I was just thinking earlier today that transhumanism is really sort of the ultimate manifestation of my “it may be hopeless but I’m trying anyway” philosophical mantra/motto. Half of that is optimism in the sense opposite antinatalism, but it’s importantly not optimistic in the sense of “everything will just work out okay” that lots of religious folks express. Instead, it acknowledges that everything will NOT be okay, that horrible things will happen like dying, UNLESS we do something about it, and we may not know for sure that we actually can succeed at doing any about it, but there’s nothing but upside to at least TRYING.

Both the pessimism that says trying is hopeless and the optimism that says it’s unnecessary are just lazy excuses not to try, and in doing so to guarantee failure. I’m extremely proud of transhumanists and techno-progressivists more generally, like @David Pearce, for having the courage to dare to at least try to fix the biggest of problems that have always been either seen as hopeless inevitabilities or excused away with happy fantasies as not real problems at all. They’re sort of a manifestation of Camus’ Absurd Hero in that way, too.

Bravo to anyone with the gall to look Death straight in the eye and say “Fuck you, and the pale horse you rode in on.”

Oh, and I guess to answer your actual question:

What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented — Shawn

First and foremost the general excuses for defeatism (quitting) need to be vanquished. I call these broadly “dogmatic transcendentalism” (roughly the religious mindset), “cynical relativism” (basically radical skeptics cum effective nihilists), and most dangerously “dogmatic relativists” (“Postmodernists”) and the “transcendent cynics” (what Postmodernists call “Modernists”) who are doomed to collapse into them. In short, we need people to get on board with the idea that doing something, in general, in every context, is both possible and necessary, neither useless nor hopeless.

I’m extremely proud of transhumanists and techno-progressivists more generally, like David Pearce, for having the courage to dare to at least try to fix the biggest of problems that have always been either seen as hopeless inevitabilities or excused away with happy fantasies as not real problems at all. — Pfhorrest

I was just trying to specify it as a term, and this almost definitionally means they are neo-Epicureans, no?

First and foremost the general excuses for defeatism (quitting) need to be vanquished. I call these broadly “dogmatic transcendentalism” (roughly the religious mindset), “cynical relativism” (basically radical skeptics cum effective nihilists), and most dangerously “dogmatic relativists” (“Postmodernists”) and the “transcendent cynics” (what Postmodernists call “Modernists”) who are doomed to collapse into them. In short, we need people to get on board with the idea that doing something, in general, in every context, is both possible and necessary, neither useless nor hopeless. — Pfhorrest

Well, as these sample populations didn't exist in the 2000's, only around some kind of, dare I say, 'fad' with avoiding accepted existential norms. But, I think it's mostly economical, in how these things are becoming possible?

they are neo-Epicureans, no? — Shawn

In that they’re altruistic hedonists, and generally anti-superstitious, “materialist” pragmatists, they’ve definitely got a lot in common yeah, though I don’t know that that’s enough on its own to define them.

Well, as these sample populations didn't exist in the 2000's, only around some kind of, dare I say, 'fad' with avoiding accepted existential norms. But, I think it's mostly economical, in how these things are becoming possible? — Shawn

I’m not sure what you mean about those populations not existing in the 2000s; the religious have been around for tens of thousands of years, the radical skeptics for thousands, the “Modernists” for hundreds and the Postmodernists for decades.

You are right though that this kind of progress against the oldest of foes like death itself are only now on the verge of technological possibility, but striving to make them technologically possible should have been a driving goal for the whole history of humanity.

You are right though that this kind of progress against the oldest of foes like death itself are only now on the verge of technological possibility, but striving to make them technologically possible should have been a driving goal for the whole history of humanity. — Pfhorrest

Well, I suppose the question is going to be whether just due to recent events T-Humanism is having a fad or whether at any other point in history was this promoted. I mean, alchemists or the search for the Holy Grail were things Kings only got access to, yet nowadays in a short period of time we might see these things become a reality that can be bought at a sufficient price.

Now, the question would be, would you jump on?

I wonder if cheating death is the answer though. Either by prolonging life expectancy further, or by extending life indefinitely.

There a many arguments for and against.

