
The Purpose of Technology - jacobedawson
https://balajis.com/the-purpose-of-technology/
======
samatman
Any time immortality is mentioned, the commentary inevitably focuses on the
goal itself.

This is natural, but also, myopic.

The dividends of research into immortality are incremental, but each
breakthrough has the same outcome: increased quality of life. Humans become
healthier; eventually, we last longer.

Yes, at the _limit_ , there are problems with immortality: Sterling's _Holy
Fire_ is a great exploration of the problems a gerontocracy could pose, as is
Morgan's _Altered Carbon_. Without older generations dying off, would there be
any room for the young?

I submit that these would be excellent problems to have, that there is no
guarantee we will ever have them, and that the dividends from trying to earn
ourselves such problems would be considerable.

~~~
squibbles
Unfortunately, projects and discussions focused on immortality, or life
extension in general, do not necessarily improve the aggregate well-being of
all humans. (One could argue that capitalism does improve the aggregate well-
being of all, but that is a different topic.)

Across the entire planet there is unimaginable suffering everywhere one looks.
Some of that suffering is obvious, while other suffering is hidden behind an
illusion of prosperity. When considering how to invest finite resources, and
claiming to seek a positive outcome for all, why not address the immediate
problems?

Technology is knowledge of tools -- tools that provide leverage for solving
(or causing) problems. As for why we have those tools, why we improve the ones
we have, and why we invent new tools, aspirational goals are nice, but it
seems callous to ignore applications that could significantly improve the
quality of lives today; raising quality of life would also accelerate the rate
of innovation.

Should we actively advance technology, and potentially spread out into space?
Yes, I think we should. However, the more we spread out, the more advanced
certain segments of humanity become, the more potential there is for others to
be left out of the equation and relegated to the role of wasted human
potential.

~~~
samatman
The problem of aging is an immediate problem for every human being on the
planet.

There is no problem more immediate.

There's no reason, at all, to sacrifice work on this problem to work on any
other problem. There are plenty of industries and practices which actively
make things worse. Let's divert resources from those instead.

~~~
squibbles
\- Clean drinking water is an immediate problem.

\- Adequate sanitation is an immediate problem.

\- Adequate childhood nutrition is an immediate problem.

\- Physical security in crime-laden areas is an immediate problem.

\- Physical security in conflict zones in an immediate problem.

\- Access to quality medical services is an immediate problem.

\- Mosquito-borne illness is an immediate problem.

------
_greim_
So, if we're so close, why isn't immortality capturing public interest yet?
Ideas:

 _Religion_ \- Among other things, religion's goal is to help people endure
the inevitability of death. Thus, to many, this is a solved problem.

 _The age divide_ \- Older people have the immediate need, but their ideas
about tech are by now set in concrete. The young are open to more radical
tech, but dying of old age isn't an immediate threat to them. Nor do these two
cultures tend to mix.

 _Technological pessimism_ \- There was a lot of overblown technological
optimism in the mid-century, but the pendulum has since swung the other way.
The word "chemical" no longer has positive connotations in popular culture,
for example.

------
mihaifm
Maybe I’m missing something, but how can immortality, even a theoretical one
be achieved? Say you find a way to cure all diseases and reverse aging, you
can still be killed or die in an accident. Say you find a way to transfer your
consciousness to a machine (ignoring all philosophical implications). That
machine can still be shut down and destroyed. All you get is just a longer
life, which still ends at some point. And given the fact that it’s not time
that actually matters, but the perception of time, one might still view their
life as being short.

I find the article a bit naive, this question lies deep in the realm of
philoshopy. What if technology and life merge at some point? It’s not hard to
imagine that technology and life might become indistinguishable in the far
future.

~~~
sxp
The quest for immortality isn't a 0 or 1 objective. Using technology to reduce
or reverse aging is one aspect. Using technology to reduce the accident
fatality rate is another aspect. E.g, what was the car fatality rate 100 years
ago and what is it now when you account for safer cars and better medical
tech.

