You keep using the words “we” and “our”, but “we” don’t have lifespans; individual humans do. So the relevant questions, it seems to me, are: is removing the current cap on lifespan in the interest of any given individual? And: is removing the current cap on lifespan, for all individuals who wish it removed, in the interests of other individuals in their (family, country, society, culture, world)?
Those are different questions. Likewise, the choice to make immortality available to anyone who wants it, and the choice to actually continue living, are two different choices. (Actually, the latter is an infinite sequence[1] of choices.)
Similarly I don’t see how that argument indicates that we should develop longevity technologies until we solve the problem of human irrationality and evil.
No one is necessarily claiming that we should. Like I say in my top-level comment, this is a perfectly valid question, one which we would do well to consider in the process of solving the engineering challenge that is human lifespan.
[1] Maybe. Someone with a better-exercised grasp of calculus correct me if I’m wrong — if I’m potentially making the choice continuously at all times, can it still be represented as an infinite sequence?
“You keep using the words “we” and “our”, but “we” don’t have lifespans; individual humans do.”
Of course, but “we” is common shorthand for decisions which are made at the level of society, even though that is a collection of individual decisions (e.g. should we build a bridge, or should we legalize marijuana). Do you think that using standard english expressions is problematic? (I agree that both the question of benefit for the self and benefit for others is important and think the issue of cognitive biases is relevant to both of them)
I just looked at your comment, and I agree with that argument, but that hasn’t been my impression of the view of many on this site (and clearly isn’t the view of researchers like De Grey), however I am relatively new here and may be mistaken about that. Thank you for clarifying.
You keep using the words “we” and “our”, but “we” don’t have lifespans; individual humans do. So the relevant questions, it seems to me, are: is removing the current cap on lifespan in the interest of any given individual? And: is removing the current cap on lifespan, for all individuals who wish it removed, in the interests of other individuals in their (family, country, society, culture, world)?
Those are different questions. Likewise, the choice to make immortality available to anyone who wants it, and the choice to actually continue living, are two different choices. (Actually, the latter is an infinite sequence[1] of choices.)
No one is necessarily claiming that we should. Like I say in my top-level comment, this is a perfectly valid question, one which we would do well to consider in the process of solving the engineering challenge that is human lifespan.
[1] Maybe. Someone with a better-exercised grasp of calculus correct me if I’m wrong — if I’m potentially making the choice continuously at all times, can it still be represented as an infinite sequence?
“You keep using the words “we” and “our”, but “we” don’t have lifespans; individual humans do.” Of course, but “we” is common shorthand for decisions which are made at the level of society, even though that is a collection of individual decisions (e.g. should we build a bridge, or should we legalize marijuana). Do you think that using standard english expressions is problematic? (I agree that both the question of benefit for the self and benefit for others is important and think the issue of cognitive biases is relevant to both of them)
I just looked at your comment, and I agree with that argument, but that hasn’t been my impression of the view of many on this site (and clearly isn’t the view of researchers like De Grey), however I am relatively new here and may be mistaken about that. Thank you for clarifying.