> The Founding Fathers would still be here to settle the arguments about what exactly they meant in this or that amendment when the Supreme Court argues guns or personhood, for instance.
Would we really want that? They would be elevated to an even greater stature than they are now when they're dead, greater than what they probably wanted individual men to be in the government they devised[0]. They could become corrupted, or change their minds, so that "what the Founding Fathers wanted" becomes an actual moving target, rather than just something that can appear to change by us debating it. What's the point of writing a law if you plan to indefinitely query the writer on what they "really meant"? Why have a representative government at all, if the Founding Fathers are so great that they did everything perfectly and they are still around to run it for us?
Maybe it's better that people die, and all we're left with is our memories of them, or written statements of their ideas or accounts of their deeds. We pick up what we find useful from them, and have the freedom to discard what isn't. Every political movement has a built-in time limit based on the deaths of its most powerful leaders. Greater diversity in people and thoughts grows, because we don't have the luxury of keeping them the same forever. Many mistakes will die with their creator, and everyone else can move on.
Longer lives would amplify the negative effects of human frailties, just as you hope it would amplify the positive effects of smart and noble people. It's possible the Founding Fathers' ideas were only good for 50-100 years around their lives, and that as rigid adults they would be unable to formulate better versions for the changing world.[1]
The world would be a vastly different place without death, or with much longer lives. I think it's naive to simply assume it would be better. I've explained some reasons it could be worse, but I'm open to more detailed analysis of why it would be better (for humanity collectively, not just the recipients of longer lives.)
[0] Though to be fair, maybe they would have thought differently if they planned to live hundreds, thousands of years.
[1] Assuming immortal or very long-lived people become "set in their ways" as we do now. How much of this is internally self-generated, based on watching our "biological clock" tick away? To be fair, maybe we would behave differently in this respect if we had more time. Or, maybe we would just reach peak open-mindedness (or whatever the metric) at 300 years instead of 30.
I understand the practical issues with older generations lasting forever, but I think it's better for society to place limitations on these matters, rather than nature placing the permanent limitation of death.
Presidents have 4 year terms. Why can't people have 80 years where they're allowed to vote, and then lose that right forever? Or maybe they can be sent to a separate society where they're permitted to vote and debate things that apply to their own sphere, but must still follow universal laws set by a "central society", to prevent deeply immoral actions. For example, maybe alcohol is permitted to be permanently illegal in their society, but they still aren't allowed to lynch people or prosecute people without due process.
These are certainly very difficult problems to solve, and there are many counter-arguments to that particular. But I think there are solutions to these issues other than death, and I think many of those solutions are much preferable to death.
A society that adapts to become biologically immortal will find their own ways to adapt to dealing with zeitgeists and progress.
>A society that adapts to become biologically immortal will find their own ways to adapt to dealing with zeitgeists and progress.
I don't think so. That is just wishful thinking. Our current society cannot even produce leaders who are remotely capable of solving current problems. And a group of immortals, once in power, cannot be trusted to not try to remain in office indefinitely using the powers they already have. They can subtly influence society and people with their power so that they can continue in power without actually rigging the elections..
True, it's a bit idealistic. I absolutely agree there is serious potential for mis-use here.
However, I think the benefits of life longevity are very serious, and if we can overcome some of the issues they cause, we should do everything in our power to find new ways to extend life longer and longer (or at least provide it as an option for people).
In the next 100+ years when this starts looking a little more feasible, hopefully people will have better perspective and insight into these issues, and will establish ways of allowing society to progress and not be anchored by a group of early-immortal voters, legislators, or perhaps tyrants.
Hopefully their immortality would put in perspective the usual bullshit most politicians care about. Short-term decisions and wealth-seeking is in a big way driven by both short life and short office terms.
>A society that adapts to become biologically immortal will find their own ways to adapt to dealing with zeitgeists and progress
I think that the adaptation phase would be a very turbulent one,because we would experience the giant gap between reality and our heritage. Most our motivators, values and culture in general are founded around the idea that we do not have that much time (think about stuff like taking care of others, parenthood, work-life balance, achievements etc.) Without the time constraints many of these would become obsolete. But they're "hard wired" inside our organisms. And would cause problems just like adrenaline rushes and other (once useful) reactions to stress cause problems today.
>Maybe it's better that people die, and all we're left with is our memories of them, or written statements of their ideas or accounts of their deeds. We pick up what we find useful from them, and have the freedom to discard what isn't. Every political movement has a built-in time limit based on the deaths of its most powerful leaders. Greater diversity in people and thoughts grows, because we don't have the luxury of keeping them the same forever. Many mistakes will die with their creator, and everyone else can move on.
