= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jkaufman comments on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015 - 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 (247)
Huh? It feels like you're responding to a common thing people say, but not to anything I've said (or believe).
I meant this as a response specifically to
More context:
I don't think our current lifespan is the perfect length, but there's a lot of room between "longer is probably better" and "effectively unlimited is ideal".
Yes, but are you saying there's going to a maximum somewhere in that space -- some metric will flip over and start going down? What might that metric be?
As I wrote in that post, there are some factors that lead to us thinking longer lives would be better, and others that shorter would be better.
Maybe this is easier to think about with a related question: what is the ideal length of tenure at a company? Do companies do best when they have entirely employees-for-life, or is it helpful to have some churn? (Ignoring that people can come in with useful relevant knowledge they got working elsewhere.) Clearly too much churn is very bad for the company, but introducing new people to your practices and teaching them help you adapt and modernize, while if everyone has been there forever it can be hard to make adjustments to changing situations.
The main issue is that people tend to fixate some on what they learn when they're younger, so if people get much older on average then it would be harder to make progress.
A rather important question here is what's "ideal" and from whose point of view? From the point of the view of the company, sure, you want some churn, but I don't know what the company would correspond to in the discussion of the aging of humanity. You're likely thinking about "society", but as opposed to companies societies do not and should not optimize for profit (or even GDP) at any cost. It's not that hard to get to the "put your old geezers on ice floes and push them off into the ocean" practices.
That's true, as a paraphrase of Max Planck's points out, "Science advances one funeral at a time".
However it also depends on what does "live forever" mean. Being stabilized at the biological age of 70 would probably lead to very different consequences from being stabilized at the biological age of 25.
This probably also depends a lot on the particulars of what "stabilized at the biological age of 25" means. Most 25 year-olds are relatively open to experience, but does that come from being biologically younger or just having had less time to become set in their ways?
This also seems like something that may be fixable with better pharma technology if we can figure out how to temporarily put people into a more childlike exploratory open-to-experience state.
I think humans are sacks of chemicals to a much greater degree than most of LW believes. As a simple example, note that injections of testosterone into older men tend to change their personality quite a bit.
I don't know if being less open to new experiences is purely a function of the underlying hardware, but it certainly is to a large extent a function of physiology, hormonal balance, etc.
I hope you realize you're firmly in the "better living through chemistry" territory now.
The idea of putting LSD into the public water supply is not a new one :-)
Anecdotally, LSD.