RE: "The first person to live to [200, 300, 500, 1000] has already been born"
December 14, 2015 at 3:22 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 3:32 pm by Amine.)
(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."