Fantastic points. I was about to type something along the same lines when I saw your reply. You said it much better than I could have.
That's exactly the Deep Wisdom. Ask yourself - do you want to die? We'll all have your memories. Do you want your father or your mother to die, and if they already did, are you happy about it? Why were you mourning?
Death is bad, it's scary and meaningless, and we construct really complex and elaborate excuses to deal with it.
You're conflating wanting death and accepting that it will happen, in both the case of oneself and family/friends. You think that "acceptance" is some BS we cooked up because we had no other choice, and that's a fine position, but don't caricature acceptance as actively wanting death.
> do you want to die?
No. I also want an infinite supply of resources (for me, and for everybody else, why not), the ability to experience any scenario I can dream up with any people I want even if they don't want it, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The inevitability of death is perhaps a classic denial, but there are infinite other ways you can't always have what you want. (At the risk of sounding defeatist, trite, and in favor of The Order of Things.) If you could wave a wand and force any person to love you, would it be meaningful? If you were guaranteed to get whatever you wanted in any other sphere? Maybe I'm rambling here, but the point is, how will removing death solve all the other problems that come with billions of autonomous agents with generally incompatible wills existing together in a single, inherently meaningless universe with (probably) immutable physical laws and finite time, matter, and energy?
OK, so solving death is an incremental improvement, and thus may be worth it to some... but perhaps I've described a reason not everybody is going to be obsessed with it -- it's just one form of a vastly large general problem.
Also, I'm wondering what "more people car[ing]" about eradicating death would look like to you. The article discusses "digitizing the brain", there are thousands of scientists and dollars spent on eradicating certain cancers and other diseases, and many other sciences that could be applied to this problem. You're welcome to fund/conduct your own research, but apparently other people have more pressing concerns.
> Maybe I'm rambling here, but the point is, how will removing death solve all the other problems that come with billions of autonomous agents with generally incompatible wills existing together in a single, inherently meaningless universe with (probably) immutable physical laws and finite time, matter, and energy?
> OK, so solving death is an incremental improvement, and thus may be worth it to some... but perhaps I've described a reason not everybody is going to be obsessed with it -- it's just one form of a vastly large general problem.
You answered it yourself. It won't. Removing death will just solve the problem of death. But having more time to live and study would probably be a big step in the direction of solving other problems.
> I also want an infinite supply of resources (for me, and for everybody else, why not), the ability to experience any scenario I can dream up with any people I want even if they don't want it, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
Well, you can't get absolutely everything you imagine, but that doesn't mean it's not worth going after things you can. Getting rid of death is something we could get. Full omniscience and omnipotence maybe not, but a subset of it is something worth aiming for, and personally I am going to try. That's what science and technology is for - multiplying our power, both collective and individual.
Would we really want that? They would be elevated to an even greater stature than they are now when they're dead, greater than what they probably wanted individual men to be in the government they devised[0]. They could become corrupted, or change their minds, so that "what the Founding Fathers wanted" becomes an actual moving target, rather than just something that can appear to change by us debating it. What's the point of writing a law if you plan to indefinitely query the writer on what they "really meant"? Why have a representative government at all, if the Founding Fathers are so great that they did everything perfectly and they are still around to run it for us?
Maybe it's better that people die, and all we're left with is our memories of them, or written statements of their ideas or accounts of their deeds. We pick up what we find useful from them, and have the freedom to discard what isn't. Every political movement has a built-in time limit based on the deaths of its most powerful leaders. Greater diversity in people and thoughts grows, because we don't have the luxury of keeping them the same forever. Many mistakes will die with their creator, and everyone else can move on.
Longer lives would amplify the negative effects of human frailties, just as you hope it would amplify the positive effects of smart and noble people. It's possible the Founding Fathers' ideas were only good for 50-100 years around their lives, and that as rigid adults they would be unable to formulate better versions for the changing world.[1]
The world would be a vastly different place without death, or with much longer lives. I think it's naive to simply assume it would be better. I've explained some reasons it could be worse, but I'm open to more detailed analysis of why it would be better (for humanity collectively, not just the recipients of longer lives.)
[0] Though to be fair, maybe they would have thought differently if they planned to live hundreds, thousands of years.
[1] Assuming immortal or very long-lived people become "set in their ways" as we do now. How much of this is internally self-generated, based on watching our "biological clock" tick away? To be fair, maybe we would behave differently in this respect if we had more time. Or, maybe we would just reach peak open-mindedness (or whatever the metric) at 300 years instead of 30.