To our resident transhumanists

[dystopian]

"timeline prediction" my ass. You did claim that "If we were to add up all the different technology predictions of the past, both positive and negative, I have no doubt that the takeaway will be that tech progress faster and beyond what the predictions estimate."

Except; what I *asked* for was examples of technology predictions that we now know to be 'flat-out impossible'; which your answer doesn't do.

And yes, I maintain that if we were to add up all the different technology predictions, that the overall trendline will be that tech develops faster and beyond what the predictions forecast. Naturally, there will be outliers.

You can say it, but show it you can't.

Despite your previous statements; some truths are self-evident. Although strictly speaking I can most certainly show that it is better for you to exist than not exist. It's a simple enough logical exercise. A human being who exists can experience joy. A human being who does not exist... can not. Joy, is by definition a positive experience; therefore, it is better to be in a state where you can experience it than in a state in which you can not. Simple.

No emotional sentiments there. I'm happy with my life. I expect to be happy for most of the roughly 40-60 years that remain of it, and I probably would do just fine for most of another 300 years too. I just don't see much added value from those additional 250 years. If you want to maintain that the value of one's existence increases linearly with duration, you're going to have come up with something better than just assume it declare it "obvious".

Nonsense. Do you not consider the quantity of happiness and positive experience to be relevant? If so, that's not healthy, you know. Why do people care about things like 'leading a full life?'. Would you rather have 50 years filled with happiness, or a mere 10? Yes, even if you don't like the word... it's still *obvious* what choice you'd go with. Just as 50 years of happiness is better than 10, so too is 250 years of happiness better than 50. And that's to say nothing of other positive experiences beyond simple happiness. Surely, as someone who frequents a forum dedicated to skepticism and rational thought, you must like the idea of increasing your own knowledge. Learning new things is something I consider to be a very valuable experience; and I can learn far more than in 250 years than I can in 50.

Where does this "can't reproduce" come from all of a sudden?

My bad, I read it as zero-birthrate.

Also, I didn't say the population would die out. Individuals will die -- as you've fairly explicitly said yourself when you argued that the population will stabilize for lack of food. Individuals like you or me. There goes your immortality out of the window. Even if you finish the 21st century as Supreme Dictator of the Western Regions of the Milky Way who has guaranteed priority access to all resources, you can't expect to remain in such a position for eternity.

Except that still relies on the existence of a problem that just wouldn't exist.

I doubt it.

Everything reaches equilibrium eventually. There are no exceptions.

And you know you're going to be on the lucky side because? Do you have a pact with the devil or something?

I don't 'know' for sure, no. But I have two things going for me that give me a reasonable amount of confidence: 1), I live in a highly developed and stable society, and 2) I'm smart.

Not at all "the exact same problem". A whole new problem: The problem that the planet, and indeed the universe, is finite (which is not as such a problem now).

The planet is irrelevant, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you. There's no way that an immortal species will stay on a single planet. The size of the universe is only a problem if you assume that infinite growth is possible; which is absurd since as I pointed out previously there's going to be a lot of different factors limiting growth. And in any case, even the size of the universe is not actually the problem you think it is, since its entirely conceivable that we might find ways to travel between universes.

So people are going to die of starvation. You just said it again. So don't tell me off for pointing out that, in your "utopia", people will starve to death.

No, I said there are other limiters to growth beyond food.

I would consider inert storage dead. You can only call anything alive if it interacts and processes stuff (at the very least information). And that's going to cost energy on whatever medium you're doing it.

Energy is hardly a problem even over extreme periods of time, given that some red dwarf stars have expected lifespans of trillions of years.

 

[Jokodo]

Despite your previous statements; some truths are self-evident.

Some are. But your claim isn't one of them.

Although strictly speaking I can most certainly show that it is better for you to exist than not exist. It's a simple enough logical exercise. A human being who exists can experience joy. A human being who does not exist... can not. Joy, is by definition a positive experience; therefore, it is better to be in a state where you can experience it than in a state in which you can not. Simple.

