A better way to put is that, without death we wouldn't have progressed as a race as much as we have done. We need new people with fresh ideas to come to top, take higher roles and make radical decisions. People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive. In a longer stretch, conservationism, which grows like age, is an impediment for innovation and progress, IMHO.
If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline as people worried less about continuing through progeny and more about continuing through their own lives.
How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under? How many people die in car accidents after 30?
There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
>How many wars do you think anyone would want to fight if we didn't have an endless streams of the young who are willing to die on the battlefield?
We've got killer robots for that now.
>How many murders are committed by people over 30 vs under?
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
>How many people die in car accidents after 30?
Self-driving cars sounds like a good solution
>There's something to be said for having a world dominated by people who are mature and understand the value of their own lives.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems. The imaginative power of the child is something highly undervalued and suppressed in our society.
I'd guess the majority of murders have been caused by people over 30 declaring war.
Well, since US elected national office is pretty much 30 and over, that's the only way wars can be declared.
But there's a reason why there's the movie cliche of the old cautious king being toppled by the young warmonger. On average, young people are a lot more prone to violence. Put them in charge of a nation, and I have no doubt that wars would increase rather than decrease.
Yes, of course the elderly possess great wisdom, but they are also highly inflexible when it comes to thinking of new solutions to new problems.
But a lot of that is because your gray matter doesn't work as well as you become elderly. If that weren't the case, we could have young energetic minds that also are wise dominate in society.
What about the habitual thought patterns and prejudices that have been "hard wired" from the life experiences of the elderly, which make it so difficult to think outside the box?
If rejuvenation techniques keep the brain's neuroplasticity youthful, then those hard-wired experiences should be no worse than those of younger people.
Would a hard wired prejudice include being fundamentally biased against old people?
I think that this topic went from next year's stem cell therapy to "What if you could live forever" territory from the top comment way up there.
Within the context of the pie-in-the-sky subject we're discussing, calling for citations seems kind of pointless. We're all just speculating and talking about what-ifs.
I suppose my main concern is that if learned prejudices (against race, religion, ideology, age, economic status, etc.) cannot be eliminated by regenerating brain matter, then a potentially fatal error could arise for society since some prejudices can be virtually insurmountable for many humans. Such an error is often solved naturally when the leaders of the previous age die out.
Just like when a computer system has become corrupted or broken, turning it off and on again can be the most simple and effective solution, so can death and rebirth be an effective solution for when our collective mental processes become corrupted.
> If we were immortal, the birth rate would decline
Would it? In modern, low reproduction societies the dominant interpretation of the universal "honour thy father and thy mother" focuses on care. Even the slightest resemblance to a chain of command that might be present earlier stops at adulthood. But with people forever overshadowed by their undying ancestors, we might see a massive resurgence of the competing interpretation which sees it as a natural power structure. If that happens, well, welcome to pyramid scheme hell.
I'm not sure about this argument. You could manage the issue in other ways eg enforced fixed terms for jobs.
Also, it's difficult to predict how immortality would affect human psychology, let alone how the technology would work. Perhaps we will be able to 'freeze' someone in their mid to late twenties, at some optimal point of physical health, maturity and risk taking behaviour.
I personally don't think we can take the very old and keep them alive forever. This will almost certainly result in a permanently sick state requiring constant therapy to maintain. The chance of getting cancer will approach unity at some point. Not exactly the ideal of immortal youth.
could you consider the notion, that all the progress and innovation impediments you link to age-related conservatism are actually at least partly related to the disease of aging itself? how would that change your opinion?
Only partly agree. Even adults are very conservative. A bunch of forever-40 wouldn't work very well. Luckily this can be fixed. Experimental brain plasticity drugs also increases forgetfulness, which is what we really want. Knowing the old ways of doing things means that new ways won't be explored.
i think there is a subtle difference between being conservative and being experienced.
experience gives, sometimes false, impression of knowing with some degree of certainty that a certain direction is wrong or won't yield results. young people don't have that bias.
conservatism is instead aversion to even agree with the results themselves if they don't conform with one's worldview.
This sounds like darwinism. Evolution is a law of nature, not a law of society.
What you say is true for species that don't have language or civilization. But since humans have technology, evolution happens in our minds, not in our DNA.
And new ideas don't necessarily require new people.
> radical decisions
Like what?
> People living longer will stay in power longer and keep the status quo alive.
> Like what?
Take any norm breaking innovation in the pass 2000 years. Any idea that sounded arcane at its time: Earth is not Flat, its not the center of universe, light is a wave and a particle, etc. Perhaps decision was not the correct word to use, "ideas" would be better.
> What kind of prediction is that?
A prediction like any other. I think we tend to become risk averse as we age, risk averse people don't like changes, without change you don't have a chance to fail, or succeed. If people to live longer I would think that every other stage of life would start to stretch. Take presidency as an example, its a four year cycle. If life expectancy was 200 years, would it not make sense to have presidents for 8 years? Would you retire after 30 years or 60 years?
This makes the assumption that life is simply about progressing the human species. Progression to what though? One should aim to lead a happy life, of which making things better for the next generation is a byproduct.
Indeed. That is the assumption I made. Personally, for me life without progress is a meaningless one. But I can imagine the opposite as well. Once you have gotten all you need you try your best to preserve it as long as you can, anything new or different is a default no, because, why change something that is not broken? That is depressing, again from my perspective.
