Imagine that the status quo was that everyone lived forever. If someone suggested that we should kill literally everyone to solve overpopulation or rich people or meaning of life or whatever, they would rightly be called batshit insane.
The problems that would arise as a result of a “cure for aging” should result in societal decisions that fix existing problems we just push to the side because death kind of solves them.
Making people like forever would automatically incentivise people to solve a whole host of problems.
The young care more about the future because they worry how emerging problems may affect them, and death is distant and abstract. Whereas older people feel their mortality more concretely, and wonder how they extract as much in the time they have left.
We can't currently cure aging and there is little convincing evidence that suggests we will be able to anytime soon. This is despite the claims of many attempts at peddling false hopes by folks like David Sinclair and Aubrey de Grey. We can mitigate some downsides of aging at best. Aging is baked into our genes as natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach.
How do you suppose that is? If a species were completely able to avoid the effects of aging (including age-related diseases and degeneration) what evolutionary reason would there be for death at such an early age. Especially in the case of mammals, the process of rearing the young is a large investment of resources which takes a long time to produce a return. Surely it would be better to minimize that expenditure and have members of your species who've had time to learn from their experiences. If population were to become a problem, there are already plenty of instances of species killing their own for various reasons so some form of population control doesn't seem to be an entirely unexpected adaption. Sure there may have been other things that were more prescient at the time such as disease, lack of food, etc. But I don't see why not aging would be evolutionarilly unfavourable?
I'd split things into 3 cases: (1) aging is something for which there is a strong evolutionary pressure, (2) aging was dominated by other factors and is more or less indpendent of evolution, and (3) aging is something that is strongly unfavourable in evolution. In case (1), it may be that there are strong genetic mechanisms for evolution which we cannot reverse without changing genetic data. In case (3), we have to ask the question of why we age, given evolution has worked against it. If there were some compound that could prevent aging significantly, why don't more of us naturally produce it. Case (2) is where I'd expect the problem to be the most attainable. The existence of certain compounds that seem to alleviate aging significantly might be interpreted as evidence against the third case. If such (often naturally ocurring) compounds exist, then why don't we produce them? Of course, more evidence would be necessary to say anything conclusive.
Are you basing this on research you've seen that runs counter to the unbridled optimism of Sinclair and others, or is this belief of yours just a consequence of your belief about "natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach"? I'm just wondering for myself, as an outsider to all this, what reason I would have to take your view rather than theirs.
This is probably the key flaw with TFA. It makes the claim in the headline, and then doesn't back it up at all. Not a single reference or fact to justify this rather staggering assertion.
yes. current medical science is having issues treating simple thing with humans (paralysis or any thing related to it ). solving aging, may be in next 500 years.
Interestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.
It's obviously bad to want other people to die but there is a case to be made that no life (that can suffer) should be created. It also depend on what we mean by immortal, are they technically just alive? Or actively flourishing?
Just because I might turn chicken in my old age doesn't mean that my death wouldn't be a benefit for most people.
There's one other way to "solve" overpopulation, and it's galactic conquest. Everything else we might do eventually devolves into nothing but shades of austerity and deprivation as we divide our planet up between more people.
That's not to say that technical progress won't mitigate that problem. And yet, as it mitigates it, we tend to just make more people...so it's not like we're manufacturing much more runway for ourselves as a species.
By this logic, death bed conversions are a strong argument for the existence of god.
In any case, I can't recall there being an epidemic of people doing the thing you're saying they do all the time: are you thinking of any specific examples?
<woo-woo-bullshit> The very idea of “overpopulation” is a rich man’s trick to arrest Humanity’s collectively-singular evolution to Oneness. We can become The Pyramid Unfinished together instead, racing against ourself to convert lifetimes worth of our only truly-limited human resource (our attention) into a non-human form that can be accumulated into a godlike simulacrum, beating death via the symmetric property of equality where money also equals time :)
The cost to manufacture medicine is cheap. The cost of surgical procedures and rehabilitation costs are extreme. Seems like a no brainer, and even accounting for the social effects of people living longer the odds are people will die of something in 300 years on average. If the gov wants a healthy and productive workforce, funding and providing medicine to slow down or stop aging will be a boon to society.
Essays like this are dubious at best. As if anyone, any agency or government, could stop one or more billionaires if they chose to pursue immortality despite public opinion saying it's a bad idea. They will, they are, and if asked any elite wealth or world class power will say whatever is expected, despite what they are really doing.
Similarly, who would get such a treatment in the first place? Most working people can’t afford or access far simpler medical care, a problem that’s only been getting worse.
I’d be just fine with science prolonging my prime years, even if it didn’t mean living longer. My hope is that the life of my eyes, skin, and teeth are all able to make it in good condition into relatively old age — I don’t necessarily mean looking younger per se, but in good/decent working order.
"Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure.
If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".
You do realize it's only going to be available for very rich people right? Assuming that the technology is not trivial, only the rich will ever get it. Same thing with genetically modified kids. Even if it is trivial, corporations will just hike up the price because clearly everyone wants it.
I wonder if FDR would still be in office if he were still alive? It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how long he'd have lasted given his prior record.
