Spot on. I’m fairly confident that man’s destructive impulses combined with Mother Nature will make any demographic blip in longevity short lived. We’re only a global financial collapse away from a new dark ages. Make the most of every day!
Something I have always wanted to ask the Silicone Valley billionaires who are promoting (at least their own) vastly greater longevity: Who the hell do you think wants you around that long?
The wish to live on and on implies an egocentric assumption: that the things one likes will also live on and on. Even in the course of a modest lifetime, there are lots of little extinctions that don't matter in the great scheme of things but that do matter in one's personal scheme: the closing of a bookshop or cafe, the obliteration of a view when a new building goes up next door; not to mention changes in social norms and popular culture and language that defy you to understand them as anything but decline. The people you love may live on in lockstep with you, but the world you love -- the world of your prime -- is going to fall away. That one just-right world that never should have changed a bit will be ground into dust by the masters of a different world.
Being part of the world is a great gift. Going through the world and out the other end in timely fashion is the best way to savor it and to let it savor you.
Within the perimeters of normal physical and mental aging the author is using, his arguments make a great deal of sense. But any real extension of life will not be in the area of medical or psychological issues but rather in manipulation of human genetics. And there, the situation is wide open. That, to me, is the best argument for not pursuing the extension of human life. We are certainly not anywhere near prepared for the ability to genetically alter who we are
I think you are too pessimistic about the ability of humans to modify one’s outlook and assumptions about life over time. Successful lives seem to me to be about continuous learning and resultant adaptation. My view is that one’s outlook and assumptions about life should be subject to new knowledge. Socrates was right. Perhaps even more so with age, the unexamined life is not worth living.
I’ve often heard, as a food scientist, and I believe it is backed by statistics in Paul Conkin’s “revolution down on the farm”, that much of the longevity boost from 1850 to 1970 is from going from agrarian economies where food and food production was “most” of most household budgets, to food becoming cheap and affordable and shrinking to 10% or less of most budgets. That is, before ww2, most people everywhere died of starvation and overwork, where economies who transitioned to industry saw longevity improvements. That is, the revolution in “biomedicine” is relatively modest compared to industrialization and cheap calories.
I view your thoughts on life extension in the same way I view the negative views on AI. As someone who is 82 years old and in good health, I can attest to the changes that have accompanied me to this stage of life. I don't adapt to changes in technology as quickly as I did when I was younger. However, I view that as a positive, considering the downsides of social media and the number of younger people I see texting and driving. Over the years, my political views have evolved, and I have become increasingly liberal. Examining the results of the last election, I wonder why younger generations seem to be leaning more towards conservative values, and many are less tolerant than I would have expected. Like many of the commentators on AI, you see more negatives in life extension than the possible plus sides. It is the younger generations that will venture into space and colonize the moon and Mars, while the older generations will remain on Earth to maintain operations until the colonies are fully self-sustainable. We "Old Timers" possess experience and patience, which are very useful in running a business and stabilizing society. For me tolerence is the watchword. I do not understand many of today's changes, but I am willing to accept them as part of the development of human civilization. I will never be able to go to the moon or Mars, but my spirit is with those who do.
Can it really be true that in the 19th century, in Western Europe, up to 50% of all children died before their 5th birthday, and that more than 50% fied in rural areas?
Not the 19th century, and entirely anecdotal, but my grandmother was one of eleven. One of her brothers drowned in the river at three years old because everyone thought someone else was watching him. I think those kinds of neglect accidents may have been common.
And women died in childbirth. In Colonial times, the second leading cause of death for women was fire because, as they tended the hearth, their clothing caught fire.
But the population of Western Europe rose by 70% between 1800 and 1900 (I got this from Chatgpt). How was that possible if half of all children were dying?
I agree with your argument and enjoyed the article. I imagine that conservatives by definition would favor a society of extremely long-lived humans, especially if indeed, this were associated with a stagnant political outlook, because this would increase the conservative nature of society.
Spot on. I’m fairly confident that man’s destructive impulses combined with Mother Nature will make any demographic blip in longevity short lived. We’re only a global financial collapse away from a new dark ages. Make the most of every day!
