Immortality prevention described as “unlikely”
from the "a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing" dept.
Saturn Graphix writes "In Daily Telegraph Full Article Here
'Why science may bring curse of immortality' by Roger Highfield
Better treatment of disease could lead to 'generational cleansing' as people live longer, an ethical expert warned last week [in the journal Science]. The elderly could be condemned to death by suicide or euthanasia after an allotted lifespan as medical advances raise the maximum age beyond 120, according to Dr John Harris, professor of bioethics at Manchester University. Professor Harris said a side-effect of research to treat the diseases of old age, such as dementia, cancer and arthritis, could be to extend the maximum age to immortality…He said it was unlikely that we could stop the progression to longer lifespans and even immortality. 'We should start thinking now about how we can live decently and creatively with the prospect of such lives.' " CP: Some of us are already doing so.
September 14th, 2000 at 5:46 PM
Silly Logan's Run Scenario Not Worth Mention
From: Philip Shropshire Sites: http://www.threerivertechreview.com and http://www.majic12.com I thought it was fairly light piece written by someone who doesn't read a whole lot of science fiction or at the very least hasn't heard of the extropians. I think there is a problem with older people in that they would tend to dominate things a bit. I can't help but think that the world might not be a better place if the likes of Bill Gates or Madonna could dominate well into their 120s. I think the solution passed around in SF is not to kill the old folks Eskimo style on a precarious raft, but to kick them off planet so that they could find new challenges. But I tend to think that they would go voluntarilly just for new thrills. An 80 year old with the physiology of a 30 year old might very well look at all the activities on Earth and realize his or her response to all incoming date is "Been there, done that." I would like to think that they might find settling Mars, or rewiring their DNA for a better skinsuit for space (all brought about partly or in whole by the Nan Miracle by the way) would be a more interesting option. I suppose there is one selfish element in all of this. If the tech prognosis is right, then we would be the first immortal generation. I don't think it would be bad to be the king. I intend to use my evil immortal powers to mandate that jazz rock fusion is the predominant music form of the world. May Return to Forever and Weather Report long reign. Uh, on a related note, that antioxidant stuff that doubled the lives of those worms, "superoxide dismutase" and "catalase", can any of the smart people in this field manufacture this and sell it to me so I can use it for my own evil ends? Just a thought.
September 15th, 2000 at 8:37 AM
duh: go off-planet
The proper response to the problem of longevity-related overpopulation is not mandated euthanasia. It is to move the majority of Earth's population to other locations in (and later outside) the solar system. The obstacle to doing this today is the expense of space flight, particularly the expense of launch. Today it costs something like $10,000 to put a kilogram of anything into GEO (geosynchronous earth orbit).
John Storrs-Hall has proposed a space dock which would lower that cost to less than $1 after amortization of construction costs. This is essentially a 300 km-long track held above the atmosphere by a diamondoid framework, along which a spaceship can accelerate. A similar idea places the track in the upper atmosphere, held up by balloons. There are numerous other ideas floating around for inexpensive space launches (1 2 3). Even a silly Mir publicity stunt can help to bring affordable spaceflight closer to reality.
A good long-term fix would be to build Ringworlds or Dyson spheres. That all would presumably need to wait for fairly mature nanotech.
September 15th, 2000 at 10:41 AM
Re:Silly Logan's Run Scenario Not Worth Mention
If I recall correcly, the superoxide dismutase and catalase were said to have been customized in some way. That said, it probably won't be long before some shark-cartilage salesman starts hawking "nuSOD" or somesuch–"homeopathic nanogram doses!", etc.
September 15th, 2000 at 10:47 AM
Re:duh: go off-planet
Physicist Robert L. Park in his new book, Voodoo Science , considers the idea of colonizing space an example of something we're not likely to do because of all the radiation hazards beyond the Van Allen Belt, not to mention the damage caused by prolonged free fall and perhaps other life-threatening processes we haven't encountered yet.
Since ordinary human bodies are not up to the task, to conquer space we'll have to redesign ourselves into something physically quite different from what we are now — and the specter of "Transhumanism" raises enough hackles as it is, except among the kinds of friends I have.
Fortunately there is some sign of a turnaround in attitudes. I especially recommend Michael Zey's new book, The Future Factor , which enthusiastically endorses nanotechnology, space colonization, and the purposeful modification of the human body, including anti-aging and radical life-extension, as synergetically supporting parts of Zey's "Expansionary" view of the human future.
September 15th, 2000 at 5:08 PM
wear a nanotech spacesuit instead
Since ordinary human bodies are not up to the task, to conquer space we'll have to redesign ourselves into something physically quite different from what we are now — and the specter of "Transhumanism" raises enough hackles as it is, except among the kinds of friends I have.