Couple of ones against here:

Does the threat of, and inevitability of death make the act of living life more beautiful / meaningful?
Or, would we eventually become bored and nihilistic immortals? What could that then lead to? Detachment? Desensitization? Would we "act out" because of said boredom? Would we "act out" in destructive ways?

Overpopulation would also become a major problem. We would need to look at expansion beyond one planet, surely.

Or, in the case of life extension as opposed to actual immortality, you'd have the problem of huge ageing populations. Couple of points on the consequences of an ageing population:

1. Creates a decline in the working age population and can have detrimental effects on the economy - e.g. decline in productivity, higher labor cost, reduced business expansion and reduced international competitiveness. Will a supply shortage also push up wages? Will this lead to wage inflation?
2. Increase in health care costs. This is already a major problem in many parts of the world, including mine (Australia). This is due to an increase in the dependency ratio as you get older, with all the co-morbidities and chronic diseases that may come along with it, compounded further by the shortage in the working age population group (point 1).

E.g. Population projections for Australia suggest that there will be four million people aged between 65–84 years by 2022 with rapid acceleration of some age groups (over 65, over 85) in the next ten years...The Government spends around $10 billion per annum on the aged care sector, with around two-thirds of this expenditure directed to residential aged care...due to population ageing, demand is expected to outstrip supply in the next 30 years. Irrespective of where or by whom aged care is provided, Australia is facing a serious workforce shortage..

Source:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/ageingpopulation

In my opinion, extending life expectancy further and / or prolonging it indefinitely has its fair share of philosophical and practical problems. It would be irresponsible to strive for this goal without planning for and resolving the issues that it would create. Or are we assuming a technological utopia here?

I only read a little from Pearce's thread and although he is obviously extremely intelligent, I don't take transhumanism too seriously. It seems to me that they over-estimate what science can do. Then again, I may be very wrong on this topic.

Death is a problem. Perhaps it's the ticket necessary for life. The problem if human beings could live forever, would be boredom. Irrespective of all the technologies that could be offered as a solution for boredom, I think that it can't be overcome in the long term.

I'm not sure I can articulate the intuition behind my argument, but that would be the problem more than death itself. I suppose transhumanists might do good in what they're after, but something about living forever or for a very, very long time is suspect to me.

What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented with technology or longevity extension type ideas? — Shawn

Antibiotics & public health infrastructures since the late 1800s, for instance, have been doing the job (e.g. average life expentancy has at least doubled, IIRC, in less than a century). Sterilized obstetrics, family planning, (eugenics), cryogenics, early cancer detection, etc since the middle of last century. The only "problem" is humanity's impatience with how gradual developments are and so far the lack of "radical breakthroughs" for solving "the death problem" once and for all.

What a stark difference from the antinatalist threads that I have seen around and about on this forum. — Shawn

:up: However, the connection between transhumanism and natalism isn't quite as straightforward as one might think. Immortality is quite obviously going to lead to a huge space/resource crunch - how many people can the earth sustain (carrying capacity of a habitat). Both antintalists and transhumanists may want to stop procreation but obviously for entirely different reasons. - for one, it's too painful, for the other it's overcrowding.

:up:

whether at any other point in history was this promoted. I mean, alchemists or the search for the Holy Grail were things — Shawn

That is a good point. I guess there have always been a mix of defeatism, and Absurd defiance of the so-called “inevitable”.

Now, the question would be, would you jump on? — Shawn

I’m personally hesitant to be an early adopter of any new technology, and especially hesitant about invasive medical interventions, but if the time comes that it’s either risk a new technology or die, life is worth the risk. I just hope I live long enough to get to make that choice.

Does the threat of, and inevitability of death make the act of living life more beautiful / meaningful? — CountVictorClimacusIII

No.

Or, would we eventually become bored and nihilistic immortals? What could that then lead to? Detachment? Desensitization? Would we "act out" because of said boredom? Would we "act out" in destructive ways? — CountVictorClimacusIII

If so, that is another problem to be fixed. We’re talking about transforming the whole human experience for the better, not just prolonging it as it already is. We could fix boredom etc too, make it so that everyone is always happy just to be alive and wondrously fascinated with whatever is going on at the moment, though still to varying degrees depending on the situation.