Something I have always wanted to ask the Silicone Valley billionaires who are promoting (at least their own) vastly greater longevity: Who the hell do you think wants you around that long?
The wish to live on and on implies an egocentric assumption: that the things one likes will also live on and on. Even in the course of a modest lifetime, there are lots of little extinctions that don't matter in the great scheme of things but that do matter in one's personal scheme: the closing of a bookshop or cafe, the obliteration of a view when a new building goes up next door; not to mention changes in social norms and popular culture and language that defy you to understand them as anything but decline. The people you love may live on in lockstep with you, but the world you love -- the world of your prime -- is going to fall away. That one just-right world that never should have changed a bit will be ground into dust by the masters of a different world.
Being part of the world is a great gift. Going through the world and out the other end in timely fashion is the best way to savor it and to let it savor you.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2019/03/reconciled-but-hungry.html
Within the perimeters of normal physical and mental aging the author is using, his arguments make a great deal of sense. But any real extension of life will not be in the area of medical or psychological issues but rather in manipulation of human genetics. And there, the situation is wide open. That, to me, is the best argument for not pursuing the extension of human life. We are certainly not anywhere near prepared for the ability to genetically alter who we are
I’m with you. I’m 75 and trying to enjoy every day I have but dealing with the future is becoming less attractive to me.
I think you are too pessimistic about the ability of humans to modify one’s outlook and assumptions about life over time. Successful lives seem to me to be about continuous learning and resultant adaptation. My view is that one’s outlook and assumptions about life should be subject to new knowledge. Socrates was right. Perhaps even more so with age, the unexamined life is not worth living.
I’ve often heard, as a food scientist, and I believe it is backed by statistics in Paul Conkin’s “revolution down on the farm”, that much of the longevity boost from 1850 to 1970 is from going from agrarian economies where food and food production was “most” of most household budgets, to food becoming cheap and affordable and shrinking to 10% or less of most budgets. That is, before ww2, most people everywhere died of starvation and overwork, where economies who transitioned to industry saw longevity improvements. That is, the revolution in “biomedicine” is relatively modest compared to industrialization and cheap calories.
I view your thoughts on life extension in the same way I view the negative views on AI. As someone who is 82 years old and in good health, I can attest to the changes that have accompanied me to this stage of life. I don't adapt to changes in technology as quickly as I did when I was younger. However, I view that as a positive, considering the downsides of social media and the number of younger people I see texting and driving. Over the years, my political views have evolved, and I have become increasingly liberal. Examining the results of the last election, I wonder why younger generations seem to be leaning more towards conservative values, and many are less tolerant than I would have expected. Like many of the commentators on AI, you see more negatives in life extension than the possible plus sides. It is the younger generations that will venture into space and colonize the moon and Mars, while the older generations will remain on Earth to maintain operations until the colonies are fully self-sustainable. We "Old Timers" possess experience and patience, which are very useful in running a business and stabilizing society. For me tolerence is the watchword. I do not understand many of today's changes, but I am willing to accept them as part of the development of human civilization. I will never be able to go to the moon or Mars, but my spirit is with those who do.
Can it really be true that in the 19th century, in Western Europe, up to 50% of all children died before their 5th birthday, and that more than 50% fied in rural areas?
Infectious disease before antibiotics and vaccines indeed did kill huge numbers of children
Not the 19th century, and entirely anecdotal, but my grandmother was one of eleven. One of her brothers drowned in the river at three years old because everyone thought someone else was watching him. I think those kinds of neglect accidents may have been common.
And women died in childbirth. In Colonial times, the second leading cause of death for women was fire because, as they tended the hearth, their clothing caught fire.
But the population of Western Europe rose by 70% between 1800 and 1900 (I got this from Chatgpt). How was that possible if half of all children were dying?
I agree with your argument and enjoyed the article. I imagine that conservatives by definition would favor a society of extremely long-lived humans, especially if indeed, this were associated with a stagnant political outlook, because this would increase the conservative nature of society.