In the USA, the baby boomer gerontocracy has amassed dominating wealth and power to the detriment of all. It's daunting to imagine a world where they never die. "Do something about it" is much easier said than done.
Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?
While I don’t find the arguments in the article compelling (ie population increases are good as they lead to growth), enabling humans to live forever has a more dire consequence: an acceleration of the inequality gap.
Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.
I recommend 17776 [1] to anyone interested in the question of what a society of immortal humans would look like. It's thought-provoking and well-put-together.
Everyone seems to assume that memory capacity is infinite, what if it is not and our brains fill up and can not function as well after that point? Or maybe in order to store new memories you have to give up older ones by overwriting them. Are you you if you can't keep your memories?
I don't think anyone assumes that. Our brain is very good at forgetting things deemed unimportant. Your question is already applicable now. Ask me what I just read and I can give you a clear answer. Ask me the same question in 4 weeks and I most likely couldn't give you an answer. Am I the same person? Most people would say yes.
But this already happens all the time. You forget the vast majority of things that happen to you. I feel like we just basically compress the narrative of our lives better and better as time goes on, while dropping details we in the end don't care much about.
By all means we should cure aging. Aging and longevity are not the same thing. Many people would prefer to live their entire lifes as they were young, healthy and at the top of their game, then peacefully die at a preset age of 101 yo.
Sounds creepy :-)
i do like the idea that it would, at least in theory, allow humans to become as powerful as corporations in the US (because humans, too, would be able to live forever, accumulate wealth and power, etc.).
If science invented a way to turn each human into an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, bioethicists would have an essay five minutes later about how deeply problematic it was.
No one loves throwing cold water over literally everything more than bioethicists.
So people would still die because of the passage of time, but would stay healthy? But if they stay healthy without any age-related conditions, what would they die of?
This whole idea that forced death is necessary is stupid. We need to let go of it.
Well that part is pretty easy for most people though a combination of frequent exercise, good nutrition, proper sleep hygiene, and avoidance of substance abuse. It doesn't even require any medications. It does require a certain degree of discipline.
[+] [-] solveit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RayVR|3 years ago|reply
The problems that would arise as a result of a “cure for aging” should result in societal decisions that fix existing problems we just push to the side because death kind of solves them.
[+] [-] underwater|3 years ago|reply
The young care more about the future because they worry how emerging problems may affect them, and death is distant and abstract. Whereas older people feel their mortality more concretely, and wonder how they extract as much in the time they have left.
[+] [-] theGnuMe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 01100011|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordanozang|3 years ago|reply
I'd split things into 3 cases: (1) aging is something for which there is a strong evolutionary pressure, (2) aging was dominated by other factors and is more or less indpendent of evolution, and (3) aging is something that is strongly unfavourable in evolution. In case (1), it may be that there are strong genetic mechanisms for evolution which we cannot reverse without changing genetic data. In case (3), we have to ask the question of why we age, given evolution has worked against it. If there were some compound that could prevent aging significantly, why don't more of us naturally produce it. Case (2) is where I'd expect the problem to be the most attainable. The existence of certain compounds that seem to alleviate aging significantly might be interpreted as evidence against the third case. If such (often naturally ocurring) compounds exist, then why don't we produce them? Of course, more evidence would be necessary to say anything conclusive.
[+] [-] Winsaucerer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grishka|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hello1234567|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derbOac|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whichfawkes|3 years ago|reply
I'd rather have 80 good years than 80 years of progressive decline.
[+] [-] Filligree|3 years ago|reply
The answer to the article's question is, of course, 'yes'.
[+] [-] jackblemming|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kajaktum|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whichfawkes|3 years ago|reply
There's one other way to "solve" overpopulation, and it's galactic conquest. Everything else we might do eventually devolves into nothing but shades of austerity and deprivation as we divide our planet up between more people.
That's not to say that technical progress won't mitigate that problem. And yet, as it mitigates it, we tend to just make more people...so it's not like we're manufacturing much more runway for ourselves as a species.
[+] [-] karaterobot|3 years ago|reply
In any case, I can't recall there being an epidemic of people doing the thing you're saying they do all the time: are you thinking of any specific examples?
[+] [-] Lammy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datacruncher01|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carapace|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsenftner|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontlaugh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProfessorLayton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XorNot|3 years ago|reply
"Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure.
If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".
[+] [-] kajaktum|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaorace|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roca|3 years ago|reply
Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?
[+] [-] h0l0cube|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syncerr|3 years ago|reply
Death provides a natural mechanism to reset wealth and power. Without it, power will accumulate to those who already have it, forever.
[+] [-] teaearlgraycold|3 years ago|reply
Have you heard of inheritance?
[+] [-] thirdmunky|3 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football
[+] [-] rapjr9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rowanG077|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmakurtisaani|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr1970|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melagonster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samename|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|3 years ago|reply
"Problem solving says we could cure ageing."
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FiatLuxDave|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grishka|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readonthegoapp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] civilized|3 years ago|reply
No one loves throwing cold water over literally everything more than bioethicists.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|3 years ago|reply
No one is paying you to say everything is fine!
[+] [-] exolymph|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grishka|3 years ago|reply
This whole idea that forced death is necessary is stupid. We need to let go of it.
[+] [-] nradov|3 years ago|reply