Hacker News Reader

Comment by lachlan-sneff | Hacker News Reader

Do you not want to live longer?

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

"Death is very likely the best single invention of life. It is life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new." - Steve Jobs

I know my life is accreting old biases and obstacles. Today and for years to come (I hope) I have more to do, but some day I will become an agent of stagnation instead of advancement.

Nobody wants to die. But in the big picture, the alternative is worse.

I can't say I understand this viewpoint. If you feel you're going to become an agent of stagnation, as you put it, simply put effort into not stagnating.

I think we stagnate because we accumulate experience. As we grow old, we gain wisdom, but our wisdom is centralized in the past. We can't shed our experiences without forgetting ourselves.

Steve Jobs also talked about "the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything." But I can't be a beginner again and again and again: some day my biases/old-dreams and stale-ideas/past-successes will dominate. Nobody has an endless capacity for creating the new.

Perhaps stagnation is due to experience, perhaps it's due to accumulated, age-related brain damage. I doubt we'll know until people do live hundreds or thousands of years.

Surely you can be a beginner again. Pick something you've never done before, and do that. As fledgling as humanity is, humans already have millions of different traditions and areas of study. Just pick one (or many).

> Pick something you've never done before, and do that.

You run out of those things shortly after birth. The vast majority of the aspects of everything that you attempt are familiar, and you have already developed habitual approaches to them. Having "never done something before" is shorthand for some experience having some aspect that you have never experienced before, not complete novelty. I'm going to build the strategies of flying a spaceship on the strategies I built learning to drive a car, which were built on the strategies I built learning to walk, which were built on the strategies I built learning to crawl, to manipulate my parents by crying, to identify distinct objects using my eyes, etc...

Eventually, the actually novel part of any new experience becomes vanishingly small. If anything, the ability to enjoy novelty, or to even see things as novel, is increased with our ability to forget. Maybe for a society, the ability to innovate relies on the ability to leave behind a bunch of brains whose plasticity has long been lost due to a lack of mental exercise.

Get some help man

Those beliefs you spell are quite absolutes to me. Humanity is not made after a single mind model. What you take for granted (« nobody has endless capacity for creating the new ») might very well be an utterly false premise.

For the vast majority of our history, there had been little to no technological changes.

Only difference is that in the last few centuries, there had been technological and scientific changes.

What changes? it's certainly isn't that old men die faster so that we embrace newer ideas faster. The old guards probably lived longer on average thanks to medicine.

Progress (technological or otherwise) is exponential by nature, because it builds on itself. What has changed is that its pace has outstripped our capacity to integrate it. So our age of peak contribution trends lower, towards the younger generation, which has less to unlearn.

As I grow older, I can see how my thinking is affected by my past. Someone with an unencumbered perspective will do the new thing, when I cannot.

It's an economic problem. Right now, there's this torrent of new minds to come up with new ideas thanks to their lack of preconceptions, so there's no effort put towards alternatives.

There's a lot of possibilities that will open up as our tech advances. Say, wiping all memories of your field so you can learn it again with a fresh mind. Spawning short-lived digital clones of your mind with the mental 'temperature' turned up, in whatever way that's possible- maybe just dose them up with synthetic lsd in different doses- and observe the results. Lots of ways to get novel ideas without having to rely on wastefully growing billions of brains (and the attached bodies!) before throwing them, and most of the information in them, away to rot.

A specific technological change: writing (and printing.) We were able to remember longer spans more accurately than could be done by memorization and the passing of that knowledge from old to young. Reversions occur due to the active destruction of recorded history through war and religion. When the retention of novelty depends on the health of a relatively small number of people, as a society you're perpetually rediscovering instead of discovering.

Now our problem is even having the ability to assimilate enough established knowledge during a lifetime to have a chance of making any novel contribution. The obvious endgame to AI is a dream of being able to assimilate information and innovate indefinitely.

The real question is what kind of life.

I love driving my motorcycle, and I'm well aware of the risks involved.

Now let's imagine a world where they cure aging. When dying in an accident, you could lose a whole lot more than now.

I'm pretty sure we would quickly evolve to a society where we minimize the risk to die to almost 0. I do not want to live in such a oversafely world.

Besides, I'm very happy with 70 or so years here, and try to enjoy all of it. The next generations will inherit it all.

Wait until you are 69.

I doubt the extra years lost will affect people's decisions. I've seen a lot of 20 somethings weaving in traffic or not wearing protective hear while motorcycling. It's human nature to enjoy life by taking risks, reasonable or not (subjective as that is).

No.

If I could add 10 years on to my 30s I would. But adding 10 years into my 80s doesn’t seem worthwhile.

The whole point of this is to be able to extend your healthspan, not just your lifespan. This includes age "reversal" and maintenance. A complete solution does not leave you in your 80s, it leaves you in your 20s indefinitely.

I also don’t want to pay taxes but here I am, grudgingly paying them for the benefit of our societal structure.

Would I want to live in a world where people don’t have kids, where people can take as much time as they want because time is infinite, a world where you wouldn’t even go out on the street for the chance something would happen to you and deprive you of eternal existence? I’m not sure, and in any case, it will be a vastly different future.

Imagine Mark Zuckerberg running his empire for 900 years straight.

I do want to live in a world where people can take as much time as they want! I'm 20 years old, and there already isn't enough time to do everything I want to do. I also disagree that increased longevity will lead to a stagnant society. Just as we don't expect a 30 year old to be the same person when they're aged to 40 or 50, I don't expect a 100 year old to be the same person when they're 300. Neurons are replaced, old memories are forgotten, old habits are redefined.

You do you.

I want to live 900 years and explore every discipline under the sun. I want to travel the world twenty times, read every book, see a hundred thousand sunsets.

Don't tell me I or anyone else doesn't deserve that. Evolution left us with bodies that don't permit it, but we'll escape that limit someday.

Do you have kids? I think my view on this radically changed as a father. I feel like my generation sticking around forever would come at the expense of our children (or their children, which by proxy is the same thing).

With kids around, there’s just something biologically soothing that tells you “you’ve done your part. You can leave this world at peace”.

I know it’s not the same for everyone but on a humankind level, that’s exactly how it works.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

Those are beliefs from the past. Given time it will change. What human kind is biologically hardwired for is personal survival ability, not leaving the world for youngsters as soon as possible, and those two precepts are mutually exclusive.

Humans have individually weak survival instincts, which is why soldiers were running into machine gun fire on the beaches of Normandy (or why others ride motorcycles). Some of that is surely the denial of our own mortality.

Humans excel at surviving as a group, which is a very different - sometimes contrasting - thing.

Nobody's telling you you're not allowed to die, and I'll always be on the libertarian end of that equation. Just please don't stop people from trying to live.

Not meaning this in an derogatory manner but this sounds to me something like what Peter Pan wanted. He didn't want to leave neverland and he wanted to be everything (pan). This is also well studied in the Jungian psychology under the term puer aeternus, the infinite child.

The problem with this is, personal harm it causes aside, if all adults wanted to be infinite children, it wouldn't leave space to (at least compete with) the incoming, actual children. It would cause great intergenerational conflict. Not leaving resources for the next generation also means endangering the continuity of species altogether.

If we take a step back, one might even argue that this is already what is going on today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com