See, whereas I..if I were immortal today...would just jump out of a plane, or play chicken with a brick wall, or start up a live ammo combat drill with all my immortal buddies for shits and giggles. Obviously, bury your nose in a book for eternity if that gets your rocks off, but you could bury your nose today, not being immortal, right? Might it be more prudent to solve those problems first, before we exacerbate them?

(December 14, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 6:16 am)Amine Wrote: "Old people are people too, so the fact that aging only kills old people is not a reason not to be working on defeating it."

That quote I just heard from Aubrey de Grey is a game changer, I think. It reveals an unexamined bigotry we have. We think it is okay that they die, because they are old. That's actually incredibly bigoted.

What? That's not bigotted, it's just the law of nature. Everything that is alive wears out, gets old, and dies.

That's the appeal to nature fallacy (ethically speaking), and it's not even true (practically speaking). With good enough maintenance someone could keep a car or a house (for example) in good condition indefinitely. The same would be so of our bodies, if we had good enough technology. Anything that kills us is a physical problem with a physical fix.

---

(December 14, 2015 at 8:10 am)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 7:15 am)Amine Wrote: So when is the cutoff age for not being horrible? And why?

That's just my personal take. 
Anyone who wants to live that long should definitely go for it.

Okay, so why do you personally think it would be horrible and what's the cutoff age for you? I'm not trying to persuade you I'm just curious about your reasoning.

---

(December 14, 2015 at 7:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 6:16 am)Amine Wrote: "Old people are people too, so the fact that aging only kills old people is not a reason not to be working on defeating it."

That quote I just heard from Aubrey de Grey is a game changer, I think. It reveals an unexamined bigotry we have. We think it is okay that they die, because they are old. That's actually incredibly bigoted.

You can't really say it's bigoted since everyone is going to have to get old at some point. That's why it concerns all of us though.

But the matter is about finding a technology that would change the fact that everyone is going to get old at some point. By analogy, what if it were legal to abuse and kill people over 85 years old, simply because they are old? That's not how it works. Murder is murder because people are people. Many have made their principles clear in saying they think it is right for people to die when they are old, despite the current lack of practical application.

(December 14, 2015 at 10:10 am)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 4:43 am)Amine Wrote: I wrote an essay about this here: https://deanamine.wordpress.com/2015/10/...evity-day/

Nice essay, I liked it. One thing, though. Don't be so dismissive of A.I. I recommend you read the book Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom.

Thanks. I've read and listen to some stuff by Bostrom (and others in his camp) but I'm still fairly agnostic about AI. Another good viewpoint is elucidated here by David Deutsch: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-...telligence

Excerpt: "I do not highlight all these philosophical issues because I fear that AGIs will be invented before we have developed the philosophical sophistication to understand them and to integrate them into civilisation. It is for almost the opposite reason: I am convinced that the whole problem of developing AGIs is a matter of philosophy, not computer science or neurophysiology, and that the philosophical progress that is essential to their future integration is also a prerequisite for developing them in the first place."

(December 14, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Amine Wrote:

---

(December 14, 2015 at 7:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: You can't really say it's bigoted since everyone is going to have to get old at some point. That's why it concerns all of us though.

But the matter is about finding a technology that would change the fact that everyone is going to get old at some point. By analogy, what if it were legal to abuse and kill people over 85 years old, simply because they are old? That's not how it works. Murder is murder because people are people. Many have made their principles clear in saying they think it is right for people to die when they are old, despite the current lack of practical application.

(December 14, 2015 at 10:10 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: Nice essay, I liked it. One thing, though. Don't be so dismissive of A.I. I recommend you read the book Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom.

Thanks. I've read and listen to some stuff by Bostrom (and others in his camp) but I'm still fairly agnostic about AI. Another good viewpoint is elucidated here by David Deutsch: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-...telligence

Excerpt: "I do not highlight all these philosophical issues because I fear that AGIs will be invented before we have developed the philosophical sophistication to understand them and to integrate them into civilisation. It is for almost the opposite reason: I am convinced that the whole problem of developing AGIs is a matter of philosophy, not computer science or neurophysiology, and that the philosophical progress that is essential to their future integration is also a prerequisite for developing them in the first place."

