Hacker News Reader

Comment by nova | Hacker News Reader

If only it were merely technically and scientifically super-difficult.

The biggest hurdle is cultural and social, as many comments show. The first step towards ending death is to consider the fight possible and positive. But we are still deep in deathism, "Death is inevitable (with current science), ergo death is good". The biggest case of sour grapes or Stockholm syndrome ever, the most awful meme.

View on HN

The sociological problems of immortality are more difficult than the technical problems. The entire sweep of human history has rested upon the same solid foundation: death takes everyone eventually. Kings fall down as dead as peasants, and the dirt nap of a saint lasts as long as a sinner.

Imagine what would happen if the people who held certain beliefs never died off. Imagine the result if large estates never passed to any heirs, or debts never cancelled. Imagine copyrights that never expire, since the authors never die. The young, vital, and innovative do not prosper, since they are forever dominated by their elders who become increasingly conservative and risk-averse. Money and power do not pass from one generation to the next.

The problem is only made worse if biological immortality is itself an expensive product that is only accessible to the wealthy. Down that path I can imagine dozens of dystopias.

I used to raise that objection when debating immortalists. What got me to stop raising it was the realization that in the form of business corporations or multigenerational trusts, we already have those problems.

It's almost comforting, knowing you already live in Dystopia.

Maybe if we didn't have the absurd excuse of "the tyrant is evil, but at least he'll die someday" we would be more inclined to do something, instead of sheepishly obeying and letting time pass.

The tyrant can build a fortress to slaughter 99.999999% of attackers and be safe until a million men or more oppose him at once, but no stronghold can protect against death itself. And as long as he fears death, the fortress can be invaded in sufficient numbers through the personal physician's private entrance.

Besides that, if I and the tyrant were both immortal, I think I would still prefer to wait, at least until my odds of success were better.

Given that my logical conclusion was for the mortals to murder every immortal they can expose as an existential threat to themselves and their progeny, it is hardly surprising that I would also like to forcibly dissolve perpetual-duration corporations and trusts, particularly those chartered for "any lawful purpose".

You shouldn't have stopped raising the objection. You should have trusted your logic. As yet, corporations have no free will of their own, being directed by only semipermanent boards and managers. When you have a full-blown immortal, with its own interests and decision making abilities, the problems of those perpetual legal structures magnify.

Note that this also means it would be wise for the lifespan of artificial intelligences to be tied to that of specific humans.

At some point in the future, we as a species might be able to handle immortality in a more reasonable fashion, but for now, everyone should get the same deal from Death: one lifetime, with a beginning and an end.

Actually, my logic is not to let immortal corporations exist with single immortal decision makers. My logic is, "if we want to go for immortality, we need to get rid of capitalism." This is simply yet another reason, on top of many, that we need to get rid of capitalism.

Evil Plan:

1. Smash capitalism. 2. Futuristic scientific research and technologies. 3. Civilization worth being immortal in. 4. Actual immortality. 5. Go directly to the "FUN" square of the board. Enjoy.

If any of these steps results in death, well, I'm actually pretty ok with that. I want goodness more than I want to personally be alive.

Your reasoning seems too ceteris paribus. I'd say that widespread immortality would have big social consequences other than just people not dying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com