It’s always interesting to see what type of people are interested in longevity. Most people would like to have longevity, but some people are obsessed. I wonder if historically people viewed their children as a copy of themselves compared to now. It seems like people had similar lives for multiple generations in the past compared to the social and geographical mobility we now enjoy. Does this detach us from our children existentially? Also what kind of people would view others as a viable path to their own gene propagation, and what kind of people wouldn’t see others as the same but rather as a competition to themselves?
I wonder if historically people viewed their children as a copy of themselves compared to now.
I would guess that both in the past and now, some people see their children as copies of themselves, and some do not. (Though it is possible that the relative numbers have changed.) Seems to be more about personality traits than about… calendar.
It does provide an alternative to having kids as a way of self-extension. They should, in my view, be seen as deeply related, so long as the parent makes enough memetic work to fully encode their personality. I wouldn’t mind being a trill. But it is an immense loss to lose the contents of a mind. My offspring should have my knowledge available, as a trill would. And I’d like my knowledge to be available to anyone. In the meantime, I’d still like my form and personality to continue as one for much longer than humans historically have, and I’d like the same for both my children and everyone’s children. We can extend lifespan very significantly without messing up the replicator equation, if we also create technologies for dramatically more efficient (lower temperature) forms of life than biology. When true ascension is possible, my family will be deep space extropians, every part of the body participating in brainlike computation and every part of the body an intelligence-directed work of art, not live on the surface of planets.
It’s always interesting to see what type of people are interested in longevity. Most people would like to have longevity, but some people are obsessed. I wonder if historically people viewed their children as a copy of themselves compared to now. It seems like people had similar lives for multiple generations in the past compared to the social and geographical mobility we now enjoy. Does this detach us from our children existentially? Also what kind of people would view others as a viable path to their own gene propagation, and what kind of people wouldn’t see others as the same but rather as a competition to themselves?
I would guess that both in the past and now, some people see their children as copies of themselves, and some do not. (Though it is possible that the relative numbers have changed.) Seems to be more about personality traits than about… calendar.
It does provide an alternative to having kids as a way of self-extension. They should, in my view, be seen as deeply related, so long as the parent makes enough memetic work to fully encode their personality. I wouldn’t mind being a trill. But it is an immense loss to lose the contents of a mind. My offspring should have my knowledge available, as a trill would. And I’d like my knowledge to be available to anyone. In the meantime, I’d still like my form and personality to continue as one for much longer than humans historically have, and I’d like the same for both my children and everyone’s children. We can extend lifespan very significantly without messing up the replicator equation, if we also create technologies for dramatically more efficient (lower temperature) forms of life than biology. When true ascension is possible, my family will be deep space extropians, every part of the body participating in brainlike computation and every part of the body an intelligence-directed work of art, not live on the surface of planets.