= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on A defense of Senexism (Deathism) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
This is not an argument but a phrasing of the consequences I cited.
This is no argument either but was explicitly relayed as a personal opinion.
This is objectively proven and thus no rationalization.
The latter is. It just doesn't cry out: "you selfish individual, how can you rob your tribe of the resources it needs to fight entropy as long as it can".
It is non-obvious. You just fell into the many traps reflection on death poses that I explicitly mentioned.
They all sounded to me like cases of "Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People". They all seemed completely irrelevant to the actual badness of death.
We'll find a way around entropy too. We definitely have the time to try, once we start living forever. More importantly, the value of offsetting entropy versus demanding that individuals cease to exist over and over again is something that's for the tribe to figure out together, but from where I stand the solution also sounds pretty obvious, Kyuubei.
Maybe it is quite the other way around. That we could rather find a way around entropy (not that I'd believe that) if we didn't live forever.
How does that even begin to make sense?
Finding solutions is a search process. A computation. It costs entropy (even if you apply reversible computations to a high degree). Entropy is used less efficiently by beings living longer than reproducing and dying beings. Thus our search would require more energy if we were immortal.
Maybe we have enough energy to spend. But maybe we don't.
On the other hand maybe we should differentiate between immortal knowledge and immortal indentity. I'd rather agree with some kind of the former (with cavats for reversible computing) than with the latter.
You seem to be overlooking something. The entropic consumptions of sapient beings are negligible compared to those of stars, and so is the difference between in entropic consumption between immortality and torch-passing.
You seem to be overlooking something. It may very well be that
a) living in space is inherently more difficult (read: energy-inefficient) that on earth
b) we are already using up earths ressources must faster than they renew
c) it is not in the least guaranteed that we can find energy sources that are significantly more efficient or opening new sources than those that we already have
d) in particular it may be quite impossible to use significant fractions of the energy of the stars
Just in case this comes across as technological pessimism: It isn't. I'm very well for technological progress. We will need all the progress we can get to optimize efficiency because if we don't start soon we my have lost more than we can regain later. It may not be true, but somebody has to go that way too. When so8res - knowing that he may be wrong goes int the compartment of (U)FAI, then I on the other hand go into efficiency - also knowing that I may be wrong.
"Indefinite preservation of identity" is a less loaded term than immortality (applause light!) and probably should be used instead when implied in a given context.