Hacker News Reader

I don't understand this fundamental anti-human worldview. People are able to change their mind. Just think about how much more accepted homosexuality is today compared to 25 years ago. I changed during the last 10 years, everyone else I know did as well. Did you?

Think about how much people will change, how many lives they will live over 300 years.

Also keep in mind a society that is able to develop and sustain anti-aging medicine has to be by definition more advanced than ours.

Boredom is not valid, since nobody talks about people being forced to live. However, I don't think I would be ever bored. There is so much to do. So much space so many things and so many minds to explore. The tragedy, the insult of the brevity of life outweighs the dangers of boredom infinitely.

> Just think about how much more accepted homosexuality is today compared to 25 years ago.

Is that because older people willingly changed their views, or older people died and younger people replaced them? I suspect 90% of that change is from generational shifts, not people learning with time. In other words, the old died out and the young replaced them.

In my anecdotal experience, most older people I know aren't any less racist/prejudiced than they used to be - they're just afraid to talk about it more.

People don't enter this world with random ideas. The fact is: Someone has to change their mind and think something new. Either the old or the young.

I find the notion that old people are all stupid, racist bastards very insulting, even though I am under 30. Older people tend to be happier, kinder and have more perspective. Imagine how much more wisdom, knowledge and skill people could accumulate if they did not die so young. If they lived, what would Arthur C. Clarke, John von Neumann and Ludwig van Beethoven be up to today?

It is true young people in our world are often more radical. For better and worse. And for every good change there are other examples where young people changed the world for the worse. The nazis and communists were quite young when they rose to power.

Moreover, I can only reiterate. A fixed world assumption is not valid here. A world with little or no aging will be vastly different.

"Don’t people at least want to see what is at the other side?

Sure, but I want to do it on my schedule, and it would be nice to have some level of understanding of "what's next after death" before I choose that option.

Do they think they will never get bored from material existence?

Oh, probably; but I think it will take me somewhere north of 500 years before I tire of being alive. Even if Earth is boring, I'd rather move to another planet rather than just off myself out of boredom.

What do you mean by the other side?

Biological immortality (negligible senescence) would not prevent suicide, homicide or accidental death.

Why should we be bored?

The universe is a large and complex space, And there are many mysteries to solve...

And when the real world is too boring it is always possible to create/explore virtual worlds.

you are making a couple of assumptions that will probably not be true for immortal humans: 1) you are assuming people will continue to behave the same way (reproduction, consumption, learning, jobs, etc). 2) you are assuming population increase 3) you are assuming that we will continue staying on Earth (immortality has some advantages when it comes to space travel) 4) you assume science will progress at the same pace as today (i think it will go much much faster) 5) you are assuming that our final form is biological

also, how do you know there is another side?

Why would you think there is an "other side" to see?

I'd take boredom over non-existence.

> Organisms are evolved to utilise short life-spans to quickly adapt changing environmental conditions

They don't utilize short life span, but rapid replication

For many organisms short life span is simply a byproduct of their biology, but take an immortal mosquito and its rapidly evolving offspring will adapt as well as the immortal father did.

Of course immortal mosquitos would never be possible because the equilibrium would collapse if too many mosquitos are alive in a limited resources pool

But humans are not mosquitos

This an interesting original take, bravo.

Death is clearly an evolutionary result as species all live in a different range of lifespans. It can neatly argued that we are now seeing consequences of this just by extending lifespans from 60 to mid 80s in both economics and governance.

It's always nice when HN truly shifts a perspective.

Have one internet on me today.