If they could increase their lifespan by a single day but it required getting another person killed, they would make the trade. And again, and again, and again.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" always seemed to assume all people were the same. Psychopaths are quite different from non-psychopaths. What if increasing lifespan 24 hours required doubling the number of people killed each day?
Very few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death.
Who wouldn't select a part of the population they find unsaveable, say evil genocidal billionaires, and sacrifice them for extending their own lifespan + improving how they believe the world should be? Win-win.
> Very few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death.
I feel sad that you seemingly have met more people who lack compassion and empathy than ones who have it. Personally, I don't know (or "hang out" rather maybe) many people who'd sacrifice anyone's life just to live a day longer, and I don't think that's a useful default view to have of people, most people I've met don't want to hurt others. Most people will hurt others if they can avoid getting hurt themselves by doing so, but that doesn't mean those same people would sacrifice someone's life to get another day.
In the West, most will happily slaughter a cow but never a dog (and by slaughter, I mean allow someone else to slaughter it for you, but never be OK with doing it yourself). In many Indian states, cow slaughter is a crime. Many places in China traditionally ate dog meat. People all over the world make more-or-less arbitrary decisions about which animals are OK to kill, and that's before even talking about their fellow humans.
I'm not a nihilist and I do eat meat. I think we should minimize suffering to others. But I can see how anybody could be conditioned to think otherwise. It's not some inherent human instinct to want to preserve others' lives. We've had to develop that instinct culturally.
Well that is a sad, sad, world view. I think very few people would. Precisely that lack of scruples is a prerequisite and a consequence of becoming rich and powerful.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that old age and dying are actually good, and that many of the problems in Western society are due to people living too long and holding onto power longer than they should / not passing on power and resources to younger generations.
Looking at heads of states in non-western countries I'm not sure why you think it's a western thing. African countries got multiple 90+ year olds as head of state for example.
I am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much. I know that in poorer countries due to high infant mortality rate and other issues just reaching 60 was a big milestone for the average person. The bigger question is how will the existing financial system adapt for such a scenario if even 10% of the population manages to extend from 82 to 100+
50% of highly educated women in certain countries are expected to live to 100+ years old according to some demographers, although others believe there's genuine biological limits making this unlikely (they still believe a substantial amount will reach it).
People have been reaching the age of 100 since antiquity, reaching 110 probably happened hundreds of years ago as well. Which just shows the biological limit hasn't been extended just that there's more people reaching it.
> I am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much.
At least in Western cultures, 70 was long considered the "natural" lifespan for humans. E.g., Dante's Divine Comedy takes place when the main character is at the literal midpoint of his life, 35.
So you end up with octogenarians in power? No thanks.
I am glad that in my country people retire and fuck off to spend their last days on holiday. Spending their accumulated wealth has become a major engine of the national economy.
If anything, we’ve seen that older generations of leadership can’t keep up with changing technology and fail to adapt to massive upheavals.
In times of rapid technological development, the old are not wise. They are reactionary and cannot adapt. Their brain stopped developing before the internet. To expect them to make adequate decisions for the current landscape is to expect them to understand a world they simply weren’t built for.
Well, before we figure out who to send to the old age camps to be ground up and turned into McDonald's and Legos... first let's get some nice "age discrimination" laws in place preventing running for government office after age 67.
Hey now, don't crush my dreams of biological immortality! That being said, if the average lifespan continues to increase then we will have to consider rethinking the current social order. Right now we place seniority/experience at the top of what we consider socially useful in a person, but it's already clear that the effects of gerontocracy are hurting the average person in the US and other countries. Should these people automatically be considered the wisest and most socially responsible? Is your 60s really the time to be leading, or should it be when you're younger? Lower neuroplasticity, snowballing wealth, more dependents are all inhibitions to solid decision making that get worse as people grow older. We will have to address this as our lifespans continue to grow.
As disturbing as the film "Midsommar" was, I found the concept of a human life being divided into 4 seasons of 18 years each pretty compelling. Not necessarily that life should end after Winter, but a person's contributions to society probably should. Having politicians in office pushing 80 is a disgrace.