Couldn't we just wear nanotech spacesuits of some kind? Even if they are big and bulky, they need not be slow and awkward, and this would still solve the PR problem you're sketching.
September 15th, 2000 at 10:17 PM
Re:wear a nanotech spacesuit instead
Would a nanotech spacesuit protect us from the nuclei of heavy elements, like iron, which sleet through space and presumably wreak havoc upon biological structures? I find it curious that a lot of the same people who obsess over free-radical damage to their bodies as a cause of aging, seem oblivious to the free-radical holocaust waiting for us beyond Earth's magnetic field when the fantasize about colonizing space.
September 16th, 2000 at 9:52 AM
Those problems are solvable, given incentives
Physicist Robert L. Park … considers the idea of colonizing space an example of something we're not likely to do because of all the radiation hazards beyond the Van Allen Belt, not to mention the damage caused by prolonged free fall…
The answer to free fall is simple: put people in something round and spin it. Here are some very pretty pictures of habitats that use rotation to provide artificial gravity. Radiation can be shielded with shells of rock, diamondoid, or other materials.
Park is correct in complaining that these problems do not yet have convenient, economical solutions. There is no incentive to develop economical solutions because launches are too expensive. Make launches cheap, and solutions to these other problems will follow.
September 16th, 2000 at 7:07 PM
Postponing the inevitable
Methods of dealing with "immortality", whether it be by pushing people off-planet in some neo-Athenian exile of the overly powerful or simply a way to stave off boredom, do not address several important issues.
1.) Malthus was right. Maybe over a much larger timeframe than he would have thought possible, but almost any procreation in a population of so-called immortals leads to overcrowding issues in what is cosmically speaking an eyeblink. Someone facetiously calculated that if human reproduction continued at its current rate, within a millennium or so humanity would be a dense sphere of people expanding at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It was (racially insensitively) called the "pink goo problem".
2) For all the starry-eyed talk of limitless possibility, perhaps these transhuman ubermortals would find life in space rather boring. Cranking up the resolution and frame rate doen't stop all first person shooters from basically being variations upon a theme. Yes, there are modes of expression waiting for us that exceed our current imagination, but perhaps only a finite number of them.
A bored superbeing runs the risk of being a monster on a scale we can scarcely contemplate. Imagine a post-human joyously bursting forth from its fleshly crysalis and flying out into the universe anticipating an eternity of novelty, only to discover that everything ends up repeating itself with nothing new left to do. Would it go insane and end up doing things it had previously refrained from doing for moral reasons? How demonic could we become?
Perhaps death validates our life choices. If we could do anything, nothing would have any value. It is our mortality that lets us take pride in our deeds and creations.
September 16th, 2000 at 8:28 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Iron Sun writes,
1.) Malthus was right. Maybe over a much larger timeframe than he would have thought possible, but almost any procreation in a population of so-called immortals leads to overcrowding issues in what is cosmically speaking an eyeblink. Someone facetiously calculated that if human reproduction continued at its current rate, within a millennium or so humanity would be a dense sphere of people expanding at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It was (racially insensitively) called the "pink goo problem".
The kinds of people I've met in cryonics, who are already trying to select themselves to become "immorbid,"* which may be a better term than "immortal," seem much less likely than average to have children. I'm especially surprised at the numbers of women in cryonics in their 30's and 40's who seem comfortable being child-free, as if they've chosen to opt out of the baby-bearing lifestyle in exchange for something quite better.
2) For all the starry-eyed talk of limitless possibility, perhaps these transhuman ubermortals would find life in space rather boring. Cranking up the resolution and frame rate doen't stop all first person shooters from basically being variations upon a theme. Yes, there are modes of expression waiting for us that exceed our current imagination, but perhaps only a finite number of them.
Again, coming from my experience both with the run of ordinary humanity versus people in cryonics trying to become "transhuman ubermortals," as you phrase it, I'm struck over and over again by how in the former set of entities I keep meeting people who seem basically like other people I've met before. Cryonicists, by contrast, strike me as unusually individuated and quite unlike both one another and unlike people I've met elsewhere.
In fact, this may help to explain the relative lack of interest out there in becoming immorbid by cryonics or any other means. People in the common run of humanity understand on some level that they aren't all that special and so others of their kind can serve as "backups" for them when they die, whereas the kinds of self-conscious individuationists attracted to immorbidity, like Miller Quarles, for example, realize that something irreplaceable will be lost when they die.
In any event, given the kinds of people self-selecting for radical life-extension (trying to get into "the experimental group," as Ralph Merkle phrases it), your concerns about Malthusian pressures (there certainly aren't very many of us!) and "Groundhog Day" don't seem to apply.