Inconclusive. You're making at least two assumptions here that are not in evidence: 1) the value of joy increases linearly with the amount of time spent in a state of joy, and B) the joy isn't offset by negative experiences. I'm generally more inclined to accept (B), being of a joyful nature myself, but neither can be assumed without argument. If, for example, you grow numb to joy over the course of centuries, neither would hold.

No emotional sentiments there. I'm happy with my life. I expect to be happy for most of the roughly 40-60 years that remain of it, and I probably would do just fine for most of another 300 years too. I just don't see much added value from those additional 250 years. If you want to maintain that the value of one's existence increases linearly with duration, you're going to have come up with something better than just assume it declare it "obvious".

Nonsense. Do you not consider the quantity of happiness and positive experience to be relevant? If so, that's not healthy, you know. Why do people care about things like 'leading a full life?'. Would you rather have 50 years filled with happiness, or a mere 10? Yes, even if you don't like the word... it's still *obvious* what choice you'd go with. Just as 50 years of happiness is better than 10, so too is 250 years of happiness better than 50. And that's to say nothing of other positive experiences beyond simple happiness. Surely, as someone who frequents a forum dedicated to skepticism and rational thought, you must like the idea of increasing your own knowledge. Learning new things is something I consider to be a very valuable experience; and I can learn far more than in 250 years than I can in 50.

Pathologising people who point out that your conclusion rests on shaky assumptions is no substitute for making an argument for those assumptions.

I don't 'know' for sure, no. But I have two things going for me that give me a reasonable amount of confidence: 1), I live in a highly developed and stable society, and 2) I'm smart.

"Stable society"? There's been at least two successful revolutions and one advanced attempt in the Netherlands over the last few hundred years -- and you're talking about infinity. It's stable alright - as long as you're focusing on the scale of a typical human lifespan.

 

[ryan]

Jokodo, you have made good points. But I don't want to find out that you are wrong; nobody knows what infinity will bring. All I know is that I don't want to lose what I have, and I definitely don't want everything to be left for the universe to decide what happens.

 

[Jokodo]

Jokodo, you have made good points. But I don't want to find out that you are wrong; nobody knows what infinity will bring. All I know is that I don't want to lose what I have, and I definitely don't want everything to be left for the universe to decide what happens.

I don't know what infinity will bring. What I do know is that your proposition is a poorly concealed variant of Pascal's Wager.

There's only two logically consistent options: Either an arrangement of matter indistinguishable from that in your brain is you, or it isn't unless it stands in a causal relation with yourself. If you go with the former, immortality doesn't help you: If the universe is large enough for them to form just by chance, and to undergo suffering, than you will suffer whether or not this particular body housing a version of you is alive and well. If you go with the latter, than you don't need it: As far as you are concerned, lumps of matter that mimic your brain are just lumps of matter, at best you can feel pitty for their suffering as other sentient beings, but that's as much as it needs concern you.

There's no rational argument for why it should make a difference whether you stick around. I'm not sure you can make the argument at all without alluding to something supernatural. And if we go down that lane, there's limitless possibilities, so no particular reason to base your actions on any one of them.

Sure, I can't disprove your idea that the soul wanders off (at FTL speeds, no less) to inhabit a new brain that's like yours zillions of galaxies away, to suffer agelong torment in its new body. Neither can you disprove the idea that there's a God who rewards all and only those people who kill themselves with eternal bliss, or one that gets along fine with everyone except she gets really angry at those who strive to become gods themselves, defined as going for immortality.

Staving off death out of fear that your soul might otherwise experience eternal torment in a new body is every bit as rational as killing yourself in the hope that that's just what God rewards. I.e., not very much at all. The only way Pascal's Wager becomes seemingly rational is by posing a false dichotomy between your pet mythology and a naturalistic universe. There's no such dichotomy: Your pet myhology is but one of infinitely many mythologies conceivable, and no more likely than any of the other.

