HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

TIL this exists in text form. Here's the same thing but as a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ Orthanc

For the record, I suspect most Hacker News readers would get a lot more out of the text version. There was a lot of detail trimming to make it work as a video.

Pretty cool fable by Nick Bostrom: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon and the animated version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ matkoniecz

which is not really connected to this topic at all, except that word dragon is used in both

I like the allegory of the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoJsr4IwCm4

CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25qzDhGLx8 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

I have to say I like this somewhat poetic way of writing, especially the sentences with which the author ends paragraphs. Very rich.

On a different note, no. Let's fight death. Fuck aging. We can fight it. We don't have to suffer like cattle under it. We can beat it.

There are plenty of longevity focused startups and academic research groups, and yet we're not spending nearly enough effort and money on this problem. It affects every human on earth, and the immense benefits of adding even one year of healthy lifespan to 7 billion people make it a moral imperative to act upon.

Fighting death should be a multi-national effort that we focus on with all our might, _right now_. You shouldn't have to die.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ bigChris

Warren Buffett is probably working hard to buy more time. Sad reality, we just don’t know the outcome after death. If we knew the outcome, it will be okay to accept it.

Even after too much psychedelics. It still doesn’t help anyone accept the deep void of not knowing.

⬐ magpi3

The way I look at it: the year after I die will be just as difficult as the year before I was born. IOW not a care in the world.

I understand being afraid of death because self-preservation is built into us, but unless there really is some hellfire that some of us will be thrown into for all eternity (unlikely but boy would that suck), then logic dictates that it will bother us just as much as our non-existence bothered us for the billions (trillions?) of years before our births.

⬐ phasersout

I can tell you right away that eternal hellfire is made up because nothing is infinite.

⬐ magpi3

Yes, but if nothing is infinite, then when did the universe begin and how? I always struggle with this. Presumably something must have always been, and it is that always that throws a wrench in my secular vision of the universe.

⬐ rscho

Yes, you really should die. If you want to have kids, that is. What shouldn't be is growing old and weak. That's the real pain.

⬐ r3trohack3r

Could you expand a bit more on why death is a desirable outcome once you procreate?

⬐ rscho

Because interstellar travel is probably much harder than extend people's lifespan to unreasonable extents. Your children will need room to thrive. Of course, you could argue it's others who have to die. But that seems a morally difficult position.

⬐ r3trohack3r

I love the positive sum framing in your response. Yes earths resources are technical finite, though I’m not sure that’s true in a meaningful sense.

Humans are already well past the natural carrying capacity of the planet for our species. But we’ve figured it out an have been (mostly) successful. I don’t see why that would change between now and when we get access to off planet resources. Especially if humans live forever - priorities are able to shift quite a bit when you can think longer term (what’s 100 years of effort to solve this problem compared to infinity?).

⬐ tjpnz

I still wouldn't call death desirable outcome but having kids did start putting many things into perspective. Admittedly there's a certain comfort I take in knowing that a part of me will continue to exist here. Even if the generations that come afterwards have no memory of me as a person.

⬐ namero999

Why? Life is long enough when well lived. My intuition is decisively against the idea of stretching longevity. How about we try to make more meaningful the time we are given rather than having more capacity for idleness and dread?

⬐ ryeights

> Life is long enough when well lived.

[citation needed]

⬐ EEMac

"Every man's life is sufficient." - Marcus Aurelius

⬐ tarboreus

Well, feel free to die, but I kind of like living and want to do more of it.

⬐ lisper

> You shouldn't have to die.

Yes, you should. Either that, or no one can have children. It's finite planet, and it's already over-flowing with people and their detritus.

Not only that, but if people don't die, then the first generation that doesn't die will end up ruling forever over everyone who has the misfortune of being born later. In a world where no one dies, someone like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un can and will rule quite literally forever. The U.S. Supreme Court will have no turnover.

⬐ mwint

I suspect in a world where people aren't dying, lifetime appointments would be revised.

⬐ andyjohnson0

With some regret, I agree.

If we eventually become a post-scarcity, multi-plantary species then significant life extension or immortality might work. But in the near future it would be a environmental and social calamity.

⬐ faluzure

You’re assuming the status quo will continue. How will a small group in the Supreme Court maintain power if there’s enough of a willing population to oust them?

Your example of King Jong Un doesn’t work either, because it’s still a dictatorship, and father and grandfather were both dictators, and they both died, so why does it matter?

The world is overflowing with detritus because the incentive structures are not there. If people lived much longer they might be more willing to spend the time to clean up.

⬐ lisper

> How will a small group in the Supreme Court maintain power if there’s enough of a willing population to oust them?

Supreme court justices serve for life. The only way to "oust" a supreme court justice (in the U.S.) is through impeachment. In the entire history of the U.S. no supreme court justice has ever been removed against their will. The assumption of mortality is deeply embedded into the U.S. Constitution. (Yes, you could amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.)

> so why does it matter?

Because there is at least a possibility that the next generation Kim might be better. Or that a Kim might die childless.

> If people lived much longer they might be more willing to spend the time to clean up.

Yes, that's possible, but much more likely those in power would continue to do what they do now: build enclaves for themselves that keep out the riff-raff.

⬐ toast0

> We don't have to suffer like cattle under it.

Most cattle don't suffer from aging. Beef cattle are usually killed in their first year or two. Dairy cows live longer, but tend to be killed after their milk output drops enough (which I guess you could call aging, but they could live for many more years after that).