*immorbid. adj. Not subject to life-threatening disease or deterioration. (Coined by Wil McCarthy in his novel, The Collapsium [2000])
September 16th, 2000 at 9:34 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Some wild speculation without any basis in fact:
I'm especially surprised at the numbers of women in cryonics in their 30's and 40's who seem comfortable being child-free, as if they've chosen to opt out of the baby-bearing lifestyle in exchange for something quite better.
"Better"?? If childbearing is inferior to selfish indulgence, how do you feel about your parents?
I'm struck over and over again by how in the former set of entities I keep meeting people who seem basically like other people I've met before. Cryonicists, by contrast, strike me as unusually individuated and quite unlike both one another and unlike people I've met elsewhere.
Perhaps this says more about your own self image and the people within your boudaries of common interest than about humanity in general. To quote Brad Pitt from Fight Club: "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as anyone else." We tend to view our individual areas of interest through a magnifying glass, with everything else pushed into our peripheral vision, with a consequent lack of resolution. To believe that your perspective elevates you god-like above the ordinary mass of humanity is to display a dangerous arrogance. Beware lest Hubris meet its Nemesis.
something irreplaceable will be lost when they die
Decaying organic matter. In the wheel of being, nothing is unique or irreplaceable except within the context of individual experience. Once you forsake your humanity, you can never get it back, much like someone who has leapt off a tall building has left it until too late to change their mind.
your concerns about Malthusian pressures (there certainly aren't very many of us!) and "Groundhog Day" don't seem to apply.
You haven't explained how all your interesting and unique friends will transcend the limits of finite existence. I find the meat-and-three-veg cuisine of my childhood boring now, and delight in food from all over the world, but I am thankful that I probably won't live long enough to descend into anthropophagy to get my culinary kicks. Not even the Romans had gone that far. There are only so many tastes to experience. It doesn't matter how distinct you and your compatriates may be now, everything that rises must converge. You would all end up the same.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of my closing comment about death validating life.
September 17th, 2000 at 1:14 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Some wild speculation without any basis in fact: I'm especially surprised at the numbers of women in cryonics in their 30's and 40's who seem comfortable being child-free, as if they've chosen to opt out of the baby-bearing lifestyle in exchange for something quite better. "Better"?? If childbearing is inferior to selfish indulgence, how do you feel about your parents? [Frankly, I have always felt sorry for them for the things they had to give up. My mom and grandmom did not finish college, in a large part because they were brainwashed into thinking that being a housewife and having children is the "right" thing for a woman to do, rather then following her own "selfish" indulgences.] I'm struck over and over again by how in the former set of entities I keep meeting people who seem basically like other people I've met before. Cryonicists, by contrast, strike me as unusually individuated and quite unlike both one another and unlike people I've met elsewhere. Perhaps this says more about your own self image and the people within your boudaries of common interest than about humanity in general. To quote Brad Pitt from Fight Club: "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as anyone else." We tend to view our individual areas of interest through a magnifying glass, with everything else pushed into our peripheral vision, with a consequent lack of resolution. To believe that your perspective elevates you god-like above the ordinary mass of humanity is to display a dangerous arrogance. Beware lest Hubris meet its Nemesis. [Most people, in this country, sit around and rot their brain cells on Jerry Springer and day time TV. In all countries; however, there are many who are dirt poor and are not able to choose much of anything. Nanotech could eliminate such poverty and allow people the choices that our current system denies them, including the chance at a *VERY* long and expanded existence. You say to be mindful of the masses of sentients, but you would deny them life.] [Soon, if I so choose, I can, and will, become more then decaying organic matter, more than the mass of humanity, by being augmented with all types of technologies. Let me tell you why: First, as a sentient being, it is my choice and my will to live as I please. Second, I was born with Retinopathy of Prematurity in my right eye, as well as many other complications of a 3 month premature birth. As soon as possible I intend to have my first augmentation be an implant that will allow me to see, and see in as wide a spectrum as possible. (IR, UV, etc) For six months I lived in constant agony due to the forced seperation from my mother, from the best technology at the time, but that barely saved me, with never a drop of anestesia, and from an almost constant fight with the Reaper that left me physically and mentally scared. A lnog time ago I looked Death in the face and I spat in his eye. (sorry for the hackneyed lines) And by the way it is the perspective and the will of people like Practical Transhumanist and I that will allow us to transcend our ordinary human state and become more, yea, even as the gods. If everyone was content to wither and die, believing that they should not because they are no different then any one else, or any other reason, then no one will ever bother to pursue the technologies necessary to enable anything more.] something irreplaceable will be lost when they die Decaying organic matter. In the wheel of being, nothing is unique or irreplaceable except within the context of individual experience. Once you forsake your humanity, you can never get it back, much like someone who has leapt off a tall building has left it until too late to change their mind. [That's not true. If