We Were Taught to Call Death a Blessing

To the dead comment, since it was killed right before I could finish and I can't reply there anymore (since I think a question deserves an answer): I suspect the video you say was this one.[1] If so, you might have noticed in the description Nick Bostrom is the original author, or might have noticed the credits at the end. CGP Grey, the narrator of the video, is a fairly famous youtube personality, and have been on a sort of crusade against death and ageing lately with a few videos. I think it's more likely that it was posted here because of CGP Grey's video bring some new (or more recent) popularity to it. 1: [VIDEO]

Most people confuse age with aging, because aging is still unavoidable, and as it's always been the case, it looks like it will remain so forever. But that's wrong. The outlook is different now. Yet, unfortunately, most still see it as unavoidable. Everybody should watch The Fable of The Dragon Tyrant: [VIDEO]

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. See here for more: [VIDEO] . The argument made there is basically that death (human aging, at any rate) is a sort of condition, or disease, if you will, like any other, that could be solved if we plied it with enough resources. Maybe the real question is where on the scale the extension to life happens? If we keep reaching adulthood, and then elderly, more inhibited lifestyles at the same ages, just prolonging the elderly state via good medical practices, that's one thing. But if we could slow aging in general to extend younger and middle-aged sections of life, that'd be another thing altogether.

This is an excellent time to ask for a counterargument to CGP Grey's stance that immortality should be invented: [VIDEO] Suppose there were a technology X which was going to be invented eventually. Suppose also that it's a highly unethical technology, for some definition of unethical. Is it therefore unethical to create X? Note: The constraint is that X is inevitable . The only question is who creates it first. And in that context, isn't it at least possible to argue from multiple axes that you should help to create it? The limit case of this argument would be "It's your duty to the society you live in to ensure it has the competitive advantage, not some other society." A less-hostile way to phrase that would be "The first company to invent a technology can then try to enforce ethics onto that technology." That is, if you invent something, it's easier to dictate how it's used than if you didn't. Hence, paradoxically as it may seem, the logical conclusion would seem to be that you should work as hard as you can to invent whatever unethical technology you're worried about -- in the hopes that you can minimize the damage later. If it seems like a technology can't really be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons), I counter with this: Bitcoin was the implementation of a set of ideas. The exact implementation could have been very different. It could have been inflationary rather than deflationary, for example. The precise choices were very important, because Bitcoin has huge first-mover

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Well, maybe not the last one, but still an important one. Nick Bostrom has a great story describing the underlying philosophy in the fight against aging: [LINK] And here it is in video form as well: [VIDEO]

All attempts to cure aging have been magic/religion-based until very recently. Also it's not like we "learned to fly" as if cavemen could have done it had they only known the right wing shape and arm technique. It was only possible because of an accumulation of industrial and scientific knowledge. Significant life extension will likely be built off the same accumulation of knowledge, not some rainforest frog extract the ancients could have refined. The only way I can imagine we don't have this in 1000 years is if someone's nuke finger gets twitchy. Want to accelerate research? Make "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" required reading/watching for all schoolchildren: [VIDEO] (That this might be controversial is itself interesting.)

Related: Fable of the Dragon Tyrant [VIDEO] Ways to improve life expectancy: A. keep children alive till adulthood (mostly done) B. keep adults disease-free/healthy (somewhat done) C. keep old people alive till natural death (little done) D. stop natural death (possible?) E. reverse aging (possible?) If natural death is just rolling constitution checks long enough to get a critical miss, then perhaps it's enough to complete C. If natural death is some sort of cellular countdown, it may suffice to stop the time, as in D. I think for most people, what they really want is not eternal life in a 90+ year-old body, but to be able to live in a young body, which necessitates E. It's interesting to consider scenarios where we accomplish some but not all of these, especially where C and/or D are possible but E is not.

CGP gray's videos on YouTube are maybe the most concise and fun to watch materials I've seen on the subject. [LINK] [VIDEO] And you'll be surprised how many people _are_ indeed thinking about all of the outcomes. Have in mind though that as with any technology it is not good or bad, and if it is possible someone will do it sooner or later. It makes no sense to not do it as your adversaries will, and then they'll dictate how it is used, probably not to your liking. If you develop it first you can talk and deliberate at your leisure and find solutions that look much better to you and yours.

