Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mandelmus | Hacker News Reader

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

– Max Planck[1]

Often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time."

I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

View on HN

I'd definitely want immortality in the sense of stopping physical (and mental) deterioration. You can always just commit suicide if you're done.

I discuss this with friends and family occasionally, and they all seem to have these ideas that we're "only supposed to live 100 years or so". But that seems like a logical fallacy (appeal to nature) to me, it's not an actual argument.

And sure, there are plenty of dystopian movies about how all of your friends die while you live on. But you know, you can make new friends. As someone who has moved often and had to make new friends often: it's not that bad. Friendships come and go.

Just imagine the things you could get done if you weren't pressured by time. You could witness the colonization of other planets, the unification of humanity. And if everyone were immortal, we wouldn't have to worry about things like pensions anymore, and I bet that we'd see an extreme lowering of crime and violence.

The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconion measures to regulate it.

I think it's because people think they stop growing. I was listening to Levitt's People I (Mostly) Admire and on a recent show he was talking about progress. How everyone will say in the last 10 years they've changed but if you ask them what they'll be in the next 10 years they think they'll be the same. But there's a lot of insight we often ignore.

I think similarly people ignore political and cultural progress. It's easy to blame the lack of progress on the old guard. But if we look at history we go much faster than that. One great example of this is the legalization of gay marriage. Pee [0] tracks support of it and it's clear that attitude is changing faster than the old people dying.

Also I think part of the problem is we've all gotten used to the Dragon Tyrant[1] that we accept our fate.

[0] https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

[1] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY

There's the problem of the elderly continuing to accumulate wealth and power without ceding any to the younger generations.

It's already happening. Look no further than the geriatric US lawmakers and how out of touch they are with the future.

Create a startup and disrupt them with a new technology.

Of course there exists no problem that HN won’t unironically propose solving with a startup.

Disrupt the US government or wealth inequality?

What makes us human, aka the “human condition” would definitely change. Motivation, knowledge, relationships, resources. It would be an evolutionary change in a non evolutionary timeline. Pretty crazy.

I, too, would rather not die. But "the only real problem" you see being overpopulation speaks to a limited effort in thinking out the consequences.

Let's imagine such a solution was available. Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people, a mere "stay alive and subsist" drug. So it's probably safe to assume that a literal immortality treatment would be only available to the most wealthy and powerful.

So, what we'd get is Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Biden, Trump, Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Clarence Thomas, and many others still alive by the year 2250, with no signs of slowing down.

Just imagine how much the world would cease to change if the people running it never experienced turnover. "The unification of humanity" - yeah right! We can't even get a minimum wage increase, and Russia is actively planning an invasion. The only hope for these things is that these people will die, and be replaced by younger generations who grew up with different ideals.

I hope to be cryogenically frozen and one day awake into a world like that of the Culture in the books of Iain Banks, but I know on some level that this isn't just decades or centuries away: it's millennia.

> Let's remember that insulin today is barely affordable to most people

If you are talking about the US, then it is a structural problem of your healthcare system: https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/insulin-prices-8x-higher-in...

If you are talking about many countries with socialised healthcare systems (both rich and poor), then it is free or minimal cost to the user. In New Zealand I have diabetic friends that get virtually free checkups and prescriptions (although they do have other out of pocket expenses like time off work, or replacing expensive electronic monitors).

If you are talking worldwide, then many poor people in some countries can’t afford insulin but neither can they afford other critical goods.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-i...

Just as likely you’d awaken to planet of the apes or morlocks.

If we were to immediately acquire immortality then society would need to evolve a structure that deliberately kills ideas and pushes itself past ideologic ruts, etc. Do you really want boomers running government and owning land for longer? Society would be down right miserable. Think about it in terms other than “yourself transcending all your peers” for a moment.