The Western world lives under democracy. Power is held by the population at large. If it appears that the older population is holding more power, that is simply because they have more time, being retired, to exert their democratic duty.
The finite lifespan is an integral part of the earth's ecosystem for the reasons you specify. The planet only has so many resources and life has only so many experiences. As I get older, my perspective changes on what is important. If I was stuck perpetually in my prime, I would think I would get bored. If you're dating someone much younger than you, what do you have in common? I'm glad we're only here for a little while. Change is good.
This hardfought wisdom has served the planet well for a couple billion years. What are the odds the Silicon Valley tech-bros have thought this through?
I think blaming America's problems on gerontocracy is correlation-causation confusion. The reason we have a gerontocracy is that ordinary rank-and-file voters are too cynical and individualistic to participate in politics.
Funnily enough a lot of these 'boomer' haters love to pretend the silent generation or the greatest generation were so much better. I believe a lot of this cynicism and individualism is caused by political decisions by these generations. Decisions like subsidizing the 30 year mortgage and urban design plans made it more difficult to have a 'real community', one which you would engage in politics for.
The power balance of local politics and national politics also got changed with TV and the internet, things which would've happened regardless of how good a 'generation' is.
A gamble which they managed so poorly that the planned wins got buried under collateral losses. And I still don't see much talk about solutions, just destructive radicalization.
Buddha would advise that as the root cause of suffering is identification of mind with a body this very desire is the essence of the ignorance leading to suffering. If you get attached to a body after 80 years, imagine after 800,000 years. Be careful what you wish for…
Living forever sounds awful. For one, I am extremely curious what happens when I die. Without death, life becomes a hollow shell, or at least I imagine it would, as you would lack urgency.
On the one hand you say without death life would lack urgency, yet you seem to be open to life after death. If there was life after death... wouldn't it lack urgency?
If there isn't life after death, you simply don't exist anymore and there are no more possibilities open to you. So I'd be more than happy to postpone finding about out for as long as possible.
It is a clinical term, you are arguing over semantics. Cardiopulmonary death to be specific. My point is: no one knows, not you, not me, and not my dog.
I don't know what's behind a wall I'm sitting next to right now, but I'm reasonably sure there's a street. I'm also reasonably sure the comment about "you've been dead" is also a very accurate prediction.
That wall is concrete and material. Death is not so much. I am reasonably sure you can do that with great accuracy while still having zero idea what lies in wait for us after we die. A false equivalence.
To play devils advocate here: could it be a good thing?
That way they would be incentivized to think about the long term actions of their actions, like not dying before getting affected by global warming etc.
And once aging is understood and solved, maybe it’s possible to iterate on the approach and make it cheaper and more accessible. That would greatly help the aging populations of the west.
If you’re around forever I’d imagine you would care more about what people think of you, too. If not your number of enemies would just rise forever.
Let's suggest something different. Treat wealth like a game. Whoever reaches one billion has completed the game and has to die. No point in playing further, you made it. The money gets redistributed again to the other players.
Living systems - hell, complex systems - don't do "forever" real well. You end up adding a compounding amount of energy over time, a "negentropic tax", as the universe tries to untie that complexity into radiation.
After a while the compounding energy input of the negentropic tax overwhelms the control mechanisms that feed it into the "preserved" system, and it blows up.
It's a common feature across disciplines: content management, biology, programming, maintainability engineering, neural networks, chemical engineering . . I imagine the list is pretty close to boundless. Ha, turns out human knowledge is also a complex natural system.
So I guess what I'm saying is only dead things live forever. Which should say a lot about the internal life of the standard tech/finbro. "I want to be just like I am right this second for all time!"
Speaking personally, I'm always amused by the Eternal Life pitch whether I hear it in church or on the internet. Everyone gets eternal life. We're surrounded by it, we eat it, we poop it out every day. Our grandfathers are in our lungs, old friends in the leaves of trees, giant parts of your brain die every morning as you wake. Eternal Life is not for the selfish. Something that the Bible thumpers could read for themselves, if they bothered to read the thing.
Another good book exploring this idea of not dying is Pandora's Star by Peter Hamilton. Only in this book almost everyone has access to the technology by paying into a rejuvenation fund instead of a retirement one as we have today. It is a pretty realistic exploration of the consequences and benefits of such technology. Good food for thoughts.
