1.) An objective assessment says nothing of their value and importance in the world, because value and importance are assigned by individuals for themselves.
From what I can gather, most everyone here is consequentialist, but some are egoist, and some are utilitarian. I'm a utilitarian. I think happiness is inherently valuable. I don't really know how I can argue about it, and if I did, I'd make it a top-level post, but it's good to at least find out exactly where we disagree.
2 is basically restating 1
3.) Technological immortality is not just for oneself; I think it is probably rated so highly important because it is for everyone. Everyone must die, and any death is as tragic as any other: to think one must only care about immortality for one's own sake is fairly cynical.
I meant that immortality for anyone is over-rated. Death isn't in itself tragic. It's that once you die, you are no longer living, and thus no longer happy. If you replace the person who died with someone else, there's still life, and there's still happiness. The first person isn't living anymore, but the second wouldn't be living otherwise.
4.) Finally, immortality is almost guaranteed to be more important than any other goal one could have. Anything else can be deferred and accomplished once you are immortal, but once you have died, that's it.
Is there any reason to believe that the next generation will be less rational than this one? In any case, this isn't something inherently bad about death.
Insisting upon calling your own life unimportant is not rational, but perverse.
I consider my life very important. I just don't consider it uniquely important. If you replace me with someone who's life is equally important, there's no net gain or loss.
I'm a utilitarian too; I posted arguments #1 and #2 because I don't know how I could argue for inherent value either, and Aleph might not be utilitarian. Note, though, that happiness can be inherently valuable, yet the same event can still result in different utility (or importance) for different people: Aleph may not value his own life as much as I value mine, causing immortality to make me more happy than it would make him.
I think you are arguing against straw men, however. No one has said, as far as I'm aware, that one's own life is necessarily uniquely...
I was immensely glad to find this community, because while I knew intellectually that I was not the only person who felt that rationality was important, death was bad, and technology was our savior, I had never met anyone else who did. I thus determined my career without much input from anything except my own interests; which is not so bad, of course, but I have realized that I might benefit from advice from like-minded people.
Specifically, I would like to know what LessWrong thinks I should do in order to get into "immortality research." Edit: that means "what field should I go into if I want humanity to have extended lifespans as soon as possible?"
I feel immortality, or at least life-extension, is one of - if not the - most important thing(s) humanity can accomplish right now. I don't think I am suited to AI work, however. Another obvious option is an MD, but that's not in my temperament either. My major right now is biochemistry, in preparation for a doctorate in either biochemistry itself, or pharmacology.
I think there's a good chance that advances in this area could contribute to life extension; aging is a biochemical process, right? And certainly drugs will be involved in life extension. But is this the best place to apply my efforts? I have considered that biogerontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontology) might be better, as it is about aging specifically; but I don't know much about the field - only that Wikipedia says it is new and very few universities offer degrees in it. My final idea is nanotechnology of some kind; I believe nanomachines may be able to repair our bodies. I'm not sure what type of nanotechnology I'd be looking at for this, or if degrees in it are offered.
Any ideas, suggestions, or comments in general are welcome. I favor the biochemical approach as of now, but only through temperament. As far as I know, AI, biochemical/pharmacological methods, and nanotechnology are all about equally close to giving us immortality. If someone feels one option is better than the others, or has recommended reading on the subject, please share!
Thanks in advance, my new rational friends.