Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

muaru1 t1_j21229r wrote

Reply to comment by TsoTsoni in Can we limit uploading brain to computers for eternal life posts? by hootsmcboots

Yes yes, and I’m sure the people of thousands of years ago found their average death at 13 years old comfortable, or even a few hundred years ago, their death at 40 comfortable. We are already living unnatural existences. I should not even have survived past one year old. Is that an aberration? Yep, sure is, “unnatural” as you say. Do I care? Nope. I suppose if life is unending suffering for you that you have more going on internally than a lot of others. I for one am content to be alive, and wish to continue to be so until I see fit.

1

TsoTsoni t1_j21d8mn wrote

Nope, my life is comfy. But suffering is an inherent aspect of existence. Imagining you can "see fit" to control if and when your life ends doesn't align with how reality functions. I would argue that the only thing that gives life itself meaning is the fact that it has a termination point. What's the point of getting out of bed when there is always an eternal stretch of tomorrows to 'look forward to' ? I've never known an old timer who did not accept their passing with open arms when their time came. I'm just not interested in participating in an imaginary pursuit of everlasting life. The tree of everlasting life bore the other forbidden fruit in the garden of eden...Adam and Eve never ate from that tree. Even our mythology warns against this pursuit. The pursuit to end human death and suffering will only result in more suffering.

1

muaru1 t1_j21eanu wrote

An appeal to nature is not a good justification for not changing how society operates. Many technological and social revolutions have occurred that significantly changed how life operated for the majority of society. Electric lights alone completely changed the way society operates. Humans then would have questioned, “how does people staying up later positively benefit us as a species? It’s better to go to sleep with the sun,” and they were wrong. Computers and the internet are another one of these major changes. Along with antibiotics, the advent of fast travel, rights for women, etc.

The delay or lack of aging will merely be another one of these drastic shifts in how society operates and how we love our lives. It is not our place to say “this is where this technology should stop advancing because it is unnatural” anymore than any of the aforementioned revolutions are.

1

TsoTsoni t1_j21gj0r wrote

We are not talking about anti aging or nootropics, or telomeres... we're talking about immortality. That would be the literal end of humanity. Do you think this new gift, if achieved, would be equally shared among all people? Or just the influential or wealthy? We both know the answer because it's rhetorical question. Now those lives that are not eternal, based on our history, would end up serving to sustain those lucky few who will never know a natural death. Count me out.

1

muaru1 t1_j21gyhf wrote

It’s impossible to judge how it will be implemented just as it was impossible to judge for previous humans what the effects of the printing press, antibiotics, etc. would be going forward. Future society will operate by entirely different paradigms than what we are accustomed to now. It is highly possible that in a dwindlingly populated word with negative replacement rates that immortality is seen as the solution. In fact, based on trends, I would say this is a likely reality, given that it is possible to begin with.

1

TsoTsoni t1_j21p12z wrote

Ok well if it's a conversation about social justice and the future of equality and all the good things we can strive for, I'll bite and accept that it would be grand for all humans to live forever, zooming through the stars in benevolent brotherhood and sisterhood.
For now, humans continue to exploit their environment and each other for personal gain. Our history does not indicate a drastic shift in this trajectory any time soon. If we can actually learn to live in love, then maybe you're right. I am confident in my opinion that we're too immature, collectively, to even consider immortality as having a generally beneficial effect on our species.

1