An interesting fictional book that has this idea as part of the story is Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan. Imagine if Elon musk and the other ultra-wealthy could live forever and they become even more out-of-touch with reality as the centuries roll on...
In the book almost anyone that has lived could live forever but that could never happen with limited resources/space so only the ultra-wealthy are able to.
I'd skip the tv show. Also, the books (it's a series) seem to be unfinished? I could be wrong, it's been so long since I read it but it seems like some sub-story about extinct aliens wasn't finished.
I don't know... I read the books so long ago and there are still things in my minds eye that I can picture from it, whereas with the tv show the only thing I remember is the naked sword fight.
elon is at least barely tolerable despitre being clearly POS, but maybe he has just pressure from stocks/companies he represents. Think more in the line of trump or putin, forever.
Such a person, upon becoming say potus, would on day 1 dismantle any option to be removed from power and basically did what trump is doing otherwise, and/or worse.
I keep saying this over and over - for greater good of humanity, we should be shooting these immortality scientists, all of them, regardless of horrible it sounds. 1000s vs hundreds of billions.
There is no conceivable way this will end in anything but catastrophe for mankind. One could theoretise that there could be Leto II Atreides type of situation (mankind needs to experience absolutely horrible things for millenia to go on a path which is overall better in extremely long term), but I am not holding my breath. We could also just die from our stupidity, and this is one prime example of it thats anyway still far in future.
We need to be at least multiplanetary civilization before achieving this, ideally in multiple solar systems so any catastrophe is not absolute.
I suspect that OP may have advanced knowledge of their fate thanks to the copy of a certain encyclopaedia which fell through a rift in the space-time continuum from 1,000 years in the future.
Class based 'revolutions' are made up of a bunch of idiots who would happily destroy everything while being lead by somebody even worse who is qualitatively identical to the people they despise. They have proven that repeatedly.
I don’t know. I kind of like a social safety net, unemployment insurance, limits to the work week, free education for all future adults, paid holidays, mass voting, multiethnic democracy, product liability laws, etc. Our modern society owes a lot to the hundreds of years of struggle to empower hard work and education over inherited wealth.
Mmmm. Not just the worst from a moral perspective - which is still bad! - but also some of the dumbest.
Ours are not the Masters of Industry from the Industrial Age[1], or the fission-missile-kings of the Nuclear Age. They're not ready to teach a Physics unit at a community college.
The tippity top of the uber-wealthy today are remarkably short on actual formal knowledge. This makes sense in their ideological system: scientific acumen as more of a commodity than a value.
In this view, everything should look like the stock market. But this is a profoundly stupid view. It requires not just ideology, but willfully not looking at the universe.
I'm probably steering afoul of about 90% of ycombinator here, so I'll just pull the throttles back and stop there.
[1] "Isambard Kingdom Brunel . . But Got-DAMN did men used to have some proper-ass names" - Achewood
90% seems high. I think there’s a solid chunk of the HN population that is very aware that this industry is run by morons. I, for example, only came to this realization a few years ago. But I believe it’s a growing sentiment. Late stage capitalism / techno feudalism really is a trip.
I would have expected better of HN. I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible.
The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise.
Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die. And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
> I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible.
Maybe there is some corner of the article that advocates people forcibly dying... but from skimming it, the topic is about powerful people using things like “brainless clones” to extend their lives.
The following is essentially the implied wish of this piece: I solemnly wish, with all my non-power, for tyrannical heads of states and tech billionaires to not live abnormally long.
This is what you take offense to. The wish that our overlords do not live unnaturally long.
> The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise.
This I care about.
> Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die.
May we all live as long as possible, for it is our equal right as human beings.~
But may also tyrants and tech billionaires remain as such. For all men are not equal.
> And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
Assassination is forcible death. Something you took offense to above.
If they could increase their lifespan by a single day but it required getting another person killed, they would make the trade. And again, and again, and again.
Reminiscent of Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson
It's kind of the opposite in most ways.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" always seemed to assume all people were the same. Psychopaths are quite different from non-psychopaths. What if increasing lifespan 24 hours required doubling the number of people killed each day?