If you're proposing fighting aging, but against a backdrop of euthenization, ala Logan's Run, I'm in, but we'll need to rebuild the Dallas mall everyone lives in. But if it's trying to get the general population to have a life expectency of 100+, I'm not sure that's a grand plan.

> This is the kind of thing that could possibly be worth trillions of dollars.

I think it would also have a profound impact on society and culture. Just how we think about the world differently as our lifespan extends. I think that makes a lot of people scared.

Discussing this with others I see a few things people are highly concerned with but I'm unsure if they would actually happen (as in, I'm uncertain either way). The first is over population. The reason I'm not convinced this would be a problem is that most western countries have declining populations (without immigration) and world wide we've seen dramatic reductions in birth rates. World fertility rate is about 2.4 (replacement level is 2.0)[0]. The other aspect is political. People think change happens on the generation level. But I'm not entirely convinced of this either. We can take attitudes of same sex-marriage as an example[1][2]. A generation is 20 years but our (US) views have changed substantially faster than that. Especially if you include LGBT[3] (I couldn't find timeline sources for European attitudes as easily. Even when looking for specific countries and including quotes). I agree that there's a correlation with generations, but I'm not convinced it is a principle component.

I also wonder how we would think about the future. Interesting to be is that a lot of Eastern cultures typically are more future oriented in their thinking (as compared to typical Western, and I wouldn't say by too much). I would expect that longer lifespans would put pressure to be more cognizant. Would a crisis that is 100 years out seem as far away? Hard to say. We might even have to live with longer lifetimes for awhile for that to happen.

All I know is that it would cause big changes. But I'm not sure that should stop us from pursuing this technology unless we see major pitfalls ahead of time and find that they are insurmountable obstacles to overcome. There are clearly issues with increased longevity (especially the disproportionate use of it) as many dystopian SciFis have pointed out. But I think it is better that we at least discuss these things in the open since the technology itself is no longer in the realm of fantasy but has graduated to the realm of possibility. There's too much money being put in this technology now for us to not take the questions of the impact of it seriously. Even if 10+ years out (even 50+) I don't think we should dismiss them. If we're talking about culture shifts, maybe one of the best things we could do is talk about the impacts (pros/cons and how to use them in fair and equitable means) of technologies before they are here. Maybe we could have some of that discussion here?

I'm normally not a big CGP Grey person, but I do like this video on the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant[4]

[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...

[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ prox

In the movie In Time, people trade time instead of money. (money collapsed after the invention of this tech) Work well and you get extra “life” through a device in your arm. So everyone is perpetually 25.

It’s an interesting exploration of the topic.

I think it's because people think they stop growing. I was listening to Levitt's People I (Mostly) Admire and on a recent show he was talking about progress. How everyone will say in the last 10 years they've changed but if you ask them what they'll be in the next 10 years they think they'll be the same. But there's a lot of insight we often ignore.

I think similarly people ignore political and cultural progress. It's easy to blame the lack of progress on the old guard. But if we look at history we go much faster than that. One great example of this is the legalization of gay marriage. Pee [0] tracks support of it and it's clear that attitude is changing faster than the old people dying.

Also I think part of the problem is we've all gotten used to the Dragon Tyrant[1] that we accept our fate.

[0] https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

[1] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY

The video by CPG Grey is better, as someone else already mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

CGP Grey has a video with him reading the short over some neat drawings, which is more enjoyable I suppose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

13 minute long CGP Grey video of this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ Taylor_OD

This is the best way to take this story in.

I'm reminded of Nick Bostrom's story called "The Dragon Tyrant"[0][1] and David Foster Wallace's "This is Water"[2]. The dragon became so normal in our lives that we do not even question it, like a fish does not question what water is. That we've created a society around this how to deal with this inevitability. But at the end of the day if we could, killing the dragon would be more beneficial and reduce harm by a significant amount.

I see several people in this thread complaining about the economic analysis here or how old people are messing up our world and thus we should fix those things first. For the former question, I see this analysis as adding ammunition to the debate, because many people that determine where we should fund base their decisions on economics. This paper isn't aimed at you, it is aimed at them (speak to your audience). For the latter, I question the premise. Culture has moved too fast that it cannot be purely explained by younger generations dictating the change. This also falls counter to old people controlling everything. So I don't buy the premise. The truth is that if people were living to a thousand years old that society would fundamentally change. Who we consider children and adults would fundamentally change. The truth is that we don't know what this society will look like until we open the box, and until the dust settles. We should be questioning if this is good or bad (we should challenge all ideas) but we need to recognize that this would be such a fundamental change in society that we have no real baseline for determining how we would change. My personal belief is that we do not go quiet into that dark night. There is a lot to fear, but often our fears are irrational. This would save billions of lives, and so I believe it is worth the risk and worth the hardship we will face as society transitions into this new paradigm.

[0]https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

[1](Animated by CGP Grey) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC7xzavzEKY

⬐ gpt5

That's not what happened in practice as health care improved. The retirement age has been increasing together with life expectancy.

The market balances itself so that the cost of living adjusts so that an average person would need to work until retirement age. That's why the cost of living is significantly higher in the bay area.

For better and worse, this capitalistic dynamic is what makes the US so productive as a country.

⬐ godelski

> The retirement age has been increasing together with life expectancy.

I'm unsure with what the issue with this is. But this also isn't true. People have been living longer in retirement. This is often a talking point when people talk about social security. There's a growing gap between when people retire and when they die, and this means people need to save more and that there is more being drawn from social security.

