Death Redesigned
stories.californiasunday.com
stories.californiasunday.com
Here's how you take it on if you really feel like being a radical: you upend the culture of pro-aging trance [1] that has gripped 99.9% of the world population:
- Aging/death is natural.
- Aging/death is good.
- Aging/death is normal.
- Aging/death is inevitable.
- Aging/death is necessary.
Believe it or not, everyone hates diseases, but everyone seems to love death (including most medical doctors and researchers), except when that deathist himself/herself is diagnosed with something terminal, or when it's too late in any other sense for that person.
When you have a good idea about how we could change that, I'd be more inclined to call you radical.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RITCdrOEO9Y
EDIT 1: I'm sorry if I sound harsh. I just feel very intensely about this topic.
“Don’t look down on death, but welcome it. It too is one of the things required by nature. Like youth and old age. Like growth and maturity. Like a new set of teeth, a beard, the first gray hair. Like sex and pregnancy and childbirth. Like all the other physical changes at each stage of life, our dissolution is no different.
"So this is how a thoughtful person should await death: not with indifference, not with impatience, not with disdain, but simply viewing it as one of the things that happen to us. Now you anticipate the child’s emergence from its mother’s womb; that’s how you should await the hour when your soul will emerge from its compartment.”
Excerpt From: Marcus Aurelius & Gregory Hays. “Meditations.”
You should have disdain for death. It's a stupid, terrible, senseless thing. Just because we can't fix it yet[1] makes no difference to the terribleness that it is. Saying "death is part of nature" with a deep voice doesn't make it suddenly profound. You know what else is natural? Getting infected with botflies.
1: At least for fix=million year delay
Imagine, for a moment, that we have come up with a way to prevent aging and death tomorrow. How do you support the sudden 50% increase in population growth? Babies aren't going to stop being born. Old folks aren't going to stop consuming resources. Are you willing to give up your food to help feed the 56 million extra people alive every year? Are you willing to give up the right to have children so someone 100+ years old can continue to live and eat?
There's a lot wrong with the Torchwood "Miracle Day" miniseries, but it's worth watching the first five episodes to see one writer's interpretation of how we would handle it. It's perhaps a tad bit cynical, but it's also not unreasonable.
Until we have the ability to support exponential population growth (through the ability to populate the universe, or social controls on when or if you can have children), death is going to be a required part of life. You live, you die, you make space on this earth for the generations which follow. What's so vile about that?
But the idea that it's more acceptable to torture nearly every human on earth because "you live, you die" - that sounds like, at best, a local maxima. And even if there were insurmountable resource issues, we should still not hand wave things, but any explicitly admit our policy is to permanently destroy people, look them in the eye when we free their resources. Like a real world OOM killer.
You know, spouting transhumanism would be far more socially acceptable if you didn't answer the legitimate questions spawned by mild transhumanism with severe, world-dominating transhumanism.
For instance, words like "world run by single intelligent entity" carry an extremely high prior chance of denoting an incredibly terrible idea. At the very least, you've taken something that was already an argument, statements that already required justification, and "fixed it" by appealing to statements that require far more justification. Basically, you've answered "Won't the elimination of aging cause a population boom?" with a combination of "Not if we do it in the way that most easily allows Malthusian population booms!" and "Not if someone I approve of is made Dictator of the World."
And, of course, your next line is that your planned Dictator isn't even a human being in the first place. While I fully know where you're coming from on this point, it still requires far more justification and explanation than either of us can give in an HN comment, and should a priori be considered a bloody terrible idea.
It's my guess that anti aging will happen slowly, and hopefully we can also slowly make policy changes over that time too. I just don't see the default answer of "don't worry, we have a process to go around killing people" to be acceptable.
But if the point was to say that major changes in the world could have major negative consequences, yeah, sure. Maybe they aren't solvable. But just don't pretend that Natural Death is OK because it's slightly alleviating one problem.
And what is life then? Is it rational, great, makes sense?
I do agree with you that viewing death as 'natural' is part of a questionable ideology about human nature, a kind of "circle of life" viewpoint that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. People make naive leaps when they say "here is our nature as told by biology, evolution, and evolutionary psychology; so we as humans should now construct identifications and take normative prescriptions based on it, which will instruct us how to relate to ourselves and the world." One could point out the glaring gaps between these two realms... I think that evo-psych reductionism, while in vogue, tends to suffer from oversimplification.
As to the rest: I've heard that called "can't get an ought from an is".
