(Looks at parent comment rating of -2)
What?! We now have a free pass on transhumanist cheerleading on LW, no matter how crazy, and norm against criticising it or even raising a concern about its unsubstantiated nature? (Or was it just the reaction to downvote-the-post decision given in the parent comment, given that the problem is not relevant to the overall topic of the post?)
I know of no convincing account for why the probability of achieving "biological immortality or uploading" during our lifetime is sufficiently nontrivial to talk about planning for that. Even FAI, also unlikely in the near future, doesn't imply these particular outcomes (it implies strictly better outcomes, but not these). And humans "manually" getting uploading to production on human brains, not just the first proof-of-concept experiments, not counting the difficulty of getting the prerequisite technologies up and running? It's a whole lot of work.
Whatever the case, if the claim is not sufficiently accepted, it shouldn't be mentioned in passing, reinforcing the anti-epistemic norm of propagating memetic noise.
Whatever the case, if the claim is not sufficiently accepted, it shouldn't be mentioned in passing, reinforcing the anti-epistemic norm of propagating memetic noise.
Agreed, and upvoted grandparent.
Here's something I found after surfing a few links. Given the interest in intelligence augmentation and biological immortality here, I figured you guys would find it useful to know; I wasn't particularly planning on retiring (given biological immortality or uploading technologies), but if this is true, I definitely won't be for as long as I can avoid it.