But I do see a huge difference here. If you can live a thousand years then what's the issue of working your first 100? Or 500? Or 900? You talk about capitalism but recognize that capitalism is about consumption. If you generate enough money to live on passive income you don't stop consuming and the wheels don't stop turning. No one stops consuming till they die, capitalism or not. The rich still get rich. But I'd rather have 100+ years of retirement than 20, even if nothing else changes.

⬐ xorfish

The retirement age has risen far slower than life expectancy.

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> My personal belief is that we do not go quiet into that dark night

I think many do. One of my takeaways from the pandemic is that there are people--intelligent, informed, unoppressed people--who will self select away from benefits. Even seemingly obvious ones.

The fictional dystopias of the last century would have had an immortal elite keeping aging treatments from clamoring masses. I don't think that's how it would turn out. Many people--including leaders--would choose not to get the treatment. Still others would push their societies to ban treatments for everyone.

I don't know how you model this. It's a different form of haves and have-nots than we're accustomed to. But it would undoubtedly feed into and ameliorate the concerns brought up in this thread.

⬐ apocalypstyx

Or those who prefer not to (for whatever reason) may be categorized in a way similar to the way we treat the suicidal. Anyone unwilling to attempt to live forever would be considered mentally ill.

⬐ whatshisface

That would require them to be a small minority, which the OP is suggesting would be the opposite of the case.

⬐ apocalypstyx

I guess it depends on the validity of the arguments put forth in Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death.

The important distinction between longevity and the situation surrounding the pandemic is not the rejection of a benefit, but the construction of a fantasy that allows the rejection of the benefit by re-framing it as a detriment. The pandemic itself is recast as 'not that bad' or a 'falsification', further removing the contemplation of the immediacy of death. And with the immediate obstacle removed the subject is able to slip back into fantasies of eternity, of one kind or another, whether implicit or explicit.

Considering how most Western societies (and many others) view suicide, it seems unlikely to me that it would be considered socially acceptable for someone to choose to live half as long as they had the technical option to. Taking the average age of death as 72, would the mental health of someone who chose to die at 36 from a preventable illness not be taken into question? As with sterilization, and other medical procedures such as birth control more broadly and assisted suicide for those suffering extreme medical conditions, bodily autonomy that runs against greater social expectation is resisted.

Or, if the technology had to be administered early, would those who withhold such treatment from their children be considered guilty of child abuse? Again, in current terms, if a child suffered from a medical condition that would kill them at 36, but which was treatable, would it seem likely that the parents, in our present society, would be charged with child abuse?

It's simply a matter of sliding the mark. Cultural attitudes could (and probably would) remain the same. Our fundamental fantasies already provide the basis for and are predicated on eternities. So the reality of longevity merely slots into extant dispositions. So it may not be as revolutionary as suspected.

There would, of course, be those who rejected the technology, but most would do so, I would say, because they believe themselves to possess an alternate way into eternity, perhaps religious, or to be abducted by aliens, but the goal would be the same, whether the efficacy is up to snuff or not.

⬐ jaxr

I don't think the analysis is the same for someone who chooses to die at 36. At 72 you already had the possibility of living a "full life". Meaning had children, see them grow and probably have families of their own; have a career, and even probably changed it a couple of times... At 36, all of that is physiologically not possible. At 144, I imagine probably not much have happened in the last 60 years... Unless increasing the probability of losing a loved one over some kind of accident.

To me, that is not very appealing... Living a healthier live at my 60s and 70s, and be able to be rock climbing with my grandsons and daughters definitely is... Most probably that will translate to longer life expectancy, but I don't think that by itself should be the goal.

⬐ kiba

I have suicidal thoughts before. I prefer not to let my mental health condition determine if I want to die or not.

Try watching videos of old people with Alzheimer's, and try imagining what people will be doing when you are dead to gauge how much your life is worth, and if small risk of dying in a car accident not caused by yourself is acceptable. For me in similar situation answers were not important and acceptable. But if you find that your life is precious to you it still would be better to channel the natural fear of death to more productive venues like https://www.towardzerodeaths.org or much more importantly to donations to https://www.sens.org because we are very close to solving the problem of death for good https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

I disagree, but CGP Grey says it better in The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ sinenomine

I also like this related illustrative video about our attitudes to aging and longevity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoJsr4IwCm4

⬐ Trasmatta

I don't think these are conflicting ideas. We should absolutely do what we can to fight against the aging process, which is horrible in so many ways.

But defeating aging will never mean that we've defeated death. Accidents, murder, disease, and disasters would still happen. And the 2nd law of thermodynamics would still reign supreme eventually, even over effectively "immortal" humans.

So it's important to understand and accept death, even if we continue to work towards a world where nobody has to die of old age.

⬐ jackcosgrove

Immortality would be horrible.

Our brains aren't big enough to hold an eternity of memories, so you would forget who you were to make room for what you'll become. What's the point of immortality without continuity? That's a living death.

And forget about actually cheating death. Imagine if somehow you survived long enough to witness the heat death of the universe. Stuck on some Dyson sphere around a white dwarf for billions of years as the entire universe fades to black and all the things you used to do become impossible because there isn't enough energy to do them. And in the end you still get sucked into a black hole like everyone else, wondering if you are the last living thing in the universe.

Nah I'll just die when the sun still shines.

⬐ Trasmatta

There's a huge leap from "let's do what we can to defeat aging" to "I don't want to live to see the heat death of the universe".

⬐ sinenomine

This is over-dramatizing. For many people, life is obviously a valuable enough experience to be extended many times over.