1. I know. That's why I said it concerns all of us. There's no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding, except for the part where you wrongly said that it's bigoted to say that of old people. It's not. As things are, unless we change that, we'll all get to be old, and so the idiots who dismiss the death of old people as less important are really talking about their own too, ultimately.

So you're saying you read his book, then? If not, do read it. It's more than worth your time, I assure you.

(December 14, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: See, whereas I..if I were immortal today...would just jump out of a plane, or play chicken with a brick wall, or start up a live ammo combat drill with all my immortal buddies for shits and giggles.  Obviously, bury your nose in a book for eternity if that gets your rocks off, but you could bury your nose today, not being immortal, right?  Might it be more prudent to solve those problems first, before we exacerbate them?

Ok, let's lose the term immortality for a second. Think of it more as advancements in medicine that allow you to live longer. Except it's forever. You're still mortal though. I will still be able to shoot you dead, unless we somehow change our bodies with nanotechnology so that we become truly invincible, or we find some other way to preserve our conscience only to then upload it in a body of our choosing, or in a simulated reality or in our old body that's been fixed in the meantime. But that's highly speculative and not exactly as likely as us solving the ageing problem - not even close.

Secondly, I would be having fun too, no question about it. But I think if you truly started to think about the dangers we face as a species, and you had all the time in the world to do that, technically at least, you would want to do something about it too. Anyone and everyone who would want to prevent death by disaster or accident would too.

(December 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Amine Wrote:

---

But the matter is about finding a technology that would change the fact that everyone is going to get old at some point. By analogy, what if it were legal to abuse and kill people over 85 years old, simply because they are old? That's not how it works. Murder is murder because people are people. Many have made their principles clear in saying they think it is right for people to die when they are old, despite the current lack of practical application.


Thanks. I've read and listen to some stuff by Bostrom (and others in his camp) but I'm still fairly agnostic about AI. Another good viewpoint is elucidated here by David Deutsch: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-...telligence

Excerpt: "I do not highlight all these philosophical issues because I fear that AGIs will be invented before we have developed the philosophical sophistication to understand them and to integrate them into civilisation. It is for almost the opposite reason: I am convinced that the whole problem of developing AGIs is a matter of philosophy, not computer science or neurophysiology, and that the philosophical progress that is essential to their future integration is also a prerequisite for developing them in the first place."

1. I know. That's why I said it concerns all of us. There's no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding, except for the part where you wrongly said that it's bigoted to say that of old people. It's not. As things are, unless we change that, we'll all get to be old, and so the idiots who dismiss the death of old people as less important are really talking about their own too, ultimately.

So you're saying you read his book, then? If not, do read it. It's more than worth your time, I assure you.

Haven't read the book but have seen his @google talk about it, not that this is any substitute. I'd like to read it but my list is long.. perhaps you could say what is so compelling about his case.

What is bigotry? To me it seems clear that saying different rules apply to some group because of an irrelevant distinction is the definition of bigotry. If I said it were wrong to look for a cure for a fatal disease that only (for example) deaf people could get, that would be bigotry. The mechanics in that situation are exactly the same.

Death is not something that just happens by the way. There are always particular reasons for it. And De Grey, among others, are looking at how to fix those issues.

Just saying.

(December 14, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sounds like we should just let nature do its job.

Immortality would open up a whooooole can of worms.

If you want to let nature do its job, skip the antibiotics next time you get an infection and refuse to wear eyeglasses or similar such things.

---

(December 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Amine Wrote:

---

But the matter is about finding a technology that would change the fact that everyone is going to get old at some point. By analogy, what if it were legal to abuse and kill people over 85 years old, simply because they are old? That's not how it works. Murder is murder because people are people. Many have made their principles clear in saying they think it is right for people to die when they are old, despite the current lack of practical application.


