91–100 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tv show is actually really good from someone who did not read the books. It is well done.
I don't know... I read the books so long ago and there are still things in my minds eye that I can picture from it, whereas with the tv show the only thing I remember is the naked sword fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class based 'revolutions' are made up of a bunch of idiots who would happily destroy everything while being lead by somebody even worse who is qualitatively identical to the people they despise. They have proven that repeatedly.
and you would be ok with an immortal class of tech overlords? history ending with one of the worst sets of ppl of our generation?
Ours are not the Masters of Industry from the Industrial Age[1], or the fission-missile-kings of the Nuclear Age. They're not ready to teach a Physics unit at a community college.
The tippity top of the uber-wealthy today are remarkably short on actual formal knowledge. This makes sense in their ideological system: scientific acumen as more of a commodity than a value.
In this view, everything should look like the stock market. But this is a profoundly stupid view. It requires not just ideology, but willfully not looking at the universe.
I'm probably steering afoul of about 90% of ycombinator here, so I'll just pull the throttles back and stop there.
[1] "Isambard Kingdom Brunel . . But Got-DAMN did men used to have some proper-ass names" - Achewood
[flagged]
I would have expected better of HN. I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible. The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The…
On a very dark night I would have expected worse.
> I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible.
Maybe there is some corner of the article that advocates people forcibly dying... but from skimming it, the topic is about powerful people using things like “brainless clones” to extend their lives.
The following is essentially the implied wish of this piece: I solemnly wish, with all my non-power, for tyrannical heads of states and tech billionaires to not live abnormally long.
This is what you take offense to. The wish that our overlords do not live unnaturally long.
> The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise.
This I care about.
> Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die.
May we all live as long as possible, for it is our equal right as human beings.~
But may also tyrants and tech billionaires remain as such. For all men are not equal.
> And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
Assassination is forcible death. Something you took offense to above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know... I read the books so long ago and there are still things in my minds eye that I can picture from it, whereas with the tv show the only thing I remember is the naked sword fight.
Oh come now, surely you remember seeing James Purefoy's penis over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much. I know that in poorer countries due to high infant mortality rate and other issues just reaching 60 was a big milestone for the average person. The bigger question is how will the existing financial system adapt for such a scenario if even 10% of the population manages to extend from 82 to 100+
AFAIK most societies historically respected the wisdom attributed to old age, and many cultures still do.
Living forever sounds awful. For one, I am extremely curious what happens when I die. Without death, life becomes a hollow shell, or at least I imagine it would, as you would lack urgency.
On the one hand you say without death life would lack urgency, yet you seem to be open to life after death. If there was life after death... wouldn't it lack urgency?
If there isn't life after death, you simply don't exist anymore and there are no more possibilities open to you. So I'd be more than happy to postpone finding about out for as long as possible.
To play devils advocate here: could it be a good thing? That way they would be incentivized to think about the long term actions of their actions, like not dying before getting affected by global warming etc. And once aging is understood and solved, maybe it’s possible to iterate on the approach and make it cheaper and more accessible. That would greatly help the aging populations of the west. If you’re around foreve…