Wow, Bostrom seems a little ... duh in this video. I mean, perhaps he's being deliberately banal, but all the same - "oh yeah, well I thought really hard about it and I've decided that, yup, death is a problem, and so is human extinction" - I mean, it's not exactly refreshing this stuff is it? Of bloody course we're interested in all those things, tell us something we don't know!
@DamionCrane He never suggested keeping the birth rate the same. We are finding ways to reduce it, as it will help to deal with all of the big problems.
The third problem Bostrom talks about is fascinating. As aspects of our nervous system are evolved, or theoretically pre-adapted, to manage different types of organisms, say extra limbs, then virtual reality avatars allows us to explore different ways of being.
@Gammodore I didn't watch this yet, but if you want to know what transhumanism is, search for it in Google, you'll find lots of info!
As far as I know, transhumanism is about people wanting to enhance themselves with cyborg-implants, like robot eyes etc. so they could see through walls, or anything like that, to "make us better".
Transhumanism's alternative title should be "No! We're totally not obsessed sci-fi/cyberpunk-geeks! We just want kickass robot legs and lasers in our eyes!" -ism x'D
immortality = living on other planets, seeing other lifeforms (aliens), probably being able to fly and any other desire which given eternity will be achieved with 100% probability.
being a kid this reminds me of troy, when Achilles says 'the gods envy us, because we are mortal'... if we didnt have standard lives, and not live to our full technological potential, the moments that make life so special would not be as strong and as brilliant
@CtrlRm This will be a two part response, look out for the other. I’ve seen questions such as this in the past and multiple analogues throughout history. Skepticism regarding the merit of emerging technologies with such high price tags is not new. At one time personal computers were seen as a luxury only the wealthy could afford; however as time progressed so did personal computers. They became increasingly compact and powerful, but most importantly, cheap (or cheaper).
@CtrlRm Now we can afford laptops that dwarf the processing power of supercomputers of decades past. Similarly, as human augmentation becomes common, prices are likely to fall along with steady increases supply. Cutting edge prostheses and augmentations will be developed to replace outdated models which will likely become cheap. Eventually, lower end enhancements will exceed the capabilities of the first generation of prosthesis/augments, perhaps by a large margin too.
Overpopulation is already a problem, wake up, take a trip to India maybe. If people live longer, does that mean they work longer? If not, who supports them? Will this longer collective life really produce enough to offset the costs of simply extending that life? What will their quality of life be like? We've managed to get life expectancy in North America up to something around 80? Talk to these people ask them how their quality of life has been for the past 20 years.
@alongfortheride84 We've managed to find half of a cure for age, not entirely, but you won't be old and frail at the age of 80 and live much longer if it works out.
@theplayfulpoet Yes, I have to consider sustainability. We can´t live like a millionare with private jet, some mansions etc.... We must change our consumism minds that always want more. Use renewable energy mainly because of pollution, but the owners of fuel put the price they want so that it´s always cheaper to use fuel...
They don´t want more people because people are not born with money. We live in a capitalism nightmare.
1) Death - death is obviously not swell on an individual level, it is the end of one's own existence/consciousness. I also agree that if people were to live longer, we may reap the rewards of experience. But let's not forget, the world is already overpopulated. Where will all this food come from? How expensive will these extra years be (both for the individual and society) and how will the quality of life be? Will people really want to work longer into their lives?
@alongfortheride84 Forget about that, just think about the jobs. The young would not have work, and thus not be able to get experience, which means we will have what we have today in america. A huge gap in talent and experience in the marketplace where the new comers can barely scratch the surface of the skill requirements. When all the experience people retire or die? We're all fucked.
@alongfortheride84 You'll have just your mind uploaded and then choose to live on the network, in virtual reality. That way you will consume only some limited computing resources. Of course you will have to pay for that in some way, but I guess it will be far cheaper than old, ill person.
transhumanism is a fad. video is dated 2007 and it's still getting comments so I'd say the fad is still around, I'm surprised it's lasted this long.
We'll never have any of this, maybe our grandchildren will start to see it, but not us. First world countries are still having problems with abortion and gay marriage, how the hell are we psychologically or spiritually ready for reinventing our bodies.
I'm 100% behind it but for us, all of us right where we are now, it's just scientific fantasy.
He is not saying Death is a problem. But the Loss of Human Experience. We lose mountains of knowledge, potential "modes", and billions of other things. From his expression of the amount of people that would die or survive in this existential risk, I see how much more he cares about statistics than anything. When he jumps to talk about Life altering methods. Imagine how much more we can learn if we all survive longer. This is his point. Thumbs up? Ted is about sharing ideas after all...
Its funny how I hear all of these things that are positive improvements for humanity, yet I see the problems being adressed, and it makes me think. Why has this guy not figured it out yet?
These problems are not the biggest problems we all face.
Yes, death is problem number one. Think about how much is lost to death, all the knowledge, all the experience. Whoever is for death, why don't you kill yourself today? How is that different from being ok in dieing tomorrow? Don't give the overpopulation bs. It has been proven so many times that is not a problem at all. Wake up from this torpor you are in, stop believing the bs religion taught you about death is part of life. Yes, and rape is part of love.
I feel like it makes perfect sense for a human being at some point (with the way we have progressed technologically) to question existential risks, since the very basis of technocratic ideologies, consider humans as number one. Since we are considered number one, in this case, why would we want to be extinct? Ofcourse we would have talks and share ideas about trying not to destroy all humanity. However, I don't agree with him, because I believe that if we go extinct, then thats that.
What would happen if you grew up with lions and tigers and bears that were all tame, and were never told they would tear you they were dangerous and would to pieces outside?
Then I took you on an African safari. You got out of the jeep to give them a hug. It wouldn't end well for you.
We're products of out environment and out cultural conditioning. If you want to alter social problems, you start by altering the environment. As for death, I don't see it as a problem. ONLY ones with EGO would.
@AdamRI18 Okay, sure. Although I don't believe life is intrinsically good either---it just is. I guess what I'm trying to drive at is that there is no such thing as absolute permanence (at least, not as far as we know). Focusing on extending human lifespan is a better idea to me than trying to "kill death", but how far do we want to go? What are the sociological and psychological ramifications of letting people live to be 2000, 10,000 or a million years old?
@AdamRI18 Why is death "evil", in your view? Please explain. Bacteria die every second. Animals die every day. Trees often die, but some last for thousands of years. The Earth will die at some point a few billion years on. Stars die too, though they last for eon after eon. Even the universe will dim and fall cold and silent eventually. In my view, it is humans who see death as an enemy rather than an eventuality because we are apes on the run from the wolf, still.
@datalal624 In other words, it is our evolutionary roots---the built-in fears of all the ways we can die---that have conditioned us to perceive death most often as a menace to be feared and avoided, rather than something just happens. Even if we shirked our human skins and lived inside computers, computers can still be obliterated. Death happens, like breathing, like light from a star, or a black hole in space. It just is, and always will be (or rather is just isn't, and always will not be).
Secular society until just recently said death was "natural" and a happy part of the "circle of life." Now it seems the trend is to say death is a problem to overcome through science. I remember hearing Ray Kurzweil casually stating that the tech singularity would fix such problems as death. Think carefully, tranhumanists! Your hell is awaiting you.
The fear you have about Nick's journey of thought is a fear that crossed my mind. It passed when I took those ideas to "the next level". Just imagine the respect for each life once death is no longer a variable. Only those deemed worthy will be allowed to reproduce. Genes will be altered so greed, war, hatred, murders, any of the basic evils are eliminated from our actions (both involuntary and voluntary).
I think the respect for humankind will reach close it its highest potential
@corusa Ah! The great respect we will all have for one another once the eugenics controls are firmly in place. The controls that decide who gets to have children and who gets to die. So much respect I can hardly stand it.
I think you are way too sanguine about the human spirit. The same spirit that brought you Caligula, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. The scum definitely tends to rise to the top of society, doesn't it?
Transhumanism is eternal existence, not eternal life. Bios, not zoe.
this guy uses the same methods of enticing as a drug pusher, telling us what he has is something that we want in order to achieve this singular goal of "happiness" when the misunderstood pursuit of what he offers only mutilates our bodies, personalities, communities, and creative potentials. Appealing to pity and immature fears of death and perceived undesirable aesthetics. Its that same story of people who don't know better trying to insulate themselves in this sphere of perfection.