Another unknown person dead per day? I think a lot of young people would make that trade, perhaps not if you’re old and have had a full life.
Very few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death.
Who wouldn't select a part of the population they find unsaveable, say evil genocidal billionaires, and sacrifice them for extending their own lifespan + improving how they believe the world should be? Win-win.
> Very few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death.
I feel sad that you seemingly have met more people who lack compassion and empathy than ones who have it. Personally, I don't know (or "hang out" rather maybe) many people who'd sacrifice anyone's life just to live a day longer, and I don't think that's a useful default view to have of people, most people I've met don't want to hurt others. Most people will hurt others if they can avoid getting hurt themselves by doing so, but that doesn't mean those same people would sacrifice someone's life to get another day.
Though many would sacrifice an intelligent animals like a pig or dolphin and they’d do this optionally
In the West, most will happily slaughter a cow but never a dog (and by slaughter, I mean allow someone else to slaughter it for you, but never be OK with doing it yourself). In many Indian states, cow slaughter is a crime. Many places in China traditionally ate dog meat. People all over the world make more-or-less arbitrary decisions about which animals are OK to kill, and that's before even talking about their fellow humans.
I'm not a nihilist and I do eat meat. I think we should minimize suffering to others. But I can see how anybody could be conditioned to think otherwise. It's not some inherent human instinct to want to preserve others' lives. We've had to develop that instinct culturally.
[dead]
Friend, I would shorten my life by a day to moderately improve the convenience of someone I barely know. I've spent enough time in this meat grinder.
I would not because it’s evil.
Well that is a sad, sad, world view. I think very few people would. Precisely that lack of scruples is a prerequisite and a consequence of becoming rich and powerful.
Standard fare to excuse powerful people who do actual harm with something about human nature.
So who am I to judge? I have impurities in my heart because I dislike people who cause harm. Best wait for the saints to weigh in.
The evil genocidal billionaires will be the ones killing to extend their lifespan. Not the other way around.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that old age and dying are actually good, and that many of the problems in Western society are due to people living too long and holding onto power longer than they should / not passing on power and resources to younger generations.
Looking at heads of states in non-western countries I'm not sure why you think it's a western thing. African countries got multiple 90+ year olds as head of state for example.
name 3?
> longer than they should
Just great. And who is to decide how long is "too long"? You?
I am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much. I know that in poorer countries due to high infant mortality rate and other issues just reaching 60 was a big milestone for the average person. The bigger question is how will the existing financial system adapt for such a scenario if even 10% of the population manages to extend from 82 to 100+
50% of highly educated women in certain countries are expected to live to 100+ years old according to some demographers, although others believe there's genuine biological limits making this unlikely (they still believe a substantial amount will reach it).
People have been reaching the age of 100 since antiquity, reaching 110 probably happened hundreds of years ago as well. Which just shows the biological limit hasn't been extended just that there's more people reaching it.
> I am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much.
At least in Western cultures, 70 was long considered the "natural" lifespan for humans. E.g., Dante's Divine Comedy takes place when the main character is at the literal midpoint of his life, 35.
AFAIK most societies historically respected the wisdom attributed to old age, and many cultures still do.
Not too much wisdom in sight.
So you end up with octogenarians in power? No thanks.
I am glad that in my country people retire and fuck off to spend their last days on holiday. Spending their accumulated wealth has become a major engine of the national economy.
If anything, we’ve seen that older generations of leadership can’t keep up with changing technology and fail to adapt to massive upheavals.
In times of rapid technological development, the old are not wise. They are reactionary and cannot adapt. Their brain stopped developing before the internet. To expect them to make adequate decisions for the current landscape is to expect them to understand a world they simply weren’t built for.
Term limits.
I think some sort of cognitive test would be a good place to start
Well, before we figure out who to send to the old age camps to be ground up and turned into McDonald's and Legos... first let's get some nice "age discrimination" laws in place preventing running for government office after age 67.
Then what you're looking for is mandatory retirement ages and term limits, not condemnation to death.
Wars or pandemics like COVID-19 are more effective solutions.