⬐ varajelle

> Our brains aren't big enough to hold an eternity of memories, so you would forget who you were to make room for what you'll become.

This is already the case anyway.

I still want to live even if I don't remember everything and who I am have changed over time

- Several species have longer lifetimes than us. Doesn't seem to be a large disadvantage.

- We've proven that we change faster culturally than biologically. If this weren't true most Americans still wouldn't be okay with gay people, black people, or pot. Beliefs seem more related to local tribalism than to age. I've seen plenty of older and younger people radically shift (for good or bad) their positions based on who they consider arbiters of truth.

- We've heard this finite resource in the past. It has been solved many times. Fertilizer was the most recent one if you want to go back to 19th century history. We have hydroponics, aeroponics, etc on the way. We can also go into space.

- Every first world country has a population growth below 1 (and are decreasing). The average EU is 0.15% and the US is at 0.5%[0]. There's no sign of it turning around and I imagine immortality would just accelerate this. (People will still kill themselves btw. Accidents will still happen. Bad health. Etc)

- IDK about you, but I'm fine waiting till I'm 100 to have kids if I can live forever. Maybe even 200. I'm unsure, all I know is that if we make such a change that we'll completely reconsider things like adulthood and what we do with our life (how long does it take to live off of passive income?). It will be a radical change no matter what, but also one that seems inevitable. If your argument is that it is going to be bumpy, well if history has taught us anything it is that we don't confront problems until they are problems, so I don't think it'll become any less bumpy. But hey, maybe things like Climate Change won't be existential threats because then "50 years" isn't a long time. Unfortunately we won't know how this changes us until it happens, be that for the better or worse.

I'll leave you with the Fable of the Dragon Tyrant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2018&lo...

CGP Grey's video adaptation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ cosmojg

From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24641187

---

A reminder that research efforts into repairing the damage of aging (effectively undoing aging) do exist.

SENS[0] is a 501(c)(3) public charity directing and funding such research.

[0]: https://www.sens.org/

"Those who live in the desert learn to worship thirst." — vharuck

There's no reason we should accept the consequences of old age without a fight. Donate to SENS, or even better, dedicate your own work to extending human healthspan.

See also: The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant by CGP Grey — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

relevant video, based on a 20-year old fable to reposition the idea of senescence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

CGP gray's videos on YouTube are maybe the most concise and fun to watch materials I've seen on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25qzDhGLx8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

And you'll be surprised how many people _are_ indeed thinking about all of the outcomes. Have in mind though that as with any technology it is not good or bad, and if it is possible someone will do it sooner or later.

It makes no sense to not do it as your adversaries will, and then they'll dictate how it is used, probably not to your liking. If you develop it first you can talk and deliberate at your leisure and find solutions that look much better to you and yours.

Related: Fable of the Dragon Tyrant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

Ways to improve life expectancy:

    A. keep children alive till adulthood (mostly done)
    B. keep adults disease-free/healthy (somewhat done)
    C. keep old people alive till natural death (little done)
    D. stop natural death (possible?)
    E. reverse aging (possible?)

If natural death is just rolling constitution checks long enough to get a critical miss, then perhaps it's enough to complete C.

If natural death is some sort of cellular countdown, it may suffice to stop the time, as in D.

I think for most people, what they really want is not eternal life in a 90+ year-old body, but to be able to live in a young body, which necessitates E.

It's interesting to consider scenarios where we accomplish some but not all of these, especially where C and/or D are possible but E is not.

⬐ LeanderK

yeah, an interesting thought experiment would be a scenario where one could stop, but not reverse aging. The people young enough would probably stop at their prime, with the upper part of the society (those past their prime) being stuck in their respective age.

I would look at life very, very differently if I would know that I would have a significant longer life-span. I would just chill and live more in the moment and not worry about time so much (I worry about time quite a lot right now, probably because a chapter in my life just (a day ago!) ended).

⬐ mLuby

Agreed. Happy birthday!

⬐ LeanderK

Thanks, but near miss :) I moved cities to start my masters, so my chapter of living in karlsruhe (where I moved for my bachelors) is closed, especially since I won't be coming back. I have not done everything I've wanted, stayed longer than I've thought and left some things unfinished. If only there would be more time, but your twenties unfortunatly don't have more years in them than the other decades. I probably wouldn't have started my masters yet but instead take a break and do something crazy. Like move to berlin, try to survive as a DJ and maybe get into producing music. Maybe study some philosophy. I feel like some opportunities just rush by and some doors just slowly but steadily close. And you have to decide for one, maybe two.

All attempts to cure aging have been magic/religion-based until very recently. Also it's not like we "learned to fly" as if cavemen could have done it had they only known the right wing shape and arm technique. It was only possible because of an accumulation of industrial and scientific knowledge.

Significant life extension will likely be built off the same accumulation of knowledge, not some rainforest frog extract the ancients could have refined. The only way I can imagine we don't have this in 1000 years is if someone's nuke finger gets twitchy.

Want to accelerate research? Make "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" required reading/watching for all schoolchildren: https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY (That this might be controversial is itself interesting.)

⬐ Retric

“Chinese experimented with small hot air balloons for signaling from as early as the 3rd century BCE.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon

Yet, for the first person to ride a hot air balloon took ~2000 years in 1783. Some of this came down to advances in material science, but far less than you might think.

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging:

https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

And here it is in video form as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ antt

Imagine a world in which Stalin was still in power. That is what amortality looks like.

