= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaFox comments on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014 - 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 (289)
If you could magically stop all human-on-human violence, or stop senescence (aging) for all humans, which would it be?
I'm much more likely to die of aging than of violence; so I'd rather stop aging.
This seems to generalize well to the rest of humanity. I am surprised that most others who replied disagrees. ISTM that most existential risks are not due to deliberate violence, but rather unintended consequences.
The latter. The former is already decreasing at an incredible speed but I see no trend for the latter.
All governments rely on an implicit or explicit threat of force, of "human-on-human violence".
If no one can apply violence to me why should I pay any taxes, or, more crudely, pay for that apple I just grabbed off a street stall?
Ending aging would almost certainly greatly diminish human-on-human violence, since increasing expected lifespans would lower time preference. Right?
I don't think it works that way. Currently most human-on-human violence is committed by young people (specifically young men), who by this logic should have the lowest time preference, since they can expect to have the most years left to live.
So, depending on how much of this decrease in violence with age is biological and how much is memetic, stopping aging (assuming it would lead to a large drop in the birth rate) may increase or decrease the total violence in the long run (as the chronological age of the population increases but its biological age decreases).
It would also depend on how anti-aging works. Suppose that every stage of life is made longer. If young male violence is mostly biological, then some young men would be violent for a few more years.
Then again, if you had more to lose, maybe that would increase your incentive to protect yourself by getting the other guy before he gets you.
I would assume there's a sorting effect-- people would tend to figure out eventually that it's better to live among low-violence people.
One big question is... ok, we want anti-aging, but what age do you aim for? 17 has some advantages, but how about 25? 35? 50?
I've read that cell death overtakes cell division at around 35, so perhaps a body in some longer-term equilibrium condition would look 35?
(I suspect that putting a single age on is too crude though. The optimal age for a set of lungs may not be the same as that for a liver)
Optimal age is also relative to what you want to do-- different mental abilities peak at wildly different ages. If you stabilize your body at age 25 and then live to be 67 (edited-- was 53), will your verbal ability increase as much as if you let yourself age to 67?
Athletic abilities don't all peak at the same time, either. Strength doesn't peak at the same time as strength-to-weight ratio. Would you rather be a weightlifter or a gymnast? I believe coordination peaks late-- how do you feel about dressage?
Staying physically 25 doesn't mean you have to stop learning or physically developing. Surely the development of abilities in adult life is the result of exercising body and mind over the years, not part and parcel of senscence?
I don't think we know. I have no idea why verbal ability would peak so late, so I don't know whether brain changes associated with aging are part of the process.
My problem with these questions is that it sorta gets difficult quickly. If you stopped aging today, I imagine there would very quickly be overpopulation issues and many old patients in hospitals wouldn't die etc. and yet I am finding it difficult to think of major issues with the ending of violence (boxing champions would be out of a job). And even now, I'm sure someone's thought of a counter example, and then the discussion would be harder. And so even though I think that aging is more important than violence as a focus, the question asks a hypothetical that is never going to occur (being able to just make that decision, I mean) and takes us away from reality into the nitty/gritty of a literal non-problem.
Why did you ask?
Edit: I didn't mean to make a case for either side, I was trying to suggest that the question itself seems unhelpful. We'll end up with a complicated technical discussion which is unlikely to have any practical value.
To give a sense of proportion: suppose that tomorrow, we developed literal immortality - not just an end to aging, but also prevented anyone from dying from any cause whatsoever. Further suppose that we could make it instantly available to everyone, and nobody would be so old as to be beyond help. So the death rate would drop to zero in a day.
Even if this completely unrealistic scenario were to take place, the overall US population growth would still only be about half of what it was during the height of the 1950s baby boom! Even in such a completely, utterly unrealistic scenario, it would still take around 53 years for the US population to double - assuming no compensating drop in birth rates in that whole time.
Sure does!
I don't count that as violence -- it is consensual (and there's a modicum of not-always-successful effort to prevent permanent harm).
This has been discussed at great depth and refuted, e.g. by Max More and de Grey.
No particular reason: Every now and then a thought come to mind.
If you take into account the risk of permanent brain damage, boxing (as well as rugby/football) is sacrificeable.
Never did any of those myself, but I think that being consensual, they don't count as violence.
It's complicated. Power dynamics at school and at home, as well as joblessness in some countries, may make a sports career less than voluntary.
The formed is a major existential risk, while the latter is probably going to be solved soon(er), so the former.
Good point! Then again, a lot of the existential risks we talk about have to do with accidental extinction, not caused by aggression per se.
The former. Stopping ageing without giving us time to prepare for it would cause all sorts of problems in terms of increasing population. Whereas stopping violence would accelerate progress no end (if only for the resources it freed up).
Stopping aging (preferably, reversing aging) would also free up a lot of resources.
On that note, a 2006 article in The Scientist argues that simply slowing aging by seven years would produce large enough of an economic benefit to justify the US investing three billion dollars annually to this research. One excerpt: