HaveCourage

I mailed you

I think seasteading is stupid, however it shows a desire to experiment with governance itself.

Percentage wise how many bastards are crushed out of selflessness compared to vendetta? I think you'll find that the extra satisfaction of a grudge is needed to tip people into the honorable action.

Wouldn't any research Thiel funded that helped himself also help other 50 year old white guys? What's wrong with helping 50 year old white guys? (who will be 60-70 when the therapies are likely available)

If government surveillance is an commonly emerging property of modern governments, it could be said that doing it well instead of poorly may allow us to restrict its scope more. Thus better searching of the already never erasable data is better than gathering more data and searching it more poorly. Thus I have no evidence of Palantir doing anything wrong, however, I'm keeping an eye out.

I'm a camera/cinematography person as well, so we could always chat about that :)

I'm happy to talk about substantive issues. We can chat, discord, livestream, move over to reddit, I love speaking about cool ideas.

Peter Thiel finds its easier to be a contrarian because the masses are so wildly wrong about so many things.

Like the value of a college education: His scholarship fund accelerates kids lives into what they're passionate about instead of seeing them waste years in college.

Medical research: He funds longevity

Governments themselves: Seasteading

Competition: Promoting that people being definitive in their goals and working on things no one else is.

Crushing bastards: like the evil rag gawker hiding behind genuine journalistic protections.

If you're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's not because he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a 100 page thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative.

The reason that Peter Thiel seems so contrarian is because so many other people are so cowardly. Shouldn't more billionaires be crushing bastards? Shouldn't more billionaires be funding medical research? Shouldn't more billionaires be publishing books to motivate the masses to create themselves the future that has been only dreamed of for the last few decades?

On the short list of people in this world who are doing a really really great job with what they have, Peter Thiel is at the top of my list.

Now the caveats. Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part of them, it's not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had to offer. Christianity, not so fabulous.

Peter Thiel is a gay christian republican billionaire philanthropist genius.

Peter Thiel is a visionary. His scholarship fund accelerates kids lives into what they're passionate about instead of seeing them waste years in college.

He funds longevity, seasteading, and promotes people being definitive in their goals and working on things no one else is. He also personally funded the hunt for justice against an evil rag hiding behind genuine journalistic protections.

If you're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's not because he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a 100 page thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative.

The reason that Peter Thiel seems so contrarian is because so many other people are so cowardly. Shouldn't more billionaires be crushing bastards? Shouldn't more billionaires be funding medical research? Shouldn't more billionaires be publishing books to motivate the masses to create themselves the future that has been only dreamed of for the last few decades?

On the short list of people in this world who are doing a really really great job with what they have, Peter Thiel is at the top of my list.

Now the caveats. Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part of them, it's not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had to offer. Christianity, not so fabulous.

I consider the man a legend and hope to see great things from him.

If only the greatest of us didn't rot away and die. I think Feynman would be great to still have around.

Wrongful convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy

Don't understand what your STD test really means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox

Correlation/causation conflation.

If this list was "Young founders" or "xyz state founders" no one would bat an eye.

Please let men and women be differently abled. Equality is the opposite of specialization. Specialization is power in a complex world. Video on that idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNz5WXwKHsU

Sexual dimorphism has outcompeted equality. Equality lost.

It's better to make new productive areas than to fight diminishing returns and force there to be fewer productive areas. The founding of California and the USA are the result of such thinking.

The powerful, propertied generation dying and being replaced by people that look and do nearly the same hasn't cured any of the ills of which you speak so far. The rich have continued to get richer, and the poor richer at a much slower rate, death hasn't solved any of that, nor is it likely too. What you want is better marketing of good ideas, because that actually works. Wishing people dead for disagreeing with you is at least immoral.

Unfortunately, you are correct in that brain deterioration progresses faster than other forms of deterioration, which is why it's smart to focus on it over some other age dependent diseases. Your brain is a part of your body like your heart. Any cure for aging would obviously include the cure for mental deterioration.