nanotech can make one a god then it can also make one mortal again.] your concerns about Malthusian pressures (there certainly aren't very many of us!) and "Groundhog Day" don't seem to apply. You haven't explained how all your interesting and unique friends will transcend the limits of finite existence. [We may find someday that existence is NOT finite, but if you don't stick around, I can absolutely guarantee that YOUR existence will be finite. Even if we discover that we live in a finite closed universe with no escape, I am pretty sure that the big crunch is more then a standard human lifespan away. I want to make the best of my existence, whether it turns out to be finite or infinite.] I find the meat-and-three-veg cuisine of my childhood boring now, and delight in food from all over the world, but I am thankful that I probably won't live long enough to descend into anthropophagy to get my culinary kicks. Not even the Romans had gone that far. There are only so many tastes to experience. It doesn't matter how distinct you and your compatriates may be now, everything that rises must converge. You would all end up the same. (Div(rising thing) can be positive or zero, too
[Interesting that you mention food, as that is a specifically organic experience. Some of us may choose to forgo eating altogether, or may develop extremely different types of diets and tastes (not to mention tastebuds and other sensory organs)Maybe when the option is available to you I hope that you will try immortality and godhood, you might find that it goes down rather well. If you really hate it then you can always spit it out, so to speak. As long as you are still alive you have the potential for change, for new experiences, etc. When you are dead.... IT'S FINISHED, THE END, GAME OVER.] I would be interested to hear your opinion of my closing comment about death validating life. [When you are dead, the worms will feast on your corpse. That concept does not inspire me.]
September 17th, 2000 at 3:08 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Frankly, I have always felt sorry for them for the things they had to give up. My mom and grandmom did not finish college, in a large part because they were brainwashed into thinking that being a housewife and having children is the "right" thing for a woman to do, rather then following her own "selfish" indulgences.
So you think they would have been better off if you had never existed? I never intended to suggest that women (or men) who consciously choose not to have children are selfish; they can do so for a number of reasons, including the painful realization that they would not make good parents. But that does not make one choice "better" than another. I know many people who are superb parents and obtain great satisfaction from performing one of the most difficult undertakings a human can perform. Don't diss the process that gave you your existence.
In all countries; however, there are many who are dirt poor and are not able to choose much of anything. Nanotech could eliminate such poverty and allow people the choices that our current system denies them, including the chance at a *VERY* long and expanded existence. You say to be mindful of the masses of sentients, but you would deny them life
I do no such thing. I think nanotechnology will transform the world and eliminate many of the unspeakable inequities that exist today. Bring it on!
Soon, if I so choose, I can, and will, become more then decaying organic matter, more than the mass of humanity, by being augmented with all types of technologies. Let me tell you why: First, as a sentient being, it is my choice and my will to live as I please.
Good for you. Don't think for a moment that I am standing in your way. Unless your choices impact adversely upon me or those I care about.
Second, I was born with Retinopathy of Prematurity in my right eye, as well as many other complications of a 3 month premature birth. As soon as possible I intend to have my first augmentation be an implant that will allow me to see, and see in as wide a spectrum as possible. (IR, UV, etc)
Godspeed. I hope the technology becomes available soon, and that it is everything you wanted and more. Nanotechnology will improve the lives of many people who would otherwise be condemned to unhappy or incomplete lives.
And by the way it is the perspective and the will of people like Practical Transhumanist and I that will allow us to transcend our ordinary human state and become more, yea, even as the gods. If everyone was content to wither and die, believing that they should not because they are no different then any one else, or any other reason, then no one will ever bother to pursue the technologies necessary to enable anything more.
Utter hogwash. It is only by virtue of our mortality that we are able to be different from one another. Immortal beings will all end up being indistinguisable from one another. It may take aeons, but it is inevitable. And please, if you are serious about aspiring to godhood, think about what the gods do for fun: play chess games with humans. Any Olympus deserves to be thrown down.
We may find someday that existence is NOT finite, but if you don't stick around, I can absolutely guarantee that YOUR existence will be finite
Let me hear you say Hallelujah! Thank you! Of course, your assertion is just as much an article of faith as mine. Let me see your proof, mathematical or otherwise.
Maybe when the option is available to you I hope that you will try immortality and godhood, you might find that it goes down rather well. If you really hate it then you can always spit it out, so to speak
I will NEVER refer to myself as a god. And once you have tasted fairy food, you cannot return to the mortal realm. A child is content with childish toys, but an adult is not. The only way an uberhuman could return to humanity would be to commit suicide, lobotomizing its higher functions.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of my closing comment about death validating life. [When you are dead, the worms will feast on your corpse. That concept does not inspire me.]
Actually, I was planning on being rendered down into my constituent molecules, and having my friends smoke my neurotransmitters at the wake. I hope you have as much fun with your life as I plan to have with mine, however long it may turn out to be.
