What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented — Shawn
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
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
they are neo-Epicureans, no? — Shawn
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
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
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 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
What a stark difference from the antinatalist threads that I have seen around and about on this forum. — Shawn
whether at any other point in history was this promoted. I mean, alchemists or the search for the Holy Grail were things — Shawn
Now, the question would be, would you jump on? — Shawn
Does the threat of, and inevitability of death make the act of living life more beautiful / meaningful? — CountVictorClimacusIII
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
Will a supply shortage also push up wages? — CountVictorClimacusIII
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
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
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
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
There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus
What's the difference really between someone who takes faer own life and someone who doesn't? — 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. — Pfhorrest
One is dead, and the other isn't?
Did I win anything?? :-) — Foghorn
Did you factor in exponential population growth? — TheMadFool
There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus
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.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
Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, mature humans can rationalise and practise adaptive preference formation (aka "sour grapes"):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
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
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
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.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, 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
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.Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death? — Foghorn
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.