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.

jazmt comments on A defense of Senexism (Deathism) - Less Wrong Discussion

-5 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 16 February 2014 07:47PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (88)
Tags: evolution senexism senescence deathism death

Comments (88)

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

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 16 February 2014 10:13:20PM 2 points [-]

I apologize for hacking you. I would have hoped that it to be understood as harmless and helpful. Nonetheless I apologize for not seeing that it was invasive.

I doubt many anti-deathist LessWrongers think death has absolutely no good consequences,

Probably.

I now see that I wrote the post in a state of rejection of unbalanced positivism I saw in LW posts. I should have written it as a pro-contra piece that would have argued for a balance better than trying to move toward a balance which is bound to trigger counterforce.

I probably shouldn't have written it. I already wondered if there should be a warning of certain topics in LW. Like the no-politics policy.

I find your folk psychology arguments for unconvincing.

They are not convicing. I shouldn't have used them.

There are evolutionary adaptive things we don't want to have in a modern civilization. And there are things that were adaptive in the ancestral environment that aren't adaptive anymore.

Agreed. Group selection benefits of aging apply beyond genes though.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 17 February 2014 02:32:11PM 2 points [-]

Group selection benefits of aging

What do you mean by aging?

  1. The passage of time without dying.

  2. Accumulating decreptitude.

  3. Accumulating experience, knowledge, expertise, wisdom.

These are different things that are only contingently related to each other, but conflating them lets you make arguments that fall apart once one notices the equivocation on "aging". "Aging(3) is good, but aging(2) ends in death, therefore death is good."

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 17 February 2014 03:52:22PM 0 points [-]

Interesting point. In the context of this post it is 2 (though you shouldn't have chosen a derogative).

I don't think someone would name 1 when asked about the biological (or colloquial) meaning of aging. And 3 would seldom be cited alone but probably more often as compensation aspect of 2.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 17 February 2014 04:40:32PM 0 points [-]

In the context of this post it is 2 (though you shouldn't have chosen a derogative).

"Decreptitude" is descriptive, not derogative. Decrepit: wasted and weakened by or as if by the infirmities of old age (Merriam-Webster Online).

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 17 February 2014 08:45:43PM 0 points [-]

That's decrepitude. Your use with "t" implied a derogative with "creep". But it seems to have been a typo. Sorry for misinterpreting this.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit