[apsec112]

"If a young child falls on the train tracks, it is good to save them, and if a 45-year-old suffers from a debilitating disease, it is good to cure them. If you have a logical turn of mind, you are bound to ask whether this is a special case of a general ethical principle which says “Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad.” If so – and here we enter into controversial territory – we can follow this general principle to a surprising new conclusion: If a 95-year-old is threatened by death from old age, it would be good to drag them from those train tracks, if possible. And if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible. With current technology it is not possible. But if the technology became available in some future year – given sufficiently advanced medical nanotechnology, or such other contrivances as future minds may devise – would you judge it a good thing, to save that life, and stay that debility?

The important thing to remember, which I think all too many people forget, is that it is not a trick question."

http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified/

[lisper]

> if a 120-year-old is starting to feel slightly sickly, it would be good to restore them to full vigor, if possible

That is far from clear. It is even far from clear that this is true all else being equal, and all else is definitely not equal. Extending longevity exacerbates the strain on global resources caused by overpopulation -- most notably at the moment, the capacity of the planet to absorb carbon emissions, but that's a detail. Exponential growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. If carbon weren't the limiting factor, it would be something else.

But we humans were designed to die. Our evolutionary purpose is to raise children to the point where they are able to have children of their own. A longer lifespan than that doesn't advance our reproductive fitness, and so we're not designed to live any longer than that. So even if we could tweak our bodies to live longer, it is not a foregone conclusion that this would be healthy for our minds and souls.

[TeMPOraL]

> A longer lifespan than that doesn't advance our reproductive fitness, and so we're not designed to live any longer than that. So even if we could tweak our bodies to live longer, it is not a foregone conclusion that this would be healthy for our minds and souls.

It's also not a foregone conclusion that this wouldn't be healthy for our minds and souls. The problem with death is that it's irreversible. At any point, you can decide you're too bored or too miserable, and end your existence. But once that decision is made - usually for you - it cannot be reversed. So it's better to err on the side of more options, i.e. more years to live.

[JoshTriplett]

> Extending longevity exacerbates the strain on global resources

Suppose we didn't die. Would you start killing people (yourself or others) in order to "reduce the strain on global resources"?

It helps to not take the status quo as a given, or as immutable.

> So even if we could tweak our bodies to live longer, it is not a foregone conclusion that this would be healthy for our minds

We're going to need to solve that problem too. I'm currently supporting people working on Alzheimer's research, for instance.

[lisper]

> Suppose we didn't die.

You may as well say, "Suppose there were unicorns." All sexually reproducing organisms die.

[JoshTriplett]

Solving a problem starts with seeing it as a problem rather than an immutable fact. And "suppose we didn't have the problem" is a thought experiment. In this case, it helps show the moral equivalence between killing people and stopping people from living longer.

[lisper]

I'm not saying we should stop people from trying to live longer. I'm saying be careful what you wish for.

[JoshTriplett]

I am aware that there are many additional things we'll have to solve as people live longer. Bring them on, they're better than the alternative.

And I appreciate that you aren't saying that we should stop people, but others are, and that's a serious problem.

[jniedrauer]

This really sounds like mind-body dualism. There's no difference between our "minds and souls", and we weren't designed to do anything. We have woken up and find ourselves in our present circumstances. But we don't have to accept them. We choose our destiny.

[lisper]

I was using the word "designed" metaphorically. Of course we were not actually designed. The point is that our fundamental nature is determined by evolution, and evolution only "cares" about reproductive fitness, so that's what we're "optimized" for. (I put these words in scare quotes because evolution doesn't actually "care" about anything, and it doesn't optimize, it merely satisfices.)

[mc32]

I think one big problem I see is that there becomes no need for younger generations. It’ll all be old people. If you have low turnover then there is little change —society stagnates.

If people had discovered 3x lifespans and birth rates were thirded in the 1900s, we’d be living near-ossified lifestyles (and other things) from back then.

Also, the longer you live the more mental trauma there is to deal with. One lifetime is enough. As it is we have enough people who slowly decline and go crazy.

[jniedrauer]

A key dynamic shift that might offset this is that "old people" would suddenly have to plan for thousands of years. Many of the problems that generations currently solve are due to short-term thinking.

[mc32]

I think you’re being way optimistic. Longer lifespans means you can procrastinate and put things off even further.

[zhoujianfu]

Agreed... “people shouldn’t live forever... except for me” seems to be a popular sentiment, but it’s along the lines of “people shouldn’t get this or that freedom/resource... except for me.”