@sgtmcwallace It is a disgusting reduction of death and the end of life to view it as economic waste. Economic waste for who? Who is interested in getting people to live longer so he doesn't have his economic productivity wasted? Why is natural death so threatening
Transhumanism might as well be the master race 2.0
the Nazis wanted to obliterate things that they perceived to be ugly and threatening. They went about it by trying to micromanage every thing they could in life. That is fascism
@sgtmcwallace He's not saying their is some man in an ivory tower wishing his labor force would stop dying. He's saying that it is a waste for the artist, the genius, the hard worker, the master craftsman or engineer to succumb to senescence or accidental death. And his knowledge die with him.
Death is threatening because it's the end of existing. Not sure anyone couldn't grasp that. There is no bigger threat
And you to compare wanting to rid the world of death and disease to Nazis.. wow..
@sgtmcwallace Good points. The pursuit of happiness, something our country is founded on, is putting the cart before the horse. If life is not based on self giving then it quickly becomes a narcissistic nightmare. Add eternal existence through advanced technology and you have a perfect recipe for hell.
@caveatemp Good points mostly. Though I don't know that life should be based on self-giving. It seems to reduce caring for one's self, which doesn't seem like a great start at all. Without taking care of one's self, what good can one do for their brothers and sisters?
People can go too far as you say, and spiral into a smoking solipsistic tailspin, but that's one possibility among many. The choice seems theirs.
We can embrace self-esteem and still find happiness in our duty to others, right?
This speech is riddled with logical fallacies and dreadfully over-simplified commentary which ill-comports with the complex subject of human life and its value.
@trakkaton i think the chances of you and i (and everyone else) dying from old age are far greater than of any of those things ever happening; statistically speaking, you might as well just add "a giant asteroid colliding with plane earth" to the top of the list
Every age has its doomsayers, and every time they're wrong. The reason? The power of human ingenuity has always proven, and will continue to prove, to be limitless.
Every age has some propagandist of the regime, some nutty optimist, some jerks who think they can stop grey jam with "the secret" or Chernobyl with "a positive attitude", or the banksters with a retreat, and generally don't want to deal with reality, the structure of our society, the structure of risk technologies, or past catastrophies (with a clear escalation over the last decades), but rather choose to parrot slogans that are contradictory in itself (on multiple levels).
@trakkaton I agree with what you're saying on many levels but the whole grey jam/grey goo thing seems like a very improbable threat to me. Natural selection has been "trying" to make the perfect self-replicator like that for billions of years and hasn't had much luck.
Your argument's flawed. Natural selection comes to VERY different endpoints in comparison to intelligent design. The latter arrived at the wheel/ the internal defibrilator, natural selection never did. An ungoing, chaotic process that blindly crouches in all directions with a limited vocabulary has nothing to do with a blueprint. A designer could make humans without a crossover of digestive and respiratory tract, evolution could not. Read Bill Joy. Outperforming artificial photosythesis.
@trakkaton You've still got to admit that building "grey goo" would pose absurdly enormous engineering challenges. Certainly it's nothing that somebody might build accidentally. It would have to be a machine capable of building more of itself out of VIRTUALLY ANYTHING. Does anybody have any idea of how it would would actually work, right now?
Future engineering always seems absurd. Besides that, grey goo is also a pars pro toto. Anything outperforming natural biology. And that IS easy. If you combine this FACT with the FACT that our society has about NO risk management a global, now unthinkable catastrophe is just a matter of time. Dumbfucks drill holes in the seabed without a clue how to close it. They produce highly poisonous waste that will be radioactive for 100000 years. They'll set free outperforming replicators.
this man speak truths; all of you naysayers on this comments thread are just short sighted; dont worry, no one will force anything upon you; we will just make aside a nice patch of arable land right next to an amish community were you can all just eat, shit, suffer, grow old and numb, then die; ad infinitum;
but hey, dont try to force anything upon me either
You just don't get that grey goo doesn't stop at fences, do you? Amish people force nothing upon you, but the all-too-certain superfuck-up of genetics, nanotech and robotics will be forced upon EVERYONE.
@trakkaton so what? nuclear blasts, biological and/or chemical weapons dont stop at fences either; and yet here we are, discussing this over the internet; you cant stop progress; you would just end up driving it underground
Wow, what a shitload of shit, you really ARE unable to make any sense. We are discussing nuclear blasts while they are a reality - so, err - WHAT? Non sequitur or selection bias, what are you up to?
"Progress" (i.e. your euphemism for the escalation of a catastrophe) has been stopped MANY times, that' s a FACT. Learn some history. Just - some.
This guy is crazy. I'm all for transhumanism, and when he started talking about death from aging I though he was building up steam to make his point, but then he just leaves it at that and goes straight over to EXISTENTIAL RISK, where he trailed off into total nonsense-land.
I don't think death is a problem.If you ask me that Mr. Bostrom is just ridicolusly afraid of death and he tries to project that on his audiance.He only pointed out death but he didn't mention any births.When we consider the even greater human population that means there are more births than death.And that IS our most dangerous problem we are facing.There are too many humans, each of them has his ouwn wishes so most of them can't become what they want because other persons wishes get in the way
This is disturbing. I don't think we need to transcend our humanness, but to fully become human. Part of that is embracing the cyclical. And Death is part of that.
No, silly. Life as we know it as a brand new phenomenon with a short past compared to all the time ahead of us. This dying business could easily get left behind once we figure out something we don't know yet. Use you imagination.
@DrLight9 Use your imagination. At present, the world is overpopulated. If we increased avg lifespans into the hundreds, we'd deplete resources within a few decades and death, when it occurred, would be even more tragic. Also, the avg person, with an IQ of just 100, would not contribute much to the greater culture aside from self preservation and perpetuation...
I would not describe death as a problem. The fact that we are mortal, influences so strong our life and our decisions that if there was no death, our society and culture would be totally different. What would happen with all the situations when we say "well, what the f. we live only once"?
Not to mention, that overpopulation and the resulting exploitation of resources can destroy the whole planet.
@HristoStefanovDotDE Overpopulation is occurring and we barely even live longer than we used to, at least in proportion to the grand-scale of things. So you're saying that if we manage as a population to avoid dieing of natural causes then we're merely setting ourselves up for increased destruction?
Thats what solutions are for. Up to the time that we develop such technology we'll obviously come to grips with the fact that we'll need strong reproduction guide-lines and limitations.
@Dshwin Reproduction guidelines and limitations? This sounds not like the future I would like to have.
But anyway. I recently read one short story from Voltaire called Micromegas. Its a phylosophical play with sizes and durations. Like the duration of life.
Thanks for reference and proper quote. I take it you agreee with the sentiment expressed. I respect Bostrum's academic work and agree that these issues need to be discussed. My fear is that Bostrum is giving 'academic cover' to the wider H+ memetics - seemingly obsessed more with ;catching the train on time', rather than focusing on the intergenerational ethics and socio-political implications.
I never thought I'd see the day where I broadly agree with Fukayama - 'Transhumanism is the world's most dangenrous idea.
That said at least Bostrum is delivering peer reviewed literature that weighs the pros and cons of transhumanism and the need for mitigating existential risks. By imbibing the koolaid I believe he is too cognitively predisposed to 'normalising' transhumanism in the absence of the prerequisite discourse of ethics and policy that are neccessary prerequisites of TH's goals.
As long as we're stuck on earth, and that's a long time still...There would have to be castration for immortality, or death for babies :P
A hard choice really, and I think westerners would be split on matter, although I might exaggerate how many would find immortality favorable with that cost in mind... Also strong religious convictions are surprizingly common amoung many westerners still, not only in America... What's up with that?!? They will give us everything they've got on this matter!
Most horrible presentation I've ever seen on TED. Death is not "human biggest problem", it's what hops along Life itself. I was waiting for the punchline but this presentation got even worse... Giving a figure of 50% that we won't make the next century without any explanation, just vague pictures.... If you think this reaction is bad, you've just spend 108 lives (Oh no! 108 books!) reading this.
If death is the first great problem, then existential risk is not its own problem. All it refers to is the risk of death in great numbers.
I don't know whether death is a good or bad thing, but I do know that having a more wonderful life would be nice.
So he says death is a problem, we're at risk of dying on a massive scale, and life could be more wonderful. The sum of this talk is pretty much my world view since I was about two. But add all those extra words and people think you're a genius.
remain stagnant, passing around the same circles. Different perspectives are needed,because although everyone might hear the same things,they will interpret them differently.And if no one dies, where will we fit the next generstion of fresh minds?So defying death will probably not only affect evolution of the body, but of the mind
I agree ptocologist-its a massive oversimplification to say that death is bad.Your point about evolution is interesting,I think that its better applied to the evolution of our ideas (i.e. thought)than the evolution of our bodies though.Although survival of the fittest (in terms of body)is an issue,it has been reduced by developments in healthcare.Atleast in the west.But overcoming death poses a threat to the evolution of ideas too-if people don't die,then ideas will
Wow, look at all the retarded deathist comments, what a surprise (not)!