I can't help but think that this would also completely retard scientific progress. Imagine tenure that lasts a milenium or more. We would still be discussing scholastism.

⬐ magduf

People are living longer and longer already, compared to ~50 years ago. Scientific progress doesn't seem to be slowing down, though it has shifted to different fields.

⬐ AstralStorm

1) No. Whatever people make, other people can destroy. You could get rid of Stalin any time you wanted, if even by running away or making him irrelevant. With various degrees of difficulty involved.

And for every Stalin, you brought in a few Buddhas and Gandhis.

2) Again, that depends on how you approach innovation which has little to do with age. What would have to be instituted is probably rotation based on tenure, similar to presidency terms. If a professor is still deemed innovative, they can stay in charge.

In fact, such a system would be vastly superior to the current one where once tenured, a professor is almost immovable for many years. It would also help with the publish or perish part if extended to lower levels - you'd get more chances.

Most importantly, if the basic needs are met, you just gained access to a huge pool of genius engineers and scientists by sheer numbers. Imagine if, say, Feynman or Hawking or Knuth or even Leibnitz and Newton were still around, and cooperating... No matter the academic structures.

⬐ buboard

imagine a world in which none of this happens and we all live in ignorance

⬐ magduf

Why would Stalin still be in power because of lack of aging? Stalin was quite likely murdered, though it was never proven. This is usually what happens to horrible leaders when they're in power too long.

Of course, Stalin was so popular that huge crowds showed up to honor him, and 100 people got crushed in the crowding. Over in Spain, Franco was apparently so popular that they never bothered to oust him at all. So if you don't like dictators like Stalin and Franco, that means you also don't really support democracy, since in a democratic system these people would have also been in power due to massive popular support.

Losing leaders to aging has historically robbed us of great leaders too, don't forget. Elizabeth I was considered one of England's best rulers, her reign considered a golden age of 40 years. Marcus Aurelius is considered one of Rome's best emperors, and he was infamously replaced by the horrible Commodus after he died. I wonder how history would be different if Marcus Aurelius had reigned for another few centuries.

⬐ TomMarius

You're imagining Stalin but we live in the 21. century. This century telepathy is going to become reality and that still seems to be the less interesting thing compared to AI, that is also inevitably coming. Do you think these facts won't change anything?

⬐ antt

Yes, I imagine we will create the Borg by accident.

⬐ TomMarius

I think the same.

⬐ antt

Oh good. I'm glad you agree we will see the largest genocide in history in our life time. People are usually a lot more optimistic than me about the future.

⬐ TomMarius

I don't see it as the largest genocide (not that I consider it positive). The Borg didn't kill, it assimilated. Considering that the absolute majority of people in the future will be cloned, the assimilation of old timers (that's us) is going to be seen as a minor event and probably not even a genocide as we will continue to live, I personally think it's going to be seen as our salvation.

--

IMO there is one thing that seems to be truly unique and irreplaceable - consciousness and its continuity, and control over it. That is probably going to be prized.

⬐ adrianN

Imagine a world where Newton could still contribute, peak scientific output wouldn't be before the age of 35, and politicians would tackle long term problems because they will be affected by them too. That is also what amortality looks like.

⬐ saiya-jin

Politicians tackle quick wins that get them good PR and re-elected in next 4/5 years cycle, plus of course return back all the favors/contributions/etc to shady characters behind governments.

No amount of longevity is going to fix that, in contrary it could contribute to entrenchment of those behind curtains as permanent puppet masters. And we all know that if power corrupts, then semi-eternal power ...

⬐ neekburm

I'd be worried that Newton would be spending an even higher percentage of his time on alchemy research than he already did, and using his reputation to push promising scientists to do the same.

⬐ adrianN

Modern chemistry was born from Alchemy research. I find it unlikely that Newton would have continued to do exactly the same kinds of things for centuries more.

This is an excellent time to ask for a counterargument to CGP Grey's stance that immortality should be invented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

Suppose there were a technology X which was going to be invented eventually. Suppose also that it's a highly unethical technology, for some definition of unethical.

Is it therefore unethical to create X?

Note: The constraint is that X is inevitable. The only question is who creates it first. And in that context, isn't it at least possible to argue from multiple axes that you should help to create it? The limit case of this argument would be "It's your duty to the society you live in to ensure it has the competitive advantage, not some other society."

A less-hostile way to phrase that would be "The first company to invent a technology can then try to enforce ethics onto that technology."

That is, if you invent something, it's easier to dictate how it's used than if you didn't.

Hence, paradoxically as it may seem, the logical conclusion would seem to be that you should work as hard as you can to invent whatever unethical technology you're worried about -- in the hopes that you can minimize the damage later.

If it seems like a technology can't really be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons), I counter with this: Bitcoin was the implementation of a set of ideas. The exact implementation could have been very different. It could have been inflationary rather than deflationary, for example. The precise choices were very important, because Bitcoin has huge first-mover advantages. And that is often true of the first X to be invented.

So, what's the answer? Do we work as hard as we can to invent unethical technologies in order to mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or discourage the invention of new technology knowing that some less-"ethical" society will get there first?

Or is that a false dichotomy? I'm fascinated by the possible answers.

⬐ awocs

I think you are missing the mark a bit. Ethics isn't first and foremost about deciding what should happen, it is about accounting for effects of your actions.

Emerging technology sometimes develops faster than accountability for said technology. That is true of Bitcoin, but also thing like oil and pesticides.

