[terryf]

Wow these comments are depressing here.

Of course I want to live as long as possible! Because life is awesome! I want more of it!

The fear of death is of course real, but that's not the main reason for wanting to live longer. I want more experience, I want to see what happens in the future! I want to understand more, learn more and be able to do it at a more relaxed pace without the feeling that time will run out!

[olalonde]

I think it's a bit similar to the deaf community hating on hearing aids or bald people hating on hair transplants. Psychologically, it's challenging to accept certain conditions, so our brains create rationalizations as a defense mechanism. Similarly, with death, we have no option but to accept it (at least for now), and so we develop rationalizations to convince ourselves that it's actually desirable.

[keiferski]

No, it’s not similar at all.

The modern technological world has a certain approach to the individual Self and its experience of the world - it ought to be focused on almost to the exclusion of anything else. Nothing else ultimately matters, as long as your personal life experience continues - is what this philosophy ultimates boils down to.

Other people, in other places, value different things. Merely existing as long as possible is not their primary goal. And in fact, the lack of such ways to “use” one’s life and death in a meaningful way other than simply existing is one major cause of the modern malaise affecting many developed nations. To live and die for a purpose other than extending your own personal experience is something many people hunger for in current times.

[DennisP]

The desire for immortality goes back at least as far as the epic of Gilgamesh. Medieval alchemists tried to achieve it. In China, Daoists attempted to dramatically lengthen their lives by various esoteric means. Tibetan Buddhism also has practices along these lines.

Conversely, in today's world plenty of people would like to lengthen their lives, without that being their primary goal. Just because someone wants to live longer does not mean that it's the only thing they care about; it's even possible that some larger purpose is a major reason they want to live longer.

From a Buddhist perspective, "if you are a practitioner of the Dharma, someone who is putting the teachings into practice, there is great significance to doing long-life practice."

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Long_life_practice

[olalonde]

I personally wouldn't embrace that philosophy but if we solve death by aging, "dying for a purpose" would still be an option: suicide, accidents, etc.

[keiferski]

I agree but I am responding mostly to the parent comment, which suggests that not trying to live as long as possible is some sort of disorder or disability.

[satvikpendem]

That is not what they are suggesting though. They are simply making an analogy to a very real phenomenon in the deaf community. That they are deaf or are disabled is incidental, it could be any sort of community where they make rationalizations and then hate those who shatter their beliefs.

[lynx23]

Dont forget blind people "hating" on bionic eyes and similar nonesense. And no, you haven't understood the underlying issue at all. All you can do is claim a minority group isn't quite in their right mind, thats pretty sad to read. Maybe you can read up on Ableism, but thats not the whole story. Tech based implants are very poor quality-wise. Bionic eyes have a few hundred pixels across, and hearing implants sound quite harsh and unnatural. What those minority groups are "hating" on (what a strange way to put it) is them being forced into this, without seeing a lot of gain. I am blind 45 years now. If someone would force me into a bionic eye, I would need the next 10 to 20 years at least to learn basic reading. I'd have to start at the very basics, and its likely too late for me to adapt to the visual world. My way of dealing with things, as a native blind man, is superior to every technology you undisabled people can give me. And if I decline, you say I am hating on technology. This is soooooooo fucked up, you have no idea.

[olalonde]

You misunderstood my point. I was doing an analogy between three cases (deafness, baldness and death) where a real solution does not exist or if it exists, it is imperfect or not available to all. For example, hearing implants aren't a perfect solution and won't help much in cases of extreme hearing loss. I imagine they're also a bit inconvenient. Similarly for baldness, hair transplants aren't always an option due to cost or insufficient quantity of hair in the donor area.

So what happens is that those who aren't eligible for a solution often tell themselves that a hypothetical solution isn't even desirable at all, as a way to cope. This is where I was making the analogy with people praising death in these threads. My contention is that they're just rationalizing to deal with the fact that death is indeed inevitable, for now.

By "hate" what I really meant was that a subset of those who aren't eligible for a solution will "hate" those who are, because they are a reminder that their situation isn't actually desirable. I really should have wrote "deaf community hating on people with hearing aids or bald people hating on people with hair transplants."

In your case, it seems you acknowledge that an actual cure would be nice, but such a cure doesn't exist right now. I feel similarly towards death. I'm not about to do monthly "young blood transfusions" to gain a year or two of life but I acknowledge that a real cure would be nice.

PS: I absolutely meant no disrespect and understand that it's perfectly possible to live a good life as blind or deaf person.

[elzbardico]

A lot of what we call "The X community" is just a portion of a said larger group that is incredibly vocal and politically organized.

[greenthrow]

I thought everybidy hated on hair transplants because they look like doll's hair and are distractingly terrible?

