You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JoshuaZ comments on One possible issue with radically increased lifespan - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Spectral_Dragon 30 May 2012 10:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bart119 31 May 2012 04:40:46PM -1 points [-]

I'm with you on thinking this is a serious issue. I also think the LW community has done a very poor job of dismissing all such concerns, often with derision. A post I made on the subject got downvoted into oblivion, which is OK (community standards and all). I accept some of the criticisms, but expect to bring the issue up again with them better addressed.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 31 May 2012 05:10:30PM 0 points [-]

There were many other reasons to downvote your post, as discussed in a fair bit of detail in the comments.

Comment author: Bart119 31 May 2012 05:19:14PM *  0 points [-]

I understand that. I said it was OK. But I thought Spectral_Dragon in particular might be interested, flaws and all. My observation of derision of such concerns is not about my post, but many other places which I have seen when researching this.

Comment author: Spectral_Dragon 31 May 2012 08:36:49PM 0 points [-]

It's interesting, but doesn't cover the points I'm most concerned about - within a century, it's likely this will become a problem, birth/death have to be regulated. And given not everyone is rational... How do we do it? Cost, promising not to have kids, or what?

Also, I agree that the human mind might not function at optimum efficiency that long. It's a side point, and can probably be fixed, but... We're NOT adapted to live more than a few millenia at best. Maybe even a few centuries. Though this is only speculation.