 

[ryan]

Jokodo, you have made good points. But I don't want to find out that you are wrong; nobody knows what infinity will bring. All I know is that I don't want to lose what I have, and I definitely don't want everything to be left for the universe to decide what happens.

I don't know what infinity will bring. What I do know is that your proposition is a poorly concealed variant of Pascal's Wager.

There's only two logically consistent options: Either an arrangement of matter indistinguishable from that in your brain is you, or it isn't unless it stands in a causal relation with yourself. If you go with the former, immortality doesn't help you: If the universe is large enough for them to form just by chance, and to undergo suffering, than you will suffer whether or not this particular body housing a version of you is alive and well. If you go with the latter, than you don't need it: As far as you are concerned, lumps of matter that mimic your brain are just lumps of matter, at best you can feel pitty for their suffering as other sentient beings, but that's as much as it needs concern you.

There's no rational argument for why it should make a difference whether you stick around. I'm not sure you can make the argument at all without alluding to something supernatural. And if we go down that lane, there's limitless possibilities, so no particular reason to base your actions on any one of them.

Sure, I can't disprove your idea that the soul wanders off (at FTL speeds, no less) to inhabit a new brain that's like yours zillions of galaxies away, to suffer agelong torment in its new body. Neither can you disprove the idea that there's a God who rewards all and only those people who kill themselves with eternal bliss, or one that gets along fine with everyone except she gets really angry at those who strive to become gods themselves, defined as going for immortality.

Staving off death out of fear that your soul might otherwise experience eternal torment in a new body is every bit as rational as killing yourself in the hope that that's just what God rewards. I.e., not very much at all. The only way Pascal's Wager becomes seemingly rational is by posing a false dichotomy between your pet mythology and a naturalistic universe. There's no such dichotomy: Your pet myhology is but one of infinitely many mythologies conceivable, and no more likely than any of the other.

Ultimately, this issue is far too complicated for me to fully understand now. The longer that I am alive the more I will understand this.

I have felt sure of things only to find out that I was completely wrong. So even if I am sure, like you, that I can't do anything about it, I must then constantly critique my certainty while I still can. There is just too much at stake, and we don't know what lies in the gaps of our knowledge and understanding.

And even if I knew that I would just disappear for good, I would rather have the power to do it on my own terms. Like I told Unbeatable, I would have rather lived up until now than not have lived at all. So for me to do anything in life besides try to extend my life does not make sense. It can be like any other job; I work 8 hours a day and do whatever in the meantime. I don't understand why more people don't do this.

 

[dystopian]

Inconclusive. You're making at least two assumptions here that are not in evidence: 1) the value of joy increases linearly with the amount of time spent in a state of joy,

No. The value of joy itself might stay the same; but the total value of what you have is still increased if you have *more* of it. The 'taste value' of an apple doesn't necessarily go up if you savor the taste and eat it more slowly. However, that does not change the fact that two apples are obviously more valuable than 1 apple.

and B) the joy isn't offset by negative experiences.

This reduces the human experience to an overly simplistic calculation; add up the total joy and subtract the total suffering, and you have the value of your life? How bleak. My experiences of joy are not diminished by my experiences of suffering; they are not on the same spectrum.

I'm generally more inclined to accept (B), being of a joyful nature myself, but neither can be assumed without argument. If, for example, you grow numb to joy over the course of centuries, neither would hold.

There is absolutely no reason to believe you'd grow numb to joy over any timespan, least of all mere centuries. Even if you somehow did, since your experiences are just a matter of interactions in your brain, a simple tweak there could fix that problem for you if it's a concern.

Pathologising people who point out that your conclusion rests on shaky assumptions is no substitute for making an argument for those assumptions.

I can not help it when your arguments for not wanting to live forever are the exact same arguments suicidal people use for not wanting to live *now*.

"Stable society"? There's been at least two successful revolutions and one advanced attempt in the Netherlands over the last few hundred years -- and you're talking about infinity. It's stable alright - as long as you're focusing on the scale of a typical human lifespan.