@ ptocologist: yes, death (like for example AIDS or cancer) is inherently bad and it's really as simple as that. "Death gives our species a better chance of surviving". Bull, without technological intervention, our species will go the way of the dinosaur sooner or later. Besides, *fuck* the species; it's the *individual* that matters. You know, real living people, not abstract concepts like 'species'.
@Parapon3ra You say the 'individual matters' and I agree, but transhumanism could destroy the individual if we take it too far. I believe that uploading your mind into a computer or multiple computers and then destroying your body will end your existence. The computer(s) will have your memories and personality, but you will be gone, experiencing nothingness.
Assuming that anything, including death, is an inherently bad thing is a symptom of extremism and oversimplification. Death actually gives our species a better likelihood of surviving because it gives evolution more chances to produce adaptation to changing environments. We must not be arrogant about technology.
If we all lived a thousand years, we would also risk cultural stagnation because the enthusiasm of youth produces much in the means of innovation, and aging tends to dampen this.
I think if we could genuinely prolong life, it'd be healthy life, so the enthusiasm wouldn't fade as much as you'd think. And you'd have people who were super-skilled emerging, who would be not merely say, a grandmaster at chess but also a great composer and (etc). These people might be able to cross-pollinate ideas from different domains of skill and might if their brain could still function like a young brain, be functionally a little more intelligent than anyone has ever been before.
I disagree. It is not death that gives our 'species/genes' the best chance of surviving/evolving. It is reproduction.
I also disagree with your second point. Culture could, in theory, be unlimited and also selective once an apropriate level of technological integration had been reached. Furthermore, the prevention of the natural ageing process at the mitochondrian level could nullify the correlation between ageing and accumulative cell damage, leading to pathology.
normskis69, I disagree with your statement that death doesn't give our species the best chance of evolving. Our current biology allows that a man with one or more disadvantageous genes can spread his DNA quite a bit farther if he lives to be 500 or 1,000. (Menopause prevents this in women, but with future advances in reproductive medicine, who knows.)
To this extent, reproduction would not enhance evolution at all. It would hinder it. Death and reproduction are both factors.
Immortality would be a pain! But a longer life expectancy would not be bad, something like a 150 or 200 years, afterwards it could become a pin in the ass.
Also to have everything easy and painless would make life boring and probably we would end causing more pain ourself than life itself :).
Transhumanism is interesting and a great project, but there are a lot of ethical and epistemological dilemmas that must be discussed first, like bolstrom is doing.
If we save the life of 60mil a year in 15-20 years we will dubble worlds population, just think what disaster that is goanna be, as it is the world is over populated.
Isnt it great that nature always finds a way to create balance & I guess death is one of natures ways.
way to criat balance & i guess deth is one of naturs ways.
he has valible points. you imply that the purpose of man is to reproduce and take care of offspring, if that's true human only need to live for 25 to 30 years (reproducing at age 16). But there are so much more meaning to life that nobody can fully grasp in the amount of lifetime we currently have. If we live life to the fullest (not just having fun but also live with constant revelations) another 150 years might not be that bad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wait? Death is a waste of life and resources?
First of all analyze the data of how one human life consumes resources. Terminating that life will be better on the environment. Living long will increase the chances for having more kids which will increase the consumption of resources.
It takes a casket or sometimes an urn for the dead.
It is a waste of time? Time and resources are all relevant only to the living.
Longevity could help to solve the current conflicts of interests between the present generations and the future ones - if somebody is going to live longer, its more likely that he will take better care of his environment, and not just maximize his/her consumption in the short term without caring about the long-term implications of his/her bevavior.
A problem is defined as: "A problem is an issue or obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose." and "a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved".
Taking this definition into account, one has problems when in a state that is antonymous to happiness, and vica versa.
So, in order to solve the problems of the world, you have to make everyone happy.
Who says, we are making the rules as we go along. It is not "unjust" , it's just that if we can prevent it, why not? Or if you insist on the population problem then maybe people can have the chocie to have children and die at the same age as now or not have them and not die. But with better technologies the Earth caould sustain a lot more people than now and there is no reason for people to have a lot of children - already many countries have populations and decline.
IN decline, I meant. Old school HUmanism consists of accepting that life is short, which is a bummer, but aiming to accept it and make the most of the time we have -- that is a sensible attitude if there is no alternative, but in the future there may be. Anyway, where do you draw the line? Would you be against therapies allowing everyone to reach 120? What about 200? You don't object to the unnatural things we do now, like childhood vaccinations, that mean we live onaverage to 80 not 40, do you?
Why the hell would you want more people on this rock??? 7 billion not enough for you!? We are destroying our planet, some of us have to go before its ruined beyond repair. The rest of us need to live in a more environmentally friendly way, and no I don't mean americans pretending to 'go green' by changing their light bulbs.
Would you like to stop kids taking vaccines or doctors sterilising instruments and washing their hands etc, so we can get the death rates back to where they were? Anyway, more of us could live on this rock if we lived more efficiently and used the space better - at the moment we all cram into small areas and there are vast empty parts. We could also make more use of high-rise buildings, so using less space
I agree. I usually dont post comments on Youtube but I am going to post a comment of agreement. I dont see why we need more people on this Earth seeing that we are destroying it with the number of people we have now that are destined to die. More people on this earth means more ways to try to sustain a higher population meaning more harmful technologies, breaking of ethics, and more misery. This is for vanity purposes and people afraid of the inevitability of the death.
There are many problems with Bostrom. Death in itself is a good not a problem. We need to replace and make room for other people. Indeed there are too many of us. Bostrom comes from a "scientistic" point of view which holds that anything we want to accomplish by definition we should, and that there is such a thing as linear progress.
Why automatically assume we "must" be replaced and make room for others? However even if we go on having children at the same rate (whic will not necessarily be the case), it is possible future technologies will enable a lot more people to live on the planet, some to live in space stations or on terra-formed other planets etc. Personally I am not keen on the idea of dying any day soon if it can be prevented
It is a fallacy to assume death is innately wrong. Certain kinds of deaths are wrong: deaths arising from human homicide for example. What is absurd to me is the notion that death by old age is unjust or must be corrected by technological innovation. Looking for yet more technology as an escape route in the form of space travel is very costly and might create ever more problems. My argument is NOT a luddite argument but "old school" humanism as opposed to "transhumanism".
The biggest problem of humanity in my point of view other than ignorance would be selfishness, look at the past, kings, our own governments when it comes to revolutionary inventions like an on going generator... Look at now, look at the people. Selfishness comes in human by default... think about it, it's in our genes. Another problem is that people put high value to the norm, and hates the abnorm, example, ugly women = undesirable... think about it.
Do you ever wonder why so many people in this country use antidepressants? Because material things are NEVER the key to true happiness. Those who don't have it are depressed and those who have it are not truely happy for the most part.
i bui;t a house for people in mexico the house built was really small and the house before was basically trailer sized but built out of scraps of wood yet they were the happiest people i met
very humine look at the human life. This is so refreshing in comparison to what the mass media poisons us with on regular basis. Usually I only hear of crime and celebs life. They are so sick!!!! I swore off TV for years now. You should do the same for the health of you own family and travel the world to see that this country 'aint the best in the world' THta's only propaganda they feed you for their own profit.
Bostrom's point 3 sounds like Abraham Maslow's description of "peak experiences" (PE's). I could see normalizing PE's as the main cognitive state, much as Ayn Rand fantasized that her philosophy would bring about. As her mouthpiece John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" says: "This is how men expect to feel about their life once or twice, as an exception, in the course of their life. But I -- this is what I chose as the constant and normal."
If you can't bear the burden of sentience, do some drugs. Don't spoil it for the rest of us. Anybody who defines the goal of life as being ecstatically (and passively, I might add) happy for all eternity is not qualified to talk on "moral, spiritual and intellectual development."
converging technology is a subject we should all be familiar with. swing over to my page and watch the documentary "The Age of Transitions" which delves into this subject and it's origins. thanks.
