Running from Death #2: Misunderstandings of Indefinite Life Extension

[nonchalantd]

The introduction was spot on too: "Good evening ladies and gentleman; I am again...running from death." Lol, excellent!

[nonchalantd]

Of course, I loved your commentary, but, as a side note, I had to comment on how much I loved the "running from death" graphic. Good eye.

[brokenportal]

Fantastic running from death series. Can I nominate this for a Pulitzer Prize? This particular one is also popularly known as the "Tithonus Error". In Greek Mythology Eos asked Zues that Tithonus be granted Immortality, but she forgot to ask for perpetual youth as well and so he became increasingly feeble and senile while never dying. As you go over, that wont happen.

[NorthKoreaTroll]

Another fantastic video! Thumbs up

[GStolyarovII]

@NorthKoreaTroll Thank you!

[ZombieX13]

A rather interesting adaptation to the technology would be to instantly revive someone who has died through kinetic means. Instead of firefighters showing up to a horrible car accident with a defibrillator, they show up with a ReGen 2600 series Lazarus machine. :p

[Shezmu]

Count me on board to. This is the only life that I know to exist, so I might as well make it last as long as possible. Besides, it'll be great to live to see the great technical and philosophical revolutions that are hopefully inevitable unfold. Also, boning alien cat women is going to be nice. :p

[GStolyarovII]

@Shezmu I, too, look forward to the great technological/philosophical changes to come. May they bring about a more enlightened, prosperous, peaceful, and productive future for humankind.

[hotkonto]

If/when indefinite life becomes available, should we stop making new humans?

[Shezmu]

@hotkonto - Considering that even if the environmentalists are right, we'll have the entire universe to populate relatively soon, I'd say no.

[GStolyarovII]

@hotkonto It would be up to individual choice. Considering that sustainable population is a function of the technological resources available at a particular time, it could be entirely possible for indefinitely living humans to continue reproducing and expanding human settlement to more places on the Earth -- as well as under the oceans, on top of them (seasteading), in space, and on other planets. More people mean more chances for great innovators to emerge and develop even better technologies.

[GStolyarovII]

@hotkonto It is also true that in industrialized countries, the birth rates have been declining. This trend has occurred throughout virtually the entire world. Perhaps we will need indefinite life just to keep the human population from shrinking. The fourth video in my "Eliminating Death" series addresses this question.

[Akatam0t0ma]

Just watched your three most recent videos on the subject, and I'm probably gonna watch your entire "Eliminating Death" series as well. Indeed, it would be awesome if some formula to eliminate death could come about in our lifetime. The main reason why most people who have renounced religion simply come in terms with the termination of their consciousness upon death(Among whom the famous who spoke on it are Bertrand Russel and the now dying from cancer Christoper Hitchens) is because they...

[Akatam0t0ma]

...simply didn't/don't see such a thing happening in their lifetime. However, if people will indeed discover the way to conquer death by aging once and for all, that's probably gonna be a more effective killer of religion than any amount of rational arguments.

However, I don't quite understand, why do you think institutional power does not hold back the progress, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? In which podcast did you explain that view, which I indeed hope you're right about?

[GStolyarovII]

@Akatam0t0ma I discuss this subject to some extent in Parts 15 and 16 of the "Eliminating Death" series. It is certainly true that institutional obstacles can hold back progress in this field, as in others, and in sufficiently oppressive environments (e.g., the late Roman Empire), knowledge could even be lost. However, there are selection processes that act in favor of the eventual attainment of indefinite life...

[GStolyarovII]

@Akatam0t0ma Moreover, because the advances leading up to indefinite life will not all come at once (and many will appear to established institutions to be innocuous steps in beating back a disease or two), it will be difficult for advocates of mortality to resist these advances in practice. There may, of course, be situations where advances are prevented by the routine bureaucracy from reaching the market as soon as they might have. But this would only delay, not prevent, indefinite lifespans.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@GStolyarovII:

Yeah, I am indeed talking about bureaucracies as an albatross around the neck of human progress,rather than the deliberate obstruction of it by ill-intentioned people(Such as pious religionists).While it's very easy to point out at the evil and destructiveness of religious way of thinking,it is far harder to argue against the idea of bureaucracies that in theory supposed to help progress(But in reality don't), an idea which too many of our fellow forward-minded people bought into.

[GStolyarovII]

@Akatam0t0ma One other point on this matter is that incremental advances in technology could improve people's incentives (and improve many people, too) so as to produce better institutions, at least in some respects. For instance, today's medical progress would not have been possible with 16th-century political and societal organizations and norms, so humanity has come a long way. Every step in humanity's rise from barbarism would render subsequent steps easier or at least more conceivable.

[fractal420]

Ok I'm on board.

I want to live forever, or at least a few hundred million years.

The real question is: When?

[GStolyarovII]

@fractal420 Great question. Aubrey de Grey believes that the cusp of indefinite life extension could occur circa 25 to 30 years from now. This is also similar to the prognosis of Ray Kurzweil for the occurrence of the Singularity (circa the 2030s), when the rate of technological progress will become so rapid as to breach this particular barrier and many others. This is all contingent, of course, on the technological discoveries and investments made in the meantime.

[GStolyarovII]

@fractal420 A great quote from Aubrey de Grey on this matter is that the first 1000-year-old could be 60 today. This is, of course, not a certainty. But if the next wave of major advances could extend lifespans by 20-30 years, that would be enough to tide many people over until an even further wave of advances -- and once life expectancy begins to increase faster than people senesce, that is when there will no longer be an upper limit on lifespans.