Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jef4qcx wrote

Reply to comment by Artanthos in The only race that matters by Sure_Cicada_4459

yeah but we will look very stupid if the maximal tech point is actually not even pleasant. Maybe there really is no cure for human condition and that's it, who know.

9

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jef7ire wrote

I hope so. Immortality isn’t a desirable or noble end-goal, at least for any one person.

−9

FaceDeer t1_jef8qex wrote

If immortality is possible for one person then the technique can be generalized to multiple.

12

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefa7mv wrote

I do not want it for anyone. It’s a piggish goal. Height of narcissism that you - anyone - ought to live forever.

−12

EddgeLord666 t1_jefdji0 wrote

Shove your authoritarian attitude up your ass. You don’t have the right to impose your moral values on other people.

17

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefdtqd wrote

No - but I definitely have the right to speak it.

Striving for immortality is the authoritarian viewpoint. There’s nothing more democratic than death.

I wouldn’t want a lot of our richest, most powerful, objectively worst folks hanging around forever.

−11

EddgeLord666 t1_jefe8zj wrote

What’s democratic is everyone gets to make their own choice, about death and everything else. Of course it’s bad for just rich people to not age, but that’s not what anyone is advocating for.

7

240pixels t1_jefu135 wrote

I think he has a point. Even if we all become immortal that wont stop corruption and evil people. You already know they would put criminals in eternal prisons laterally hell on earth. That's what you call serving a real life sentence. If this were a virtual reality immortality the same thing would occur. People will get sent to VR prison as well. Immortality doesn't solve the underlying issues we face.

3

EddgeLord666 t1_jefu71a wrote

I mean yeah, we need to remove evil and sadistic desires from human psychology, part of the point of becoming transhuman.

1

240pixels t1_jefxan2 wrote

That sounds very optimistic however that sounds very challenging and close to impossible to simply remove "desire" from human psychology. We are hard wired to over-reach that's how we survive. I'd argue some of our faults is what makes us human, but we also can learn from them. All I'm saying is society isn't ready for immortality. We can't even be present in the life we live right now.

2

EddgeLord666 t1_jeg6aet wrote

I mean it will probably happen at some point regardless of whether or not we are ready, most likely not in the near future though so we have time to prepare. The idea of transhumanist philosophy is humans are more or less perfectable so if you don’t believe that then I can see why you would be scared of the direction things are going in.

2

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefeivv wrote

actually, the one who can buy it has the right to use it and that's it

1

EddgeLord666 t1_jefen0y wrote

Are you saying it should be that way or it is that way? Obviously if it was implemented right now then you’re right.

2

FaceDeer t1_jefaetx wrote

Feel free to decay and die while maintaining your sense of superiority, I suppose.

9

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefakno wrote

Thank you, and you too. People ought to live on through their works and their children, not clinging desperately to their own pleasures.

No forever kings.

−7

FaceDeer t1_jeffyil wrote

You can live however you like, I won't stop you. What you're doing is trying to tell me how I should live - or more specifically, that I should die - and that's not acceptable.

If a murderer turned up at your door with a shotgun and informed you that it was time for you to stop "clinging to your own pleasures", and that no more of your works were needed for you to "live on" in their opinion, would you just sigh and accept your fate?

5

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefyy4i wrote

Acceptable or not - immortality is a terrible idea, on a personal, societal, and species level. You definitely should die. Everyone should.

Your analogy falls flat - murder isn't a natural cause of death. Cell death is. It is something you will experience. We all will. And that's all right.

There's no such thing as immortality. Resources aren't infinite, so it can't be for everyone. The sun is going to burn out at some point. The universe is going to go cold at some point. You will - sooner or even much, much later - die. The problem becomes how many others have to die prematurely to support a few semi-immortal rich folks. Inequality is a problem now. I don't think we ought to be leveraging tech to make it worse.

1

FaceDeer t1_jeg6zzv wrote

> You definitely should die.

You saw that, officer, it was self defence.

> Your analogy falls flat - murder isn't a natural cause of death.

Ever been in the hospital for appendicitis? Taking any medications, perhaps?

I refer you to the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant.

> There's no such thing as immortality. Resources aren't infinite, so it can't be for everyone.

I'll live forever or die trying. If you want to give up immediately, I guess that's your perogative.

3

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefbz84 wrote

so cute, but go away from our goals, thank you again

4

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefched wrote

No.

0

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefcn8r wrote

i mean we aren't friends, just get out of our ways and that it. parasite

5

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefdbre wrote

The guy who feels like he should live forever is the parasite.

0

FaceDeer t1_jeffhsk wrote

Why do you think people would stop living productive and fulfilling lives if they're immortal?

