating change. As the article notes, there are plenty of examples of widespread societal change that didn't require previous generations to die off.
I agree. One other problem with the death-necessary-for-change mantra is that it assumes very change is good.
There have been plenty of changes in recent memory that have been disastrous.