"Those who live in the desert learn to worship thirst." — vharuck There's no reason we should accept the consequences of old age without a fight. Donate to SENS, or even better, dedicate your own work to extending human healthspan. See also: The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant by CGP Grey — [VIDEO]

- Several species have longer lifetimes than us. Doesn't seem to be a large disadvantage. - We've proven that we change faster culturally than biologically. If this weren't true most Americans still wouldn't be okay with gay people, black people, or pot. Beliefs seem more related to local tribalism than to age. I've seen plenty of older and younger people radically shift (for good or bad) their positions based on who they consider arbiters of truth. - We've heard this finite resource in the past. It has been solved many times. Fertilizer was the most recent one if you want to go back to 19th century history. We have hydroponics, aeroponics, etc on the way. We can also go into space. - Every first world country has a population growth below 1 (and are decreasing). The average EU is 0.15% and the US is at 0.5%[0]. There's no sign of it turning around and I imagine immortality would just accelerate this. (People will still kill themselves btw. Accidents will still happen. Bad health. Etc) - IDK about you, but I'm fine waiting till I'm 100 to have kids if I can live forever. Maybe even 200. I'm unsure, all I know is that if we make such a change that we'll completely reconsider things like adulthood and what we do with our life (how long does it take to live off of passive income?). It will be a radical change no matter what, but also one that seems inevitable. If your argument is that it is going to be bumpy, well if history has taught us anything it is that we don't confront pr

Try watching videos of old people with Alzheimer's, and try imagining what people will be doing when you are dead to gauge how much your life is worth, and if small risk of dying in a car accident not caused by yourself is acceptable. For me in similar situation answers were not important and acceptable. But if you find that your life is precious to you it still would be better to channel the natural fear of death to more productive venues like [LINK] or much more importantly to donations to [LINK] because we are very close to solving the problem of death for good [VIDEO]

CGP Grey has a video with him reading the short over some neat drawings, which is more enjoyable I suppose: [VIDEO]

I think it's because people think they stop growing. I was listening to Levitt's People I (Mostly) Admire and on a recent show he was talking about progress. How everyone will say in the last 10 years they've changed but if you ask them what they'll be in the next 10 years they think they'll be the same. But there's a lot of insight we often ignore. I think similarly people ignore political and cultural progress. It's easy to blame the lack of progress on the old guard. But if we look at history we go much faster than that. One great example of this is the legalization of gay marriage. Pee [0] tracks support of it and it's clear that attitude is changing faster than the old people dying. Also I think part of the problem is we've all gotten used to the Dragon Tyrant[1] that we accept our fate. [0] [LINK] [1] [VIDEO]

I have to say I like this somewhat poetic way of writing, especially the sentences with which the author ends paragraphs. Very rich. On a different note, no. Let's fight death. Fuck aging. We can fight it. We don't have to suffer like cattle under it. We can beat it. There are plenty of longevity focused startups and academic research groups, and yet we're not spending nearly enough effort and money on this problem. It affects every human on earth, and the immense benefits of adding even one year of healthy lifespan to 7 billion people make it a moral imperative to act upon. Fighting death should be a multi-national effort that we focus on with all our might, _right now_. You shouldn't have to die. Related: [VIDEO]

I hope technology can save me, save us all, before the end comes... but until we defeat that 'dragon'. ( [VIDEO] CGP Gray - Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant ) There's a point where if there is any of me left, which with dementia and other brain destroying disease / injury might not even be anything, it's just prolonging the suffering. Current medical forms don't really give a clear indication about when the infection point on that curve is reached; they assume all in or all out, at least from what I saw when it last came up among my parent's experiences. I know I wouldn't want to be kept around as effectively a vegetable, surviving on a 'port' forcing fluids into my GI tract, barely remembering anything about life and being strung out on many years of suffering. That's the exploitative part you mention. The lack of dignity you mention. The turning a patient into a profit center rather than looking out for their best interests. Maybe someday that won't be the lack of real choice we all currently face. Until then, and maybe even after, give people the freedom to choose. Also give them real choices, like counseling and assistance fitting into society as a productive member who's valued.

That's very easy to say until it's your partner, mother/father, or child on the other side of that assertion. If you're curious and have time, I'd suggest the following excellent exploration of the idea of extinguishing natural death by CGP Grey. He uses an interesting analogy to help challenge the ingrained belief that natural death is just [VIDEO]

> our societal acceptance of death comes from an inability to imagine anything otherwise CGP Grey captures this sentiment nicely in this animated essay: [VIDEO] "Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" [2018-04-24]

That terrible brutal grief is what death leaves us every time. I remember Jake's posts. He fought, and he all of us to fight. [VIDEO]

I don't think I'd be happy in that context. Medical technology failed 'us' and at that point the body has failed too. Time ran out and we did not slay the dragon. [VIDEO] CGP Grey : Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant

I don't think that death is a certainty. It is today, but we are working on it. We are not supernatural. CGPGrey's thoughts on this mirror a lot of my own. I grant that not all care given to aged is a kindness, but not fighting aging is not virtuous. [LINK] [VIDEO]