It's a common misunderstanding that curing aging can be a pill. Aging is a quite loaded word. It means at least, curing cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, cell loss, hardening, muscle loss, vision loss... So what an aging cure really looks like is lots and lots of cures because there's lots and lots of causes. The easy way to categorize what needs fixed is: Cells: too many, too few. Junk: inside and outside cells. Mutations: nuclear and mitochondrial. Finally crosslinking.

Fresh perspectives generate fresh perspectives. Birth doesn't as well, because schools tend to standardize viewpoints as do religions. If birth was a good cure, you wouldn't get regression. Like the dark ages, or what's going on in Iran. Rolling the dice and hoping for a better outcome is inferior to building and advertising better outcomes. It would be easy to dream the pro death people die off and be replaced with more adventurous types, but its not fair to wish for someones death because they disagree with you.

Would you rather have the problem of paying for your loved ones to still be around and healthy, or the problem of them being dead right now? Seems like a good problem to have. Imagine if their brains and bodies were still equivalent to 50 years old. You probably couldn't convince them to stop working. I detect lots of bitterness to the young male and foreign and little for old and citizen. Medical progress gets rid of old people too, they just remain young instead of dead.

Historically, as Lifespan increases war and poverty decrease. Its very easy to imagine the parade of imaginary horribles. Those horribles look out of place on a graph of global human fulfillment over time. It's so easy to dream how bad it could all go, that comments focusing on that are 10x the number of comments imagining any of the positive outcomes. Apparently the amazing and wonderful things people create together by not rotting and disappearing are harder to imagine.

Grouping effectively is a competition. Dogs have tails they wag, humans have eye whites and emotional attachment to eye movements, even language.

Competition requires 3 things. 1. A win condition 2. A contest 3. Participants. Pretending that equality amongst creatures exists anywhere that an individual can be discerned from the masses is futile. Equality of outcome moves indirectly proportional to freedom or individuality, tautologically. Equality is the enemy of specialization. You can't win a football game with 11 quarterbacks on the field.

The group out performs the individual, its why we're multicellular. It's also why you have natural and other monopolies. Notice the diversity of organs in your body, each good at what they do and little else. Would not equality dictate perhaps you be filled with bladders for the heart has it too good?

Team good. Specialize good. Win competition good. Have fair game to not rob potential winners of chance, good. Force equality down throats so winners lose and losers win. Bad.

Kids aren't too productive till they age. Perhaps we discover that 40 is the new 18. Or maybe there's more value to life than productivity. There must be polarity for movement. Some must have more than others. Excellence comes only from competition. You're inborn desire to find equality is beaten by natures desire for fitness. You may be less depressed when you see that a game where some win and some lose is better than a game where all lose, or no game at all. You will never be able to complain your way out of the game. If reality starts selecting for equality instead of fitness, we will live in a gray goo of equal. That's no game at all.

Taking a look at all the lives that could be affordably saved saved in Africa right now at low cost. Yet no "pro-life" agenda is currently spiraling out of control biting at that low cost. It is unlikely this more expensive and farther down the road longevity research would cause the hysteria you describe.

50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your last year of life. Old people aren't expensive, unhealthy and nearer death people are expensive. Delaying that last year of life by remaining robust is very profitable.

A straw man would be more something like "since no one has ever seen how badly immortal societies have gone, no one can say they're bad."

You never step in the same river twice. If life gets too boring for you, remember the saying, cut down the tracks, not across the street. Might it be easier to cure boredom than decay? You need only become forgetful right? You wouldn't ask the restaurant to take items off the menu because you might not like them, would you?

Summary of pro death arguments re: longevity progress

  Fairness
    Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.)
    Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)

  Bad for society
    Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
    Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant)
    Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
      Stop having kids
      Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
    Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)

  Bad for individual
    You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
    You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
    You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
    Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)

More people make more progress faster. I'm glad my parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without me in it. Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc, still alive and productive would be nice. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer sucks, we'll know 100 years from now, and decide then. First 220 year old in 2136 unless you know how to make one faster than 1 year per year? And that's if you added 120 years to a 100 year old person starting TODAY.

Man up, save your family, save yourself.

Disclaimer: I'm half way done with a book on this topic. Mail me if you're interested. Scivive on the most popular email service.

P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horribles comes true, even earlier.