I think Altered Carbon brought up the most chilling view of a world without death. In that exploration only the rich are immortal, because the poor can’t afford immortality. Someone being rich for hundreds of years will only cement their their power, position, and their perspective. How do we feel if Rockefeller were still alive and powerful? What if our old kings never died? If any of them had a sexual perversion, what if it continued for hundreds of years? Where does that road lead?
This is dependent on a world where immortality is expensive because it's difficult to actually make someone immortal rather than because it's difficult to figure out how to make someone immortal. For all we know, immortality is as simple as a one-time injection into an egg cell, and the challenge is almost entirely in figuring out what to inject.
Also, how much is the death of bad individuals actually contributing to making the world a better place? It seems to me like the various abuses of robber-barons and tyrants past and present are perpetuated by institutions built around them rather than their own personal capacity to affect the world. A king in exile on a remote island or a Rockefeller driven to bankruptcy can remain unchanged as a person while losing virtually all of their capacity to impose their will on the world, while a kingdom or corporation can keep going centuries after the death of its leader if conditions stay favorable.
In these cases the bulk of such institutions is a bureaucratic apparatus, which serves as a tool. You cannot judge a tool for being used for evil purposes, and in the charge of those with different intentions, it may be used for better purposes in the future.
In the more general case (i.e. communities rather than kingdoms or corporations), judgment can perhaps be passed on the principles or aesthetics that keep it together. However changing it would probably require a change in its environment that rendered such principles or aesthetics obsolete. This is a much more difficult task that can require legislation or sociological advancement or something of that sort.
Jonathon Swift explored this idea in 1726, in Gulliver's Travels, with the Struldbruggs [0] - decrepit immortals. Struldbruggs also popped up in Larry Niven's Known Space universe [1], albeit there as the name of a club for the old and powerful (IIRC with an increasing minimum age to keep out the young whippersnappers).
In a rather unpopular opinion, I think most people are more of a product of their environments than we like to believe. If you look at the rate at which social change happens and public opinion about certain topics, it happens much faster than new generations replace the old. A good example of this is with same-sex marriage. Opinion changed rapidly and I'm sure many have even forgot all the things said before Obergefell v. Hodges. Certainly new generations have new ideas and put pressures on the environment, but I think there's too much weighting in most people's models of how much change is held up and requires older generations to exit the decision making process.
> If you look at the rate at which social change happens and public opinion about certain topics, it happens much faster than new generations replace the old.
Between 2011 support was 70, 53, 39 for 18-34, 35-54, 55+ age groups. 2021 was 84, 72, 60. So that's ~20 points on 35-54 and 21 on 55+. That's 10 years. The 45+ transition into the 55 and the 25+ into the 35-54, but that doesn't explain the change. Why? Because the 2011 difference between 55+ and 35-54 is 14 points while 2021 it is 12. Even more importantly, the 55+ group in 2021 has a 7 point lead from the 35-55 age group from 2012.
This difference __cannot__ be explained from just people dying and the support "aging in" to the next age bracket. Literally 50% (7 points out of 14) is impossible to explain through an aging process.
Something more is going on, and thus, my claim is unequivocally supported by the data. (Note my claim isn't that specific, it is just that there is more than aging) Yes, culture wars are long, but they are shorter than can be explained from generations alone.
This is so incorrect it's laughable. If you look at the data, public opinion in america has changed almost exactly in step with new generations emerging and old generations dying. People almost never change their opinion on political issues, they just die.
Did you look at the data? Because I don't think you did. I lay it out here[0]. In short, what we can see is that in 2021 the 55+ age group has higher support than the 35-54 group did in 2012. This is not people aging into the new bins and bringing their support with them. If that were what was happening, then the 2021 55+ group could not have greater support than the 2012 35-54 group. There is missing growth from your model. We're literally talking about 50% of the growth being unexplainable by your model.
That's precisely what you'd want politicians to do: represent the shifting will of the people.
Or, dare I say, learn what they themselves were wrong about and become right about it.
We vilify politicians when they change direction and make them dance around and mince words, when what they really want to say is "I was wrong before".