Now, death itself, is, in a way, also a product of the human mind. For we are, on a fundamental level, all the same creature; it just happens that there are no neuronic connections between our brains, so it appears to us that we are different creatures, but we are not. So in effect, death does not exist in the way that most people envision it.
Judging by it, it looks like Aurelius expects some kind of after-life. And this is exactly what you suggest not to do "people invent religions that posit some sort of afterlife", so I'm not sure how this quotation from this early AD emperor can either confirm or deny your own statement.
Just because immortal life is a religious belief doesn't mean that someone seeking it scientifically is "science fiction". Nor is something being science fiction evidence that it's actually scientifically impossible (Jules Verne was actually right in a large proportion of sci-fi predictions he made!).
Nature doesn't dictate how you "have to" feel about death. Welcome it, be indifferent to it, hate it -- whatever. Your life, your view.
But most people who've been fairly close to death don't exactly want to invite it where it hadn't already stuck its head in.
> Believe it or not, everyone hates diseases, but everyone seems to love death
That's totally understandable IMHO. People are conservative in nature and an anti-aging treatment would change the very fabric of our society. Examples: death would no longer be a potential cure for despotism. We would no longer be able to raise children. What would happen with a brain that has 500 years worth of memories? Etc, etc... This is one of those cases in which we think further than our own personal interest.
And surely, if an anti-aging treatment gets invented, I don't think anybody would reject it, mostly because we are creatures favoring instant gratification.
Therefore I have trouble believing that Aubrey de Grey couldn't get funding because the population is against such a treatment. The simplest possible reason for why Aubrey de Grey couldn't get funding is because the potential investors saw snake oil.
One way or another, Bennett told me, “We’re all holding hands and saying, ‘Forget that shit. Not going to happen.’”
I really hate attacking them personally, but their big idea was that someone might leave a letter for other people? Perhaps what they were missing was a study "how-might-we" of "empowering" people with a "hybrid digital-analog" death.
Seriously, am I totally out of line here or is this an emperor lacking clothes scenario? If you hired these folks and they talked like that while billing you -- you just smile and go along with it?
(The product idea is sound: I'd buy a dead mans switch product if it comes with a stackable, provable M-of-N secret system, maybe with plausible deniability (so my family can't be compelled to reveal secrets). Can't imagine that's a large market, though.)
You seem to want a radical solution, but I think the main reason that there are few people trying to directly prevent aging/death, is because the medical profession doesn't consider this possible at this time.
It's a sleeping giant. It's like the mechanical engineers of 1880s who had the idea of the impossibility of flight so entrenched in their minds that not only they kept claiming that it's impossible, they were quite proactive in dismissing the efforts of those trying to do something about it. (I always like to use this link: http://www.spacequotations.com/predictions.html).
If people had attempted flight in 1690s, it would not have gotten us anywhere. The science and engineering wasn't developed enough. But at some point, someone had to realize that "yes, now we have enough knowledge, resources and tools, to give it a last push". And that was what flight pioneers realized in 1890s, and 1900s.
For aging, are we in the 1690s, or 1890s of flight?
If it comes down to medical community agreeing to seek an answer to that, consider that a solved problem for someone like me.
The problem is, most medical researchers simply dismiss the idea as over-ambitious, resort to ad-hominems, socioeconomic criticisms, and (surprise, surprise) the pro-aging trance, instead of technical critique. So the honest discussion about the technology gets lost in all that noise.
You say this without irony?
People can critique scientology without being members. The same can be done with medical research goals.
Both those things might be true, but I would need stronger evidence than has been presented thus far to convince me.
It's a social experiment you can actually do yourself: find an MD or med researcher who's easy to talk to and ask them about the subject. Chances are, they mirror the exact position laid out by fizixer. You might argue this is because they reflect the opinion of our population at large, but - anecdote alert - in personal conversations I found that medical professionals are in fact more likely to assert that death is natural and/or can't be opposed on religious grounds.
Similarly, regarding life extension, the majority opinion seems to be that this is literally evil since it would flood the industrialized nations with elderly and sick people. Yes, that means they can't wrap their heads around what life extension actually stands for (which is the opposite of what they claim).
That said, hueving is absolutely correct: judge an argument by its merits, not by the credentials of the person putting it forth.
I do not see that happening in the long-term. Maybe a few fringe sects, but never the majority.
Instead, as soon as some people use such treatment, most everyone else will as well.
What this conjecture tells me, is that this "culture" is probably just based on the belief that anyone who refuses to accept aging, must be a fool.