[olalonde]

I'm quite happy with mine[0]. People don't notice unless they knew me before.

[0] https://i.postimg.cc/13tjX46q/before-after-hair-transplant.p...

[seper8]

Hair transplants are your own hairs...

[greenthrow]

Everybody knows that. It still looks like doll hair because of the pattern of the implants.

[8372049]

The primary reason the Deaf community "hates on hearing aids" is mostly because it comes at the expense of sign language.

If you're deaf and live in a Deaf community (i.e. with sign language), you will function normally in virtually every way. If you're deaf and live in a hearing community with hearing aids, you'll be forever impaired. With hearing aids and/or CI you will still be hard of hearing, you will still struggle with group conversations, at the beach or in a swimming pool, in noisy environments and so on.

Secondly, the Deaf community strongly objects to the notion that lack of hearing is a handicap and instead consider it a cultural difference. Somehow, when (we) hearing people think of the deaf we consider it a disability to e.g. have to use a vibrating wakeup alarm, but we don't consider our own inability to fall asleep in a noisy place a disability.

(For reference, deaf=impaired hearing, Deaf=sign language user)

[olalonde]

My comparison was aimed at your second point. Deaf people not considering it as a disability is a coping mechanism. If there was a cure for deafness, nearly all deaf people would take it and conversely, almost no one intentionally seeks to become deaf (of course, there are exceptions).

[keiferski]

It is not as simple as you're suggesting here. Deaf people have their own culture and language, and while it is built on a lack of something considered normal by others, that doesn't mean it's inherently just a disability that would / should be eliminated unquestionably.

Consider a similar example: if immigrant parents could instantly make their children forget their native languages and learn English fluently, many would choose to do so – as it would give the children more economic/social advantages. And yet I don't think we really want to say that not doing that, and instead retaining the native language and culture, would be a coping mechanism.

Culture and disability is a really complicated thing and deaf culture specifically should not be brushed away as just a coping mechanism.

(Side note: I am deaf in one ear and agree with the commenter above that it's actually a benefit for going to sleep, but of course this isn't considered a benefit by society at large.)

[terryf]

Thank you for this explanation. This is really interesting. I'm not deaf, so this is very difficult for me to understand, but that doesn't mean it's not important.

I'm trying to find something to compare to, but not sure if I'm getting this right.

I can't sense radio waves in the 87-110Mhz range, but let's imagine that most people can. This means that they can hear all the FM radios all the time.

Certainly, this would be very annoying, especially if you are not able to block it out. In this sense, I would be better off - one less annoying thing to deal with.

Of course, everyone else would be able to be up to date with all the news instantly, as they would always hear them from the radio. And, assuming you also had the ability to "tune the station" that you can hear, you would be able to listen to music or interesting shows all the time. This would be good and fun.

Would I miss the ability that everyone else has? This is a very interesting question and I don't know the answer.

But, I would think that if someone gave me a wearable FM radio that I could turn on/off at will, I would think that I certainly would accept that.

Again, I'm sorry if this is not a good analogy and as all analogies this doesn't really capture all the nuances of course, but would this be similar at least in theory?

[8372049]

> I would think that if someone gave me a wearable FM radio that I could turn on/off at will, I would think that I certainly would accept that.

In this way it is an apt analogy, since many deaf get CI. The implant process removes any residual hearing, so the moment they turn it off everything is completely quiet. It's nowhere near a fully qualified hearing, however, so it's useful as a supplement to sign language, not as a replacement.

I don't know of a good analogy for it, but sign language obviously also carries with it some advantages and disadvantages that vocal communication does not. You need a flashlight to talk in darkness, but you can talk (sign) as much as you want in a library, through a soundprood window or in a noisy environment.

The conversation dynamics are also completely different. Often everyone will sit in a big circle with multiple conversations going on at once, and you can "opt in" to the one you want by watching whoever is speaking.

[keiferski]

Yeah, it's complicated for sure. I think this is probably a good example, except that deaf people functionally get along fine in the world, for the most part. At least nowadays. Whereas in your example, it seems like the people without the radio ability are just inherently behind everyone else in terms of information access. And in your example world, the people without the radio ability would need to have their own unique subculture and language where they can communicate and relate to each other in ways inaccessible to the radio masses.

Personally, I do think the sense of hearing is important enough to be worth acquiring. But the underlying point, I think, is that deaf culture is not just a rationalization or coping mechanism. It's a fully-fledged culture. And while gaining the sense of hearing is probably "worth it" and a net gain, you're also losing something in the process.

To use myself as an example (although I'm not completely deaf) – while I wouldn't mind having my deaf ear fixed, being half-deaf has also shaped my personality and sense of self. So I wouldn't want to just label it as an unimportant coping mechanism, as it's much more fundamental than that – even if I ultimately did want to fix it. I imagine deaf people getting cochlear implants feel somewhat similar.