Yeah I don't get why people get upset over that. It's like the people that are like "we didn't learn that in school when I was your age." Times change, we learn, we correct, we update our beliefs. Being static is not healthy and creates a dissonance between the public and the __representatives__. i.e. the representatives become disaligned from those they are supposed to represent. And as my claim (which I add data to in other replies) shows, that's not even just a function of age.
We should commend people for updating their beliefs, not condemn. To me, one of the most honorable phrases one can say is "I stand corrected."
We wouldn't need politicians if all they did was repeat opinion polls. And very very few politicians say that they were wrong or that they stand corrected- they'll just blame their earlier comments on "it was a different time" or some similar nonsense.
To admit they were wrong would be to say everyone who previously voted for them was also wrong. We don't have that much bravery from most of our politicians.
Editing to add: of course, the real reason nobody expects them to ever say they were wrong is because nobody trusts they actually fully believe what they say in the first place.
>A good example of this is with same-sex marriage. Opinion changed rapidly and I'm sure many have even forgot all the things said before Obergefell v. Hodges.
Do you live on one of the US coasts? Because if so, you are probably right - before Obergefell, most people didn't care about your private life and after Obergefell it could all finally be out in the open. But in a big chunk of this country, it really doesn't matter what the courts decided because there is major political and religious pressure that says that ain't ok. Don't pretend for a moment that a wide swath of states wouldn't send us straight back to 1863 if they could.
Not important. I'm working off of US polling data. See sister comments for reasoning. Everyone that is calling me laughable and "haven't looked at the data" has clearly not themselves.
I’m not calling you “laughable” I’m saying that the data doesn’t matter. We lost Roe, there’s no reason to believe that ugly politics won’t seek to roll back Obergefell too given the opportunity. These people don’t give a shit what the majority think.
Sorry, I'm not saying __you__ are saying my claim is laughable, I'm saying "people" are[0]. The fact of the matter is 2/3 responses I got were certain I'm wrong with providing no evidence (@Georgelemental's link is not backed by data, only shows one plot related to belief in god, and is really just a socialist propaganda article that is shoehorning economic discussion into cultural that creates a premise that would validate my claim but contradicts their own (if socialism solves the issues, then it isn't about age... Though I'll agree that economic factors are important for estimating rate of cultural change)).
I agree with your point, but to be clear, it is not contrary to what I claimed. My claim is about how ethical values change faster than people age. See the reply in [0] or the linked comment there. The claim shouldn't be controversial because it is ridiculous to believe that your beliefs become fixed at some certain age. The fallacy is that people will think "well I update my beliefs but others don't" (i.e. I'm Bayesian, but others are immutable). You're not that unique.
Certainly this change can go in any direction. It is also a common fallacy to believe younger = liberal while older = conservative. While there is correlation, there is not much to suggest causation. Especially considering there are young people that are Republicans and many old people that are Democrats. We can argue nuance, but that's a different claim. I don't think most people have a good understanding of the demographics of voters[1] and instead focus on what data they want to see. Some of that complexity may be illustrated in looking at Figure 3 (education) closely. The most apparent differential is graduate level education. If you look at the top part carefully you'll see that there's a subtle distinction between completion of a college education vs not and the main difference is in graduate education, which is a much smaller number of people. The graph can be hard to read because the size of each bin is directly proportional to the education level (largest bin is H.S. (~80% of Americans) or less and postgrad is smallest (~5% of Americans if counting professional degrees)). Also take specific note at the differentials in the bottom plot as there is inferential race based data.
Basically, I'm saying it's a bit complex and people are trying to overly simplify the problem. I even think your claim of coast vs central is a point, but I'm not sure it really discredits the claim which is independent of party affiliation or if someone is rural or urban (which is highly correlated with cost vs central).
Oversimplification won't give you an approximate answer, but often will lead you in the wrong direction.
> I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable.
I'm kind of fond of Vernor Vinge's take in Rainbows End: people who undergo rejuvenation therapy go back to high school to learn a trade in the modern world. Part of the justification for this is if their brain is restored from a condition like severe dementia, they may have different personality traits and interests from their original selves, which will take time and learning to acclimate to.
People definitely ossify, but certain drugs encourage neuroplasticity. I don't think it's on the scale that would be meaningful in this context though.