If however a cure is demonstrated, this belief will be disproven, and people will quite immediately embrace longevity.
Or.. do you expect otherwise?
Please. It is not okay to keep supporting an idea until the minute the counter to that idea becomes available, when you'll be eager to benefit from the "counter" solution.
It was not okay for Ayn Rand to be a libertarian all her life, only to start collecting welfare checks at the end of her life when she went broke.
I'm not even getting into the practical aspects of how badly the pro-aging trance is affecting the funding problem.
However, I think this thought experiment can bring them to understand that their own beliefs are temporary. If there was a popular movie that followed the plot of how the cure of aging was slowly accepted in society, for example.
Just a short story might be a start.
I think the problem is not that people "support" the idea, but that they are not properly aware of the alternative.
Ayn Rand didn't change her views. Period. She was just blatantly self-serving.
Most people do not support some Moral Ideal of Death. They just consider the actual dying bit inevitable. This is why they will change their minds once you show, in the real world, that it's changeable.
You're assuming that the treatment will be within reach for everybody. What if only rich people will be able to afford it?
It might be seen as even less important than distributing food to the starving, and medicine to the sick, of which there is still not enough going on.
But there is at least one other pathway. As an AGI researcher, I believe that artificial intelligence will solve the problem for us, and, all other things being equal, the cure will be made available everywhere, at the same time.
My own research makes me believe that we are not very far from that outcome.
Worth watching
And the funny thing is, if the world is so "deathist", why have so few countries legalized voluntary euthanasia?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/
I had my doubts about the title and how pompous it sounded, suspecting that it wasn't nearly as radical or visionary as it sounded. But jeez, that's it? Thanks for saving me the trouble of skimming that thing.
Proper care for the elderly can cost anywhere between $2000 and $6000 every month, depending on how much care they need. I can't think of a single self-funded retirement plan capable of paying out $72,000 a year for an unknowable number of years. This means the financial burden will be on their families.
Those without such money will become a burden on those families as they become more and more unable to care for themselves, and where improper care can result in tremendous pain from broken bones, infections, and open sores. If they're scheduled to die in the next few months, the families may be able to get some inexpensive care from hospice, which while a blessing, isn't free.[0]
Those without families, or those unable to navigate the complexities of Medicaid(!), are relegated to nursing homes and put in the care of overworked and underpaid orderlies.
Such is our fate, folks. We'll all die eventually, be it to accidents or old age. What life do you want to live when you reach that period of time in your life?
[0] Actually, that last bit isn't fair to Hospice. They take care of so many of the details surrounding a death at home, that they make a painful passing as simple as such a thing could ever be. Thanks for your work, folks. The passing of my grandfather-in-law would have been so much harder without your presence.
More than one doctor has told me I'll be having severe mental issues in late age. And I've seen even "normal" function decay in older relatives. There's no way anyone in a healthy state would be OK with ending up like that. Yet since it happens slowly, a day at a time, we let these terrible things happen.
For me, once I know I'm getting near that downward slope and uploading isn't around, fuck it, I'm going out on my own terms. Big goodbye party, family, and a few grams of diacetylmorphine. It's sad as shit, but I think having random hazy visits that could each be their last, but spread out over months or years -- that's much worse.
And for people not dying at that time, yeah, it's probably more acutely painful to you see someone go from 50% to 0% over an hour. (And wow, how do you even decide when it's time to end the party and go for it? "Well, it's getting late...") And maybe it's traumatic to say goodbye to a coherent person. But it seems a much larger tragedy to overwrite many of your memories of that person with memories of a shade they've become.
Edit: On second thought it might be better to have a goodbye party but actually terminate rand(2h,20h) afterwards. Less traumatic.
I think it's another spot where Death needs to get a makeover, but it's going to be a harder sell to the general public who fears interacting with death.
Death sucks. No doubt about it. And, no matter what folks want to believe, I highly suspect that 99% of us will die sometime in the next 100 years. Maybe 95%, if we as a species are lucky.
It can't be emphasized enough that you are exactly right: for many of us, myself included, death will most likely involve total poverty, dependence on family, and the likelihood of ending up in some state institution. It's a terrible thing to contemplate, which is why you hear so many people talk about heart attacks and other ways of going quickly as being "lucky"
Especially amusing is Waugh's invention of the "Happier Hunting Ground annual postcard service" for dearly departed pets that predicts features discussed for the never built "After I Go" app that features in the article. Stay crazy California!
You guys in?