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.

ShardPhoenix comments on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: somnicule 19 May 2014 04:49AM

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

Comments (289)

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

Comment author: Benito 20 May 2014 04:40:40PM *  2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: JoshuaFox 20 May 2014 05:57:21PM *  3 points [-]

[the question] sorta gets difficult

Sure does!

boxing champions would be out of a job

I don't count that as violence -- it is consensual (and there's a modicum of not-always-successful effort to prevent permanent harm).

overpopulation

This has been discussed at great depth and refuted, e.g. by Max More and de Grey.

Why did you ask

No particular reason: Every now and then a thought come to mind.