How should I help us achieve immortality?

Hul-Gil

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.

Personally, I think immortality is overrated, at least by people who realize it's important at all.

You're not inherently more valuable than anyone else. Ergo, preventing your death would be no more valuable than replacing you afterwards. In addition, if we could replace you with a happier entity, it would be an improvement.

That said, replacing people is expensive. Immortality is still incredibly valuable for that reason.

Look at all the ailments old age brings with it, from physical frailness to dementia, and the fact that people may have to spend decades in nursery homes when they'd rather be living independent lives.

I spent a year working at a service home. This was a private institution with motivated staff, a good staff-to-customer ratio and customers who were all relatively physically fit. Yet few of them really seemed happy with their circumstances. I'm pretty sure they would all have preferred to be in a better shape.

According to The Happiness Hypothesis, the five e... (read more)

18fubarobfusco15y

Well, here's the thing. My values and abilities today have taken 32 years to develop. I can identify several distinct stages where I was undergoing rapid change, and several where I was undergoing slower change; but nonetheless, replacing me today with an arbitrary newborn baby, a 2-year-old, 4-year-old, 8-year-old, or 16-year-old would not seem to be a one-for-one trade. I certainly think the world would be worse off if my current 32-year-old self were replaced with my 16-year-old self. I was a bit of an asshole at 16. (Sadly, I don't know of any way to demonstrate improvement that doesn't amount to either wealth signaling, wisdom signaling, or drama.) I wouldn't assert that the value of a human life necessarily rises with age — equating experience with value. First, some people do squander their potential; and some people do start with more potential than others. But worse is age-related decline. The fact that people whose lives, experience, and wisdom I value are succumbing to the failure of their evolved physiological substrate is a dreadful thing. It's hard for me to read a Terry Pratchett novel today, knowing that his brain is right now literally falling apart due to Alzheimer's disease. The average 72-year-old has less to offer the world than the average 24-year-old — precisely because of age-related decline. And that's a horrifying, disgusting fact. Preventing biological death without preventing mental decline is not a valuable outcome to me; I want people to retain their personality, their wit, their knowledge, and not just their metabolic function. I don't think this is any kind of uncommon view around here — but longevity with intact mental function is an obvious win for preserving the value represented by human cognition.

3Automaton15y

I agree that if we're only considering the person who dies and the replacement person, that preventing someone's death and creating another person are pretty much the same, but I think the pain caused to others by someone dying is usually outweighs the happiness caused by bringing another person into existence. In any case, the costs of death to the people who are still alive need to be taken into account.