Yet compared to other nations over that timespan, even with those revolts (which were hardly as violent or as destructive as others of that era), the country has been remarkably stable. Far fewer revolts, fewer overall violence, etc. And beyond that, our internal factions have almost always been able to set aside their differences to deal with common problems, even during times of civil war. The Netherlands is a consensus-based society; the chances of us breaking down in internal violence over these issues is significantly less than it is in societies that do not have a consensus-based culture that stretches back 800 years (Even as the semi-independent duchies and counties waged war with each other during the middle ages, they pooled money and resources together to protect the land from water, for instance).

 

[Jokodo]

No. The value of joy itself might stay the same; but the total value of what you have is still increased if you have *more* of it. The 'taste value' of an apple doesn't necessarily go up if you savor the taste and eat it more slowly. However, that does not change the fact that two apples are obviously more valuable than 1 apple.<snip>

They're more valuable because you can sell them to two different people who are longing for an apple each. But in your "immortality" ideology, it is stipulated that one person gets to live, say, 1,000,000 years (or more), rather than 10,000 people living 100 years each. So for this to be a valid analogy, the apples would have to come with a stipulation that you have to consume them personally. Under that scenario, while there probably still is value to the second apple, the added value of the 203rd apple (or of apples 203 - 20,597,300 inclusive) is 0 (if not negative for having to hire a freight train).

If anything, you're making an argument for dying when your times up to leave the resources for others to enjoy their life - because their 80 or 100 years are worth more to them than an added 80 or 100 years could ever be to you.

The Netherlands is a consensus-based society; the chances of us breaking down in internal violence over these issues is significantly less than it is in societies that do not have a consensus-based culture that stretches back 800 years (Even as the semi-independent duchies and counties waged war with each other during the middle ages, they pooled money and resources together to protect the land from water, for instance).

Yeah, so? It doesn't take a total breakdown of society for individuals to die, or to loose their privileged status and thus become susceptible to dying from preventable causes (traditionally, their descendents, but in your scenario, they themselves). And you're still counting on a scale of mere centuries.

 

[PyramidHead]

Fine. Then let whoever is so inclined have a scan of their brains, store those scans in a safe place, and let them consider themselves immortal by virtue of the possibility that someone could resurrect them in 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 years. With that out of the way, we can get back to actually making this world a better place for all of us instead of hunting some fantasy.

The number one cause of death is death. What is more important than taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition by ridding us from an unwanted death - this must be the number one priority!

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

 

[dystopian]

They're more valuable because you can sell them to two different people who are longing for an apple each.

Or because I myself now have two apples, and I value the ability to eat one today, AND one tomorrow.

But in your "immortality" ideology, it is stipulated that one person gets to live, say, 1,000,000 years (or more), rather than 10,000 people living 100 years each.

First off, whoever said that? I never said anything about it being only one person. You're just attaching that to it because you don't think it possible to supply the resources for an immortal but growing population (a premise I clearly do not accept).

However, that said... yes, if I had to choose between me living a million years, or ten thousand people living a 100 years each, I'd go for the first option. Duh.

So for this to be a valid analogy, the apples would have to come with a stipulation that you have to consume them personally. Under that scenario, while there probably still is value to the second apple, the added value of the 203rd apple (or of apples 203 - 20,597,300 inclusive) is 0 (if not negative for having to hire a freight train).

What? Of course the added value is not 0. The added value is exactly 1 apple. Nothing more, nothing less. 2 apples means I get to eat an apple every day for 2 days. 203 apples means I get to eat an apply every day for 203 days. That's added value right there.

If anything, you're making an argument for dying when your times up to leave the resources for others to enjoy their life - because their 80 or 100 years are worth more to them than an added 80 or 100 years could ever be to you.

