Hacker News Reader

Comment by dtujmer | Hacker News Reader

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:

https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

And here it is in video form as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

View on HN

Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality looks like.

I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.

Imagine a world where Newton could still contribute, peak scientific output wouldn't be before the age of 35, and politicians would tackle long term problems because they will be affected by them too. That is also what amortality looks like.

I'd be worried that Newton would be spending an even higher percentage of his time on alchemy research than he already did, and using his reputation to push promising scientists to do the same.

Modern chemistry was born from Alchemy research. I find it unlikely that Newton would have continued to do exactly the same kinds of things for centuries more.

Politicians tackle quick wins that get them good PR and re-elected in next 4/5 years cycle, plus of course return back all the favors/contributions/etc to shady characters behind governments.

No amount of longevity is going to fix that, in contrary it could contribute to entrenchment of those behind curtains as permanent puppet masters. And we all know that if power corrupts, then semi-eternal power ...

People are living longer and longer already, compared to ~50 years ago. Scientific progress doesn't seem to be slowing down, though it has shifted to different fields.

1) No. Whatever people make, other people can destroy. You could get rid of Stalin any time you wanted, if even by running away or making him irrelevant. With various degrees of difficulty involved.

And for every Stalin, you brought in a few Buddhas and Gandhis.

2) Again, that depends on how you approach innovation which has little to do with age. What would have to be instituted is probably rotation based on tenure, similar to presidency terms. If a professor is still deemed innovative, they can stay in charge.

In fact, such a system would be vastly superior to the current one where once tenured, a professor is almost immovable for many years. It would also help with the publish or perish part if extended to lower levels - you'd get more chances.

Most importantly, if the basic needs are met, you just gained access to a huge pool of genius engineers and scientists by sheer numbers. Imagine if, say, Feynman or Hawking or Knuth or even Leibnitz and Newton were still around, and cooperating... No matter the academic structures.

imagine a world in which none of this happens and we all live in ignorance

Why would Stalin still be in power because of lack of aging? Stalin was quite likely murdered, though it was never proven. This is usually what happens to horrible leaders when they're in power too long.

Of course, Stalin was so popular that huge crowds showed up to honor him, and 100 people got crushed in the crowding. Over in Spain, Franco was apparently so popular that they never bothered to oust him at all. So if you don't like dictators like Stalin and Franco, that means you also don't really support democracy, since in a democratic system these people would have also been in power due to massive popular support.

Losing leaders to aging has historically robbed us of great leaders too, don't forget. Elizabeth I was considered one of England's best rulers, her reign considered a golden age of 40 years. Marcus Aurelius is considered one of Rome's best emperors, and he was infamously replaced by the horrible Commodus after he died. I wonder how history would be different if Marcus Aurelius had reigned for another few centuries.

You're imagining Stalin but we live in the 21. century. This century telepathy is going to become reality and that still seems to be the less interesting thing compared to AI, that is also inevitably coming. Do you think these facts won't change anything?

Yes, I imagine we will create the Borg by accident.

I think the same.

Oh good. I'm glad you agree we will see the largest genocide in history in our life time. People are usually a lot more optimistic than me about the future.

I don't see it as the largest genocide (not that I consider it positive). The Borg didn't kill, it assimilated. Considering that the absolute majority of people in the future will be cloned, the assimilation of old timers (that's us) is going to be seen as a minor event and probably not even a genocide as we will continue to live, I personally think it's going to be seen as our salvation.

IMO there is one thing that seems to be truly unique and irreplaceable - consciousness and its continuity, and control over it. That is probably going to be prized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com