September 17th, 2000 at 6:14 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Iron Sun wrote:It is only by virtue of our mortality that we are able to be different from one another.
Not only is this not true of us, it isn't even true of our machines, even of those machines that we can build now. To pick a trivial example: the set of data on the hard disk of this computer almost certainly doesn't match the set on any other computer. This has absolutely nothing to do with the limited time that the machine will work. If that time were extended to billions of years, the uniqueness of its data would almost certainly still hold (barring deliberate bit-for-bit copying).
September 17th, 2000 at 7:41 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Not only is this not true of us, it isn't even true of our machines, even of those machines that we can build now. To pick a trivial example: the set of data on the hard disk of this computer almost certainly doesn't match the set on any other computer. This has absolutely nothing to do with the limited time that the machine will work. If that time were extended to billions of years, the uniqueness of its data would almost certainly still hold (barring deliberate bit-for-bit copying).
A good point. Let me develop my argument:
From some perspectives, every event in the universe is unique. The decay of a radioisotope nucleus at given spacetime coordinates is distinct from the decay of other nucleii by reference to some arbitrary coordinate system (lat/long and GMT, for example) that determines its location in event space. From another perspective, these differences are trivial, being merely variations upon a theme: A nucleus decays, producing known byproducts, the same as every other example of its type. From another perspective, such as a certain feline, some of these similar events are much more important than others.
To use your hard disk analogy, the data on this computer may be different from that on other computers, but they will be similar. I would possibly have a better chance at guessing your browser and OS than I would at winning roulette.So even without extending the computer's life expectancy, we have reduced the amount of meaningful difference between two systems.
There are only so many documents that you can type and mp3s you can listen to on any arbitrary system, limited by available storage and processing ability. "No problem," cry the starchildren, "we can always upgrade the system." Here I invoke one of my articles of faith: It is my belief that scaling up the system will not delimit the amount of novelty that can be experienced. The mandelbrot set is infinitely deep, but it doesn't take long to notice certain classes of structures that are repeated over and over as you continue to zoom. They are not the same, but after 24 hours of continuous zooming (assuming possession of a computer that I want on my desktop!) they may as well be.
My point was that beings that seem initially quite dissimilar will converge more and more the longer they exist. They will never be the same, but the differences may eventually seem utterly insignificant.
September 17th, 2000 at 7:47 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Actually, life spans aren't the only important factor… any reproduction beyond replacement levels in any population will lead to an exponential explosion. We're seeing one now with good old fashioned short lifespans. It's not obvious that something like the "demographic transition" wouldn't make things not-all-that-much-worse with longer lifespans.
Personally, I'm a bit confused that reproduction is treated as an unquestioned right… it always seemed to me like one of the few behaviors that, in and of itself, argued for restriction.
If it's such a superbeing, it surely isn't going to start out with completely unrealistic expectations… like the expectation of trying to keep itself entertained forever. Or indeed the expectation of living forever. The goal should be to live as long as you want, which is not necessarily the same thing as forever.
I can see several options that you transhumans out there in our viewing audience can use to deal with serious boredom:
Forget things. Surely achievable. People do it all the time already.
Rearrange yourself. Remove boredom from your emotional repetoire. It's maladaptive.
Kill yourself voluntarily. Why not, if everything is, shall we say, deadly dull?
It really doesn't seem to be that hard to deal with this problem, as long as you don't have the unrealistic expectation of infinitely expanding variety, or the megalomaniacal expectation of infinitely expanding personal power. Enhancement is an option. Infinity is not. So what?
September 17th, 2000 at 10:32 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
But you forget the inherent abilities of the human brain to appreciate even the smallest details… Like somebody said before, your appreciation of a group of people is highly dependant on your perspective (ie. close co-workers/peers, and just "ordinary people"). It's worth noting that this perspective isn't constant… It can be changed by any number of factors. Getting to the point, even IF the differences between humans become "utterly insignificant", we (in the interests of boredom prevention) will begin to appreciate those differences no matter how small they really are. And to compound this, it's a lot like the "engineer's endless bridge" problem… If every brick you lay is half as long as the previous brick, the bridge will continue to get longer, if eventually by imperceptible amounts… But we _know_ that those increments still exist and our perspective narrows to see them better. Narrowing of perspective is almost always seen as a bad thing, but in this extreme case that you present, it would most certainly offset boredom (and many other problems) to a considerable extent.
September 17th, 2000 at 4:07 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Narrowing of perspective is almost always seen as a bad thing, but in this extreme case that you present, it would most certainly offset boredom (and many other problems) to a considerable extent.