That's a completely arbitrary and subjective statement. First of all, again, I do not accept your premise that my extended life would prevent others from doing the same; and that is something we will never agree on, especially not as long as you're flat-out ignoring any possible solutions to those sorts of problems on account of them currently being 'sci-fi'. Secondly, you have no basis for saying that the first 100 years of life for someone else is worth more than an extra 100 years for me anymore than I can say the opposite. Since it is such a subjective statement, we can't objectively say anything other than 100 years of life for one person is exactly the same value as it is for another. And with that in mind, I win the bidding war because I *already exist*, while these others you're talking about do not. I have a right to live; and as such when we have the means to stave off death (whether its a cure for some fatal disease or aging itself) I have a right to it. Not only do I have that right by law, but I have the moral right as well. "Future generations" however, do not... since they do not actually exist yet. Until they do, they are entirely fictional, and fictional people do not have rights.

Yeah, so? It doesn't take a total breakdown of society for individuals to die, or to loose their privileged status and thus become susceptible to dying from preventable causes

No, but we're talking about mass starvation here; in the past, when my country was faced with *existantial* threats, we overcame whatever differences we had in order to solve the fucking problem. In the middle ages, we routinely experienced devastating floods, some costing as many as two hundred thousand lives. We were also constantly waging war among ourselves. Yet despite all the warring, we recognized the threat and supplied money and resources to mutual democratic organizations that built flood protections. (fun fact: These 'water boards' have been in continuous existence since the 12th century, and are some of the oldest democratic institutions in the world).

And you know what we did at around 1900 when it became clear that due to industrialization we would be faced with major food shortages? We built what is still today the longest dam in the world, turned an entire sea into a freshwater lake, and then built what is still today by far the world's largest artificial island (roughly half the size of the state of rhode island) in that lake so that we'd have enough farmland to avoid starvation. (Of course, by the time we'd finished it advances in agricultural technology meant we were no longer at risk of starvation)

 

[Jokodo]

203 apples means I get to eat an apply every day for 203 days.

Apples spoil. And if they don't, you get fed up with them.

You're just attaching that to it because you don't think it possible to supply the resources for an immortal but growing population (a premise I clearly do not accept).

The only "premise" is that exponential growth converges on infinity. I don't think that should be controversial.

Indeed, I'm tempted to say it's obvious.

I do not accept your premise that my extended life would prevent others from doing the same

It would not prevent all others. But eventually, there's going to be a limit. Finite universe and stuff.

No, but we're talking about mass starvation here

Who said we are? Best as I can tell, we're talking about a non-zero rate of extrinsic (i.e., non-senescence-related) death.

 

[dystopian]

Apples spoil. And if they don't, you get fed up with them.

Really? This is what the argument's broken down to? It was an analogy to begin with! If we're going to keep nitpicking over the analogy itself instead of what it actually fucking addresses, I'm going to bring up 1) refrigeration 2) the fact that nobody fucking said you got all the apples at once, and 3) the fact that I will *never* get tired of apples.

The only "premise" is that exponential growth converges on infinity. I don't think that should be controversial.

Which in itself requires the premise that there could and would be exponential growth to be true; a premise that *is* controversial.

It would not prevent all others. But eventually, there's going to be a limit. Finite universe and stuff.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over my continued existence preventing is from stepping up from a population of a googol to a googolplex.

Who said we are? Best as I can tell, we're talking about a non-zero rate of extrinsic (i.e., non-senescence-related) death.

Sigh, *you did*. You were arguing that immortality would lead to starvation (and you were trying to do so when you were still assuming we'd be stuck on earth too); in fact you were arguing that it would lead to widespread starvation; i.e MASS starvation. I followed up by arguing that even if that were true, *I* stand a much better chance of getting out on top of that because of where I am. Now you're saying we were never talking about mass-starvation?

Look, I'm thinking this thread had already devolved past the point of no return. We're not even addressing the central arguments anymore and are just picking apart our tangentially related analogies. How about we just agree to disagree and you sign a contract to let me harvest your stemcells after you die for whatever purposes I may or may not have in mind?

