Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

p_derain t1_ita80pb wrote

One counter to the "immortal dictator" argument is that dictators don't tend to die of old age, anyway.

7

IcebergSlimFast t1_itan89u wrote

One counter to your counter is that once in power, a dictator who’s planning based on a nearly-endless personal time horizon (while also armed with incredibly powerful surveillance and psychological-influence tools) might be better at avoiding the types of rash decisions that have led so many dictators to premature deaths.

Another counter is the Kim family, who’ve managed to keep an iron grip on North Korea for nearly 75 years and counting, even without the advantages of personal immortality.

Edit: All that said, I’m not 100% convinced that dangers like the immortal dictator are sufficient to make immortality a net-negative for humanity. But I definitely believe there are enough potentially serious safety issues to raise real concern.

However, I also believe that like AGI/ASI, major life-extension technologies will inevitably be developed. So basically, we may eventually need to fund some degree of ‘Immortality safety’ research for the same reasons we need AI safety research.

1

SharpestOne t1_itaqqon wrote

> Another counter is the Kim family, who’ve managed to keep an iron grip on North Korea for nearly 75 years and counting, even without the advantages of personal immortality.

Why use them as an example?

Look at the Chinese dynasties. Up to hundreds of years of unbroken inheritance of power.

Dictators gonna dictate with or without immortality.

3

Ortus12 t1_ita9dz2 wrote

Some one wanting an entire group of people to die because of their age is agist.

Imagine you wrote "Is wanting all the blacks to die racist?".

or "Is wanting all men to die sexist?"

As far as dictators, humanity will have new problems to solve but mass genocide to avoid solving those problems is barbaric insanity.

6

robdogcronin t1_ita7bhr wrote

It's actually another syndrome called "shooting yourself in the foot". Unless those things are developed, everyone will get old at one point. Also the thing about dictators isn't very valid, dynasties often survive through their lineage to be hundreds or thousands of years old. We would need to solve that problem some other way

4

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_ita85rl wrote

Depends on how accessible it will be. If the tech is possible but hard/impossible to scale and make cheap then you know what happens: rich people have it, poor people do not.

If it can scale but you can't access it without huge infrastructure then you rely on "subscription survival" and you are subject to being controlled by risking losing access to the tech that keeps you alive.

And then there are people with spiritual beliefs that may make them think dying isn't actually bad.

2

gantork t1_itagqcm wrote

Maybe in some cases.

Couple of people I know are against it for other reasons like aging being the correct/natural course of life, overpopulation, etc.

1

CLOUD889 t1_itafuk6 wrote

Of course, Hitler living forever would be great. I've always wanted him to actually be present to guide our community. Wouldn't that be such a treasure? Oh and with Halloween near, how about Jack the Ripper?

Have you seen photos of his victims? Having him around for the last 134 years would be magic, eh???

−1

TheHamsterSandwich OP t1_itag0ty wrote

I don't think Hitler died of old age.

2

CLOUD889 t1_itb5xcc wrote

No shit. Find any of the numerous murderers in history and give them immortality.

The universe has said everyone dies to ensure hell isn't eternal.

Solve the riddle of Good & Evil.

0