> "Yes, and so do you," said Harry. "I want to live one more day. Tomorrow I will still want to live one more day. Therefore I want to live forever, proof by induction on the positive integers. If you don't want to die, it means you want to live forever. If you don't want to live forever, it means you want to die. You've got to do one or the other... I'm not getting through here, am I."
It would be interesting to see how society will change when we can make ourselves permanently healthy. Maybe people who want to die will start taking extreme risks like sky-diving or Russian roulette but the above quote stands imo. If you don't want to live any more sounds to me like you have a psychological problem. I don't mean that 80 year olds, that have a dozen physical problems and struggle to do anything and therefore want to die because life is unbearable, have a psychological problem but if you're young, healthy and still find no pleasure in living then maybe you should see a therapist. Maybe the psychological part of living forever needs to be solved too
"The water isn't boiling yet. In one minute the water will still not have boiled. Therefore it will take forever to bring this pot to boiling point, proof by induction on the positive integers."
I broadly agree with lifespan and healthspan extension on the grounds that one should get to choose the time and manner of their passing, but that quote is just ridiculous and Yudkowsky should have known better.
That quote is from the perspective of an 11-year old. I'd say it fits the context and he wrote it well because even though it's not an accurate and perfect view it is funny
I personally think it would be so cool to see the world evolve over thousands of years.
Maybe we'd be nicer to each other if we lived that long, because we know our empire might be on top now, but likely not through our lifetime.
But wealth inequality would probably be even worse, because by the time one generation dies, they've already bought up every piece of land in the world.
that proof assumes the desire to live will remain constant over time but it will not. parts of the human body will decay and over time the will to live will drop.
death is inevitable. by artificially extending your lifespan, you're not becoming immortal. you're taking an event that typically comes as a natural part of life and is out of your control and forcing yourself to choose when it happens. you will have to choose at what point your agony is so unbearable that you no longer want to live.
people who are unlucky already have to live that hell in modern times. i don't think people chasing this fever dream have experienced the joy of seeing it play out.
If you can't picture yourself giving up an anti-aging treatment without "unbearable agony" forcing your hand, that's your psychological hangup, not everyone else's.
A normal person can just decide they're 200 and not really enjoying much anymore and have that be the end of it.
Even then, maybe first see a therapist, try some psychedelics or whatever. If you've tried everything and somehow still see no point in living then yeah.. go ahead.
I've been depressed a couple of times in my life and saw no point in going further or living but I've talked myself out of it by simply saying, hey, if I do this relatively small thing and then do this thing that gives me pleasure then that's better than literal death. I find it hard to believe a person has experienced everything there is to experience in 200 or even 1000 years. Our set of experiences is what it is because of the short time that we have but it doesn't mean it can't evolve to accommodate a lifespan of 10x or 100x.
i'm arguing against the idea of achieving "immortality", not against anti-aging treatments. slowing the progression of aging but maintaining the same trajectory of life and death is a desirable thing. trying to avoid death is not.
> parts of the human body will decay and over time the will to live will drop.
parts of the human body also evolve and strengthen over time, unfortunately evolution also made them decay after some point, that's what we're trying to fix.
> you're taking an event that typically comes as a natural part of life and is out of your control..
this whole paragraph could apply to any physical problem. You were born with XYZ health problem? just accept your fate, it's natural. You got bit by a dog? Natural, just accept your fate. You got an infection? why even bother taking antibiotics, you're just forcing yourself to live longer
Your lifespan has already been artificially extended. It’s nearly twice the maximum of 10,000 years ago when most people were nomadic, and about 20–25% longer than that of the ancient Greeks, who retired from their militia at 65 only if they made it that long.
And most of that life is spent in healthy youth and middle age, not in continual decline. Today we expect to become elderly in our 70s or 80s, and then die. The Greeks became elderly in their 60s or even earlier. Is it so hard to believe that in another 100 years people could be living to their 90s or 100s before age catches up with them?
The choice of death is a very good point. One would argue that the difference between a natural death and a death sentence is the knowledge and control of your life’s termination.
If people decide to end themselves that is suicide, and if someone else decides it then that is murder. All these are morally and ethically much more complicated than just dying agentlessly.
To be honest, i've always wondered how many people would actually believe this if given the choice (assuming healthy immortality). It always struck me a bit as the sort of thing people say to be able to live with the fact they are going to die and there is nothing they can do about it. Always easier to accept something out of one's control by pretending it is what you wanted all along.
Immortality sounds horrible if and only if I'm the only one immortal.
Most people don't want to die. I want to learn more, and indulge curiosity for another day. I want to laugh and love and see my family forever longer - I don't think I'd ever wish to leave my loved ones, and I will unsurprisingly mourn their loss. I assume I'm not particularly special in any of this...
I think the sudden onset of immortality (especially concentrated on the wealthy) will be catastrophic for society. Imagine Bezos or a Kardashian or someone politically motivated like Murdoch/Soros but immortal? Imagine them being able to spend (and grow) generations of wealth... for generation?
For the rest of us, the cost of an opportunity to be immortal will be massive because of course it can be. People today save for retirement, but one day they may save for immortality - or perhaps take out insane loans to fund it. Imagine real estate prices when banks can offer 100y mortgages to a class of rich immortal workers? Imagine trying to advance in your career when someone can get a senior job and work for hundreds of years, especially if they need to fund their 100y mortgage or their immortality procedure - Millennials already complain that boomers won't retire and open up the higher-rung jobs.
Immortality would upend society, and likely exacerbate social tensions, but it could also be a great reset in social expectations. Maybe it'd encourage everyone to take a long-term view of their actions. eg. Climate change would impact everyone, so no one would be "too old to care".