2

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefz3r6 wrote

I don't think they're living productive and fulfilling lives RIGHT NOW, let alone thousands of years from now. And there's no way to gauge who "should" live forever...it will go to whomever has the most money. And that metric isn't working so great in our current society.

1

FaceDeer t1_jeg6i2a wrote

> And there's no way to gauge who "should" live forever

So you've decided that nobody should. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

1

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefbmzo wrote

but we don't care about your opinion lol

2

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefcjfs wrote

You clearly do lol

1

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefcsfh wrote

i mean just disapear, let us buy (cause we arent poor as you) what we want so please go to hell or something, i dont even care

0

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefd8ii wrote

Annnnnd you think you should live forever? You?

1

TallOutside6418 t1_jefm17k wrote

And it isn't a piggish goal for you to live one more day?

Explain.

1

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefyigf wrote

No - another day is well within my natural lifespan. I'm all for improved medical care, as well. But seeking immortality for its own sake? That's not a medical issue - that's a societal issue. I do not think it's a great idea to create a caste of immortal billionaires...and they will be so. There's no way for EVERYONE to live forever...the planet couldn't possibly handle it. It would have to fall to those who can afford it, on an on-going basis. Your tissue can't last forever - it will require resources.

−1

TallOutside6418 t1_jeg1k06 wrote

>No - another day is well within my natural lifespan.

We were created by nature. What we do is inherently natural, as natural as a chimp that uses a stick to get termites out of the nest.

I didn't sign a contract before I came into this world. If I can get some extra years, centuries, or millennia out of this existence - then I'm not breaking any rules.

​

>But seeking immortality for its own sake?

That's like saying you're seeking to live another day for its own sake. I would seek immortality to have more time with my friends and family. More time hiking, biking, playing tennis. More time learning. More time for everything. No different than you seeking to live another day.

​

>I do not think it's a great idea to create a caste of immortal billionaires

Stop rewatching Elysium. Every useful medical intervention, even though it's expensive at first, eventually filters down to being affordable by the general population. Assuming we survive ASI and immortality is available to people, there's no reason to think that everyone couldn't avail themselves of the technology.

​

>the planet couldn't possibly handle it

No offense, but this line tells me that you're opining on a topic about which you're woefully ignorant. You need to catch up if you're going to be taken seriously. I suggest you start with some Arthur Isaacs videos to broaden your mind. You'll learn a lot about the possibilities of future societies that will be able to leave the earth and create habitats in our solar system that could accommodate trillions of people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlmKejRSVd8&list=PLIIOUpOge0LtW77TNvgrWWu5OC3EOwqxQ

Even without those technological advances, most advanced nations actually have negative population growth. It could very well be that people living extremely long lives don't even wish to keep reproducing. At some point we might need to heavily incentivize people to have kids just to account for accidental deaths.

4

sdmat t1_jegfji5 wrote

I agree, in fact mortality is so great you go ahead and die at 40.

Funny how the 'right time to go' seems to always be decades into in the future unless people are horribly depressed.

0

fabulousfang t1_jefaxt1 wrote

I'd still like to die one day.

2

HyperImmune t1_jefw4d2 wrote

But there’s a big difference between choosing to die, and being forced into it. The choice will always be there to duck out for good.

3

SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_jefbdr1 wrote

Same. If you’re not living your utmost in 100 years - or just today - what makes you think you’ll do better with 1,000?

1

Artanthos t1_jef9asm wrote

Immortality is also a huge problem if implemented in general.

A lot of today’s problems are the result of population, and immortality will cause populations to skyrocket.

0

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jefdovq wrote

apparently the world is more populated as it has ever be, yet the poverty is as low as it as ever be, what problem are u refering here

1

Artanthos t1_jefezc5 wrote

Where is everyone going to live when the world has a population of 20 billion? Housing prices are already rising faster than inflation.

Where are you going to get the food? We are already draining the aquifers, rivers, and lakes.

What are you going to do about population. Supporting 20 billion people is going to consume far more energy, require increased manufacturing, and necessitate more mining. The oceans are already being depleted, this would only accelerate.

More crowded living conditions presents a breeding ground for both crime and disease.

How are young people supposed to advance in careers where their seniors never move on?

0

bustedbuddha t1_jeg1gnn wrote

Most of those problem are down to an inefficient system, which could easily be described itself as having alignment problems Even sensible management and governance could support 20bn people if it focused on the environment and survivability.

2

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jeff7c0 wrote

everything get better with increased pop so far

1

Artanthos t1_jefflft wrote

No, it has not.

Things have gotten better with technology, population just happened to move in the same direction.

−1

Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_jeffofi wrote

yeah that what your forget, technology

1

Artanthos t1_jefqnvy wrote

Which is why I highlighted issues caused by population that technology is not keeping up with.

A population explosion makes all of these problems much worse, with no promise of technology solving any of them.

1