They said that people like him exist. The large majority of people like him are ruling no one, obviously.

Whether any current leaders/rulers/however-you-want-to-call-them are like Pol Pot is debatable... But, no, not so much.

Elon Musk doesn't want to turn us all into paperclips. Yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paperclip_maximizer

"Know thyself."

"You might as well ask me to know a stranger."

So, it's bad?

We have to find a solution to the issue anyway, already, was supposed to be the takeaway.

Whatever system that stops people from retaining power past a certain age obviously continues past that age.

I'm thinking around 55 or 65, maybe.

>its not a problem we can solve.

Yet.

Which is why we need to continue to focus on the problem.

Only because we are more ignorant of how to fix the body than we are the car.

Which is the problem to solve.

They can certainly be compared.

For the later point, it can be argued that we are already past the point where those in charge get to be in charge for too long.

Jefferson suggested a new constitution every 19 years, for example.

Would you take the same approach with, say, your car?

"The solution to the check engine light is to find peace with the check engine light?"

Well, I would think voluntary death wouldn't be a problem.

Like any other machine, you fix it because you want it to keep running.

A problem with no solution is still a problem.

>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.

The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.

> Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.

I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?"

>>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

>No.

Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.

The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.

> I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.

>To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life

Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?

> Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.

Coped with? Sure, maybe. Accepted? No.

But: If there's a problem with with your car, for example, you can probably cope with it. But that's not the same as trying to fix it.

And saying that "well, eventually, all cars stop working" isn't an excuse to not fix it.

Coping with the machine being broken would be precisely the wrong thing to do.

The point is to always keep in mind that death is a problem.

> or, at least mitigate

Did you guys all miss this part?

Edit: The point was that the goal should be to 1) acknowledge that death is the problem; and 2) from that, at least try to eliminate the problem. Even if that is not successful. You may be able to, at least, mitigate it.

But the main thing, the starting point, is to not fool yourself into the notion that it isn't a problem. The problem certainly isn't going to get fixed if it is simply excused.

>In his book, The Case Against Death previous NYU philosophy professor, Ingemar Patrick Linden, veers away from the predominant philosophical notion that we should find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable and see it for what it is: 'simply awful.'

I'm with Ingemar Linden on this one. If something is a problem, "accept the problem" isn't a solution. Instead, you should try to find the root cause, and eliminate (or, at least mitigate) the problem.

Like this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair

>He has expressed the view that advances in aging research could enable humans to live to be 200 years old.

Is he right? Will he succeed in moving towards that goal? Beats me. But he's not wrong for trying.

Anyway, the rest of the article seems to be just different ways to find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable. Which is solving a different problem: Not the problem of death itself, but the problem of dealing with death.

Solve the one and you (in large part) solve the other, too.

>Not to be pedantic but it is impossible to repeat the past.

Well, sure, that's why I framed it as "recreation" of the past (or maybe "reproduction").

Whatever you want to call the conservative force that keeps keeps society from radically changing.

> One thing I would say is that there has never been and never will be a time in which there isn’t change happening. It’s a matter of degree or severity. Only when a thing no longer exists can there no longer be change.

Well, sure, there can be change. But if we take this seriously:

>we repeat the past simply because these are the only forms that seem remotely viable to consider

Then, there is no "real" (radical?) change; just a repetition of viable, acceptable forms. Society recreating itself as just the latest remake.

Though, I do kinda wonder if all the cultural sameness is simply driven by capitalism, not... organically, for lack of a better term? Hollywood makes endless remakes and superhero movies, for example, because they sell. And, so, it looks like that's all there is. But there is plenty more out there. It's just all the more out there isn't picked up; "the algorithm" doesn't boost it. Cool new stuff gets buried and goes unnoticed.

>That lack of fulfillment can be meant with something like acceptance instead which would minimize or prevent depression.

I'm reminded of The Myth of Sisyphus here. "Accept that reality is absurd slow moving."

> I would agree that society is conservative in the sense that it tends towards a maintaining a cohesion among the people within it. But this is not always the case as social upheavals and revolutions happen. This usually seems to happen at time of social breakdowns where the expectations of the members are not met by the society.

I sometimes wonder if Mark Fischer were still with us, what he would think, now that we are seeing more and more social upheaval. Would he be happy?

"Good! That means we're still actually capable of change! Not stuck in some listless cultural depression, looking to only recreate current forms!"

But, then, it seems that the antidote to depression is... anger. Hopefulness just leads to more depression. But anger? That changes things; and, thus, the society that is created and recreated tomorrow is changed.

Maybe revolution is necessary, not simply because of intolerable conditions, but, to end cultural stagnation.

Which... isn't really a comforting thought, though?

So, I guess the answer would be yes? Society creates (and, thus, continually recreates) itself.

Edit: Or, maybe "reproduces" is a better way to phrase it than "recreates?"

It just got me thinking of Mark Fischer, is all.

https://youtu.be/JX-HfNIN-pc?t=171

2:51
while we used to recreate the
2:54
past in order to understand it or relive
2:57
it
2:57
today we recreate the past unconsciously
3:01
today's nostalgia is purely formal
3:04
today's nostalgia takes up the signs and
3:07
forms of yesterday's culture not in
3:10
tribute or as a critique but in the same
3:13
way that workers reproduce their own
3:16
exploitation every day in order to
3:18
survive we repeat the past simply
3:22
because these are the only forms that
3:24
seem remotely viable to consider

If society gives birth to itself, mimicking itself, then, society would be inherently conservative, right?

> Lack of inquiry and precision in terminology

How... unphilosophical.

> Society is a social construct.

So: Society emerges from society; it continually recreates itself in society's image?

Edit: Not sure why this was downvoted. It's an honest question.