I understand that great multitudes of The-Living That Will Be Uploaded and Augmented as well as The Reconstructed Dead will despise us 'transhumanists' and Singularitarians for how we have disfigued their souls and repurposed the matter of the observable Universe for our own Thoegenesis-
but you will have an eternity to get over it (^__-)
he emphasized the importance of ethics and moralality in this process. do you really think makind will stop at this point in history? we now have better technology than in the stoneage but are we immoral because of it?
and by the way nietzsche said (or zarathustra...)that the ubermensch will look down on mankind like mankind looks down on apes.
and please, most of the time when someone compares anyone with the nazis they make themselves look ludicrous, like you showed afresh.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A monster with a sense ethics, classy. The ethical considerations are just lip service, designed to disarm us. Realize that I think transhumanists are POSSESSED by an evil meme, no matter how nice they are as people. Mankind had BETTER stop transhumanism, if mankind wants to continue to exist. Anyone who tries to use Nietzsche to support transhumanism DOESN'T UNDERSTAND NIETZSCHE. And if confronted with a movement as dangerous as Nazism, we're supposed to keep silent? To hell with Godwin.
Wigglestrue, your status-quo biased dismal death-is-great rationalizing can be applied to those who need artificial limbs or those in poverty, would you deprive them of manipulating their own body and status for their own benefit, once technology progresses to the point where their suffering is unnecessary? Who designated death as so 'necessary' for great living?
Some people who don't know how to enjoy life (like me sometime), or anyone who have nothing to do, will agree that 'longer life' will be deadly boring.
But for some who have many goals, who never bored with their life, they can enjoy longer life.
I guess we could not generalize that longer life will help all human, some will happier, some other will suffers stressful life.
Btw, don't you realize that ending our own life is an available option?
Prolonging life will zap the happiness from life. It is the brevity of our own live which makes these special moments seem so precious. Why would you want to go out and do something, get an education, or anything when you can always say I will do it in 10 years since I will live indefinitely or till I'm 200, more than triple the life span.
Why do anything then? 50 years ago life expectancy was something like 40 years. Did those people live happier more fulfilled lives? I don't think history will support your argument.
Which statement I made that you are responding to because I dont know which one. I have many on this page surprisingly.
People who lived up to 40 lives. In 1959 i am sure the life expectancy wasn't 40. 40 is the life expectancy of people in the black plague.
And how can you rate happiness? It is something history can't prove. Back then in america i think it was the civil right's movement. happiness depends on society and during the time so you cant make that judgment.
Why not doing anything then? If you are unsatisfied with your lifespan then just kill yourself or just try to fulfill what you can in 70 years. In addition it isn't the lifespan but the healthy part of our lives we want to lengthen.
In 70 years you can make a family, watch them grow, retire from a good career, travel the world, and do a lot of things. A lot of people done it and they didnt need 200 years to live an enjoyable life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's like watching Hitler as a new age self help guru. I thought Europeans above all had learned their lesson. But no, here we go again, more final solutions.
Yes, just like Hitler. Except his enemies are death, extinction, suffering and ignorance. Oh, and he doesn't want to gas anybody. How dare people who want to amplify the good things in life and minimize the bad things!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Regardless of what he *thinks* his enemies are: His enemy is human life itself. Whether he understands it or not, he is advocating the death of the human spirit, he is advocating the extinction of the human species. He wants to gas our essence. We already have everything we need to amplify the good things in life and minimize the bad things. Fake hearts and eyeglasses and the internet do NOT comprise some fucking hybrid existence. LIFE IS NOT A MISTAKE. DEATH IS NOT A MISTAKE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
On my death bed, I will be smiling, because I will have experienced a wonderful, all-too-human life. This life is a GIFT from nature/God/whoever, and transhumanists want to destroy that gift irreparably.
No one is going to force life extension on you wigglestrue. Much like how Amish today are not forced to utilize contemporary medical treatments and vaccinations and cures, those who wish to live natural lives and deaths will be allowed to do so. You are the one who wants to destroy everyone elses freedom to control their own lives.
Thank you for posting this, TEDtalksDirector.
writersblock26 2 hours ago
Wow, Bostrom seems a little ... duh in this video. I mean, perhaps he's being deliberately banal, but all the same - "oh yeah, well I thought really hard about it and I've decided that, yup, death is a problem, and so is human extinction" - I mean, it's not exactly refreshing this stuff is it? Of bloody course we're interested in all those things, tell us something we don't know!
richardtheteague 1 month ago
Wrong. You are all wrong. for the furtherment of the human race, the Earth's population must be reduced, not increased.
DamionCrane 2 months ago
@DamionCrane He never suggested keeping the birth rate the same. We are finding ways to reduce it, as it will help to deal with all of the big problems.
itismehonest 2 months ago
The third problem Bostrom talks about is fascinating. As aspects of our nervous system are evolved, or theoretically pre-adapted, to manage different types of organisms, say extra limbs, then virtual reality avatars allows us to explore different ways of being.
utologydotnet 2 months ago
I didn't really understand his point here. And I'm reading all this stuff of 'transhumanism.' Can someone explain everything to me?
Gammodore 4 months ago
@Gammodore I didn't watch this yet, but if you want to know what transhumanism is, search for it in Google, you'll find lots of info!
As far as I know, transhumanism is about people wanting to enhance themselves with cyborg-implants, like robot eyes etc. so they could see through walls, or anything like that, to "make us better".
Transhumanism's alternative title should be "No! We're totally not obsessed sci-fi/cyberpunk-geeks! We just want kickass robot legs and lasers in our eyes!" -ism x'D
Samoutuomas 3 months ago
immortality = living on other planets, seeing other lifeforms (aliens), probably being able to fly and any other desire which given eternity will be achieved with 100% probability.
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
i never asked for tihs
mauroprovatos 4 months ago
@mauroprovatos ''i never asked for tihs''
Me neither buddy. Me neither. Glorified mission to nowhere.
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
The biggest problem for humanity are idiots like this guy, who talks totally nonsense.
TaoPiet 4 months ago
Comment removed
khepri 5 months ago
Who else loled at the BMW advert?
Leviathan268 5 months ago
being a kid this reminds me of troy, when Achilles says 'the gods envy us, because we are mortal'... if we didnt have standard lives, and not live to our full technological potential, the moments that make life so special would not be as strong and as brilliant
kacky78 6 months ago
Only the rich will have access to this technology. The rest of us will die off.
CtrlRm 6 months ago
@CtrlRm This will be a two part response, look out for the other. I’ve seen questions such as this in the past and multiple analogues throughout history. Skepticism regarding the merit of emerging technologies with such high price tags is not new. At one time personal computers were seen as a luxury only the wealthy could afford; however as time progressed so did personal computers. They became increasingly compact and powerful, but most importantly, cheap (or cheaper).
FermentingMadness 3 months ago
@CtrlRm Now we can afford laptops that dwarf the processing power of supercomputers of decades past. Similarly, as human augmentation becomes common, prices are likely to fall along with steady increases supply. Cutting edge prostheses and augmentations will be developed to replace outdated models which will likely become cheap. Eventually, lower end enhancements will exceed the capabilities of the first generation of prosthesis/augments, perhaps by a large margin too.
FermentingMadness 3 months ago
Overpopulation is already a problem, wake up, take a trip to India maybe. If people live longer, does that mean they work longer? If not, who supports them? Will this longer collective life really produce enough to offset the costs of simply extending that life? What will their quality of life be like? We've managed to get life expectancy in North America up to something around 80? Talk to these people ask them how their quality of life has been for the past 20 years.
alongfortheride84 7 months ago
@alongfortheride84 We've managed to find half of a cure for age, not entirely, but you won't be old and frail at the age of 80 and live much longer if it works out.
Shyhalu 7 months ago
@alongfortheride84 overpopulation is a mýth, search it... maybe you should take a trip to Japan that have more population density than India...
GodEquals3 4 months ago 2
@GodEquals3 you need to consider sustainability
theplayfulpoet 4 months ago
@theplayfulpoet Yes, I have to consider sustainability. We can´t live like a millionare with private jet, some mansions etc.... We must change our consumism minds that always want more. Use renewable energy mainly because of pollution, but the owners of fuel put the price they want so that it´s always cheaper to use fuel...
They don´t want more people because people are not born with money. We live in a capitalism nightmare.
GodEquals3 4 months ago
This stuff is ridiculous:
1) Death - death is obviously not swell on an individual level, it is the end of one's own existence/consciousness. I also agree that if people were to live longer, we may reap the rewards of experience. But let's not forget, the world is already overpopulated. Where will all this food come from? How expensive will these extra years be (both for the individual and society) and how will the quality of life be? Will people really want to work longer into their lives?
alongfortheride84 7 months ago
@alongfortheride84 Forget about that, just think about the jobs. The young would not have work, and thus not be able to get experience, which means we will have what we have today in america. A huge gap in talent and experience in the marketplace where the new comers can barely scratch the surface of the skill requirements. When all the experience people retire or die? We're all fucked.
