Comment by FeepingCreature | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FeepingCreature | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

FeepingCreature

There is a considerable distance between "all resources are ultimately limited" and "thus humans should die at 80, instead of 80 trillion when the stars burn out."

See also https://www.yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified "Transhumanism as simplified Humanism":

> If a young child falls on the train tracks, it is good to save them, and if a 45-year-old suffers from a debilitating disease, it is good to cure them. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle which says “Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad.” If so – and here we enter into controversial territory – we can follow this general principle to a surprising new conclusion: If a 95-year-old is threatened by death from old age, it would be good to drag them from those train tracks, if possible. And if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible.

Also I don't see how it's ego driven. I want everybody (who wants) to live forever. - And while we're at it, every animal who ever lived in every ecosystem has changed things. That's kind of what it means to live in an ecosystem - no actually, that's kind of what it means to live, period.

Hi,

This is a human centric approach, which i don't subscribe to. I am not of the opinion that every human life needs saving as it is the most valuable thing there is, as i don't think it is, my own life included. I will eventually (maybe even soon) die and that's cool with me. And your take on what an ecosystem is lacks the simple fact that alot of it was only possible the last couple billion of years because organisms tend to die, life on earth hasn't adapted to one organsim multiplying as much as we do, consuming as much as we do and having a really long life expectancy at the same time, it won't work.

ego driven as it values human life so much that it ignores how much damage it will do, not just to us, but to everything in general. We need to figure out a whole lot more before we can even consider extending our life expectancy like that.

That's my take on it, but it's okay to disagree, i am not married to my opinion.

This is a human centric approach, which i don't subscribe to. I am not of the opinion that every human life needs saving as it is the most valuable thing there is, as i don't think it is, my own life included.

People die of cancer and other diseases everyday, and you considered it selfish to want to live? What about the impact on loved ones like children or parents?

What about the quality of life? Being healthy is strongly tied to living longer.

ego driven as it values human life so much that it ignores how much damage it will do, not just to us, but to everything in general. We need to figure out a whole lot more before we can even consider extending our life expectancy like that.

The damage is from pollution, not necessarily resource consumption in and itself. Yes, if the air is bad, we're going to die more of lung cancer. The solution is to build a society that value clean air, a stable climate, and a life support system(biosphere) that isn't steadily being destroyed as a byproduct of our consumption.

"People die of cancer and other diseases everyday, and you considered it selfish to want to live? What about the impact on loved ones like children or parents?"

Not dying due to cancer at 20 and living to be 400 years old isn't quite what i would consider in the same realm of justification, but your opinion might differs.

And this: " The damage is from pollution, not necessarily resource consumption in and itself. Yes, if the air is bad, we're going to die more of lung cancer. The solution is to build a society that value clean air, a stable climate, and a life support system(biosphere) that isn't steadily being destroyed as a byproduct of our consumption. "

Which is exactly my point in all of this: Are we there yet? not even close. Will people try to make living forever a reality regardless? i think so.

Which is exactly my point in all of this: Are we there yet? not even close. Will people try to make living forever a reality regardless? i think so.

Nothing says that we are unable to do these projects at the same time. The people who could work on anti-aging medicine aren't interchangable with the people who are working on various aspect of moving society toward an environmentally sustainable society. Otherwise this is the same argument being made against NASA and research into rocketry and spaceflight.

Not dying due to cancer at 20 and living to be 400 years old isn't quite what i would consider in the same realm of justification, but your opinion might differs.

Really? Someone's going to cry when their loved one die. The older an individual is, the greater their network of connections, knowledge, skills, and lived experience. All of which are valuable to societies.

Thank you for your answer, you have a valid point in both things not necessarily being mutually exclusive. I am just scared of what happens if no precautions are taken before we proceed with extending our life expectancy.

I don't know if I can fairly argue with your second point, I seem to lack the emotional capacity to appreciate those things as much as you do. I however appreciate that you take the time to present your viewpoint, I'll have to reconsider some of my initial thoughts regarding this

We are the only thing in the universe that _defines_ damage. Nature doesn't care! That said, if you think a world without humans is preferable over a world with humans, I'm not sure how to bridge that divide. And if you, like me, find a world with humans preferable to one without, then that would seem to imply humans are good - which at least suggests that more humans, and humans for longer, are better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com