 

[ryan]

Fine. Then let whoever is so inclined have a scan of their brains, store those scans in a safe place, and let them consider themselves immortal by virtue of the possibility that someone could resurrect them in 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 years. With that out of the way, we can get back to actually making this world a better place for all of us instead of hunting some fantasy.

The number one cause of death is death. What is more important than taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition by ridding us from an unwanted death - this must be the number one priority!

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

[PyramidHead]

I am attracted to the idea of extending my life indefinitely. The startling thought crosses my mind: what if the technology for widespread life extension becomes commonplace only after I'm dead? That would make ours the unluckiest generation... if only I were born a geological eye-blink later, I could have survived for millennia rather than decades.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine. Then let whoever is so inclined have a scan of their brains, store those scans in a safe place, and let them consider themselves immortal by virtue of the possibility that someone could resurrect them in 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 years. With that out of the way, we can get back to actually making this world a better place for all of us instead of hunting some fantasy.

The number one cause of death is death. What is more important than taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition by ridding us from an unwanted death - this must be the number one priority!

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

/derail

 

[Jokodo]

Really? This is what the argument's broken down to? It was an analogy to begin with! If we're going to keep nitpicking over the analogy itself instead of what it actually fucking addresses, I'm going to bring up 1) refrigeration 2) the fact that nobody fucking said you got all the apples at once, and 3) the fact that I will *never* get tired of apples.

The only "premise" is that exponential growth converges on infinity. I don't think that should be controversial.

Which in itself requires the premise that there could and would be exponential growth to be true; a premise that *is* controversial.

It would not prevent all others. But eventually, there's going to be a limit. Finite universe and stuff.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over my continued existence preventing is from stepping up from a population of a googol to a googolplex.

Who said we are? Best as I can tell, we're talking about a non-zero rate of extrinsic (i.e., non-senescence-related) death.

Sigh, *you did*. You were arguing that immortality would lead to starvation (and you were trying to do so when you were still assuming we'd be stuck on earth too); in fact you were arguing that it would lead to widespread starvation; i.e MASS starvation. I followed up by arguing that even if that were true, *I* stand a much better chance of getting out on top of that because of where I am. Now you're saying we were never talking about mass-starvation?

Look, I'm thinking this thread had already devolved past the point of no return. We're not even addressing the central arguments anymore and are just picking apart our tangentially related analogies. How about we just agree to disagree and you sign a contract to let me harvest your stemcells after you die for whatever purposes I may or may not have in mind?

This is what the argument's broken down to? It was an analogy to begin with!

And one that works in my favour. The marginal utility per unit of any commodity, apples or years of life, for an individual consumer decreases as his stocks in said commodity grow.

I followed up by arguing that even if that were true, *I* stand a much better chance of getting out on top of that because of where I am

That may well be so. But even if you have a 99.99% of surviving each wave of turmoil, and those waves come at a rate of one every 500 years, that still means you've got essentially a 100% probability of dying long before eternity's up. And you yourself said that population will stabilise by other means long before food shortages become critical. I'm reading that as a prediction that turmoils will become more frequent and violent.

Sigh, *you did*. You were arguing that immortality would lead to starvation (and you were trying to do so when you were still assuming we'd be stuck on earth too); in fact you were arguing that it would lead to widespread starvation; i.e MASS starvation.

No, I was arguing that there will be a non-zero extrinsic death rate -- if nothing else because we'll run into a finite universe sooner or later. And a non-zero extrinsic death rate means that it's going to hit you one day with mathematical certainty. Probabiliy theory and exponential decay are'n to argue with.

Which in itself requires the premise that there could and would be exponential growth to be true; a premise that *is* controversial.

