[ssivark]

I think that the consideration of arguments against extending human longevity is very flippant, and deserves some serious pushback. As Max Planck pointed out, ”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Regardless of that, given the veneer of rationality in discussions of this topic (not just this source, but more generally) are there any strong arguments for extending human lifespans? The four reasons following “Because death is bad” (including footnote 4) seem like a superficial analysis based on a cartoonish model/philosophy of life.

Personally, it seems far more useful to think about how we might make human life happier and more meaningful; longevity research seems particularly pointless & banal as it is unlikely to improve well-being in any significant way in and of itself. (I’m not referring to preventing unnatural mortality, but extending median lifespan). (This is somewhat opinionated, and of course, others are welcome to alternative opinions.)

[mwcvitkovic]

First of all, I'm thrilled someone looked at the footnotes - thanks :)

I was flippant about the arguments against longevity only because other authors (linked in the appendix) have done such a thorough job of making the case already. The goal of this piece was to help push the longevity discussion past that a bit.

Completely agree that the arguments against longevity should be taken seriously. I just happen to think they're wrong.

[ssivark]

Thanks, I skimmed those references and didn’t find anything convincing, but I’ll give it a more careful read later. I think a rigorous (doesn’t necessarily mean quantitative or in terms of utility) argument for longevity research would be very interesting to read — especially something that digs into each of those assumptions seriously.

Sometimes your post focuses on one thing and the HN discussion finds another aspect more pressing :-)

[stephc_int13]

I completely disagree, I think life would be much more meaningful if the potential to fully experience was not so time-restricted.

[rantwasp]

i am going to guess you are somewhat young (<60). watch how your opinion shifts as you get older

[amanaplanacanal]

Exactly. I’m 63. I have an autoimmune disease, and am a cancer survivor, but I’m reasonably healthy, am enjoying life, and there is no way I would choose to die at this point. If it happens, it happens, but I’d rather stick around.

[stephc_int13]

I am 44, not really juvenile, and while my view of death changed a lot over time I would still choose to live longer if I can.

I fully understand the central role of death in the evolution of life.

At the same time, this is incredibly wasteful for a species like us.

Life is usually preserving knowledge with DNA copies over generations, but individual knowledge is lost and in our case it is not negligible.

Most of it is really lost.

[kelnos]

> I would still choose to live longer if I can.

That's the thing. I would choose the same, and I know many others who would. For the people who would prefer to live what they consider to be a "normal" lifespan, they can simply choose to end their life when they want, or not avail themselves of whatever treatments become available to increase lifespan.

So many "anti" arguments against so many things boil down to "I wouldn't want that so you shouldn't get to have it either". Those arguments are tedious and annoying.

[rantwasp]

DNA is overrated. I think we have already transcended out biological roots. Some information we generate as a civilization is already long lived.

I am not sure if it’s wasteful. In the current context maybe.

[stephc_int13]

The existence of civilization is the proof that not everything is lost when we die, at least not for everyone.

Nonetheless, learning is still a long and painful process, even when it is about knowledge that has been known for centuries. And when a master in a field dies, his unique mix of knowledge and views dies with him, without any ways to transfer it.

Human language is a powerful tool but still weak and unreliable to transfer knowledge.