Nuclear is a pretty good example. Imagine if nuclear technology wouldn't have the history it has and instead we spent the time since it was invented solving its issues. Energy would probably cost far less than today, which means everything would. The result might be that our standard of living would have been double what it is today (which is hard to quantify, but this is a thought experiment).

So it might be alluring to be first, but in the grand scheme of things you are always paying the price in the end. The reason ethics is part of engineering isn't because it is fun, but because you get the best results.

⬐ geofft

Here's a counterargument: if you're good at what you do, it is better to let the inevitable development of X be done by someone less competent.

If the first mover does have an advantage, then making the first mover slow and buggy gives society more time to argue against it. To pick on Bitcoin (not taking on a position on whether it actually is unethical, but assume for the purpose of argument it is): if someone less thoughtful than Nakamoto had thought up the idea of using HashCash to prevent double-spend attacks, they may have used MD5 as the hash. Or they may have built the initial software with accidental integer overflows. Or they may have tuned it poorly so that the storage requirements got intractable after a few years. Then it would be more possible to shake Bitcoin with a second mover that didn't involve mining (or were actually anonymous, or whatever fix you'd want to make).

If the first mover doesn't have an advantage—if the technology is so clonable that someone can make an evil variant quickly—then there isn't any virtue in shipping the good variant first. Let them discover it on their own, it's not any worse, and spend your time working on either defenses or on unrelated, ethical things.

And it could be better: I seem to recall that there were several countries during World War II who did not focus wholeheartedly on developing the atomic bomb because they had no idea it was even possible. The Soviet nuclear weapons program, for instance, became much more of a priority only once they saw the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

⬐ jl2718

Satoshi’s bitcoin was a buggy disaster with lots of design flaws. It took about two years to get right.

⬐ euske

I'm gonna say a modified Bruce Schneier quote: "Ethics is a process, not a product."

Meaning that, what's ethical or unethical is always changing, and nobody can foresee the future, so the only thing we can do at best is to keep questioning it and be wary about it. The same thing goes for freedom and democracy too, I guess.

⬐ dmead

The best thing we can do is to have a realistic expectation about what is going to happen if technology 'X' is introduced.

Saying that "oh we just have to be wary" is like an a priori version of "we were just following orders".

⬐ buboard

> It's your duty to the society you live in to ensure it has the competitive advantage

That s not self-evident. You are free to abandon your society in favor of another even if you lose some ‘technologies’ such as slavery. Let alone that definitions of ‘ethical’ differ between societies.

> in the hopes that you can minimize the damage later.

Thats also false. The antidote to a ballistic nuclear head is any other means/missile that can destroy/neutralize the nuclear missile before it hits the ground. Countering offense with offense or relying on mutual deterrence is ethically inferior.

I believe the ethical stance is ‘assume the worst and prepare to counter it’

⬐ shawn

Interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

The introduction of MIRV led to a major change in the strategic balance. Previously, with one warhead per missile, it was conceivable that one could build a defense that used missiles to attack individual warheads. Any increase in missile fleet by the enemy could be countered by a similar increase in interceptors. With MIRV, a single new enemy missile meant that multiple interceptors would have to be built, meaning that it was much less expensive to increase the attack than the defense. This cost-exchange ratio was so heavily biased towards the attacker that the concept of mutual assured destruction became the leading concept in strategic planning and ABM systems were severely limited in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to avoid a massive arms race.

Some threats can't be countered, only controlled. And the country that first invented nuclear weapons seems to be in a position to help control its proliferation.

⬐ buboard

thanks that is informative. It doesn't mean that deterrence is the most ethical stance though, but it is the most pragmatic.

⬐ mmirate

Err, what? How does an interceptor, with a conventional warhead, come even anywhere close to the cost of a nuclear warhead alone?

⬐ GW150914

Because you can use dummy warheads, chaff, and other means to lower the efficacy of the interceptor, and you only need a small percentage of your payload to make it through. The defense meanwhile, must be perfect. Missile defense using interceptor vehicles is a pipe dream, pure and simple, and has been for decades even in principle. You can have what appears to be hundreds of warheads falling at once, or even thousands if you’re the US or Russia. Nothing is stopping that well enough to avert mass casualties.

Besides, those interceptors are not cheap, they’re cutting edge while MIRV’ed warheads with dummies are old, proven tech. A live nuclear warhead is only expensive because of the physics package, so a convincing dummy is dirt cheap to make and deploy compared to an interceptor. It’s a losing proposition, and an extension of the truism that armor piercing tech inevitably beats armor in arms races.

⬐ dmead

It's a false dichotomy and your constraint of "The constraint is that X is inevitable" I reject outright.

Invention/engineering/development... whatever you want to call it is in the end an act or series of acts.

You have the responsibility to act ethically. Abstracting or abdicating away your responsibility to act ethically is still unethical, no matter how may layers of "invention" or after the fact ethics you try and layer on top.

An easier example is the invention of nuclear weapons. The the grep bullshit is theoretical and hard to reason about.

⬐ xupybd

You raise a good point. But I don’t think there are ethical or unethical technologies just unethical uses of them. This ethical os seems very misguided to me. If we have the science to engineer a given technology someone is bound to invent it at some point. It’s the humans that are the agents of morality not the devices.

⬐ yters

"Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come." - Luke 17:1

⬐ nostrademons

To muddy the waters further - what if the definition of "ethical" itself changes based on who invents the technology and wins the conflict? Have you acted ethically if everyone left alive considers you evil, even if you were upholding your own moral code?