Every technology we know of started off as the exclusive purview of the rich and then saw progressive decreases in price as a result of providers fighting for market share by innovating on and scaling up production.
As for immortal tyrants, we already have immortal institutions that are functionally the same. And the activists, dissidents and opposition leaders who challenge their power will be almost certain to gain from immortality just as much as the heads of dominant political parties.
In a rapidly changing world, immortal tyrants will not necessarily have an advantage in keeping a grip on power. Insofar as they stick to their old ways, the nations they lead will stagnate and become more susceptible to foreign influence. And if they are open to change, they may be open to abandoning their repressive ways.
Opposing technologies that can save us from death due to hypothetical fears about the rich seems like a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Aging has a 100% probability of killing you if this technology doesn't emerge within your lifetime. It is strictly a greater threat than a speculated immortal tyrant. And if you think we are so abhorrent that we deserve a measly 80 years before we succumb to aging, then it doesn't follow that you would be so aghast at the idea of those same unworthy beings living longer under repression.
Have you seen the people under the fur suits? Someone is power would have no use for reality escapism because their reality is amazing. But hey, there always that really small chance I guess.
Epstein's crimes were heinous, but if someone were to make a reasonable attempt to rank the villains of the past century by harm caused I think he'd be pretty far down the list. He's also a poor example in the context of this discussion because he did not die of anything related to old age.
Epstein is a saint compared to a truly evil person. What did he even do? Him and his buddies slept with some 16 year olds from what I know. That’s not even a crime in most countries.
> Epstein is a saint compared to a truly evil person. What did he even do? Him and his buddies slept with some 16 year olds from what I know. That’s not even a crime in most countries.
Child prostitution and sex trafficking is a crime in most countries.
Become enough of a tyrant and you may not live to see old age -- Hitler and Stalin didn't. As for tyrants who do grow old -- is an effectively immortal tyrant that much worse than a tyrant who dies but consolidates power within his family to create a centuries-long dynasty?
Also, once the technology of immortality becomes well-characterized, the cost to replicate the procedures will go down barring price-fixing collusion that involves government regulatory bodies. This is the real problem with movies like Elysium: a version of the cure-all hospital bed that serves as the movie's McGuffin in a critique of capitalism would, in a free market, be readily available at Target or Costco; businesses would rent them like tanning beds; and charities would pop up to provide them at gyms and homeless shelters for those who still couldn't afford one of their own. You couldn't really restrict the availability of something like that to just the rich without the government putting their thumb on the scale somewhere. In fact the rich would respond by allowing themselves to grow old and decrepit; in a world where everybody could be restored to health and vigor, aging would be taken as a status symbol. Kinda like how in a world where photography became easy, having original paintings on your wall is a status symbol.
Right. The argument is especially silly for anti-aging treatments because the consequences of aging are horrifically expensive: look at the Medicare and Social Security budgets for starters. Governments and insurance companies would have every incentive to make them as widely available as possible.
I've heard that "In Time" was ripped off from "Repent Harlequin Said The Tictockman" (https://www.d.umn.edu/~tbacig/cst1010/chs/ellison.html). It's worth the 5 minutes it should take to read it, even if you take 6 ;)
There's a reason it is mostly the affluent that seek life extension, it's the one thing they can't buy just yet. And if and when they can I'm sure they will hope for it to be extremely expensive.
Thats why I am waiting in more info to come out and not jumping on the "evil Chinese spies" band wagon. It could be "evil chinese spies," but I also know there are communities like Ham Radio that people around the world have balloons they deploy.
And yea, the DoD said it may be. But I think the DoD is still looking for WMDs in Iraq.
With much of the world we interact with being digital, or at least digitally connected, the ability to interact with that world is like unlocking a magical power.
Invoke regex to search through or fix thousands of pages of documents. Instantiate a daemon to help you around the house. Cast a bot army to do your bidding. Prove an idea true or false by creating a simulation of it. Create the app that no one would ever make because only you in particular need it.
A good text editor will have regex ability, and once you learn it, it’s super convenient to have it handy. Writing macros to do stuff is more of a hassle. RegEx is most useful for me as a super quick and easy way to solve a one off problem that isn’t important enough to write code to solve.