I think narrow perspective is valued more often than you suggest. The conveying of nuance is a great skill. Posthumans would have time to appreciate the care put into a reference to the cultural mores of 1780 rather than 1760 … assisted of course by resources made subtly available to them to ensure they did appreciate the reference …
September 17th, 2000 at 10:05 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Personally, I'm a bit confused that reproduction is treated as an unquestioned right… it always seemed to me like one of the few behaviors that, in and of itself, argued for restriction.
Voluntary self-restriction or compulsory sterilization?
If it's such a superbeing, it surely isn't going to start out with completely unrealistic expectations… like the expectation of trying to keep itself entertained forever.
If the Singularity descends upon us as suddenly as some pundits seem to anticipate, then a lot of people who haven't given this issue any thought whatsoever may find themselves making choices they will have a very long time to learn to regret. If you think that people won't be allowed to get access to the technology until they prove themselves capable of understanding its implications, I can only laugh.
It really doesn't seem to be that hard to deal with this problem, as long as you don't have the unrealistic expectation of infinitely expanding variety, or the megalomaniacal expectation of infinitely expanding personal power. Enhancement is an option. Infinity is not. So what?
Well said. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who do seem to believe this. Frank Tipler scares the bejeezus out of me. It will be all too easy for this sort of madness to turn into a religion, with all the nasty implications about treatment of infidels that implies.
It seems to me that arrogance is an occupational hazard of certain breeds of transhumanists. Talk of ascending to godhood is the sign of an immature mind. Don't become so fixated on a still (and perhaps always) imaginary future at the expense of your present existence. Don't assume that you can ignore all of the world's current problems because the magic wand of nanotechnology will sweep them all away in a few decades. Work towards a bright and wonderful future, but don't forget that tomorrow never arrives; it is always today.
September 17th, 2000 at 10:14 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Like somebody said before, your appreciation of a group of people is highly dependant on your perspective
Me, actually.
Getting to the point, even IF the differences between humans become "utterly insignificant", we (in the interests of boredom prevention) will begin to appreciate those differences no matter how small they really are. And to compound this, it's a lot like the "engineer's endless bridge" problem… If every brick you lay is half as long as the previous brick, the bridge will continue to get longer, if eventually by imperceptible amounts… But we _know_ that those increments still exist and our perspective narrows to see them better. Narrowing of perspective is almost always seen as a bad thing, but in this extreme case that you present, it would most certainly offset boredom (and many other problems) to a considerable extent.
How many transhumans can dance on the head of a pin?
September 18th, 2000 at 9:03 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
"A good point. Let me develop my argument."
Thanks!
"From some perspectives, every event in the universe is unique."
Agreed, and also agreed that according to most human metrics, typical data "will be similar". Strictly speaking, your point about finite documents and mp3s is true, but if you consider the actual numbers of possibilities, proton decay will get us first. You have a stronger argument in claiming that interesting differences are spanned by a far more limited set.
As some other posters to this thread have noted, humans can focus on smaller and smaller differences, so whether the set of interesting differences actually gets exhausted is unclear.
Personally, I'm an apathetic agnostic on this issue.
As mortality tables stand today, the minimum mortality rate is reached for roughly 10-year-olds, and corresponds to a roughly 1000 year life expectancy. I'm sure I could find sufficient interests to fill 1000 years, so I'm content to push for MNT-based medical techniques to get that lifespan, and to defer worrying about finding interests to occupy a longer span for 500 years…
September 18th, 2000 at 9:42 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Compulsory restriction, although not necessarily by sterilization. Actually, I haven't come up with any means of enforcing a restriction with which I'm at all comfortable, and that in itself would keep me, personally, from advocating actually implementing such a restriction in law. Unenforceable laws are evil. Laws that can only be enforced by evil are very evil.
However, if there were a halfway moral and implementable way of forcing people not to reproduce, such a restriction would sound very reasonable to me. Creating a new entity with rights seems to me to be a classic example of an action that's going to impact lots of other people, not least of all the newly created person.
September 18th, 2000 at 9:52 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Hmm. Irrevocable choices? I guess I could imagine a system where you could sign up for augmentation, but you had to agree to accept an anti-suicide restriction or something. Not something you'd catch me buying into, thanks, but I guess it's imaginable.
I think it's more likely, though, that the newly minted transhumans would still be pretty well positioned to deal with the results of their decisions. It seems to met that forgetting, abandoning boredom, and suicide would all likely still be available to a transhuman… and certainly if the only augmentation is a longer lifespan, forgetting is going to be automatic, boredom is going to be hormonally self-limiting, and suicide is almost certain to be available in some form.
I think the rules on who gets access are going to depend on who controls the technology. I'm not even going to try to guess, although I do agree that a real understanding of the implications is unlikely to be a prerequisite, especially for pure life extension.
September 18th, 2000 at 10:01 AM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Well, yeah, it already sounds awfully religious sometimes. Substitute "the rapture" for "singularity", and some segments of the Senior Associates gatherings start to sound an awful lot like camp meetings.