Shyhalu 7 months ago
@alongfortheride84 You'll have just your mind uploaded and then choose to live on the network, in virtual reality. That way you will consume only some limited computing resources. Of course you will have to pay for that in some way, but I guess it will be far cheaper than old, ill person.
Vlakpage 6 months ago
transhumanism is a fad. video is dated 2007 and it's still getting comments so I'd say the fad is still around, I'm surprised it's lasted this long.
We'll never have any of this, maybe our grandchildren will start to see it, but not us. First world countries are still having problems with abortion and gay marriage, how the hell are we psychologically or spiritually ready for reinventing our bodies.
I'm 100% behind it but for us, all of us right where we are now, it's just scientific fantasy.
JossJossJoss1 8 months ago
@JossJossJoss1 its going to happen this very century
eyhexs 7 months ago
He is not saying Death is a problem. But the Loss of Human Experience. We lose mountains of knowledge, potential "modes", and billions of other things. From his expression of the amount of people that would die or survive in this existential risk, I see how much more he cares about statistics than anything. When he jumps to talk about Life altering methods. Imagine how much more we can learn if we all survive longer. This is his point. Thumbs up? Ted is about sharing ideas after all...
fuckyou60286 8 months ago
why can't we genetically alter future humans to not feel pain, if suffering is so bad that is.
joshuacharles78 9 months ago
Its funny how I hear all of these things that are positive improvements for humanity, yet I see the problems being adressed, and it makes me think. Why has this guy not figured it out yet?
These problems are not the biggest problems we all face.
~Jkun~
Jkun 9 months ago
Yes, death is problem number one. Think about how much is lost to death, all the knowledge, all the experience. Whoever is for death, why don't you kill yourself today? How is that different from being ok in dieing tomorrow? Don't give the overpopulation bs. It has been proven so many times that is not a problem at all. Wake up from this torpor you are in, stop believing the bs religion taught you about death is part of life. Yes, and rape is part of love.
alive4ever1 9 months ago
Death to death. Death is not part of life. It is part of death. Why we are so messed up to think death is part of life? That is disgusting.
alive4ever1 9 months ago
I love Nick Bostrom
spacecowboy95 10 months ago 5
booring class
zonsonlovely 10 months ago
I feel like it makes perfect sense for a human being at some point (with the way we have progressed technologically) to question existential risks, since the very basis of technocratic ideologies, consider humans as number one. Since we are considered number one, in this case, why would we want to be extinct? Ofcourse we would have talks and share ideas about trying not to destroy all humanity. However, I don't agree with him, because I believe that if we go extinct, then thats that.
yeahsfrau 10 months ago
Death is bad when your goal is to gather information and make something out of it.
Giwen 10 months ago 2
Is this a joke...
DaTartanSpartan 10 months ago
What would happen if you grew up with lions and tigers and bears that were all tame, and were never told they would tear you they were dangerous and would to pieces outside?
Then I took you on an African safari. You got out of the jeep to give them a hug. It wouldn't end well for you.
We're products of out environment and out cultural conditioning. If you want to alter social problems, you start by altering the environment. As for death, I don't see it as a problem. ONLY ones with EGO would.
rpm297 11 months ago
@AdamRI18 Okay, sure. Although I don't believe life is intrinsically good either---it just is. I guess what I'm trying to drive at is that there is no such thing as absolute permanence (at least, not as far as we know). Focusing on extending human lifespan is a better idea to me than trying to "kill death", but how far do we want to go? What are the sociological and psychological ramifications of letting people live to be 2000, 10,000 or a million years old?
datalal624 1 year ago
@AdamRI18 Why is death "evil", in your view? Please explain. Bacteria die every second. Animals die every day. Trees often die, but some last for thousands of years. The Earth will die at some point a few billion years on. Stars die too, though they last for eon after eon. Even the universe will dim and fall cold and silent eventually. In my view, it is humans who see death as an enemy rather than an eventuality because we are apes on the run from the wolf, still.
datalal624 1 year ago
@datalal624 In other words, it is our evolutionary roots---the built-in fears of all the ways we can die---that have conditioned us to perceive death most often as a menace to be feared and avoided, rather than something just happens. Even if we shirked our human skins and lived inside computers, computers can still be obliterated. Death happens, like breathing, like light from a star, or a black hole in space. It just is, and always will be (or rather is just isn't, and always will not be).
datalal624 1 year ago
@datalal624 Sorry for the typos. I'm tired, which happens too. :)
datalal624 1 year ago
Best video on the Internet.
semaifirtes 1 year ago
This guy sounds like an asian. o3o
Anyways, I liked his speech.
LadyYuzuki 1 year ago
@LadyYuzuki Although...he's Swedish...lol.
VivaTour09 11 months ago
We need more people like Bostrom. He is one of the few who know what is really important in the world.
wideinterest 1 year ago 9
Secular society until just recently said death was "natural" and a happy part of the "circle of life." Now it seems the trend is to say death is a problem to overcome through science. I remember hearing Ray Kurzweil casually stating that the tech singularity would fix such problems as death. Think carefully, tranhumanists! Your hell is awaiting you.
caveatemp 1 year ago
@caveatemp
The fear you have about Nick's journey of thought is a fear that crossed my mind. It passed when I took those ideas to "the next level". Just imagine the respect for each life once death is no longer a variable. Only those deemed worthy will be allowed to reproduce. Genes will be altered so greed, war, hatred, murders, any of the basic evils are eliminated from our actions (both involuntary and voluntary).
I think the respect for humankind will reach close it its highest potential
corusa 8 months ago
@corusa Ah! The great respect we will all have for one another once the eugenics controls are firmly in place. The controls that decide who gets to have children and who gets to die. So much respect I can hardly stand it.
I think you are way too sanguine about the human spirit. The same spirit that brought you Caligula, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. The scum definitely tends to rise to the top of society, doesn't it?
Transhumanism is eternal existence, not eternal life. Bios, not zoe.
caveatemp 8 months ago
transhumanism = neo-fascism
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtmcwallace are you fucked
NWOsurvivors 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace Explain people
LucienZakhaev 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtmcwallace Explain please
LucienZakhaev 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace Transhumanism = Freedom = Knowledge = Knowledge.
mantrap9 1 year ago
this guy uses the same methods of enticing as a drug pusher, telling us what he has is something that we want in order to achieve this singular goal of "happiness" when the misunderstood pursuit of what he offers only mutilates our bodies, personalities, communities, and creative potentials. Appealing to pity and immature fears of death and perceived undesirable aesthetics. Its that same story of people who don't know better trying to insulate themselves in this sphere of perfection.
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace It is a disgusting reduction of death and the end of life to view it as economic waste. Economic waste for who? Who is interested in getting people to live longer so he doesn't have his economic productivity wasted? Why is natural death so threatening
Transhumanism might as well be the master race 2.0
the Nazis wanted to obliterate things that they perceived to be ugly and threatening. They went about it by trying to micromanage every thing they could in life. That is fascism
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace He's not saying their is some man in an ivory tower wishing his labor force would stop dying. He's saying that it is a waste for the artist, the genius, the hard worker, the master craftsman or engineer to succumb to senescence or accidental death. And his knowledge die with him.
Death is threatening because it's the end of existing. Not sure anyone couldn't grasp that. There is no bigger threat
And you to compare wanting to rid the world of death and disease to Nazis.. wow..
Kaine667 1 year ago 4
@sgtmcwallace Good points. The pursuit of happiness, something our country is founded on, is putting the cart before the horse. If life is not based on self giving then it quickly becomes a narcissistic nightmare. Add eternal existence through advanced technology and you have a perfect recipe for hell.
caveatemp 8 months ago
@caveatemp Good points mostly. Though I don't know that life should be based on self-giving. It seems to reduce caring for one's self, which doesn't seem like a great start at all. Without taking care of one's self, what good can one do for their brothers and sisters?
People can go too far as you say, and spiral into a smoking solipsistic tailspin, but that's one possibility among many. The choice seems theirs.
We can embrace self-esteem and still find happiness in our duty to others, right?
Jac0bAndrew 8 months ago
This speech is riddled with logical fallacies and dreadfully over-simplified commentary which ill-comports with the complex subject of human life and its value.
REALITY2point0 1 year ago
Death is extremley economically inefficient............lol
charmander4533 1 year ago
Lol Nick Bostrom. I haven't seen this weirdo talk in a long time. He looks super old these days
klined 1 year ago
I don't think albus dumbledore counts as a commentator since it's just JK rowling's character
anyways, living longer would be awesome, as well as a few of these other things too
noobler9 1 year ago
He is a Transhumanist if I ever heard one.... Thumbs up if you are a Transhumanist!
