Hacker News Reader

Comment by ElFitz | Hacker News Reader

> Plus, I can't think of a scenario where, once this technology exists to extend life indefinetly, the state's monopoly on power won't turn into a dystopian monopoly on life.

And the wealthy’s monopoly on wealth will only consolidate.

It reminds me of two quotes:

“Science progresses one funeral at a time” (paraphrasing Planck’s principle).

“[…] Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. […]”

That’s probably what worries me most, when it comes to extended or unending lives.

View on HN

I wouldn't be so cynical. Many power structures rely on death to drive churn. But there are other mechanisms, e.g. sequential term limits and retirement. (Retirement doesn't mean you can't do anything anymore. Just not that thing.)

Moreover, while longer lifespans may drive calcification, they would also promote long-term thinking. How would we vote about the climate differently if we knew we'd be around for a couple hundred years?

Hence “worry”, and not an adamant objection to the idea of prolonging life.

> Moreover, while longer lifespans may drive calcification, they would also promote long-term thinking. How would we vote about the climate differently if we knew we'd be around for a couple hundred years?

Would we act more in favor of the general long-term good, or would we scramble even more to get ours now in order to secure our own future? I'm not so sure cooperation would win.

“Science progresses one funeral at a time” (paraphrasing Planck’s principle).

I would be careful at citing that quote as evidence for how science work, especially when considering the historical uniqueness of the last two centuries or so.

This article said it's more complicated than that and more hopeful.[1]

1. https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/11/07/does_sc...

Also Kuhn’s idea of a paradigm shift. Good luck getting a new paradigm adopted when the decision makers at academic and scientific institutions never leave.

Not sure why this was downvoted, but I agree.

It is easy to see why an individual would choose life over death, if one has the means for a comfortable life. A second order question would then be: would the society value your life over their own? Even as we speak, many thousands are dying of preventable causes, including man made starvation. There is no way immortality will be accessible to all, and will only increase inequality.

I'll happily change my mind if we can fix world hunger and homelessness before conquering death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com