There may be worse problems than that, though.
Now, I don't know about that. Maybe it's just reclaiming the word "godhood" from the mystics. The original gods seem to have been powerful spirits, but not unlimited, and certainly not perfect.
Ascending to the recent Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of the unlimited, illimitable, and all-encompassing Godhead is pretty clearly not going to happen, but you might be able to make it rain pretty well in a certain valley…
September 18th, 2000 at 12:03 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
This reminds me of what my friend Mike Perry says in response to accusations that Transhumanists want to "play god":
"We're not 'playing'!"
September 24th, 2000 at 12:03 PM
Re: Proper Dyson Shell/Sphere credits/URL
The better URL for the Dyson Sphere/Shell FAQ is:
http://www.student.nada.kth. se/~nv91-asa/dysonFAQ.html.
It provides a list of the people who contributed to it.
I maintain a slightly enhanced copy of the FAQ, located here. I've also organized a Dyson Shell Reference Page, a more complete reference list for the many papers and sources about Dyson shells. (Depending on where you are working from, you may need to request personal permission to access these files.)
Will is correct. Dyson Shells built out of nanocomputers would have the processing capacity to hold on the order of a trillion trillion human minds. (Easily demonstrated because the brain is pretty poor 10W processor, while the sun produces ~1026W.) If uploading is possible, and you don't allow endless copies (10-100 per person should be more than enough), then there is ample room for humanity to slowly grow and for humans to live trillions of years (until the protons decay).
September 27th, 2000 at 7:43 AM
Updated links and the real limits to immortality
It would appear the original link for the Telegraph story "Why science may bring curse of immortality" by Roger Highfield (#1778, 7 April 2000) doesn't work. This link here seems to work on 29/09/2000.
More interesting than the Telegraph story, is the original story by John Harris in Science (registration required probably) Intimations of Immortality [288(5463):59 (7 Apr 2000)], the subsequent Immortality, Anyone? [288(5470):1345-47 (26 May 2000)] and eDebates.
John Harris works at the University of Manchester. That is where Tom Kirkwood, one of the world's leading gerontologists, and the creator of the disposable soma theory of aging is also located. His recent book, Time of Our Lives , is one of the best books available discussing why aging occurs and how the process will become understood and interventions may be developed. Perhaps Kirkwood's book has prompted the comments by Harris.
Of course, I've been on record since 1994 (here) that lifespan extension will happen. (Nice to see others are finally catching up…
). People should not however, be seduced by projections that immortality is around the corner (the medical approvals for some of the processes may take decades) or even really feasible for humans in their current form. Given the accident rate currently prevalent in the U.S., if premature causes of death and aging were eliminated, accidents would limit average longevity to ~2000 years. The only way to go past the accident limit is by significantly altering the "form" in which your "self" is maintained, creating distributed, replicated intelligence. That will require significant human reengineering, such as continuous mind-state backups (by in vivo nanobots monitoring neural transmissions and high-bandwidth uplinks to save the experience data, "Borg-tech"), or full mind uploading so you are located virtual space.
However, if as Robin Hanson discusses uploads come first, effective "immortality" may only go to the early risk-takers. Alternatively, if a morality for conscious minds is developed (Greg Burch and perhaps JoSH Hall are working on this), then perhaps everyone will have a place for their mind and backup copies. My work on Matrioshka Brains has shown that the solar system seems to have resources sufficient to support a trillion trillion (>1024) human mind equivalents.
It is worth noting, that at the current time it looks like immortality would be limited by the lifetime of protons, which is currently unknown but is certainly in excess of trillions of years.
September 28th, 2000 at 11:45 AM
half-hearted enhancement (pardon the pun)
Not just the kind of friends you have. Although most people appear shocked at first at the idea of transhumanism, (my friends seemed to imagine a boring time swanning around Earth being pretty forever), it a base concept for society as we know it – we currently try to do it through operations, even sports/training and education to some degree..
I think more people would be happy at the idea of something like a polymorphous body, so they could remain humanoid if they wished to.
Although transhumanists promoting redesign for space get jibes about brains in fish-bowls attatched to rockets, the re-engineering of the human body is a must if our current mortal shell (coil?) is to withstand the more exciting environments available, or even just for sheer information and experience processing powers.
Most of my friends want to see in UV, but most don't want to lose their primitive 'assets' – although since we already are happy to engineer those for more fun already, it seems inevitable that it will happen.
If it comes relatively slowly to social acceptance, the in-between stages should be quite amusing to watch, considering the extremes of fashion (ie peircings &c) and of cosmetic surgery (espially implants) currently undertaken.
September 28th, 2000 at 12:28 PM
If Malthus was right I'll top myself
Malthus was wrong because he failed to take account of new technology or information.