Evaluating it purely as a broken thing that is now fixed doesn't capture that aspect. And it's worth reflecting on how this idea that "useful = always better" is just a default assumption.

The language learning example I used is a good one in this instance: while it's nice that people can communicate more by learning English, it's also a process of destruction as local languages and cultures are eliminated and assimilated into a global English-language culture. The assumption that vocal communication + hearing is superior to sign language is a similar situation.

[8372049]

> Deaf people not considering it as a disability is a coping mechanism.

No, it's not, and this claim just shows your ignorance and prejudice.

> If there was a cure for deafness, nearly all deaf people would take it

This is pure conjecture, and I frankly think you are wrong.

> almost no one intentionally seeks to become deaf

Do you genuinely not understand that this has more to do with culture, language, habits and the familiar, not to mention ignorance of what it means to be deaf/Deaf, than an accurate judgment of the qualities of hearing vs. silence?

[trueismywork]

"Your" life is awesome.

[nine_k]

«Maturity is when the thoughts of mortality stop to evoke fear and start to induce moderate optimism.»

«I'm not afraid of dying, I'm afraid of dying pointlessly.»

(Don't remember the attribution.)

[YurgenJurgensen]

You have only considered the consequences of you living forever. It wouldn’t just be you, it’d be everyone. Well, more likely, it’d just be the rich, and you’d just have to hope you’re rich enough to afford it. And good luck with social mobility in a world where the ‘generational wealth’ doesn’t need the ‘generational’ part. You’ll find that an internship at a company with the potential to eventually give a high-paying job in a few decades needs 80 years of experience, three PhDs and a personal recommendation letter from at least one legendary figure just to make it to interview because you’re competing in a job market with immortals.

This feels similar to the people who advocate for dictatorships because they picture themselves as the dictators, and end up having their faces eaten by leopards. Statistically, you’re overwhelmingly likely to not end up in the elite in this new deathless world.

[terryf]

I'm certainly not part of the elite even in the current deathful world :)

And yes, of course there will be issues, difficult ones. But life is, was and will always be filled with difficulty, obstacles, struggles and failures. Mine certainly is.

However, I believe in progress and overcoming obstacles and I believe that if we ever manage to extend life, we will figure out ways to make it work.

There is a lot of talk how finding jobs is more difficult these days if you are young and do not have experience. That real-estate is so expensive that nobody is able to afford it.

And I'm sure it's true.

But I also see a lot of young people succeeding and thriving in ways that I could not even have thought of. Therefore, I think there is reason to believe that the next generation will be able to find a way to make it work. As has every generation before.

When I was younger I used to think that situations in the world are now radically different from what the previous generation had to deal with. And on the first level of abstraction, they are! Computers did not exist for the generation before me. So of course it was new.

However, that is just the first level of abstraction. Take the second level of abstraction and you can look back and identify things that are completely new for each new generation. I mean, how different was the concept of going to work in a factory with a loom from the previous generation where machines did not exist at all!

[mathgeek]

> Therefore, I think there is reason to believe that the next generation will be able to find a way to make it work. As has every generation before.

It’s worth remembering that many generations lost a significant percentage of their population to war, death, famine, etc. They didn’t always find a way to make it work without significant death and suffering. Many who died probably wouldn’t say “we made it work” for their own lives.

[terryf]

This is certainly true, but I don't understand what you are trying to say in the context of this thread?

[keiferski]

Yes I think most people here aren’t considering the fact that technology is rarely evenly distributed.

Rawls’ veil of ignorance is relevant here:

In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

[BenFranklin100]

Except in the short term, technology is one of the few things that almost always ends being distributed evenly. 2000 years ago, the only way to get running water was to be Ceaser and command a slave, “Go run and get me water.” Now one turns a tap. Similar arguments can be made to innovations ranging from household appliances to medical advances that were only available to the wealthy 50 years ago.

You also overestimate the power of entrenched interests and underestimate the political agency of those who live in a functioning democracy.

[wizzwizz4]

Ancient Romans had tap water. We get the word "plumbing" from Latin. Also, from https://www.unesco.org/reports/wwdr/en/2024/s:

> As of 2022, 2.2 billion people were without access to safely managed drinking water (SDG Target 6.1).

I don't think this invalidates your general point, but your specific example is wrong.

[BenFranklin100]

Thanks for the comment. The Roman water system is indeed a marvel and did vastly facilitate access to water for the masses. Specifically though, I was referring to having easy access to tap water within one’s home. That, to my knowledge, was not common, whereas today nearly everyone in the first and second world has that [1].