You mean the ones which kill the young first? Especially the wars. "War" and "effective use of resources" are antonyms.
Hey now, don't crush my dreams of biological immortality! That being said, if the average lifespan continues to increase then we will have to consider rethinking the current social order. Right now we place seniority/experience at the top of what we consider socially useful in a person, but it's already clear that the effects of gerontocracy are hurting the average person in the US and other countries. Should these people automatically be considered the wisest and most socially responsible? Is your 60s really the time to be leading, or should it be when you're younger? Lower neuroplasticity, snowballing wealth, more dependents are all inhibitions to solid decision making that get worse as people grow older. We will have to address this as our lifespans continue to grow.
As disturbing as the film "Midsommar" was, I found the concept of a human life being divided into 4 seasons of 18 years each pretty compelling. Not necessarily that life should end after Winter, but a person's contributions to society probably should. Having politicians in office pushing 80 is a disgrace.
> holding onto power longer than they should
The Western world lives under democracy. Power is held by the population at large. If it appears that the older population is holding more power, that is simply because they have more time, being retired, to exert their democratic duty.
At least where I live, the older are also substantially higher in number.
The finite lifespan is an integral part of the earth's ecosystem for the reasons you specify. The planet only has so many resources and life has only so many experiences. As I get older, my perspective changes on what is important. If I was stuck perpetually in my prime, I would think I would get bored. If you're dating someone much younger than you, what do you have in common? I'm glad we're only here for a little while. Change is good.
This hardfought wisdom has served the planet well for a couple billion years. What are the odds the Silicon Valley tech-bros have thought this through?
YES!!! Old age and dying are actually good for inherited wealth.
I think blaming America's problems on gerontocracy is correlation-causation confusion. The reason we have a gerontocracy is that ordinary rank-and-file voters are too cynical and individualistic to participate in politics.
Funnily enough a lot of these 'boomer' haters love to pretend the silent generation or the greatest generation were so much better. I believe a lot of this cynicism and individualism is caused by political decisions by these generations. Decisions like subsidizing the 30 year mortgage and urban design plans made it more difficult to have a 'real community', one which you would engage in politics for.
The power balance of local politics and national politics also got changed with TV and the internet, things which would've happened regardless of how good a 'generation' is.
In many wealthy countries the old are literally outnumbering the young so it wouldn't matter if everyone under the age of 40 turned up to vote.
Nations haven't tried to implement mass immigration because they are woke- it's a last desperate gamble.
A gamble which they managed so poorly that the planned wins got buried under collateral losses. And I still don't see much talk about solutions, just destructive radicalization.
[flagged]
Buddha would advise that as the root cause of suffering is identification of mind with a body this very desire is the essence of the ignorance leading to suffering. If you get attached to a body after 80 years, imagine after 800,000 years. Be careful what you wish for…
Living forever sounds awful. For one, I am extremely curious what happens when I die. Without death, life becomes a hollow shell, or at least I imagine it would, as you would lack urgency.
I don't quite get your position.
On the one hand you say without death life would lack urgency, yet you seem to be open to life after death. If there was life after death... wouldn't it lack urgency?
If there isn't life after death, you simply don't exist anymore and there are no more possibilities open to you. So I'd be more than happy to postpone finding about out for as long as possible.
Life without death would lack urgency. I do not know what happens when I die, ergo I am curious. Not mutually exclusive.
Thanks, I get it.
I’ll answer that question for you for free. Here’s what happens:
I medically died a couple years back. I don’t remember a thing, so perhaps you are right. Still curious.
The concept of “medically died” is kind of ridiculous. Are you alive? Then you weren’t dead.
It is a clinical term, you are arguing over semantics. Cardiopulmonary death to be specific. My point is: no one knows, not you, not me, and not my dog.
I don't know what's behind a wall I'm sitting next to right now, but I'm reasonably sure there's a street. I'm also reasonably sure the comment about "you've been dead" is also a very accurate prediction.
That wall is concrete and material. Death is not so much. I am reasonably sure you can do that with great accuracy while still having zero idea what lies in wait for us after we die. A false equivalence.
You have already been dead. It feels exactly like it felt before you were born.