There are ample historical examples of this. In the United States, we consider property rights, progress, and industrialization to be advances and theft and trespassing to be crimes, but this value system was used to justify the dispossession, relocation, and eventual genocide of the Native Americans. I bet that if diseases had worked the other way and slaughtered the colonists rather than the native inhabitants, we'd be living under a very different value system. Similarly, if the South had won the Civil War slavery would likely be considered just & ethical, or if the Nazis had won WW2 Jews would be historical scum, rightfully exterminated, and white supremacy would be the natural order of things. These groups are considered morally abhorrent because we won, which lets us write the histories and gloss over American atrocities like the firebombing of Tokyo or atom bomb.

⬐ mmirate

> for some definition of unethical

Definitions are numerous and mutually-disagreeable enough that if there is your X then there will also be a corresponding person Y who will value early access to X at a maximally irrationally high price. Thus, if you know what X is and you have the skills to produce it, then it is wasteful to neglect to find the Y and profit from their irrationality.

⬐ whatshisface

The real ethical dillemma is this: people working for corporations and governments are asked to develop nasty stuff that will directly be used, and then they try to justify it by saying that what they're doing will be done eventually. However this doesn't hold water because by doing it themselves, today, they are making it happen sooner than it would have. Obviously everyone will die eventually, but we don't want to be killed because "sooner" is a significant thing.

By comparison, academics working on their own making very little money with no pressure to be evil do not have a problem.

⬐ elvinyung

I just need to link this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

⬐ sjg007

This isn't hypothetical at all. Look at the atomic bomb. Did the scientists from the Manhattan project control it or influence it? Did they influence its use?

Also inflationary bitcoin doesn't solve the money problem either. You need it to be controlled by a third party consensus and not just "ticked" at a specific rate. The Fed tries to target inflation at 3% but that doesn't mean we always have 3% inflation.

⬐ baxtr

I think there is a difference between inventing and commercializing.

Think of it like that: if you park your cars with the keys in it somewhere you could say that it will be stolen eventually by someone. But someone could also call the police and handle it properly.

Thus, you could argue: if it is unethical and inevitable, then commercializing it first is a good measure of how unethical you are and should be prosecuted.

⬐ lifeisstillgood

I am still of the related view that we (Western society) should be putting huge investment into open source govtech - essentially how to run an open, democratic society in a box.

Thus any society that downloads and uses this software is on tramlines to become and act like open democratic societies. we could start with Western society

⬐ geofft

Can it be put in a box? I think democracy is a set of values and norms, not a device. If people (either powerful people or powerless people) do not believe that they will get the results they want out of democracy, the fact that a democracy box exists will not change their minds.

In particular, if the democracy appliance you're imagining includes voting machines, there is zero technical way to prove that a voting machine is reporting trustworthy results if you cannot rely on trustworthy humans to be part of the proof. (Standard auditing mechanisms include things like "representatives from both parties," which doesn't help if you suspect the two major parties are colluding to suppress outside viewpoints.)

⬐ lifeisstillgood

not voting machines but all the other things needed to run society. from applying for licenses for planning permission (or second children) to water rights and more.

We are digitising society. how we do that matters as much as the society we have when we start.

i am just frustrated by inability to get oss into government at the basic levels

see http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto

⬐ Fnoord

Seems like a game theory [1] though I have no clue which one.

The problem in your reasoning lies with "Suppose there were a technology X which was going to be invented eventually." This is simply not true. If you look at the size of the world population it is a given nearly every person can use their fist and nearly every person can punch someone else (which we -generally- have laws against).

That is a completely different level than inventing something. You use the example of nuclear scientists. Not the whole world is able to grasp the science behind that. Its the same with programming and hacking. So the amount of people who have to make the conscious decision to build the technology yes/no or any other ethical decision is much smaller than you appear to argue in your premise, and if all refuse your premise is false.

Which means that your argument is abused as a fallacy to justify the unethical behaviour.

I'd say a possible better solution to the problem is teaching smart people the value of ethics before they end up making these decisions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

⬐ TravelAndFood

It seems "Suppose there were a technology X which was going to be invented eventually" is not a very powerful constraint because on a long enough time span, every possible technology is invented. So, this argument explains everything, so it explains nothing.

⬐ amelius

Just let the market decide what's ethical and what's not. If people massively buy and use X, then surely it must be ethical.

/s

⬐ jakeogh

Just let the power centers decide what's ethical and what's not. If the social power brokers massively promote and subsidize X, then surely it must be ethical?

I'll take unsubsidized crowd wisdom.

⬐ jonathanstrange

Whoever invents it is responsible for it. You could argue that extremely deadly nerve gas would have been invented inevitably, for instance, but it is still unethical for you to help in its development. Claiming that "someone else would have invented it anyway" is the oldest excuse in the book.

Do we work as hard as we can to invent unethical technologies in order to mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or discourage the invention of new technology knowing that some less-"ethical" society will get there first?

Or is that a false dichotomy?

This looks like a false dichotomy to me. If your argument was sound, then e.g. attempting to limit nuclear proliferation would be pointless, since every nation on earth would eventually develop nuclear weapons anyway. I don't think that's true, though, national and international laws with suitable enforcement can prevent unethical technologies.

⬐ shawn

Think of a war that shaped the world, and whose outcome is generally agreed to be a positive one: "Good guys vs bad guys, and the good guys won."

Suppose nerve gas had been the only way for the "good guys" to win that war. (This isn't a realistic assumption; the point is to examine ethics.)

Is it more ethical to employ the nerve gas, or to lose the war? Those being the only two outcomes.