I once walked in on a coworker (who’s not a developer) who had copied a pdf into text and was laboriously scrolling through thousands of lines of text to remove footer text with page numbers. He spent hours doing this, it’s a 10 second problem with using regex.
In the same job, sometimes our clients would give me large files in the wrong format (like a word document) that couldn’t be normally be import. Notepad++ and some regex magic pulled out all the data I cared about in a minute. It would have taken years if my other coworker did it his way.
- The Unbearable Lightness of Being, fiction, how the “crazy” actions of people in relationships makes sense in the context of their individual history.
There’s one chapter about misunderstood words. The word “mother” was highly regarded by one character. They loved their mother, so to call someone a mother was a deep and powerful complement. The other character hated their mother, the word had a hypocritical meaning to her.
So when the first character complemented the second with the deepest most heart felt honor they could muster, the second character left them without a word.
I have just finished reading this book (English translation) and was blown away by how relatable a lot of the characters and the flaws in their relationships are. At some parts it was like looking in a mirror and not in a good way.
They still can. A government doesn't have the need for first mover advantage because they have the power to make the official version. Also, the technology is very mature and best practices are better known. The userbase has been trained. And it's cheaper for them to do it now.
Though an official united states citizen email address has its own pitfalls for abuse, scams, and fraud.
These insurance underwriters seem like fun folks. While reading the fine print of my credit card insurance I noticed my purchases were covered from damages from "aircraft, spacecraft, or other vehicles".
> Probably every single word is there due to a particular legal precedent or carefully calculated risk.
Or, possibly, just a recognized incalculable risk. The frequency of natural impacts is known and not expected to be subject to rapid change; the frequency of impacts by manmade objects doesn't really have a long history of constant conditions or conditions that are not subject to change over the life of the contract.
Also, a man-made item crashing into your house is not really an accident - it's negligence. Someone other than your insurance company should be compensating you (probably the owner of the satellite, potentially the third party who knocked it out of the sky).
> Also, a man-made item crashing into your house is not really an accident - it's negligence. Someone other than your insurance company should be compensating you
It's not uncommon for insurance to cover damages other people are responsible for (and in exchange assume you right to collect from those parties.)
I mean, it's not like there isn't a human liable for theft, and that's a pretty common coverage in both homeowner's and renter’s policies.
> I mean, it's not like there isn't a human liable for theft, and that's a pretty common coverage in both homeowner's and renter’s policies.
Good point. I guess the logic is that a burglar is unlikely to be doing particularly well for themselves in life, and so may not be able to compensate you for your loss.
Well, I guess it depends on your coverage and country, but AFAIK in most countries the legal minimum is 3rd party insurance - which pays for repairs to other vehicles in collisions you caused.
The AMEX car rental coverage specifically calls out “events based upon war, or acts of war (declared, or undeclared)” as not covered.
Given that these clauses tend to arise from filed claims, I imagine someone attempted to use their car for a car-bombing, and then with a stroke of brilliance later tried to file an insurance claim.
Interestingly, that clause also cancels the theft coverage — so if your car is stolen it’s covered, unless used to engage in an act of war.
Part of the cause of misinformation is that people want to believe in misinformation because it allows them to be part of their social group. The problem is that belief in certain facts will include you or exclude you from your social group and that some ideas in some social groups are not even allowed to be questioned. It's like all the bad parts of a religion that I hated: dogma, excommunication, blasphemy, and witch burnings.
- Dogma, a list of things you have to believe in to be part of the group.
- Excommunication, rejection from the group if you don't believe in the dogma. Depending on where you live, it's like killing a person.
- Blasphemy, the idea that some things are not allowed to be said out loud or even thought about.
- Witch burning, blaming a single person for all the problems of the village and then a mob of people attacking and killing that person.
Part of the solution is to stop treating social/political groups like a 16th century religion. Don't excommunicate people. Don't burn witches. There should be no such thing as blasphemy. It should be okay to ask hard questions without being accused of something horrible. Above all, groups need to embrace and celebrate a well proven proof, even if it contradicts the dogma.
