Immortalism

[hobbsyoyo]

And a solution that we don't want is to increase the number of deaths that are holding back people's footprints. Just like we don't want polio crippling the various slums around the world, we don't to increase people's age-related degeneration so that they take fewer high-footprint vacation flights. Degeneration and suffering are certainly buying us time on the 'overpopulation' problem, but it's a severe lack of insight if we're relying on it.

Degeneration and suffering are also themselves massive economic problems. It's hard for me to see how people can point to immortality and say 'that will cause an economic disaster' but not point the same finger at our current set up. Aging and death are net losses to the economy as is. Even shrinking populations cause their own serious problems.

I agree, for the first couple decades it will likely only be the really rich who can afford immortality. But even so, we are going to need a solution for "What happens with all the extra people?" even if only 1% of people are immortal. That number is going to go up and up and if we don't have a plan at the beginning, we're not going to have one when everything starts falling apart.

What would fall apart? What unique, insurmountable problems would immortality cause?

It's important to note that while we've increased the AVERAGE life expectancy (mostly by reducing infant mortality and keeping the old and sick going longer) we haven't increased the MAXIMUM life expectancy. People have been living to 80, 90, 100 since the beginning. We just have more of them now.

It's a misconception that every single Bushman or Aboriginal died at 30-60, plenty did but there's always been old people.

The idea that we're anywhere near 'conquering aging' is silly. The only known ways to affect lifespan in a serious way all involve extreme lifestyle changes (intermittent fasting) that very few people are gonna have the discipline to follow.

There's always reports of a miracle supplement or new gene discovered but mostly it's just a way to separate fools from their money (my mom used to subscribe to a mag called Life Extension Magazine) but lost faith after my father died of cancer despite taking all sorts of anti-cancer pills daily.

We actually don't know that your first paragraph is true. We just haven't had modern medicine around long enough (and deeply integrated in our society as well) to be certain about this. People over a hundred years old, no matter where they lived, spent the majority of their lives without good medical treatments for...well for all diseases just about. You can't know what toll that had on their maximum potential life expectancy directly and indirectly. We won't be able to answer that question definitively for another hundred years or so.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Broader philosophical point incoming.

We tend to see the past and the future as two distinct things. The past appears to be a natural, logical progression, in small, predictable increments. We went from caves to agriculture to monarchy to democracy to industrial revolution to computers in a simple, linear narrative that can be put onto a tech tree in a computer game and stepped through easily. The future appears to be the exact opposite: every single thing seems to be revolutionary, from robots taking jobs to birth control killing humanity. There are a handful of really genuinely species-endangering things, such as disease, war, and global warming. But, to them, we add a whole bunch of simple, natural, logical technological or economic progressions that, in the past, have come in small, predictable increments. We have always dealt with what at the time appears to be revolutionary new technology that will disrupt everything and kill jobs or babies with a series of logical, incremental steps over many years. Aside from a catastrophic event such as a global outbreak of a deadly disease, a nuclear winter, or, well, the continuation of global warming, we will almost certainly deal with things in the exact same way: slowly and incrementally, over many years.


This article makes a similar point, but about the opposite thing -- technologies that aid reproduction: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-are-multiplying-history-suggests-they-should

Thank you for putting this so eloquently. This is the crux of what I've been saying about all the other advancements that will come about by the time immortality is a thing. Immortality immediately raises concerns about access to food, resources and energy but because immortality won't happen overnight, I expect many of those problems to be on the way to being solved permanently by the time it does happen.

 

[warpus]

What would fall apart? What unique, insurmountable problems would immortality cause?

We don't have the resource on this planet to support all the people here as it is, assuming each person wants a western standard of living. As soon as people stop dying, existing resources are going to be stretched even more. I'm not saying these are insurmountable problems, but we are having a hard time with this as it is.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do big problems actually get permanent solutions Hobbs? Or do different ones burn bright according to their location and time?

 

[El_Machinae]

Now, as others may agree. I think that the trendline is nigh-inevitable. The only thing that will change is the velocity and thus the number of unnecessary deaths. And I am very specifically asking for help, because I want to prevent unnecessary deaths. In a win/win way.

And there are other problems looming that need to be solved, regardless. And the timing for which we 'need' solutions doesn't include the trickle of increasing older people. And some of our choices aggravate this, even while we type about our 'concern' for El_Mac's goal. In general, I'm onboard with fixing a lot of these problems. I may not be a financial ally, since I apportion my charity budget differently than yours. But I can also agitate, pontificate, and even make lifestyle choices that help.