Will a supply shortage also push up wages? — CountVictorClimacusIII

If so, that’s a good thing. Labor is undervalued right now.

In my opinion, extending life expectancy further and / or prolonging it indefinitely has its fair share of philosophical and practical problems. It would be irresponsible to strive for this goal without planning for and resolving the issues that it would create. Or are we assuming a technological utopia here? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Not assuming one, but aiming for one. “Utopia” shouldn’t be a dirty word; we should be aiming for utopia, but in a practical way. You do raise other problems that will need addressing, but better to survive to face those problems than just die so that we don’t have to face them.

Irrespective of all the technologies that could be offered as a solution for boredom, I think that it can't be overcome in the long term. — Manuel

Boredom is a product of the brain, and a fairly basic one too. If our technologies include making changes to how our brains work, curing boredom should be simple. Not by making new stuff to entertain us, but by letting us not get bored with stuff we already have, letting us feel happy and grateful for all the good things we have no matter how long we’ve had them.

Immortality is quite obviously going to lead to a huge space/resource crunch - how many people can the earth sustain (carrying capacity of a habitat). Both antintalists and transhumanists may want to stop procreation but obviously for entirely different reasons. - for one, it's too painful, for the other it's overcrowding. — TheMadFool

Assuming about half of the current world population do not already have children, if all of them had one child, as did each of their children, etc, and starting now nobody ever died again, global population would stabilize at around 1.5 times what it currently is in about half a century (technically still growing at a rate of like 0.5 people per decade globally, but that’s negligible for a very long time). Out of 8b people currently, the 4b who aren’t parents yet have 2b kids right now (and we’re up to 10b), then in 20ish years those 2b have another 1b kids (and we’re up to 11b), and then 20ish years later they have another half a billion (and we’re up to almost 12b now), and then the last half billion are slowly filled in over many more generations.

I was rather troubled by some of what I read on transhumanism because it would seem to be about extending life as far as possible for certain people. As it is people are living so much longer, and I am not against this, but it does affect the use of resources. I really don't know how long the transhumanists would wish to extend life too, whether it would be another 100 years or what, because it seems a bit vague. At one point, in the discussion, I noticed a remark that by the next century most people will be transhumanists, and that made me wonder how that would stand with the ongoing environmental crisis. There would be so many people on the earth.

It is interesting that the transhumanists are wishing to extend life indefinitely and, on the other hand, antinatalism is suggesting that it is better for future generations not to be born at all. I think that there may be a link, which is about maintaining life indefinitely for the living with total disregard for future generations.

As far as the future of humanity is concerned, there are so many problems, climate change and the likelihood that petroleum will run out. The death of the human race stands out as a mythical possibility, although I don't know if this would ever be global. Transhumanism appears to be wishing to overcome death, for individuals. At one point, David Pearce spoke of head transplants and I wondered how far would human beings go to try overcome death. Is the human ego so intent on continuing indefinitely? I try to keep an open mind to transhumanism but I do wonder about the underlying rhetoric of transhumanism, and I won't be queuing up for a new head when my own becomes worn out.

IN the recent thread on Plato's Phaedo, I was struck by the discussion of whether suicide was ethical. The discussion revolved around the idea that it wasn’t, in light of the fact that humans are chattel of the gods (I think was the expression.) The implication being that as life had been bestowed on us by the gods, it was not fitting to take our own lives, because in some sense we're the property of the gods, that we don’t own ourselves, that we’re not our own property, so to speak. Can’t help but think this is relevant.

*

I was thinking about the issue of suicide when I wrote my own response, because I was reading an exploration of the topic in Camus's 'The Rebel' yesterday. Camus was speaking of the idea of metaphysical rebellion, and, in some ways, both transhumanism and suicide appear as forms of metaphysical rebellion, one in protest against death and one in protest against life.

