It’s hardly meaningless. It’s surely well correlated with suffering, even if a deeper analysis could yield more insight.
Feel free to actually stop responding any time you want to “leave if there”, rather than demanding that you get the last word and others stop responding.
Not sure I want to live in Rivendell
A less glib answer would be medically induced euthanasia by choice. Essentially, if we are all living hundreds or thousands of years, and we either don’t have accidents or we are able to save almost everyone that does, then that leaves choosing to die; and while that’s not a desire I understand, certainly not in a scenario where you’re never debilitatingly elderly, I don’t see any reason to prevent people who do make that choice from doing so.
Eventually, organs just wear out even in the absence of active disease. Cells die and don’t get properly replaced. Lungs are often the limiting factor, but kidneys also eventually just stop doing their job adequately, just to name two vital systems. No special diets or exercises will stop these organ progressions, nor will current medications.
Well, staving off the inevitable does get expensive after a while. Eventually the people footing the bill to prop up your almost-a-corpse will decide that it’s not worth it anymore.
In the developed world, the vast majority of folks live into their 70s or 80s and die from something other than violence or misadventure. ISTM you could triple the average lifespan and still not see a dramatic increase in the proportion of deaths due to these causes.
We’re working on cancer cures, and we’re getting better at it. What will we be able to do 100 years from now? Once we can reliably cure cancers and stave off things like Parkinsons and Alzheimers all the way until people are 130/140/whatever years old, is death due to a failing body at that point still such an affront that we should continue investing huge amounts of treasure to develop and administer life-extending treatments?
I agree that there is little point in living to 150 if you spend the last 50 years debilitatingly frail. Life extension (especially extreme life extension) also necessitates extending vigor.
Yes, and that’s why I think the best approach is to maintain a healthy diet, get as much exercise as your age and health allow, and enjoy the life you have as long as you have it. If we become obsessed with trying to avoid death, how can we enjoy life?
This is a baffling attitude to me. I honestly don’t understand it, at all.
This video is a pretty concise explanation of my view on this.
There’s a lot of research with C.elegans showing that aging is not just passive deterioration but a genetically regulated process - mutations extend lifespan by multiples. I’m not sure what the record is, but I think it’s something like a factor of 5. And the genes are in conserved metabolic pathways suggesting that similar lifespan regulation may be present in mammals.
Genetic regulation of lifespan rather than just passive deterioration implies that there’s some fitness tradeoff being optimized by natural selection. And that if we can work out exactly what that tradeoff is, we may be able to extend lifespan dramatically (i.e. doubling, tripling) while mitigating whatever fitness penalty was the other side of that tradeoff in the EEA.
The third volume of LeGuin’s Earthsea trilogy is a much less concise explanation of my view on it.
– people have been objecting to the fact that we’re all going to die ever since, most likely, we first figured it out. This is just the latest attempt at denial.
Maybe something will get saved in a computer. But that something won’t be a living person; and, eventually, the computer will quit working.
Although, we may well have already made all the progress we can, on that front. We’re already extreme outliers in our lifespan: Most mammals have an absolute extreme maximum span of somewhere around a billion heartbeats, but humans reach that in our early 20s.
While LeGuin has been on my to read list for some time, let’s presume I won’t catch up on three whole novels in a timely enough fashion to participate in this discussion.
People have also been saying “death is a part of life” since forever. What’s your point?
The video (and most of this discussion, aside from a few asides from @Riemann) has been about life extension, not computer upload.
Eventually the heat death of the universe will get us all. That’s no reason to give up and die now.
But our priorities are significantly different from those of natural selection. From evolution’s perspective, dying young and having more viable offspring is better than living a long time. So natural evolution has had no motivation to explore what lifespan is possible.
Fair enough.
Very short and possibly not very accurate summation: if what you’re concentrating on is not dying, you won’t have much of a life.
To come at it in another direction, although it may look less directly applicable to humans: what makes soil fertile, so that things can grow in it and directly or indirectly sustain all of us, is that a whole shitload of dead organisms are decaying in there.
The video’s not about life extension, which is a reasonable and potentially useful thing to aim for, presuming that care is taken for what kind of life is extended and that people who have had enough have supported ways to opt out. The video’s about not dying at all, ever.
By combatting Aging, not through brain uploads. The video talks about things like nanotech or genetic modification, not a digital substrate to run people on.
Whether a person running on a fully digital substrate is a person or not, and whether they are the same person or not, is a fascinating discussion for another thread. But it’s not the only way to avoid death through aging.
Besides, it’s a pretty moot point for this discussion. Are you really gonna say “well, I’m in favor of radical life extension, but I draw the line at 10,000 years; 1,000,000 is just way too much”?
Anything longer than a couple hundred years may as well be practically infinite.
But as an overarching principle this is facile. All it’s really saying is that if the cost of doing something outweighs the benefit, don’t do it. No shit, Sherlock.
What evidence is there that extending life is so difficult that we know that the costs will outweigh the benefits? With this attitude, Pasteur and Jenner (not to mention Nelson Mandela) wouldn’t have bothered.
I regret saying that now if it’s becoming a distraction, since it could be at least 18 months away. My bigger point is that we should expect continual improvement that integrates disease prevention/mitigation with other biotechnology and there is really no good reason to expect that we will hit some limit from where the only way to extend life is to live a worthless life.
This is true, and I meant that bit to refer to earlier comments in the thread. I should have been more clear about that.
It’s also inaccurate. I can’t think, at least now, of how to sum up the relevant parts of the book in a sentence or two; but any attempt of mine to do so is going to look facile, because it doesn’t fit.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t work at all on extending life.
And I don’t think Pasteur or Jenner were trying to banish death entirely. They were trying to prevent early deaths – why would that not have been worth bothering with? And wasn’t Mandela mostly dealing with quality of life?