Finally, 'the growing number of retired people' is a relatively new phenomenon. Heck, retirement is fairly new. Now, we like it. But the main reason why we transfer actual money from the young to the old is because we feel sorry for the old. They've reached a point in their life where they have trouble earning enough to stay comfortable. Now, some people feel entitled to retirement, that they've put in enough. This is decidedly hard to measure, since our various redistribution schemes are a couple generations old, and thus skew the numbers. But yeah, if people choose to spend an ever-greater number of years in retirement, in fact, they will be 'owed' proportionally less from the years they actually did work. It's a problem, for sure. But it's hardly a problem solved by getting people to spend half of their retirement decrepit.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe the spice Melange is the key to workable immortality?

Spoiler :

 

[Yeekim]

The idea that we're anywhere near 'conquering aging' is silly.

Hardly. I'd say we are pretty close to the point where we could just replace failing parts with lab-grown spares, potentially endlessly.

We are, however, nowhere close to making this affordable to anyone but a handful of ultra-rich.

Would we ever deny this lifesaving medical treatment to anyone?

Lifesaving treatments are denied to people on an everyday basis. Usually because they cost a fortune.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hardly. I'd say we are pretty close to the point where we could just replace failing parts with lab-grown spares, potentially endlessly.

We can't be "really close" demonstrably, if it hasn't happened at all. Afaik organ dismissal by the body is a very real issue still. So are complications in any non-routine surgery.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, let's talk about what you mean by 'really close' or 'not'. Do you think it will happen within a century? You might not keep up on genetic advances, but they're growing rapidly. So, you think that lab-grown organs are 'far away'. But are they? Will they be here within a century? There will be people born this decade that will be alive in a century, right?

 

[Kyriakos]

Okay, let's talk about what you mean by 'really close' or 'not'. Do you think it will happen within a century? You might not keep up on genetic advances, but they're growing rapidly. So, you think that lab-grown organs are 'far away'. But are they? Will they be here within a century? There will be people born this decade that will be alive in a century, right?

I am not keeping up with genetic advances, no. Yet i do know that currently organs still are dismissed from the host body, and people can and do develop other problems post-surgery of this serious kind as well.
Now who knows how it will be in 100 or 200 years. Yet, again, due to reasons i sketched earlier on the thread (human DNA, and it is not like you would be transplanting all of your body including balances between organs due to genetic code we don't understand) i doubt this can lead to immortalism, or even to people routinely living up to 150 years.

When you don't know how something works on its microlevels, disastrous errors will happen always. And knowing the full microlevel of dna may be impossible even in the case it has a final micro-level in the first place (which it might not, much like new and smaller sub particles are discovered in other fields and theories deeming the microlevel as not needed to be fully accounted for so as to guess what will happen at a macrolevel are imo not just false in more theoretical matters but criminally negligent if applied to something like medicine in this scale).

For a more art-like parallel, think of a child who has learned (and verified through practice) that pressing lego on his hand can't cut him. If he isn't aware that other stuff have a much more cutting surface, eg knives, he may try the same, and at that point his theory that nothing will harm him if he only presses it a bit onto his arm will collapse. Now think of someone standing next to a vast wall, and knowing that nothing will happen if he taps his fingers against it, say at height Y. At some point, a ladder is supplied, he reaches higher surfaces, taps his fingers there too, and something rather nasty will happen to him

 

[El_Machinae]

So, lab-grown organs within a century. Likely or unlikely?

Here's the thing: there's only so much that can go wrong. Evolution figured out how to add ~70 years to our natural lifespan. And when it comes to the body 'good enough' is 'enough'. So yeah, there will be ongoing issues. But the question is whether or not we will figure out those issues as time goes on. And whether knowledge of previous issues will help with future issues.

This is why I started my research life in Parkinson's. When I look at the tools necessary for 'beating' Parkinson's, I see that each tool is actually broadly applicable. There are oddles and oodles of spinoff functions available from any real victory in Parkinson's Disease. So, if a person was an Immortalist, and wanted to spend their money is a pro-selfish way, PD is a great choice

 

[Kyriakos]

So, lab-grown organs within a century. Likely or unlikely?