IN the recent thread on Plato's Phaedo, I was struck by the discussion of whether suicide was ethical. The discussion revolved around the idea that it wasn’t, in light of the fact that humans are chattel of the gods (I think was the expression.) The implication being that as life had been bestowed on us by the gods, it was not fitting to take our own lives, because in some sense we're the property of the gods, that we don’t own ourselves, that we’re not our own property, so to speak. Can’t help but think this is relevant. — Wayfarer

Seems relevant although I don't know how you'll take it.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

Any ideas what the absurdist Camus meant? What's the difference really between someone who takes faer own life and someone who doesn't? We're all, as you once jocularly put it, in the same boat! I have a rejoinder to that - some are in first class and the rest of us are in third class and that might be the difference between life in the lap of luxury, intoxicated as it were with the pleasures life has to offer and thus addicted, we want to live...one more day, just one more day while those at the bottom, who barely manage to scrape a living are much relieved by thanatos knocking on their crumbling doors if they have on that is.

Before we go reaching for immortality it would be good if someone would first provide the proof that life is better than death.

My own personal superstition religion, which is proof of nothing, goes like this...

Consider a baby, and a very old person. Both exude some kind of undefinable "specialness". In my personal superstition religion, that's a taste of the "other side" leaking over in to this world around the edges.

Or, if you prefer, consider the act which evolution declares the most important, procreation. At the moment of orgasm everything we consider to be "me" is totally obliterated, and we couldn't be happier about it. Except that, um, we are in that moment in some place beyond mere happiness. In my personal superstition religion this is reality rewarding us for trying to create new life, with a little taste of death.

And anyway, most of us are mostly dead most of the time already. We spend most of our time on this Earth not focused on reality, but on our thoughts about reality, an immeasurably smaller cardboard cutout imitation of the real thing.

What's the difference really between someone who takes faer own life and someone who doesn't? — TheMadFool

One is dead, and the other isn't?

Did I win anything?? :-)

Assuming about half of the current world population do not already have children, if all of them had one child, as did each of their children, etc, and starting now nobody ever died again, global population would stabilize at around 1.5 times what it currently is in about half a century (technically still growing at a rate of like 0.5 people per decade globally, but that’s negligible for a very long time). Out of 8b people currently, the 4b who aren’t parents yet have 2b kids right now (and we’re up to 10b), then in 20ish years those 2b have another 1b kids (and we’re up to 11b), and then 20ish years later they have another half a billion (and we’re up to almost 12b now), and then the last half billion are slowly filled in over many more generations. — Pfhorrest

Did you factor in exponential population growth? You need to be careful when you use math to make predictions. :point: Mars Climate Orbiter Once bitten twice shy but...there's a sucker born every minute.

One is dead, and the other isn't?

Did I win anything?? :-) — Foghorn

You won the prize but you may not like what for. :lol:

I found David pearces thread on transhumanism a product of a paranoid authoritarian mind.
Dissolution of the material body is inevitable.
Those that are scared or paranoid about death invent all sorts of narratives to avoid it. Do you want to avoid sleep as well!!??
Lack of self esteem,hubris and ruling class materialism causes folks to invent narratives that would make Terry pratchett blush.
Seems like a religion shaped hole...

You won the prize but you may not like what for. :lol: — TheMadFool

:-) :-)

Did you factor in exponential population growth? — TheMadFool

If every person has one child, as I stipulated, then population doesn't grow exponentially, it grows... logarithmically? Sorry it's 4AM and I should sleep. The whole point is that people can keep having kids, but so long as they have kids at below "replacement" levels, then it doesn't matter if the old generation stays around without getting "replaced", the total population converges to some limit instead of diverging to infinity. (If the old generation was still dying, then population would instead be shrinking, as it is in many first-world populations).

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

And his answer to that question was "Fuck that noise, suicide is for quitters... and make-believe fairy-tales are for quitters, too."

There's an odd sort of reality of life which is almost a sort of paradox. The individual living being in the extreme complexity of its existence, as a delicately balanced organism, is very susceptible to death. We all run the risk of dying on a daily basis. Death may be waiting for you around any corner, or curve. But life in general, as a beautiful vast array of all sorts of different organisms, is extremely robust, and resilient in consequence to the occurrence of any possible extermination events.

The beauty of life is found in its diversity, and this provides its strength. Take a look at all the different colours of flowers there are, and think about how difficult it would be to produce such an extensive array. And that's just one simple property, colour.

