Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiefalchemist | Hacker News Reader

Why do you believe it will signal an end?

People form rigid organizational structures around themselves. At first these structures advance progress, but eventually they run their course and become a burden. Natural death of the key members of the organization is one way to promote progress within. Absent that we're looking at massive stagnation.

The death of the organization itself is another way, which is basically the foundation of the free-market capitalism.

That's an awfully narrow view. Even today we see 80 year olds learning all sorts of new paradigms. Granted they're sadly the exception rather than the rule, but that's a cultural issue we can fix.

The biggest cause of the stagnation you mention IMO is people thinking they deserve something simply because they've physically existed for longer. With the advent of the information age that illusion is becoming harder to maintain. Might take a few generations to develop the correct institutions, but longer lived humans could readily adapt. And that's assuming humans stay otherwise the same physically. Any knowledge that could lead to 4 digit lifetimes will almost certainly come with enough knowledge to turn us into legit cyborgs, or genetically engineered superhumans if we want, and all bets are off at that point.

> Even today we see 80 year olds learning all sorts of new paradigms.

I said nothing about old people's ability to contribute, rather I was speaking about organizations staffed with the same people for a long time.

See also: "Science advances one funeral at a time." http://www.nber.org/digest/mar16/w21788.html

It will be solved by a brain-rejuvenating drug. Same people, but fresh brains. And some of those brains will be rejuvenated so much that they will leave the organizations anyway, to pick up music, or maths :).

Problem is you accumulate status and groupthink within an organization. Rejuvenating brain doesn't help against that, unless you plan to wipe it altogether.

A property of a young brain is that of starting afresh, being able to change and follow entirely new paths. So yes, I suppose that a rejuvenated brain would end up partially wiping itself. On the other end, what's the fun of living forever if you always have to be the same person?

As am I. Science advancing one funeral at a time is an institutional and cultural failing, not a natural law.

Our systems of governance alao used to advance one funeral at a time as well, we eventually figured out many ways around that.

That is indeed a potential problem. But I think “let everyone alive now and forevermore die” is a poor solution.

I didn't offer that solution.

Because life is given meaning and focus by its brevity. Because generations give us the constant possibility of change and new ideas.

Perhaps a person's psyche will change, given the change in perspective a longer life could induce. After all, a child has many erroneous perspectives, and yet is able to adapt. With longer, healthier lives may come the freedom to re-examine old ideas. I hesitate to make sweeping statements, however, since this is psychology.

What I can say is that it is fallacy to assume one can extrapolate into the unknown by projecting linearly, or even statically, the known. In this case, why should the old be locked into old views? Wisdom urges always incorporating the latest information. People persist in wrong thinking after being shown right - this ego grasping may be a symptom of short lives, for some. And yet, certainly the desire to live longer is, at (the very) least in part, ego grasping, but that does not mean a sentience with infinite longevity will engage in ego grasping forever. Forever is a long time. -Eventually even the most ego wrapped ``child'' should grow out of it, if he or she grows at all.

New challenges give us the possibility of change and new ideas. Certainly re-doing life's challenges again with new minds does induce humanity to take on new ideas, as you say. Maybe there is something of the breadth first vs depth first search style in this comparison. Surely both can have their place.

What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But this statement can be dismissed twice: Not only is it not established that brevity gives life meaning, it isn’t established that life even has or needs meaning!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com