Unless you bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Greg Egan's Permutation
City provides a possible example), technology will get us asymptotically
closer to true immortality. But even if we don't reach true immortality,
reducing suffering caused by our current level of mortality is a noble goal.

~~~
squibbles
I disagree that technology will get us asymptotically closer to true
immortality. It is far more likely that technology gets us asymptotically
closer to a theoretical maximum lifespan that is determined by our
relationship with the environment. Radical changes to our form might extend
that theoretical maximum, but it is not clear that someone who wants
immortality would be satisfied with a form radically different from human.

As an example, an entity with a fractured consciousness that spans tens of
thousands of lightyears (yet not necessarily dispersed enough to be considered
immortal) would have a radically different concept of self. If one was
uncomfortable with the concept of a few dying for the many, in order to
perpetuate the species, then a dispersed consciousness devoid of a self seems
equally unpalatable.

------
megameter
The phrase I use is: _Technology supports technique._ If the technique is to
_play piano_ , a well-maintained acoustic piano is the ultimate instrument. If
the technique is to _play music_ , a toy keyboard will suffice.

What technical studies often lose track of in their quest for perfection is a
sense of balanced technique. If you want an immortalized _thought_ you can
very nearly achieve that by publishing a book. But an immortal body and mind
is at odds with a _developing_ body and mind. When we say immortality we
surely don't mean "I can continue to be a glum and unfulfilled soul staring at
a screen forever." And yet, with respect to our digital technologies it really
is somewhat like that - more and more gets captured and archived. Does life
improve? Depends on the measure. We address one set of traumas only to uncover
others, at first dismissing them, and then gradually coming to afford them
respect. It's extremely common not to recognize how screwed up we are.

If we were to say, instead of the preservation of your exact form, you get to
be healed of past trauma and remain full of energy, but without controlling
exactly where you end up, how you evolve, and maybe forgetting some of your
past - would that still be immortal? And if so, then a existing healthy,
fulfilled life is very near to that.

And I do believe philosophical thoughts like those are where we are going,
since we have picked most of the low-hanging fruit leading to material comfort
while still guarding it jealously and justifying a deficit in column A by
pointing to spectacular achievements in columns B, C, and D. We have to
realign the techniques and therefore the technologies to square it up.

~~~
goalieca
Call me old fashioned but I will achieve immortality through my children in
just the way you described.

------
ncmncm
Right now, the most effective possible activity to reduce mortality would be
work to eliminate excess sugar from the human diet. The most effective avenue
for that would be to eliminate it from beverages.

Probably we would need to begin treating Coke'n'Pepsi like we treat tobacco:
start with required warning labels, ultimately an advertising ban. Lead was a
tough nut, but we cracked it. Tobacco was a tough nut, but we cracked it.
Trans fats was a tough nut, but we finally got that one, too.

------
ogennadi
And even if anti-aging tech doesn't come quickly enough, preservation a person
for centuries in a restorable manner is technically here today:

[https://www.brainpreservation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02...](https://www.brainpreservation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/vitrifyingtheconnectomicself_hayworth.pdf)

Edit: I volunteer for the group that published that document

~~~
AnimalMuppet
In a _theoretically_ restorable manner. Actual restorations are somewhat
lacking at this time. (Or have I missed something?)

------
akozak
Immortality is totally selfish and uninspiring, and really just a bad comms
strategy to recruit more tech progressives. We need a better vision for how
it'll make the world more Good and Just, improve lives, and make things more
egalitarian, instead of helping privileged people just continue to enjoy their
status and wealth.

~~~
_greim_
Aging and death is an enormous drain on society, emotionally, financially and
in myriad other ways. Years leading to death are often uncomfortable or
miserable. Extended friends and families are affected in their freedoms,
finances, and mental health. Thus it seems reasonable to expect huge, across-
the-board gains in human flourishing and well-being, if we could somehow
eliminate aging and death. Nor does that mean we couldn't work in parallel to
address inequality, oppression and suffering in other ways.

~~~
squibbles
Regarding "huge, across-the-board gains in human flourishing and well-being,"
how do you envision economics and labor would play out? What does this look
like with regard to resource allocation?

~~~
_greim_
I'm not omniscient nor an economist, I have no idea.

Here's a comparison though: War is another of those realities—like aging and
death—that we seem to have normalized and accepted at a cultural level. It's
fair to ask how economics, labor and allocation would play out once a
civilization stops dumping a third of its resources into the destructive act
of war, but to ask whether we _should_ end the war, just because we're
uncertain of the answers, strikes me as absurd.

------
squibbles
Mortality is inevitable and necessary. I posit that the purpose of technology
should be to reduce suffering. The purpose of technology should not be the
redistribution of wealth from the masses to those who are adept at
manipulating the systems employed by civilization.

~~~
fossuser
"At another point in the discussion, a man spoke of some benefit X of death, I
don't recall exactly what. And I said: "You know, given human nature, if
people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they
would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a
good thing. But if you took someone who wasn't being hit on the head with a
baseball bat, and you asked them if they wanted it, they would say no. I think
that if you took someone who was immortal, and asked them if they wanted to
die for benefit X, they would say no."

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aSQy7yHj6nPD44RNo/how-to-
see...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aSQy7yHj6nPD44RNo/how-to-seem-and-be-
deep)

~~~
squibbles
Though it may be depressing to contemplate, death is an essential element of a
fitness function, a requirement for evolution in the broadest sense. No death
would lead to either depletion of resources or a stagnation of growth that
would inevitably lead to extinction due to inevitable and unanticipated
catastrophe.

That said, a reduction of suffering may naturally lead to extended lifespans.
However, the elimination of mortality is something altogether different.

~~~
fossuser
You don't need to wait around for natural selection to make changes (we don't
do that for medicine).

We have an entire universe to grow and expand into, along with the capability
for long-term thinking. These problems are solvable problems and a critical
part of reducing suffering.