Immorbiditty is not the end result but a step along the road to universal power (or at least information), the getting of which does not require us to become monsters.
You assume Malthus was right because of the constraints of this universe. You may be right, but I intend to escape this place.
I want to be so informed that I can break free of the constraints of this this universe* or die trying. If this place is 'all' there is, I expect to do both sequentially.
It does not follow that the process makes men into monsters, any more than any other form of education does. The "Men who chase monsters should beware lest they become one" idea only applies in that I am chasing the very creation/fundamental itself – with the inevitable consequence for myself or like minds.
NB – on lack of dissimilar activities – self-similar paradigms may be boring to be inside, but appear to me extremely interesting when viewed as wholes – as ever, it is a question of perspective. Having read the thread your post started, I find the idea of narrowing of perspective unlikely to be useful – broadening of it strikes me as a much more interesting, and fruitful. I believe we currently refer to this as 'art'.
–
*(I use the term 'universe' loosely, since it it by definition encapsulates all)
September 28th, 2000 at 12:52 PM
I'm going to get slated here..
jbash writes
Ascending to the recent Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of the unlimited, illimitable, and all-encompassing Godhead is pretty clearly not going to happen, but you might be able to make it rain pretty well in a certain valley…
Demi-godhood is immature, going the whole hog may be impractal (impraticable?) but is surely the obvious sight to aim for?
"Bigger than God" sounds good to me, warts and all. If it can't be done, we'll find out – but I defy you to prove that in our current, limited state.
Constraining yourself to this mode of being, or something similar but with greater control, just seems limp. I personally am intruiged to see if this form of universe, with 3D space and chronological event-chains is the only possible one. If not, why not be the creator (or at least, an explorer) of a different mode of existence?
Ambitious, perhaps. Immature?
October 2nd, 2000 at 3:58 AM
Re:half-hearted enhancement (pardon the pun)
That's an interesting choice of an enhancement… The retina can see UV. The lens of our eyes is yellowish, and blocks UV but people who has had cataracts removed can see UV (I don't know down to what wavelength). (Note: UV causes retinal damage, so this isn't prudent, but it is possible with current technology).
November 2nd, 2000 at 12:06 PM
Re:consise reply (offtopic)
I wish I could write them like that. Great link.
September 14th, 2001 at 12:54 AM
Re:half-hearted enhancement (pardon the pun)
I've noticed that a sort of unspoken assumption whenever anyone speaks of modifying ourselves to live in space, underwater etc. is that the changes will be irreversible. With nanotech capable of generating the change in the first place, it should be no big deal to change back or change again if the mood strikes. I think that such changing would be much faster to be accepted then if it was a permanent one time thing.
September 26th, 2001 at 3:03 PM
Re:Postponing the inevitable
Just some thoughts on each of your points. 1) The level of biocontrol that immortality would imply would probably also be capable of producing virtually 100% effective birth control technology. Eliminating accidental pregnancies, happy or otherwise, should go a long way toward slowing pop. growth. In addition the elimination of infant mortality and a guarenteed healthy, wealthy life would probably further reduce the number of children produced simply because they are no longer seen as necessary to support you in your old age. Also, if uploading becomes possible, the resulting solid state civilization will probably use up a lot less space/energy/raw material than our own. My own (very rough) calculations indicate that if we could store one bit/atom we could store/simulate the equivalent of over 100 billion planets in a computational substrate made from Venus's atmosphere (or an equivalent mass or carbon). This will not eliminate the Malthus argument but it should slow it waaay down. 2)While thinking faster with sharper senses alone might not prevent boredom, other things can. The most direct approach (not necessarily the most desirable by any means) would be to simply erase memories of past experience so that it seemed new again. Another method would be to rewrite ones mind so that the infinite became engaging. Mathematics is said to be infinite and philosophy never seems to go out of style. The creation of virtual worlds and eventually universes would also be a good way of passing time. I believe Tipler has calculated that there are something like 10e10e106 possible universes that could exist. His Physice of Immortality actually addresses the issue of boredom or repetition at the Omega point in a closed universe. Some subpart of that might be relevant here. Finally, I believe that any society that achieve immortality would also eventually have to legalized suicide (even by death by old age) as a final option if the sheer weight of years just got to be too much. Ian Bainks' Culture novels address this rather well.
September 25th, 2004 at 5:45 PM
Re:If Malthus was right I'll top myself
This reminds me of the Illuminatus Trilogy, in which there's a fairly minor character who, about halfway through the third book IIRC, states: "I've determined that we're living in a book, and I think I've figured a way out."
He is not heard from again.
I thought that was so cool, just a minor thing but it says a lot about our goals: if we really want to leave this place for someplace better, we'll be finishing our stories here when we do go.