It may sound cool to you to live to see the day we colonize planets, but your entire comment reeks of narcissism and maybe regret. I’ll give you that there are perhaps a few scenarios where extended longevity would be convenient, like allowing a research group a little extra time to achieve a likely breakthrough, but beyond that I really can’t imagine society where everyone lives forever looking remotely like it does today. If the only problem you can imagine is overpopulation then you aren't really thinking critically at all. Why do Tolkien elves always fade away?

We’re supposed to invest our resources as a human race into raising the next generation to achieve the things we collectively dream of but couldn't in out generation. Sure if we can extend lifetimes gradually over time and reduce deterioration and suffering that’s one thing and I believe we’d adapt naturally. But arguing for immortality by default right now? That is perverse and not remotely biologically appropriate. You’ve got one shot on this earth to make a difference. Don’t squander it. Don’t steal from future generations. Listen to the wisdom of others around you. And learn to embrace your mortality, because you will die.

If you're immortal, then you're stuck with whatever problems we have right now and forever.

Honestly, it sounds better than leaving it to future generations, because we are the future generations.

Interesting spin. I guess I wouldn't mind a society where everyone was accountable for the long term consequences of their actions, policy decisions, research, etc… however we achieve it. The problem lately is we don’t seem to want to hold people accountable almost because we consider a right to life and success to be overly precious. CEO ran a company into the ground, meh they were just doing their fiduciary duty. Politician demonstrably implemented a policy that increases crime, meh they were just a conduit for the will of their constituents. Perhaps these attitudes would be fixed by longer lifespans.

This a dumb argument. Steve Jobs was a boomer and created the reality we live in today. He definitely wasn't lacking for any innovation or ideas.

I like the Apple Pencil.

It's pretty great -- I agree! :)

> The only read problem I see would be overpopulation, and possibly draconian measures to regulate it.

Like, for example, releasing a weaponized virus from a lab. Oh wait...

I would agree “we” don’t. Whoever “we” is. The problem is the hypothetical billionaires and politicians expanding their power with elongated lifespans. Imagine the ramifications if Supreme Court justices lived 50+ more years, for one example.

Of course, we'd have to change how many things work in the world, this specific example seems like a rather simple one to change.

Yes, it was a simple example but regardless I have a hard time believing that the needed changes would happen before powerful people achieve and take advantage of supraphysiological lifespans.

Also I’m not sure how simple changing it would be to change Supreme Court justice retirement.

How do you propose we do it?

I don't really understand the US systems very well, but I'd probably start with putting a maximum term in place, instead of membership for life.

Should watch "Altered Carbon" if you haven't already...

Fiction is not an argument for against immortality.

Wasn't meant to be an argument for or against -- merely a relevant & entertaining piece of science fiction.

Indeed, I can agree that there are all kinds of practical disadvantages if other people would start living forever.

On the other hand, if we're talking about me or you then suddenly it's different, isn't it? I think I'd choose to take unnatural longevity for myself even if it imposes some problems for the social fabric.

That's the crux of it — visions aside, day-to-day, nobody is going to suddenly "solve aging" for everyone. Progress comes gradually, in the form of everyone's loved ones dying and suffering less often and less early — and very few people are opposed to that.

You hear about older people fall ill and think things like "I've lived long enough, I don't want to go through the ordeal of treatment X for a .05 probability of living for one more year in bad health" — but would they see it that way if the treatment were to become much better and safer?

I say the same goes for business models. About 15 years ago I spent 5 years in the early SaaS space, and it was extremely difficult to convince IT Mgrs and CTOs that software as a service was not some evil plan. Today, it is hard to sell software that is not sold as a service. Why? The old guard management is gone, and tech is managed by people who grew up with SaaS and/or are afraid of managing their own hardware infrastructures.

I would rather be alive and trying to work that out than dead.

You might not. Sign me up. Maybe just maybe if people live longer, they will be more likely to change their beliefs over time.

I don't think we really want immortality or unnatural longevity.

Imagine Putin, Trump, and Xi still running the world in 2100.

Most people won't have access. Just the ultra elites.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com