[1] “It was very rare for a pipe to supply water directly to the home of a private citizen, since Romans would have to acquire an official authorization to validate the direct tap. Water mostly serviced the ground floor in buildings, rarely supplying the upper floors due to the difficulty this would provide in the gravity-powered system. Residents of apartment buildings who lived in the upper floors would have to carry water upstairs and store it in their rooms for sanitary uses” from https://engineeringrome.org/the-water-system-of-ancient-rome....

And yes, there is still many parts of the world still in poverty, but that is changing rapidly and doesn’t change the larger point that technology, by and large, democratizes and filters to the poor.

[keiferski]

In broad strokes, you are correct, however in this case specifically I'm not so sure. Access to healthcare today is extremely unequal. I really doubt it'll become less unequal when immortality is on the line.

[BenFranklin100]

Unequal or not, the the bottom quarter today have better health care than the top quarter 75 years ago. Technology filters down to the masses. We can discuss timelines, but the basic fact is indisputable.

You have provided no evidence that the diffusion of technology will be different under an extended lifespan regime. You just make a bald statement.

[keiferski]

I'm not sure how that is an argument against my initial comment. So the advancements will supposedly drift down to the lower classes over time. Society will still be unequal, and at that point the people with access to the best longevity tech will already be in power.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to provide evidence of a future speculative event, but as I said, more life is about as strong as an incentive as is possible. There are plenty of examples of powerful technology that didn't become more accessible. Nuclear weapons as a prime example.

Now I don't think longevity tech, if such a thing is even possible (and I'm skeptical) will be as restricted as nuclear weapons. But to think that there won't be massive inequalities in access to it + strong power incentives to not distribute it seems naive to me.

[DennisP]

Elites are not the only ones who get cancer treatments. Since the diseases of aging are extremely expensive, it's even likely that national health insurance programs would pay for anti-aging treatments. Longer lifespans would also help counter lower fertility, which is an economic problem for most developed nations.

Long-term, sure, maybe we end up with a social mobility problem. But solving that seems less difficult than solving aging. Even if we didn't solve it, I'm not convinced it would be a bad trade.

Imagine we lived in world with an average lifespan of a thousand years but little social mobility. And some prominent person said "hey I know how to fix this, we'll just kill everyone on their 90th birthday." I doubt many people would consider that a viable solution, rather than a ridiculously bad one.

[robertlagrant]

> This feels similar to the people who advocate for dictatorships because they picture themselves as the dictators, and end up having their faces eaten by leopards. Statistically, you’re overwhelmingly likely to not end up in the elite in this new deathless world.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone saying this.

[elzbardico]

The idea we have of "Generational Wealth" depends on compouding returns and compounding returns require perpetual economic growth which is something that in a sufficiently long timeline is simply not possible.

Also, on capitalism, economic growth is also dependent at some level on population growth.

Eternal life would probably require some kind of socialism.

[robertlagrant]

Well, generational wealth only continues to work if you continue to provide value, somehow. Your money gets inflated away otherwise.

[pineaux]

Yeah, I agree with you. I want all those things and would try to attain them if possible. But I also think it's selfish and "not how it works". I think people are not really made for adapting such a long time. I also think the generations after you would want to own a part of your ecological niche to live in themselves. You might be looking over your shoulder the whole time.

[terryf]

Yes, it is a bit selfish. But it is also okay to be a bit selfish from time to time. After all, it is your life. Of course, this needs to be carefully balanced. But doing things every now and then just because you want to, is okay.

However the "not how it works" comment ... well, you could make that pretty much throughout the time that humans have lived. We have been continuously changing the environment around us to suit our needs and wants. Early farmers burned down forests to get fertilized land. We domesticated crops and animals and bred them to grow the way we wanted them. We built things to make life safer, better and easier.

You could say "that's not how it works" about a tractor or wheat with multiple stems from a single seed.

But of course, there will be problems that need to be overcome if we ever do figure out ways of extending life. But again, there always have been problems with new inventions.

I firmly believe that humanity has the ability to overcome problems, develop, learn and improve. And that aligns well with wanting more life!

[olalonde]

It's the good old appeal to nature[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[chr1]

Well, if people live for really long time like 10000, it would become much easier to travel to other stars with technology that we already have, so there will be plenty of "ecological niche to live in".

[darkerside]

Would it really be much easier? It's already possible, we just would have new generations on the ship when we arrive. We don't care enough about those future generations to take off for a new world today. Will we care more about our own 10000 year futures?

[chr1]

Passing down skills and ideas needed for the mission to survive and succeed over multiple generations is a very hard task.

A group of skilled and motivated people who spend a small percentage of their lives on a ship, is going to be very different from a group that is trapped in a small town for generations.

My estimate would be that the mission to succeed is going to need 10-100x more people on generational ship compared to a transport ship. (million vs tens of thousands.)

[reginald78]

Generation ships could do that without being staffed with immortals.