an analogy between longtermism and lifespan extension
One proposition of longtermism is that the extinction of humanity would be especially tragic not just because of the number of people alive today who would die, but because this would eliminate the possibility for astronomical numbers of future people to exist. This implies that humanity should reprioritize resources away from solving near term problems and towards safeguarding itself from extinction.[1]
On a personal level, I have a chance of living to experience the longevity escape velocity, at which point anti-aging technology would be so advanced that I would only die due to accidents rather than natural factors. I may live for thousands of years, and these years would be much better than my current life because of improvements in general quality of life. Analogous to the potential of many future generations, this future would be so awesome for me that I should be willing to sacrifice a lot to increase the chance that it happens.
I could follow a version of Bryan Johnson’s “Blueprint” lifestyle for around $12,000 per year, which he designed to slow or reverse aging as much as possible. This might not be worth it. Suppose this protocol would extend my expected lifespan by 20%, but the extra $12,000 per year, if spent elsewhere, would increase my quality of life by 30%. This would mean I could gain more (quality of life × lifespan) by spending that money elsewhere.[2]
However, lifestyle interventions which, if I followed for the rest of my life, would increase my expected lifespan by 20%, would actually increase my expected lifespan by much more than 20% because our knowledge of how to extend lifespan increases as time passes. In other words, spending money on lifestyle interventions to promote longevity instead of quality of life increases the chance that I live to experience longevity escape velocity, so it may be worth it.
society spending resources on neartermist issues : me spending money on immediate quality of life :: society spending money on longtermist issues : me spending money on lifespan extension
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.
an analogy between longtermism and lifespan extension
One proposition of longtermism is that the extinction of humanity would be especially tragic not just because of the number of people alive today who would die, but because this would eliminate the possibility for astronomical numbers of future people to exist. This implies that humanity should reprioritize resources away from solving near term problems and towards safeguarding itself from extinction.[1]
On a personal level, I have a chance of living to experience the longevity escape velocity, at which point anti-aging technology would be so advanced that I would only die due to accidents rather than natural factors. I may live for thousands of years, and these years would be much better than my current life because of improvements in general quality of life. Analogous to the potential of many future generations, this future would be so awesome for me that I should be willing to sacrifice a lot to increase the chance that it happens.
I could follow a version of Bryan Johnson’s “Blueprint” lifestyle for around $12,000 per year, which he designed to slow or reverse aging as much as possible. This might not be worth it. Suppose this protocol would extend my expected lifespan by 20%, but the extra $12,000 per year, if spent elsewhere, would increase my quality of life by 30%. This would mean I could gain more (quality of life × lifespan) by spending that money elsewhere.[2]
However, lifestyle interventions which, if I followed for the rest of my life, would increase my expected lifespan by 20%, would actually increase my expected lifespan by much more than 20% because our knowledge of how to extend lifespan increases as time passes. In other words, spending money on lifestyle interventions to promote longevity instead of quality of life increases the chance that I live to experience longevity escape velocity, so it may be worth it.
society spending resources on neartermist issues : me spending money on immediate quality of life :: society spending money on longtermist issues : me spending money on lifespan extension
And ensuring that the project of populating the universe goes well. E.g., preventing S-risks.
This also means less money to donate to charity and/or less slack to be in a position to work directly on the world’s important problems.
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.