Not as long as the birth rate is reliably above the death rate. With a zero death rate, any non-zero birth rate will guarantee that the premise is met. So either you'll have to force a zero birth rate -- and if that's part of your utopia, you should make it explicit to allow people to consider that when they decide for or against it -- or there's going to be non-zero extrinsic death rate that offsets the birth rate. In which case you're going to die, sooner or later.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over my continued existence preventing is from stepping up from a population of a googol to a googolplex.

You may consider losing sleep over the fact that reaching a limit at a googol means that there's going to be a non-zero death rate among "immortals" when you've reached that.

 

[ryan]

I am attracted to the idea of extending my life indefinitely. The startling thought crosses my mind: what if the technology for widespread life extension becomes commonplace only after I'm dead? That would make ours the unluckiest generation... if only I were born a geological eye-blink later, I could have survived for millennia rather than decades.

I don't know how old you are, but I am guessing that you possibly have at least 10 years left. That is more than enough time to make a difference. I am quietly readying a huge campaign to stop or reverse aging.

Only a tiny fraction of the research goes towards aging and just a small fraction of that goes towards controlling it. 99.9% of the time, money, energy and research goes into the effects of aging like cancer Alzheimer's, heart disease, etc. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glU9Rr52z2g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg .

You can do something about it. You would make a difference because the field is relatively small.

The number one cause of death is death. What is more important than taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition by ridding us from an unwanted death - this must be the number one priority!

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

I get it. This antinatalism is quite the projection onto others by depressed individuals. They didn't have it good, so they think that others don't either - WOW!!!! This is terrifying and sad; no wonder there are Hitlers, 'hey I can kill millions of people and actually do good for them while I get what I want'.

I am glad that I was brought into this world - most of the time :/. I know this because when I ask myself if I would rather have lived than not, I easily answer that I would have. As for everyone else in the world, we could ask them this same question, but until we do, antinatalism is just a terribly pessimistic assumption.

I can honestly take it one step further; if someone said that I would have to do it all over again if I wanted to live past my present age, then I would do it all over again. That's how bad I want to live. I see life as a gift, not something that I have to endure.

Now, when I mentioned that having control over our own mortalities means taking pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc. out of the human condition, I only meant those emotions caused by our awaiting an unknown death. Those emotions will still exist for other reasons, but they won't for the subject of death.

You said above that it would be unlucky to miss the age of life-extension. Isn't it obvious that at your core you aren't an antinatalist?

 

[ryan]

When it comes to saving your own life, friends, family etc. you can never overestimate what you're capable of.

 

[Jokodo]

When it comes to saving your own life, friends, family etc. you can never overestimate what you're capable of.

Wishful thinking.

I don't know how old you are, but I am guessing that you possibly have at least 10 years left. That is more than enough time to make a difference. I am quietly readying a huge campaign to stop or reverse aging.

PyramidHead's birthday is stated in his profile. And you're overestimating yourself.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't know how old you are, but I am guessing that you possibly have at least 10 years left. That is more than enough time to make a difference. I am quietly readying a huge campaign to stop or reverse aging.

Only a tiny fraction of the research goes towards aging and just a small fraction of that goes towards controlling it. 99.9% of the time, money, energy and research goes into the effects of aging like cancer Alzheimer's, heart disease, etc. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glU9Rr52z2g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg .

You can do something about it. You would make a difference because the field is relatively small.

The number one cause of death is death. What is more important than taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition by ridding us from an unwanted death - this must be the number one priority!

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

I get it. This antinatalism is quite the projection onto others by depressed individuals. They didn't have it good, so they think that others don't either - WOW!!!! This is terrifying and sad; no wonder there are Hitlers, 'hey I can kill millions of people and actually do good for them while I get what I want'.

I am glad that I was brought into this world - most of the time :/. I know this because when I ask myself if I would rather have lived than not, I easily answer that I would have. As for everyone else in the world, we could ask them this same question, but until we do, antinatalism is just a terribly pessimistic assumption.

I can honestly take it one step further; if someone said that I would have to do it all over again if I wanted to live past my present age, then I would do it all over again. That's how bad I want to live. I see life as a gift, not something that I have to endure.