You are hugely better than going for a "gotcha"

If you mean lab-grown organs, without examining their effect on the body (complications etc), then yes, they very likely will be there. It is obviously not the critical issue to health. You have to place them into the body and have them work well, instead of ruining the patient. See my posts #90 and #67 for why i think it won't lead to immortalism. First do no harm /oath

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not going for a gotcha. Let's just say that the average trendline of optimism when it comes to 'lab grown organs' (that are functionally useful) is going to easily include 'within a century'. You are more pessimistic than is warranted, but there are still oodles of places you can put your charity dollars that are easily shown to buy a huge number of years for people.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not going for a gotcha. Let's just say that the average trendline of optimism when it comes to 'lab grown organs' (that are functionally useful) is going to easily include 'within a century'. You are more pessimistic than is warranted, but there are still oodles of places you can put your charity dollars that are easily shown to buy a huge number of years for people.

I live in Greece. I have no money for charity anyway

 

[Yeekim]

We can't be "really close" demonstrably, if it hasn't happened at all. Afaik organ dismissal by the body is a very real issue still. So are complications in any non-routine surgery.

If it were already happening, we would be "there already", rather than "close", wouldn't we?
I do not follow this stuff too attentively and I know how press hypersensationalizes things, but organ dismissal is being actively looked at, with promising results.
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3058082/scientists-grow-a-human-heart-from-stem-cells

 

[El_Machinae]

I live in Greece. I have no money for charity anyway

I believe you. But then you should be spending your time and money in ways that win/win repair the Greek economy instead of discouraging people from doing stuff that helps future Greeks.

 

[Kyriakos]

I believe you. But then you should be spending your time and money in ways that win/win repair the Greek economy instead of discouraging people from doing stuff that helps future Greeks.

Come on

 

[timtofly]

Now, as others may agree. I think that the trendline is nigh-inevitable. The only thing that will change is the velocity and thus the number of unnecessary deaths. And I am very specifically asking for help, because I want to prevent unnecessary deaths. In a win/win way.

And there are other problems looming that need to be solved, regardless. And the timing for which we 'need' solutions doesn't include the trickle of increasing older people. And some of our choices aggravate this, even while we type about our 'concern' for El_Mac's goal. In general, I'm onboard with fixing a lot of these problems. I may not be a financial ally, since I apportion my charity budget differently than yours. But I can also agitate, pontificate, and even make lifestyle choices that help.

Finally, 'the growing number of retired people' is a relatively new phenomenon. Heck, retirement is fairly new. Now, we like it. But the main reason why we transfer actual money from the young to the old is because we feel sorry for the old. They've reached a point in their life where they have trouble earning enough to stay comfortable. Now, some people feel entitled to retirement, that they've put in enough. This is decidedly hard to measure, since our various redistribution schemes are a couple generations old, and thus skew the numbers. But yeah, if people choose to spend an ever-greater number of years in retirement, in fact, they will be 'owed' proportionally less from the years they actually did work. It's a problem, for sure. But it's hardly a problem solved by getting people to spend half of their retirement decrepit.

Do all retired people feel they are receiving money transferred from the young?

There are a few reasons why people retire, but taking money from the younger work force is not one of them. Sure there are a lot who figure they did their part to take care of the world, now the world can take care of them. It would seem those types probably did not do much for the world at all, but only made their own existence more comfortable.

People who retire comfortably did so after saving their resources. Some people have to stop working because of a medical reason, but that is one burden that most do not plan for, and could happen to any one of any age.

My retired father in law has Parkinsons and provides housing for 3 adults, and 3 high schoolers. It is not ideal, but my kids get a first hand experience that life is not just a piece of the pie, but we all help out the best we can. In this case the "younger workforce" is taking care of 3 generations.

I have no retirement whatsoever. One of my past employers stole all of what was supposed to fund my retirement. I don't view myself as being a drain, but I suppose the younger folks may feel differently about their contributions going to me, since that is how it works. My wife has had a great job for almost 30 years and we manage. Hopefully all that she has put in over the years will manage to keep her comfortable, but I see her working until her death, or a medical condition which will be worse than a comfortable retirement.

Perhaps longevity has nothing to do with economics, but in order for it to work economics is going to have to drastically change. IMO insurance and Healthcare of today, is about as useless to immortality as communism was to 19th century economics. It works in theory, but fails in practice.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do big problems actually get permanent solutions Hobbs? Or do different ones burn bright according to their location and time?

Yes and yes.

Priorities certainly shift but over time our problems have shrunk from Will I be eaten by a lion in my sleep? to Can my 90 year old body beat a brain tumor? .

I'd take the latter even though it's terrifying. In any case, yes big problems are fixable. You and I are the product of a long lineage of problem fixers - the only ones this planet has ever produced.

 

[Farm Boy]

I suppose if we go far enough back that would have been a more significant problem. True!