SimontheSorceror 1 year ago
Hooray for human modification! IRL Furries ftw.
TehNewV 1 year ago
Humanity's biggest problems aren't what Nick Bostrom thinks they are.
1. Banksters/ Terror Regime
2. Self-replicating technology
3. Peak Everything
4. Global Economic Collapse
5. Thermonuclear Warfare
He was close, though.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton i think the chances of you and i (and everyone else) dying from old age are far greater than of any of those things ever happening; statistically speaking, you might as well just add "a giant asteroid colliding with plane earth" to the top of the list
eyhexs 1 year ago
@eyhexs
Is there actually any reasoning involved in your thinking? If so, you really shouldn't hide it as completely as you do.
trakkaton 1 year ago
Every age has its doomsayers, and every time they're wrong. The reason? The power of human ingenuity has always proven, and will continue to prove, to be limitless.
Quartux 1 year ago
@Quartux
Every age has some propagandist of the regime, some nutty optimist, some jerks who think they can stop grey jam with "the secret" or Chernobyl with "a positive attitude", or the banksters with a retreat, and generally don't want to deal with reality, the structure of our society, the structure of risk technologies, or past catastrophies (with a clear escalation over the last decades), but rather choose to parrot slogans that are contradictory in itself (on multiple levels).
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton I agree with what you're saying on many levels but the whole grey jam/grey goo thing seems like a very improbable threat to me. Natural selection has been "trying" to make the perfect self-replicator like that for billions of years and hasn't had much luck.
3Gyro 1 year ago
@3Gyro
Your argument's flawed. Natural selection comes to VERY different endpoints in comparison to intelligent design. The latter arrived at the wheel/ the internal defibrilator, natural selection never did. An ungoing, chaotic process that blindly crouches in all directions with a limited vocabulary has nothing to do with a blueprint. A designer could make humans without a crossover of digestive and respiratory tract, evolution could not. Read Bill Joy. Outperforming artificial photosythesis.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton You've still got to admit that building "grey goo" would pose absurdly enormous engineering challenges. Certainly it's nothing that somebody might build accidentally. It would have to be a machine capable of building more of itself out of VIRTUALLY ANYTHING. Does anybody have any idea of how it would would actually work, right now?
3Gyro 1 year ago
@3Gyro
Future engineering always seems absurd. Besides that, grey goo is also a pars pro toto. Anything outperforming natural biology. And that IS easy. If you combine this FACT with the FACT that our society has about NO risk management a global, now unthinkable catastrophe is just a matter of time. Dumbfucks drill holes in the seabed without a clue how to close it. They produce highly poisonous waste that will be radioactive for 100000 years. They'll set free outperforming replicators.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton I would add GMO. And they have yet to get Fukushima under control. It's getting worse!
caveatemp 8 months ago
waiting for a punchline that never comes ...
apfelmann2000 1 year ago 3
this man speak truths; all of you naysayers on this comments thread are just short sighted; dont worry, no one will force anything upon you; we will just make aside a nice patch of arable land right next to an amish community were you can all just eat, shit, suffer, grow old and numb, then die; ad infinitum;
but hey, dont try to force anything upon me either
eyhexs 1 year ago 2
@eyhexs
You just don't get that grey goo doesn't stop at fences, do you? Amish people force nothing upon you, but the all-too-certain superfuck-up of genetics, nanotech and robotics will be forced upon EVERYONE.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton so what? nuclear blasts, biological and/or chemical weapons dont stop at fences either; and yet here we are, discussing this over the internet; you cant stop progress; you would just end up driving it underground
eyhexs 1 year ago
@eyhexs
Wow, what a shitload of shit, you really ARE unable to make any sense. We are discussing nuclear blasts while they are a reality - so, err - WHAT? Non sequitur or selection bias, what are you up to?
"Progress" (i.e. your euphemism for the escalation of a catastrophe) has been stopped MANY times, that' s a FACT. Learn some history. Just - some.
trakkaton 7 months ago
@eyhexs Best comment !
Mr7bello 1 year ago
This guy is crazy. I'm all for transhumanism, and when he started talking about death from aging I though he was building up steam to make his point, but then he just leaves it at that and goes straight over to EXISTENTIAL RISK, where he trailed off into total nonsense-land.
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
I don't think death is a problem.If you ask me that Mr. Bostrom is just ridicolusly afraid of death and he tries to project that on his audiance.He only pointed out death but he didn't mention any births.When we consider the even greater human population that means there are more births than death.And that IS our most dangerous problem we are facing.There are too many humans, each of them has his ouwn wishes so most of them can't become what they want because other persons wishes get in the way
Roky1989 1 year ago
this man is ahead of his time
comfortablynumb4 1 year ago 24
@comfortablynumb4 "There are things worse then death" _Albus Dumbledor
Eldel15 1 year ago
If you are thinking that death is a problem, You have a problem with your "values"!
sdfghjkl345 1 year ago
This is disturbing. I don't think we need to transcend our humanness, but to fully become human. Part of that is embracing the cyclical. And Death is part of that.
theothers40 1 year ago
No, silly. Life as we know it as a brand new phenomenon with a short past compared to all the time ahead of us. This dying business could easily get left behind once we figure out something we don't know yet. Use you imagination.
DrLight9 1 year ago 26
@DrLight9 Use your imagination. At present, the world is overpopulated. If we increased avg lifespans into the hundreds, we'd deplete resources within a few decades and death, when it occurred, would be even more tragic. Also, the avg person, with an IQ of just 100, would not contribute much to the greater culture aside from self preservation and perpetuation...
ritter89 1 year ago
@DrLight9 sir, I just copied what you said here on my facebook. wise words, thanks for all
Kaeralho 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kaeralho Thanks that means a lot to me :)
DrLight9 4 months ago
I would not describe death as a problem. The fact that we are mortal, influences so strong our life and our decisions that if there was no death, our society and culture would be totally different. What would happen with all the situations when we say "well, what the f. we live only once"?
Not to mention, that overpopulation and the resulting exploitation of resources can destroy the whole planet.
HristoStefanovDotDE 1 year ago
@HristoStefanovDotDE Overpopulation is occurring and we barely even live longer than we used to, at least in proportion to the grand-scale of things. So you're saying that if we manage as a population to avoid dieing of natural causes then we're merely setting ourselves up for increased destruction?
Thats what solutions are for. Up to the time that we develop such technology we'll obviously come to grips with the fact that we'll need strong reproduction guide-lines and limitations.
Dshwin 1 year ago
@Dshwin Reproduction guidelines and limitations? This sounds not like the future I would like to have.
But anyway. I recently read one short story from Voltaire called Micromegas. Its a phylosophical play with sizes and durations. Like the duration of life.
HristoStefanovDotDE 1 year ago
Quite possibly the most mechanistic thinking I have come across in my life so far. And that's saying something.
DoJaenin 1 year ago
lol what
wasdwasdedsf 10 months ago
Death is not a problem.
0Krusnik0 1 year ago
As for posthuman immortality
'millions dream of eternity who do not know what to do with themselves of a rainy Sunday afternoon' (I forget the author)
Origen305 2 years ago
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Susan Ertz ... brilliantly said ...
mindauggas 2 years ago
Thanks for reference and proper quote. I take it you agreee with the sentiment expressed. I respect Bostrum's academic work and agree that these issues need to be discussed. My fear is that Bostrum is giving 'academic cover' to the wider H+ memetics - seemingly obsessed more with ;catching the train on time', rather than focusing on the intergenerational ethics and socio-political implications.
Origen305 2 years ago
I never thought I'd see the day where I broadly agree with Fukayama - 'Transhumanism is the world's most dangenrous idea.
That said at least Bostrum is delivering peer reviewed literature that weighs the pros and cons of transhumanism and the need for mitigating existential risks. By imbibing the koolaid I believe he is too cognitively predisposed to 'normalising' transhumanism in the absence of the prerequisite discourse of ethics and policy that are neccessary prerequisites of TH's goals.
Origen305 2 years ago
This isn't a very complete representation of his usual philosophy, trust me, read his papers first and then make judgements people.
