Talk-Polywell.org

Betruger wrote:Yup.

I would add that there is no statistical sample to base ourselves on for what happens long term in, or for how predictable is, such a future of long lived populations. Because of lifespan (cultural horizon) and because of the usual technological horizon.

A looming cambrian explosion, for all we know.

(1) The greatest benefit of life extension is the continued existence of the individual who remains alive. Each individual – apart from the worst criminals – has incalculable moral value and is a universe of ideas, experiences, emotions, and memories. When a person dies, that entire universe is extinguished, and, to the person who dies, everything is lost and not even a memory remains. It is as if the individual never existed at all. This is the greatest possible loss and should be averted if at all possible. The rest of us, of course, also lose the possible benefits and opportunities of interacting with that individual.

(2) People would be able to accomplish far more with longer lifespans. They could pursue multiple careers and multi-year personal projects and could reliably accumulate enough resources to sustainably enjoy life. They could develop their intellectual, physical, and relational capabilities to the fullest. Furthermore, they would exhibit longer-term orientations, since they could expect to remain to live with the consequences of decisions many decades and centuries from now. I expect that a world of longer-lived individuals would involve far less pollution, corruption, fraud, hierarchical oppression, destruction of other species, and short-term exploitation of other humans. Prudence, foresight, and pursuit of respectful, symbiotic interactions would prevail. People would tend to live in more reflective, measured, and temperate ways instead of seeking to haphazardly cram enjoyment and activity into the tiny slivers of life they have now. At the same time, they would also be more open to experimentation with new projects and ideas, since they would have more time to devote to such exploratory behaviors.

(3) Upon becoming adults, people would no longer live life in strict stages, and the normative societal expectations of “what one should do with one’s life” at a particular stage would relax considerably. If a person at age 80 is biologically indistinguishable from a person at age 20, the strict generational divides of today would dissipate, allowing a much greater diversity of human interactions. People will tend to become more tolerant and cosmopolitan, having more time to explore other ways of living and to understand those who are different from them.

(4) Technological, scientific, and economic progress would accelerate rapidly, because precious intellectual capital would not be lost to the ravages of death and disease. Longer-lived humans would be more likely to invest in projects that would materialize over the course of decades, including space travel and colonization, geo-engineering and terraforming, prevention of asteroid impacts and other natural disasters, safe nuclear disarmament and disposal of nuclear waste, and long-term preservation of the human species. The focus of most intelligent people would shift from meeting quarterly or annual business earnings goals and toward time- and resource-intensive projects that could avert existential dangers to humankind and also expand humanity’s reach, knowledge, and benevolence. The achievement of significant life extension would inspire many intelligent people to try to solve other age-old problems instead of resigning to the perception of their inevitability.

(5) Major savings to health-care systems, both private and governmental, would result if the largest expenses – which occur in the last years of life today, in the attempt to fight a losing battle against the diseases of old age – are replaced by periodic and relatively inexpensive rejuvenation and maintenance treatments to forestall the advent of biological senescence altogether. Health care could truly become about the pursuit of sustainable good health instead of a last-ditch effort against the onslaught of diseases that accompanies old age today. Furthermore, the strain on public pensions would be alleviated as advanced age would cease to be a barrier to work.

What drawbacks would life extension pose?

I do not see true drawbacks to life extension. Certainly, the world and all human societies would change significantly, and there would be some upheaval as old business models and ways of living are replaced by new ones. However, this has happened with every major technological advance in history, and in the end the benefits far outweigh any transitional costs. For the people who remain alive, the avoidance of the greatest loss of all will be well worth it, and the human capacity for adaptation and growth in the face of new circumstances is and has always been remarkable. Furthermore, the continued presence of individuals from older generations would render this transition far more humane than any other throughout history. After all, entire generations would no longer be swept away by the ravages of time. They could persist and preserve their knowledge and experience as anchors during times of change.

Every day, approximately 150,000 people die, and approximately 100,000 of them die from causes related to senescence. If those deaths can be averted and the advent of indefinite life extension accelerated by even a few days, hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable individual universes would be preserved. This is worth paying even substantial costs in my view, but, fortunately, I think the other – economic and societal – effects that accompany life extension would be overwhelmingly positive as well.

ladajo wrote:Social Security?
How in the world will we afford it?

JohnFul wrote:Oh my. Get your degree in underwater basket weaving, accrue $100K in "college education" debt with no job prospects, and wonder why. What has this world come to? DOn't expect me to fund your folly...

(5) Major savings to health-care systems, both private and governmental, would result if the largest expenses – which occur in the last years of life today, in the attempt to fight a losing battle against the diseases of old age – are replaced by periodic and relatively inexpensive rejuvenation and maintenance treatments to forestall the advent of biological senescence altogether. Health care could truly become about the pursuit of sustainable good health instead of a last-ditch effort against the onslaught of diseases that accompanies old age today. Furthermore, the strain on public pensions would be alleviated as advanced age would cease to be a barrier to work.

ladajo wrote:I foresee a future where compounded effects increase the socioeconomic divide (exponentially).
I pity the 'new-borns'...

williatw wrote:

Betruger wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

This perception bothers me quite a lot. Considering the sweep of history, i'm not sure extending lives is necessarily a good thing at all. I can just imagine what a longer lived Caligula might have accomplished.

Uhh..Caligula didn't die of old age; believe he died young and relatively healthy; was killed by his chief bodyguard who he mercilessly teased and bullied.

williatw wrote: Neither did Hitler (bang) or Saddam Hussein, or possibly not even Stalin (maybe poisoned). In other words there is more than one way to skin a cat; or kill an evil dictator, don't have to wait for old age to do it. And no need to kill everyone else just to get the few evil sociopaths who deserve it.

williatw wrote: On the other hand...the level of "debauchery and oppression" and plain old bat-shit craziness a thousand year old Hillary Clinton (or Madonna) would be capable of does give me pause; and I imagine they would be real good at dodging the assassin's bullet, and taking horrendous sadomasochistic revenge against the perpetrators if they somehow survived.

Betruger wrote:Yup.

I would add that there is no statistical sample to base ourselves on for what happens long term in, or for how predictable is, such a future of long lived populations. Because of lifespan (cultural horizon) and because of the usual technological horizon.

A looming cambrian explosion, for all we know.