Thanks. I've read and listen to some stuff by Bostrom (and others in his camp) but I'm still fairly agnostic about AI. Another good viewpoint is elucidated here by David Deutsch: https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-...telligence

Excerpt: "I do not highlight all these philosophical issues because I fear that AGIs will be invented before we have developed the philosophical sophistication to understand them and to integrate them into civilisation. It is for almost the opposite reason: I am convinced that the whole problem of developing AGIs is a matter of philosophy, not computer science or neurophysiology, and that the philosophical progress that is essential to their future integration is also a prerequisite for developing them in the first place."

1. I know. That's why I said it concerns all of us. There's no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding, except for the part where you wrongly said that it's bigoted to say that of old people. It's not. As things are, unless we change that, we'll all get to be old, and so the idiots who dismiss the death of old people as less important are really talking about their own too, ultimately.

So you're saying you read his book, then? If not, do read it. It's more than worth your time, I assure you.

Haven't read the book but have seen his @google talk about it, not that this is any substitute. I'd like to read it but my list is long.. perhaps you could say what is so compelling about his case.

What is bigotry? To me it seems clear that saying different rules apply to some group because of an irrelevant distinction is the definition of bigotry. If I said it were wrong to look for a cure for a fatal disease that only (for example) deaf people could get, that would be bigotry. The mechanics in that situation are exactly the same.

(December 14, 2015 at 3:56 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Ok, let's lose the term immortality for a second. Think of it more as advancements in medicine that allow you to live longer. Except it's forever. You're still mortal though. I will still be able to shoot you dead, unless we somehow change our bodies with nanotechnology so that we become truly invincible, or we find some other way to preserve our conscience only to then upload it in a body of our choosing, or in a simulated reality or in our old body that's been fixed in the meantime. But that's highly speculative and not exactly as likely as us solving the ageing problem - not even close.

Secondly, I would be having fun too, no question about it. But I think if you truly started to think about the dangers we face as a species, and you had all the time in the world to do that, technically at least, you would want to do something about it too. Anyone and everyone who would want to prevent death by disaster or accident would too.

Pretty sure a society which can "cure aging" isn't going to have trouble with gunshot wounds.......

We -do- have all the time in the world, or at least all the time in the world allotted to our species (whatever that may be).  People were doing science before you were born, for example..they're doing it now, and will continue to do it beyond your death.  I'm already doing something about the troubles we face and immortality isn't a requirement for me to do so..nor, being realistic about my abilities and importance...would my being immortal have significant impact on that.  Personally, and this is opinion..I see the exact opposite.  I'll keep the mill turning for my time..but at some point I have to get out of the way, if..for no other reason, so a fresh set of eyes can look at the problem.  Stagnation, imo, is what would come of immortality - among other things.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Amine Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sounds like we should just let nature do its job.

Immortality would open up a whooooole can of worms.

If you want to let nature do its job, skip the antibiotics next time you get an infection and refuse to wear eyeglasses or similar such things.

---

(December 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: 1. I know. That's why I said it concerns all of us. There's no disagreement here, just a misunderstanding, except for the part where you wrongly said that it's bigoted to say that of old people. It's not. As things are, unless we change that, we'll all get to be old, and so the idiots who dismiss the death of old people as less important are really talking about their own too, ultimately.

So you're saying you read his book, then? If not, do read it. It's more than worth your time, I assure you.

Haven't read the book but have seen his @google talk about it, not that this is any substitute. I'd like to read it but my list is long.. perhaps you could say what is so compelling about his case.

What is bigotry? To me it seems clear that saying different rules apply to some group because of an irrelevant distinction is the definition of bigotry. If I said it were wrong to look for a cure for a fatal disease that only (for example) deaf people could get, that would be bigotry. The mechanics in that situation are exactly the same.

I couldn't. You would have to read the book for yourself. It wouldn't be fair since he put so much effort into it.

I'm pretty sure after having read it your current reading list will seem trivial by comparison. If saying that can't get you to read it, sadly nothing will.

(December 14, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Stagnation, imo, is what would come of immortality - among other things.

Why would we think that? Why wouldn't we think the opposite, or neither? Are we to believe that knowing they will die makes people more productive to make the most of their time? One could just as easily make the argument that it makes them apathetic to make changes in the world they will never get to benefit from.