DisciplinedUnit 2 years ago
As long as we're stuck on earth, and that's a long time still...There would have to be castration for immortality, or death for babies :P
A hard choice really, and I think westerners would be split on matter, although I might exaggerate how many would find immortality favorable with that cost in mind... Also strong religious convictions are surprizingly common amoung many westerners still, not only in America... What's up with that?!? They will give us everything they've got on this matter!
kreaturen 2 years ago
Most horrible presentation I've ever seen on TED. Death is not "human biggest problem", it's what hops along Life itself. I was waiting for the punchline but this presentation got even worse... Giving a figure of 50% that we won't make the next century without any explanation, just vague pictures.... If you think this reaction is bad, you've just spend 108 lives (Oh no! 108 books!) reading this.
doloppost 2 years ago
@doloppost totally agree with you
apfelmann2000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Death is economically wasteful?! this guy is a moron
PopolVuh2 2 years ago
Dude, it's depreciation of Human Capital! How could it not be wasteful economically? D:
sciencemile 2 years ago 2
Prof. Bostrom does some really interesting work, but I think his presentations need some polishing.
charlatanfilms 2 years ago 2
If death is the first great problem, then existential risk is not its own problem. All it refers to is the risk of death in great numbers.
I don't know whether death is a good or bad thing, but I do know that having a more wonderful life would be nice.
So he says death is a problem, we're at risk of dying on a massive scale, and life could be more wonderful. The sum of this talk is pretty much my world view since I was about two. But add all those extra words and people think you're a genius.
dcs002 2 years ago
remain stagnant, passing around the same circles. Different perspectives are needed,because although everyone might hear the same things,they will interpret them differently.And if no one dies, where will we fit the next generstion of fresh minds?So defying death will probably not only affect evolution of the body, but of the mind
fluffy2988 2 years ago
I agree ptocologist-its a massive oversimplification to say that death is bad.Your point about evolution is interesting,I think that its better applied to the evolution of our ideas (i.e. thought)than the evolution of our bodies though.Although survival of the fittest (in terms of body)is an issue,it has been reduced by developments in healthcare.Atleast in the west.But overcoming death poses a threat to the evolution of ideas too-if people don't die,then ideas will
fluffy2988 2 years ago
Wow, look at all the retarded deathist comments, what a surprise (not)!
@ ptocologist: yes, death (like for example AIDS or cancer) is inherently bad and it's really as simple as that. "Death gives our species a better chance of surviving". Bull, without technological intervention, our species will go the way of the dinosaur sooner or later. Besides, *fuck* the species; it's the *individual* that matters. You know, real living people, not abstract concepts like 'species'.
Parapon3ra 2 years ago 7
@Parapon3ra You say the 'individual matters' and I agree, but transhumanism could destroy the individual if we take it too far. I believe that uploading your mind into a computer or multiple computers and then destroying your body will end your existence. The computer(s) will have your memories and personality, but you will be gone, experiencing nothingness.
BillTheWaterDrinker 1 year ago
Assuming that anything, including death, is an inherently bad thing is a symptom of extremism and oversimplification. Death actually gives our species a better likelihood of surviving because it gives evolution more chances to produce adaptation to changing environments. We must not be arrogant about technology.
If we all lived a thousand years, we would also risk cultural stagnation because the enthusiasm of youth produces much in the means of innovation, and aging tends to dampen this.
ptocologist 2 years ago
I think if we could genuinely prolong life, it'd be healthy life, so the enthusiasm wouldn't fade as much as you'd think. And you'd have people who were super-skilled emerging, who would be not merely say, a grandmaster at chess but also a great composer and (etc). These people might be able to cross-pollinate ideas from different domains of skill and might if their brain could still function like a young brain, be functionally a little more intelligent than anyone has ever been before.
Valefarous 2 years ago 5
@Valefarous well said you have an interesting point of view i like it
jakaz77 2 years ago
@ptocologist
I disagree. It is not death that gives our 'species/genes' the best chance of surviving/evolving. It is reproduction.
I also disagree with your second point. Culture could, in theory, be unlimited and also selective once an apropriate level of technological integration had been reached. Furthermore, the prevention of the natural ageing process at the mitochondrian level could nullify the correlation between ageing and accumulative cell damage, leading to pathology.
normskis69 2 years ago
normskis69, I disagree with your statement that death doesn't give our species the best chance of evolving. Our current biology allows that a man with one or more disadvantageous genes can spread his DNA quite a bit farther if he lives to be 500 or 1,000. (Menopause prevents this in women, but with future advances in reproductive medicine, who knows.)
To this extent, reproduction would not enhance evolution at all. It would hinder it. Death and reproduction are both factors.
dcs002 2 years ago
In that case, it would not be death that could hinder 'our best chance of evolving', but intelligence.
normskis69 2 years ago
Immortality would be a pain! But a longer life expectancy would not be bad, something like a 150 or 200 years, afterwards it could become a pin in the ass.
Also to have everything easy and painless would make life boring and probably we would end causing more pain ourself than life itself :).
Transhumanism is interesting and a great project, but there are a lot of ethical and epistemological dilemmas that must be discussed first, like bolstrom is doing.
comicfan88 2 years ago
If we save the life of 60mil a year in 15-20 years we will dubble worlds population, just think what disaster that is goanna be, as it is the world is over populated.
Isnt it great that nature always finds a way to create balance & I guess death is one of natures ways.
way to criat balance & i guess deth is one of naturs ways.
vshart 2 years ago
Jane Goodall has more piggish, than apish, qualities. She enjoys mud-baths, burrowing in muck, wallowing in goo and bathing infrequently.
ThingsTerrestrial 2 years ago
The entire talk is centered around selfishness and self importance and gets ucomfortably close to master race kind of shit.
Live and be young forever. has always been the goal of vampires.
I very honestly cannot help but think of the word evil while listening to this talk.
Having reproduced and brought up you offspring, another 150 years is way too long to be hanging around.
waysworth 2 years ago
he has valible points. you imply that the purpose of man is to reproduce and take care of offspring, if that's true human only need to live for 25 to 30 years (reproducing at age 16). But there are so much more meaning to life that nobody can fully grasp in the amount of lifetime we currently have. If we live life to the fullest (not just having fun but also live with constant revelations) another 150 years might not be that bad.
MichaelShi8 2 years ago 3
Death is just a waste of times and resources!
Sal0Alo 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wait? Death is a waste of life and resources?
First of all analyze the data of how one human life consumes resources. Terminating that life will be better on the environment. Living long will increase the chances for having more kids which will increase the consumption of resources.
It takes a casket or sometimes an urn for the dead.
It is a waste of time? Time and resources are all relevant only to the living.
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
Longevity could help to solve the current conflicts of interests between the present generations and the future ones - if somebody is going to live longer, its more likely that he will take better care of his environment, and not just maximize his/her consumption in the short term without caring about the long-term implications of his/her bevavior.
p99schweiz 2 years ago
Death isn't a problem. It's part of life.
Overpopulation is the problem. Added to nr. 2 it's covered pretty much all of it.
RuudJH 2 years ago
Death is not part of life, it's the end of it.
A problem is defined as: "A problem is an issue or obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose." and "a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved".
Taking this definition into account, one has problems when in a state that is antonymous to happiness, and vica versa.
So, in order to solve the problems of the world, you have to make everyone happy.
jama463 2 years ago
And birth is the start, right?
renggunux 2 years ago
Who says, we are making the rules as we go along. It is not "unjust" , it's just that if we can prevent it, why not? Or if you insist on the population problem then maybe people can have the chocie to have children and die at the same age as now or not have them and not die. But with better technologies the Earth caould sustain a lot more people than now and there is no reason for people to have a lot of children - already many countries have populations and decline.
orlando098 2 years ago
IN decline, I meant. Old school HUmanism consists of accepting that life is short, which is a bummer, but aiming to accept it and make the most of the time we have -- that is a sensible attitude if there is no alternative, but in the future there may be. Anyway, where do you draw the line? Would you be against therapies allowing everyone to reach 120? What about 200? You don't object to the unnatural things we do now, like childhood vaccinations, that mean we live onaverage to 80 not 40, do you?
orlando098 2 years ago
I mean about 100 years ago the average lifespan in the west was 40, mainly because so many people died of illnesses we now prevent
orlando098 2 years ago
Why the hell would you want more people on this rock??? 7 billion not enough for you!? We are destroying our planet, some of us have to go before its ruined beyond repair. The rest of us need to live in a more environmentally friendly way, and no I don't mean americans pretending to 'go green' by changing their light bulbs.
jpd1235 2 years ago
Would you like to stop kids taking vaccines or doctors sterilising instruments and washing their hands etc, so we can get the death rates back to where they were? Anyway, more of us could live on this rock if we lived more efficiently and used the space better - at the moment we all cram into small areas and there are vast empty parts. We could also make more use of high-rise buildings, so using less space
orlando098 2 years ago
I agree. I usually dont post comments on Youtube but I am going to post a comment of agreement. I dont see why we need more people on this Earth seeing that we are destroying it with the number of people we have now that are destined to die. More people on this earth means more ways to try to sustain a higher population meaning more harmful technologies, breaking of ethics, and more misery. This is for vanity purposes and people afraid of the inevitability of the death.
