You provide no arguments that eternal youthfulness is not feasible, you only state that it is indesirable for a species.
I would not say "undesirable". I put "want" in quotes because species and natural evolution have no desires (thanks Lamb for seeing that
) It is just that being mortal is part of being what we are.
Yes, and 'being unable to fly' is part of what we are, ... until it isn't. You seem very keen on keeping things like they are, even if they are undesirable.
And you seem obsessed with reading things in my words that I did not write, even when I write just the opposite... Where did I say that we
should not be immortal or ethernally young? Where did I say that things
should not change not evolve? Where did I say that we
should not improve our lives? Where did I say that life and youth extension are impossible?
It may be hard to believe, but, after a certain point in life, [ the desire to live forever ] usually goes away.
Perhaps if your body was youthful and energetic, you would reconsider that point. Also, if people really didn't want to be alive, it's easy enough to blow your brains out. I can't help but notice that most people don't do this, which seems to suggest they value being alive.
I know old people who say that they are tired of living, and obviously mean it, but would never kill themselves because that takes quite a bit of courage and cold blood, because it is a sin, because it would be bad for their family, because there is the possibility that tey may still be needed or get some unexpected hapiness, because they don't want to part with their dear ones ...
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful:
You might as well live.
-- Dorothy Parker
But yes, we generally hate succumbing to old age and death, just like we hate getting sick and weak. That wish must be a naturally evolved trait too, like "you must leave soon, but, as long as you are here, you must try to be as useful as you can" --- and that includes remaining as fit and healthy as you can.
It is not different from how companies treat their older employees. Indeed, retirement is the corporate version of natural death. It was invented not for the good of the individual, but for the good of the company: a barely delicate way to remove the old guys whom no one dares to fire, and open space for new blood.
There is that " Everything is as it should be" thinking again. Like we are now evolved into a perfect end state, I don't buy it.
If people didn't get old, they would be able to keep functioning in their company, and there would be no need to fire them.
I wrote explicitly that we are absolutely
not adapted to our present environment...
I guess that you are missing the point. We cannot be eternally young while being the same human beings that we are now. As one gets old, memories and experiences change our view of things. When thinking about things like bitcoin today, I cannot avoid recalling what I read and thought of nuclear power, space exploration, nulear fusion, artificlal inteligence, etc, over the past 50 years, and what happened to them. Those memories and the conclusions that I got out of them are what make me today. But it is also the past memories and experiences that make old people more cynical, careless, less enthusiastic, less focused, etc. -- even if the intelligene and clarity of memory remain the same.
(For example, my 4 years as head of department changed completely my view of universities and humans, for the worse... Sometimes I wish that I had not gone through that experience, and retained a more positive view of some of my colleagues; but at the same time I don't want to forget what I learned then... It is because of such experiences that I cannot share the respect that you have for people like Gavin, Sielbert, Adreeessen, Antonopoulos, etc., even though I am not aware of them doing anything really wrong...)
So, what does it mean to "be eternally young" --- erase one's memories, and be forever enthusiastic and naive and inexperient as a 20 year old? Or keep piling up memories for centuries, and becoming every time more bored and cynical, thinking more and more about the past rather than the future, etc? Or modifying the brain in some way, so that it can continue putting up memories without somehow becoming overburdened by them? Neither option seems to be exactly what we want.
I ask again: if a dinosaur could choose, would it choose to become a monkey, or live forever as a dinosaur?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.
-- Albert Einstein
A finite lifetime is nature's solution to make space for new individuals. Aging is a consequence of that.
I think you have things backwards. There is no planned design to remove old individuals.
I don't know what you mean, but clearly the average length of our lifetime is the result of millions of years of evolution. While it can be stretched a bit with current technology, our bodies and minds are not built to last more than that. As in an old car, all the parts start to fail after some time. (It is not just the telomers getting shorter...) That average lifetime is clearly what natural evolution found to be best for our species (and all mammal species I know of) until we started making fire and bows. Since then, it is not clear where evolution is taking us...
I would argue that people make decisions as individuals, so your musings are irrelevant.
Of course. It is only the libertarians who tell others what to do, like whom they should quote or reply to.
However, natural evolution does not care for technology or individual wishes, and will continue to work even if reproduction in the future wil be through and Merkle chains and USB ports, rather than DNA chains and whatever. Things that reproduce and adapt more effectively will reproduce and adapt more effectively. Darwinism is so powerful because it is only a tautology. "Guaranteed by math.."
Poll