It is funny how concerned and uncomfortable people are with death, but how little they think about pre-life, if at all
This is conjecture. No one knows.
It is the simplest explanation. It is the conjeture that it feels any different that needs a proof.
Just like "life after death" but entire religions have sprung up around knowing this unknowable thing.
I don’t get this perspective at all. Why die? Do things forever.
To play devils advocate here: could it be a good thing?
That way they would be incentivized to think about the long term actions of their actions, like not dying before getting affected by global warming etc.
And once aging is understood and solved, maybe it’s possible to iterate on the approach and make it cheaper and more accessible. That would greatly help the aging populations of the west.
If you’re around forever I’d imagine you would care more about what people think of you, too. If not your number of enemies would just rise forever.
The long term effects for themselves only though.
They could make progress on cancer, but the way things are going they'll have to learn how to survive a guillotine as well.
Hah, so many science fiction books with this premise. Another one: "Drunkards walk" by Frederick Pohl, 1961.
Let's suggest something different. Treat wealth like a game. Whoever reaches one billion has completed the game and has to die. No point in playing further, you made it. The money gets redistributed again to the other players.
Why rich and powerful? Everyone, no?
They’re the only ones who would be able to afford it.
At the moment it's not possible for anyone. If tech cracks it it would likely become affordable like most technology.
If we’re talking healthcare no, it doesn’t become affordable. None of the advanced medical tech is affordable.
This is an argument against all technological progress.
Nope. Just technological progress in the context of a neo-feudal system.
Living systems - hell, complex systems - don't do "forever" real well. You end up adding a compounding amount of energy over time, a "negentropic tax", as the universe tries to untie that complexity into radiation.
After a while the compounding energy input of the negentropic tax overwhelms the control mechanisms that feed it into the "preserved" system, and it blows up.
It's a common feature across disciplines: content management, biology, programming, maintainability engineering, neural networks, chemical engineering . . I imagine the list is pretty close to boundless. Ha, turns out human knowledge is also a complex natural system.
So I guess what I'm saying is only dead things live forever. Which should say a lot about the internal life of the standard tech/finbro. "I want to be just like I am right this second for all time!"
Speaking personally, I'm always amused by the Eternal Life pitch whether I hear it in church or on the internet. Everyone gets eternal life. We're surrounded by it, we eat it, we poop it out every day. Our grandfathers are in our lungs, old friends in the leaves of trees, giant parts of your brain die every morning as you wake. Eternal Life is not for the selfish. Something that the Bible thumpers could read for themselves, if they bothered to read the thing.
https://archive.is/RvcQo
Another good book exploring this idea of not dying is Pandora's Star by Peter Hamilton. Only in this book almost everyone has access to the technology by paying into a rejuvenation fund instead of a retirement one as we have today. It is a pretty realistic exploration of the consequences and benefits of such technology. Good food for thoughts.
An interesting fictional book that has this idea as part of the story is Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan. Imagine if Elon musk and the other ultra-wealthy could live forever and they become even more out-of-touch with reality as the centuries roll on...
In the book almost anyone that has lived could live forever but that could never happen with limited resources/space so only the ultra-wealthy are able to.
I'd skip the tv show. Also, the books (it's a series) seem to be unfinished? I could be wrong, it's been so long since I read it but it seems like some sub-story about extinct aliens wasn't finished.
The tv show is actually really good from someone who did not read the books. It is well done.
I don't know... I read the books so long ago and there are still things in my minds eye that I can picture from it, whereas with the tv show the only thing I remember is the naked sword fight.
Oh come now, surely you remember seeing James Purefoy's penis over and over.
It wasn't that kind of sword fight.
I saw the show first. I like them both. They’re wildly different.
elon is at least barely tolerable despitre being clearly POS, but maybe he has just pressure from stocks/companies he represents. Think more in the line of trump or putin, forever.
Such a person, upon becoming say potus, would on day 1 dismantle any option to be removed from power and basically did what trump is doing otherwise, and/or worse.
I keep saying this over and over - for greater good of humanity, we should be shooting these immortality scientists, all of them, regardless of horrible it sounds. 1000s vs hundreds of billions.
