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?
Then why did you call the desire for eternal youth naive? Why not state clearly what your opinion on the matter is?
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.
Yes, you did write explicitly that we are not adapted to our present environment, and I agree.
But then I don't get why you keep hammering on the 'evolution choose this length of life' argument.
Yes people grow to be more or less 70-80 years old these days, so what? I might be misinterpreting your words again, but your arguments sound somewhat teleological to me.
As for changing as an individual: we are constantly slowly changing into a somewhat different being. We keep forgetting stuff, and learn new things all the time. Why would continuing to do that be so fundamentally wrong? You don't know yet what form a cure for aging would take. Who says we would be so radically different from today? You say certain outcomes are less than ideal. How ideal is the current situation, to live in a withering body? I'ld prefer some change.
I know young people are more naive, and think things can change easily. They don't see the barriers to this change that exists in human nature and society (or just vastly underestimate the amount of work and time that is required). Older people have seen things fail, so they are less naive, but often they are too sceptical of change, and disbelieve even the things that do come to happen.
By the way, I never said I had any respect for Silbert, I haven't really looked into him but he gives me somewhat of a 'pumper' impression.
I ask again: if a dinosaur could choose, would it choose to become a monkey, or live forever as a dinosaur?
I don't pretend to be able to read the mind of a dinosaur. As for humans: I guess everybody will chose the degree to which they want to change themselves.
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...
Old cars can be fixed, and still drive around today (old timers).
How 'bout we fix our bodies so they ARE built to last longer than a few decades?
Oh, and : CHOO CHOO
Poll