⬐ Thiez

Doesn't everyone imagine themselves to be one of the 'good guys'? Surely the 'bad guys' in your example will also be telling themselves they just have to do some bad things to defeat a truly bad foe.

Does it even make sense to speak of 'good guys' who do bad things? Intentions count, but at some point I don't find it unreasonable to call someone who is doing very bad stuff a bad person, no matter how they rationalize it to themselves.

Which ethical theory are we using, anyway? Sounds like consequentialism is assumed?

⬐ JohnStrangeII

Same guy as before but from different account. Disclaimer: I am an ethicist, although my original AoS was philosophy of language.

First of all, there is a whole bunch of contemporary ethicists who would deny that unrealistic scenarios can give us any ethical insight, but let's not enter this debate.

There are good and convincing arguments against this view, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that using the nerve gas in your scenario would be the right thing to do. That means that you have shown that there is one hypothetical scenario in which the use of that technology could be considered better than not using it, although its use would still be very bad and horrific.

That's not enough to show that the technology is ethical or that its development should be encouraged. I'd argue for the opposite. Your scenario also does not provide any argument against my claim that the person who develops the technology is at least indirectly responsible for its later use. Some technologies should and maybe even need to be suppressed world-wide.

This is an important topic if you take into account the pace of technological development. It's entirely thinkable that in the near future - let's say, in a 100 years or so - just about anyone could in theory genetically modify bacteria and viruses to his likings in a basement and for example develop an extremely powerful biological weapon capable of wiping out 90% of mankind. It is obvious that such a technology has to be suppressed and should probably not be developed in this easy-to-use form.

I believe what you really want to say is that nation states should develop all those nefarious technologies in order to control their spreading, because someone ("the opponent") will invent and spread them anyway. That's indeed the traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument is that anybody can use it, the argument appears just as sound to North Korea than to the US, and is leading to a world-wide stockpiling of dangerous technologies. So there must be something wrong with that argument, don't you think so?

⬐ eiieirurjdndjd

> That's indeed the traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument is that anybody can use it, the argument appears just as sound to North Korea than to the US, and is leading to a world-wide stockpiling of dangerous technologies.

But that’s not what happened, right? I mean, it is if you stop reading history just before the first non-proliferation treaties began being implemented. This was almost half a century ago, though, so IMO it doesn’t make sense to stop reading at that point.

⬐ JohnStrangeII

I agree. The solution to massive technological threats is mutual entanglement by treaties and international laws that limit or prohibit the development of dangerous technologies. That's my point.

⬐ None

None

⬐ technotony

The counter argument to your basement geneticist terrorist is that you shouldn't suppress that technology, you should in fact distribute it as widely and freely as possible and as early as possible. This allows good intentioned actors to understand and learn about the capabilities and develop defenses such that it gets harder and harder to create the wipe-out-90% of people weapon because you have higher barriers to overcome for it to be effective.

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. See here for more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY . The argument made there is basically that death (human aging, at any rate) is a sort of condition, or disease, if you will, like any other, that could be solved if we plied it with enough resources.

Maybe the real question is where on the scale the extension to life happens? If we keep reaching adulthood, and then elderly, more inhibited lifestyles at the same ages, just prolonging the elderly state via good medical practices, that's one thing. But if we could slow aging in general to extend younger and middle-aged sections of life, that'd be another thing altogether.

Most people confuse age with aging, because aging is still unavoidable, and as it's always been the case, it looks like it will remain so forever.

But that's wrong. The outlook is different now. Yet, unfortunately, most still see it as unavoidable.

Everybody should watch The Fable of The Dragon Tyrant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

To the dead comment, since it was killed right before I could finish and I can't reply there anymore (since I think a question deserves an answer):

I suspect the video you say was this one.[1] If so, you might have noticed in the description Nick Bostrom is the original author, or might have noticed the credits at the end. CGP Grey, the narrator of the video, is a fairly famous youtube personality, and have been on a sort of crusade against death and ageing lately with a few videos.

I think it's more likely that it was posted here because of CGP Grey's video bring some new (or more recent) popularity to it.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

Animated narration here: https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY

⬐ godelski

Link to the text story https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

⬐ rweba

Based on Nick Bostrom's fable about aging:

https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

A couple of points:

(1) Unlike in the story, in real life aging is a natural process that almost all living creatures go through. It is not something that is externally imposed by a malovolent entity. So I would question the implication that not preventing aging is immoral.

(2) Death allows each new generation to take the lead and shape society according to its values. If aging was eliminated social conflicts might increase between the ideologies of each successive generation.

(3) Younger people could no longer just wait for the boss to retire or die to ascend to senior positions, they would have to overthrow the boss in order to advance in the organization.

(4) Even a low birth rate might lead to overpopulation if people don't die.

Aging and death are not necessarily bad things. There is a natural completion to the process. A sense of closure. Do your time, have your experiences, say good bye. Having the knowledge that we will die and that we will lose our youth makes us appreciate them more and gives us a sense of urgency.

Indeed, it is arguably mostly our primitive instincts that make us fear death and want to stick around in perpetuity. Is there something important that won't happen because any specific person dies?

Now, with all that said, if a cure for aging was really discovered I would be the first one in line!

NOTE 1: If the human life span remained the same, but people were able to be as healthy at age 80 as at age 20 that would be great and would pose very little social problems I think.

NOTE 2: Very interesting look at the mathematics of aging: https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-...

⬐ LeviEster

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html Original story by Nick Bostrom.

⬐ lamename

Adapted from: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html