There is no conceivable way this will end in anything but catastrophe for mankind. One could theoretise that there could be Leto II Atreides type of situation (mankind needs to experience absolutely horrible things for millenia to go on a path which is overall better in extremely long term), but I am not holding my breath. We could also just die from our stupidity, and this is one prime example of it thats anyway still far in future.
We need to be at least multiplanetary civilization before achieving this, ideally in multiple solar systems so any catastrophe is not absolute.
We don't even know how to get someone to be 130, but sure, let's waste time talking about this.
Ironic that you waste our time with this.
> What If They Could?
Then they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I was just reading about the French revolution. Not sure we should be hoping for anything like that.
I don't think OP is pointing to what he "hopes" is happening. He's pointing to what he thinks the rich and powerful are steering society towards.
I suspect that OP may have advanced knowledge of their fate thanks to the copy of a certain encyclopaedia which fell through a rift in the space-time continuum from 1,000 years in the future.
Share and Enjoy.
To know our future, sometimes it helps to look at our past. And then extrapolate.
You might belong to the group that is benefitting from the status quo.
Why? Would you rather be a starving peasant with less rights that you currently have?
People don’t want revolutions because they are pleasant. Edit: they want revolutions because they are peasant...
They’re already at the front of the queue. Attempts to live forever will only further inflame the general population.
Class based 'revolutions' are made up of a bunch of idiots who would happily destroy everything while being lead by somebody even worse who is qualitatively identical to the people they despise. They have proven that repeatedly.
I don’t know. I kind of like a social safety net, unemployment insurance, limits to the work week, free education for all future adults, paid holidays, mass voting, multiethnic democracy, product liability laws, etc. Our modern society owes a lot to the hundreds of years of struggle to empower hard work and education over inherited wealth.
and you would be ok with an immortal class of tech overlords? history ending with one of the worst sets of ppl of our generation?
Mmmm. Not just the worst from a moral perspective - which is still bad! - but also some of the dumbest.
Ours are not the Masters of Industry from the Industrial Age[1], or the fission-missile-kings of the Nuclear Age. They're not ready to teach a Physics unit at a community college.
The tippity top of the uber-wealthy today are remarkably short on actual formal knowledge. This makes sense in their ideological system: scientific acumen as more of a commodity than a value.
In this view, everything should look like the stock market. But this is a profoundly stupid view. It requires not just ideology, but willfully not looking at the universe.
I'm probably steering afoul of about 90% of ycombinator here, so I'll just pull the throttles back and stop there.
[1] "Isambard Kingdom Brunel . . But Got-DAMN did men used to have some proper-ass names" - Achewood
90% seems high. I think there’s a solid chunk of the HN population that is very aware that this industry is run by morons. I, for example, only came to this realization a few years ago. But I believe it’s a growing sentiment. Late stage capitalism / techno feudalism really is a trip.
Altered Carbon on Netflix...
Please read ‘How to Stop Time’ by Matt Haig
It’s a beautiful short novel exploring this idea.
I vaguely recall a Heinlein novel which explored it too. Methuselah's Children maybe?
Time Enough for Love. IMHO much better than Stranger in a Strange Land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
Thank God they can't buy immorality.
Wealth and power accumulate. They’d end up owning everything.
I would have expected better of HN. I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible.
The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise.
Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die. And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
> I would have expected better of HN.
On a very dark night I would have expected worse.
> I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible.
Maybe there is some corner of the article that advocates people forcibly dying... but from skimming it, the topic is about powerful people using things like “brainless clones” to extend their lives.
The following is essentially the implied wish of this piece: I solemnly wish, with all my non-power, for tyrannical heads of states and tech billionaires to not live abnormally long.
This is what you take offense to. The wish that our overlords do not live unnaturally long.
> The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise.
This I care about.
> Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die.
May we all live as long as possible, for it is our equal right as human beings.~
But may also tyrants and tech billionaires remain as such. For all men are not equal.
> And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
Assassination is forcible death. Something you took offense to above.
If they use immortality. Just use Magic. Putinius Disintegratus!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipex_Alligator
Poof ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Looks like I’m going to avoid drinking tea in the foreseeable future.
Absolutely based
[dead]