The fragility of the individual, although it results in the death of each and every one of us, is not a weakness however, because this is the means by which life tests all the different boundaries of the the environment which it inhabits, thereby producing all the diverse individuals which provide its overall strength. We ought not seek to limit diversity, because that would be a self-imposed weakness, making the vulnerability of the individual, universal.

Having spent some time reading David Pearce on the Transhumanism thread, which ended not long ago, I notified myself of a tendency of Transhumanists or individuals seeking to extend their lifespan, as simply not accepting death as a forgone conclusion or brute fact about existence. What a stark difference from the antinatalist threads that I have seen around and about on this forum. — Shawn

Antinatalists recognize that creating children with a progressive genetic disease is morally problematic. Aging ravages and then kills its victims. But “hard” antinatalists haven’t faced up to the nature of selection pressure. Inevitably, natalists will inherit the Earth. So I’d urge antinatalists to swallow hard and embrace the transhumanist agenda. Defeating involuntary aging, death and suffering may take centuries. Yet as far as I can tell, the project is scientifically and sociologically viable – just dauntingly ambitious.

Both the pessimism that says trying is hopeless and the optimism that says it’s unnecessary are just lazy excuses not to try, and in doing so to guarantee failure. I’m extremely proud of transhumanists and techno-progressivists more generally, like David Pearce, for having the courage to dare to at least try to fix the biggest of problems that have always been either seen as hopeless inevitabilities or excused away with happy fantasies as not real problems at all. They’re sort of a manifestation of Camus’ Absurd Hero in that way, too. — Pfhorrest

Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, mature humans can rationalise and practise adaptive preference formation (aka "sour grapes"):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-live-forever-immortality-study-b1862042.html
(“Only a third of Americans want to live forever, with men more likely than women to take ‘immortality pill’ Responses varied based on the age a person would be “frozen” at if they were given immortality")

Barring revolutionary breakthroughs, I’m less optimistic than Aubrey de Grey about timescales for defeating aging:
https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/story/is-there-a-cure-for-aging
But even if we don’t personally benefit, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that our successors don’t undergo the miseries of senescence and bereavement.

Hi there!

Defeating involuntary aging, death and suffering may take centuries. Yet as far as I can tell, the project is scientifically and sociologically viable – just dauntingly ambitious. — David Pearce

Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death?

It seems nature has made a firm decision that death is an important part of reality. Every single creature ever born has died. And we are smart enough to over rule nature on this point?

Boredom is a product of the brain, and a fairly basic one too. If our technologies include making changes to how our brains work, curing boredom should be simple. Not by making new stuff to entertain us, but by letting us not get bored with stuff we already have, letting us feel happy and grateful for all the good things we have no matter how long we’ve had them. — Pfhorrest

The issue is sustaining being grateful for a very, very long time. I'd think we'd need a different type of brain to be able to do that.

Immortality is quite obviously going to lead to a huge space/resource crunch - how many people can the earth sustain (carrying capacity of a habitat). — TheMadFool

Only mass 'biological immortality' has Malthusian consequences, and so this prospect would be accessible exclusively to "elites & 1%ers" unless, however, a nonbiological alternative (e.g. "mind uploading" ...) can be developed.

Only mass 'biological immortality' has Malthusian consequences, but this prospect will be accessible exclusively to "elites & 1%ers" unless, however, a nonbiological alternative (e.g. "mind uploading" ...) can be developed. — 180 Proof

An eye-opener. Thanks for making me aware of other...less conventional...ways we could immortalize ourselves. A time will probably come when immortalizing someone is going to shift from the familiar - books, statues, buildings, foundations, etc. - to the novel - mind uploading, consciousness transfer, and other future tech means of extracting the mind out of the brain, preserving it and moving it to a new medium.

Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death? — Foghorn

But the problem, to quote Wittgenstein, is that "Death is not an event in life". Even if we share a Benatarian pessimism about the human predicament, we should have compassion for aging humans tormented by increasing decrepitude and their own mortality – and the loss of loved ones. Defeating the biology of aging is morally imperative.
In contrast to Darwinian life, transhuman life will seem self-evidently wonderful by its very nature.