Now, when I mentioned that having control over our own mortalities means taking pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc. out of the human condition, I only meant those emotions caused by our awaiting an unknown death. Those emotions will still exist for other reasons, but they won't for the subject of death.

You said above that it would be unlucky to miss the age of life-extension. Isn't it obvious that at your core you aren't an antinatalist?

I don't see anything here that indicates you have an adequate understanding of my position, which is a prerequisite for discussing it. Correcting your misinformation would derail the thread further, so I'll just let you have the last word.

 

[ryan]

I don't know how old you are, but I am guessing that you possibly have at least 10 years left. That is more than enough time to make a difference. I am quietly readying a huge campaign to stop or reverse aging.

Only a tiny fraction of the research goes towards aging and just a small fraction of that goes towards controlling it. 99.9% of the time, money, energy and research goes into the effects of aging like cancer Alzheimer's, heart disease, etc. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glU9Rr52z2g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0lvxTm2iLg .

You can do something about it. You would make a difference because the field is relatively small.

I get it. This antinatalism is quite the projection onto others by depressed individuals. They didn't have it good, so they think that others don't either - WOW!!!! This is terrifying and sad; no wonder there are Hitlers, 'hey I can kill millions of people and actually do good for them while I get what I want'.

I am glad that I was brought into this world - most of the time :/. I know this because when I ask myself if I would rather have lived than not, I easily answer that I would have. As for everyone else in the world, we could ask them this same question, but until we do, antinatalism is just a terribly pessimistic assumption.

I can honestly take it one step further; if someone said that I would have to do it all over again if I wanted to live past my present age, then I would do it all over again. That's how bad I want to live. I see life as a gift, not something that I have to endure.

Now, when I mentioned that having control over our own mortalities means taking pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc. out of the human condition, I only meant those emotions caused by our awaiting an unknown death. Those emotions will still exist for other reasons, but they won't for the subject of death.

You said above that it would be unlucky to miss the age of life-extension. Isn't it obvious that at your core you aren't an antinatalist?

I don't see anything here that indicates you have an adequate understanding of my position, which is a prerequisite for discussing it. Correcting your misinformation would derail the thread further, so I'll just let you have the last word.

This is now the biggest waste of time that I have ever spent on FRDB/TF. I have never seen a replies this lazy and this vague as I have with your last two posts. This is truly one of the most feeble attempts at a discussion that I have ever seen.

 

[dystopian]

You could just as easily go from that starting point to a conclusion totally opposed to transhumanism: the most effective way of "taking the pain, fear, panic, sadness, vengeance, anger, etc out of the human condition" is to stop making more humans. If we're purely speculating here, what would be the downside if everybody voluntarily made that choice?

Since Ryan isn't really addressing this, and since my own subthread in this thread is kind of going nowhere;

If everyone voluntarily made that choice, then you're right that you'd take away all the negative experiences in that if there's no more humans, there also can't be any present and future human suffering. So one might argue that it is functionally the same as (and quite a bit easier to accomplish too, assuming that universal consent thing) eliminating those experiences while still allowing for continued human life. Of course, this is primarily an argument that can be raised to begin with, because Ryan's position is either weird or not particularly well explained. It's all in the wording really. I'd instead state the goal to be: The increase of happiness; rather than the elimination of suffering (which while related, are not one and the same). Voluntary extinction of the human race would eliminate the potential for future human suffering, but it would also eliminate the potential for future human happiness. That's the downside; the elimination of positive potential.

Extending life on the other hand, also extends the potential for happiness. At that point you could argue that if the suffering 'exceeds' the happiness, it'd be a detriment to the original goal and that there's a 'sweet' spot where you've reached the maximum amount of happiness possible, at which point you should end your life; but this imo reduces our emotions and experiences to an overly simplistic linear spectrum between suffering and happiness; I do not consider it to be a matter of adding up the happiness and subtracting the suffering to get a final 'value'.