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
There are many problems with Bostrom. Death in itself is a good not a problem. We need to replace and make room for other people. Indeed there are too many of us. Bostrom comes from a "scientistic" point of view which holds that anything we want to accomplish by definition we should, and that there is such a thing as linear progress.
dandiacal 2 years ago
Why automatically assume we "must" be replaced and make room for others? However even if we go on having children at the same rate (whic will not necessarily be the case), it is possible future technologies will enable a lot more people to live on the planet, some to live in space stations or on terra-formed other planets etc. Personally I am not keen on the idea of dying any day soon if it can be prevented
orlando098 2 years ago
It is a fallacy to assume death is innately wrong. Certain kinds of deaths are wrong: deaths arising from human homicide for example. What is absurd to me is the notion that death by old age is unjust or must be corrected by technological innovation. Looking for yet more technology as an escape route in the form of space travel is very costly and might create ever more problems. My argument is NOT a luddite argument but "old school" humanism as opposed to "transhumanism".
dandiacal 2 years ago
Comment removed
DotheMario2353 2 years ago
The biggest problem of humanity in my point of view other than ignorance would be selfishness, look at the past, kings, our own governments when it comes to revolutionary inventions like an on going generator... Look at now, look at the people. Selfishness comes in human by default... think about it, it's in our genes. Another problem is that people put high value to the norm, and hates the abnorm, example, ugly women = undesirable... think about it.
JayTsunDayVis 2 years ago
He keeps on swallowing it puts me off
spartanses 2 years ago
Do you ever wonder why so many people in this country use antidepressants? Because material things are NEVER the key to true happiness. Those who don't have it are depressed and those who have it are not truely happy for the most part.
fornow100000 2 years ago
What if those material things are really good antidepressant drugs, like the ones we may have in the future? Seems like the key to happiness to me.
RoboDouche 2 years ago
material things are good. dont get me wrong, but they cant be a good thing in a long run
fornow100000 2 years ago
i bui;t a house for people in mexico the house built was really small and the house before was basically trailer sized but built out of scraps of wood yet they were the happiest people i met
893160007 2 years ago
very humine look at the human life. This is so refreshing in comparison to what the mass media poisons us with on regular basis. Usually I only hear of crime and celebs life. They are so sick!!!! I swore off TV for years now. You should do the same for the health of you own family and travel the world to see that this country 'aint the best in the world' THta's only propaganda they feed you for their own profit.
fornow100000 2 years ago 3
nick bostrum is the only reason i'm interested in philosophy. this stuff is fascinating.
lavmorc 2 years ago
Nick Bostrom has a great website with free PDFs of some of his best papers. Definitely look it up.
If you are further interested in finding great immortality and future technology videos, check out my "Our Future" playlist on my channel.
MadPutz 2 years ago
Bostrom's point 3 sounds like Abraham Maslow's description of "peak experiences" (PE's). I could see normalizing PE's as the main cognitive state, much as Ayn Rand fantasized that her philosophy would bring about. As her mouthpiece John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" says: "This is how men expect to feel about their life once or twice, as an exception, in the course of their life. But I -- this is what I chose as the constant and normal."
advancedatheist 3 years ago 2
If you can't bear the burden of sentience, do some drugs. Don't spoil it for the rest of us. Anybody who defines the goal of life as being ecstatically (and passively, I might add) happy for all eternity is not qualified to talk on "moral, spiritual and intellectual development."
thenoblelie 3 years ago
converging technology is a subject we should all be familiar with. swing over to my page and watch the documentary "The Age of Transitions" which delves into this subject and it's origins. thanks.
ADDTV 3 years ago
I understand that great multitudes of The-Living That Will Be Uploaded and Augmented as well as The Reconstructed Dead will despise us 'transhumanists' and Singularitarians for how we have disfigued their souls and repurposed the matter of the observable Universe for our own Thoegenesis-
but you will have an eternity to get over it (^__-)
plus- you can always find someone to SUE
setaitransmedia 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a foolish talk.
maximummason 3 years ago
he emphasized the importance of ethics and moralality in this process. do you really think makind will stop at this point in history? we now have better technology than in the stoneage but are we immoral because of it?
and by the way nietzsche said (or zarathustra...)that the ubermensch will look down on mankind like mankind looks down on apes.
and please, most of the time when someone compares anyone with the nazis they make themselves look ludicrous, like you showed afresh.
frogsquirr3l 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A monster with a sense ethics, classy. The ethical considerations are just lip service, designed to disarm us. Realize that I think transhumanists are POSSESSED by an evil meme, no matter how nice they are as people. Mankind had BETTER stop transhumanism, if mankind wants to continue to exist. Anyone who tries to use Nietzsche to support transhumanism DOESN'T UNDERSTAND NIETZSCHE. And if confronted with a movement as dangerous as Nazism, we're supposed to keep silent? To hell with Godwin.
wigglestrue 3 years ago
Wigglestrue, your status-quo biased dismal death-is-great rationalizing can be applied to those who need artificial limbs or those in poverty, would you deprive them of manipulating their own body and status for their own benefit, once technology progresses to the point where their suffering is unnecessary? Who designated death as so 'necessary' for great living?
MadPutz 3 years ago 2
Who designated that death is not necessary for great living?
Adding more years to our health lifespan will do what exactly? Give me some practical benefits of how this will help us and help humanity?
We lived longer than the people in the Black Plague and are we more happy?
You think not dying will increase our own happiness?
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
Some people who don't know how to enjoy life (like me sometime), or anyone who have nothing to do, will agree that 'longer life' will be deadly boring.
But for some who have many goals, who never bored with their life, they can enjoy longer life.
I guess we could not generalize that longer life will help all human, some will happier, some other will suffers stressful life.
Btw, don't you realize that ending our own life is an available option?
renggunux 2 years ago
I know ending my life is an available option.
Prolonging life will zap the happiness from life. It is the brevity of our own live which makes these special moments seem so precious. Why would you want to go out and do something, get an education, or anything when you can always say I will do it in 10 years since I will live indefinitely or till I'm 200, more than triple the life span.
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
Why do anything then? 50 years ago life expectancy was something like 40 years. Did those people live happier more fulfilled lives? I don't think history will support your argument.
zerosomething 2 years ago 3
Which statement I made that you are responding to because I dont know which one. I have many on this page surprisingly.
People who lived up to 40 lives. In 1959 i am sure the life expectancy wasn't 40. 40 is the life expectancy of people in the black plague.
And how can you rate happiness? It is something history can't prove. Back then in america i think it was the civil right's movement. happiness depends on society and during the time so you cant make that judgment.
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
Why not doing anything then? If you are unsatisfied with your lifespan then just kill yourself or just try to fulfill what you can in 70 years. In addition it isn't the lifespan but the healthy part of our lives we want to lengthen.
In 70 years you can make a family, watch them grow, retire from a good career, travel the world, and do a lot of things. A lot of people done it and they didnt need 200 years to live an enjoyable life.
THEVIDEOARBITRATOR 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's like watching Hitler as a new age self help guru. I thought Europeans above all had learned their lesson. But no, here we go again, more final solutions.
wigglestrue 3 years ago
Yes, just like Hitler. Except his enemies are death, extinction, suffering and ignorance. Oh, and he doesn't want to gas anybody. How dare people who want to amplify the good things in life and minimize the bad things!
beriukay 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Regardless of what he *thinks* his enemies are: His enemy is human life itself. Whether he understands it or not, he is advocating the death of the human spirit, he is advocating the extinction of the human species. He wants to gas our essence. We already have everything we need to amplify the good things in life and minimize the bad things. Fake hearts and eyeglasses and the internet do NOT comprise some fucking hybrid existence. LIFE IS NOT A MISTAKE. DEATH IS NOT A MISTAKE.
wigglestrue 3 years ago
I wander how all you guys will feel when your on your death bed asking the question "why do we have to die" will think about this guys ideas.
kjiglet 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
On my death bed, I will be smiling, because I will have experienced a wonderful, all-too-human life. This life is a GIFT from nature/God/whoever, and transhumanists want to destroy that gift irreparably.
wigglestrue 3 years ago
It takes very little to satisfy you, doesn't it?
advancedatheist 3 years ago 2
No one is going to force life extension on you wigglestrue. Much like how Amish today are not forced to utilize contemporary medical treatments and vaccinations and cures, those who wish to live natural lives and deaths will be allowed to do so. You are the one who wants to destroy everyone elses freedom to control their own lives.
MadPutz 3 years ago 3