I propose this because death is only the end of an aging process and by focussing on the ultimate and emotionally disturbing result one loads the topic with negative connotations.
Senescence on the other hand—though unwanted—has also positive connotations of experience and humility.
This is loading connotation, just differently. Better is to taboo death or temporarily define it to cover that and only that which is in dispute. This redefinition implicitly marks some of the factors salient to ‘anti-deathists’* as irrelevant. E.g. from an information-theoretic/knowability of local revival perspective, there is a nontrivial probability that there is a huge difference between medical death and senescence; if aging is theoretically reversible (perhaps even for some neurodegenerative conditions) up to x minutes after medical death for and only for x<100, then the difference between x=-10^6 and x=10^6 is huge and qualitative for practical decision-making purposes.
*I dislike ‘anti-deathist’. Maybe I could call myself ‘pro-life’—that’s never been done before, right...?
Consider rot13ing HPMoR spoilers and indicating that the rot13 contains a major spoiler, or just referring to HPMoR generally without pointing to specific parts, or something.
Sometimes it is necessary to Make an Extraordinary Effort or even to Shut up and do the impossible!
This implies setting aside some of your mental barriers. Barriers that protect you from danger, exhaustion and possibly death (not necessarily immediate but possibly speeding up senescence).
What is your response to the following proposition: that Eliezer is an example of this, and that he is also your canonical anti-deathist, and you must reconcile these observations?
This post talks past at least one significant anti-deathist line, which is that there is a significant probability that one will inductively desire high lifespan. Now, the basic argument is only a first pass and there are legitimate criticisms that require it to be made more rigorous, but it does go through, and this post doesn’t seem to speak much to it. I guess the evolutionary point sort of touches it, but I’m not exactly clear on where exactly it’s coming up against the deathist position so without further clarification it seems sort of non-sequitur/I put really low weight on it.
I’m not clear where you would claim the optimum/optima is/are, but you should be very suspicious if your arguments prop up the status quo on lifespan, given alternative possible extremes. If your arguments would conclude that in a world where everyone died before 25 or a world where everyone lived to 10^12, humans should reject increasing or decreasing their lifespan to our typical ~100 life span, then you are being hit by status quo bias. I pretty much think that that point constitutes nadegiri unto deathism.
This [senexism] is loading connotation, just differently. Better is to taboo death or temporarily define it to cover that and only that which is in dispute.
Going too abstract like in SaidAchmiz comment risks detaching from the topic. But yes, I could have tried to avoid calling it death. Could, maybe should have bridged the inferential gap to a balanced treatment somehow. But as I said. I bit the bait when asked to write a post on my position.
if aging is theoretically reversible [...] then the difference [....] is huge and qualitative for practical decision-making purposes.
I thought I provided enough links and references to point out the trade-off made by senescence. Reversing aging and/or postponing death costs entropy. Entropy that could be applied more usefully, altruistically. This opens a whole side topic (complexity limits of life and technology) which I didn’t want to open.
What is your response to the following proposition: that Eliezer is an example of this, and that he is also your canonical anti-deathist, and you must reconcile these observations?
My response seems to be that my whole post seems to be read wrongly. It is a defense of deathism. Not an attack on the opposite. I have seen too many comments and posts here seeing death as something unquestionable bad. I don’t see it as an unquestionable good. Reverse stupidity is not intelligence. I tried to add some facts to this topic. But obviously I failed. Not that I didn’t know the risk.
I dislike ‘anti-deathist’. Maybe I could call myself ‘pro-life’—that’s never been done before, right...?
That is not the same. And it invites politics.
I’m not clear where you would claim the optimum/optima is/are, but you should be very suspicious if your arguments prop up the status quo on lifespan, given alternative possible extremes.
The optimum depends on the trade-offs made by aging versus the group benefits. I have not seen actual calculations in the material I surveyed so I cannot make an estimate. Presumably technology can tilt the balance otherwise we probably wouldn’t already see a change in average life-span. Hypothetical future technology will likely tilt this much further (and singularity being a pole I wouldn’t rule out infinite life-span in general). But as the basic premise—group benefits—will hold as long as there is a population of individuals some aging seems at least likely.
Consider rot13ing HPMoR spoilers and indicating that the rot13 contains a major spoiler, or just referring to HPMoR generally without pointing to specific parts, or something.
I thought I provided enough links and references to point out the trade-off made by senescence.
I assumed that the links/references were to studies or other evidence of points made in the post rather than making new points, and since I didn’t find the points in the post convincing so value of information seemed low, didn’t want to open a bunch of new tabs/risk my browser choking on PDF’s, and didn’t feel up to reading more articles, etc. I didn’t look at them. To some extent this was probably true for other anti-deathists who read the post.
My response seems to be that my whole post seems to be read wrongly. It is a defense of deathism. Not an attack on the opposite.
I got that. My points is: If you think the anti-deathist mindset leads to cultures not risking lives when they should (e.g. for high-value information), then how do you reconcile that with the observation of anti-deathists working on ventures like x-risk, FAI, Effective Altruism, etc. over extending their own lives?
I have seen too many comments and posts here seeing death as something unquestionable bad. I don’t see it as an unquestionable good. Reverse stupidity is not intelligence. I tried to add some facts to this topic. But obviously I failed. Not that I didn’t know the risk.
My honest opinion (and at the risk of this comment coming across as even more misleadingly nasty than it is actually intended) is that ‘just trying to add facts’ does not mean the reaction in the comments to this post was in error, because I think that regardless of what you were aiming to do, you revealed misunderstanding of the anti-deathist position and your thinking came across as confused and possibly even non-sequitur.
That is not the same. And it invites politics.
Yep; I was kidding, and aware that that would be an obnoxious/inflmmatory title to apply to oneself.
The optimum depends on the trade-offs made by aging versus the group benefits. I have not seen actual calculations in the material I surveyed so I cannot make an estimate. Presumably technology can tilt the balance otherwise we probably wouldn’t already see a change in average life-span. Hypothetical future technology will likely tilt this much further (and singularity being a pole I wouldn’t rule out infinite life-span in general). But as the basic premise—group benefits—will hold as long as there is a population of individuals some aging seems at least likely.
This makes me way more confused as to your position—that’s not a criticism of you giving more information, just me relaying state—and this is starting to feel like one of those times where actual policies or specific opinions should be clarified and policy disagreements identified. Can you quote actual things LW’ers (preferably Eliezer) have said over which you have specific disagreements?
Done. Sorry.
Ah, don’t worry about me; I’d already read HPMoR! :)
This is loading connotation, just differently. Better is to taboo death or temporarily define it to cover that and only that which is in dispute. This redefinition implicitly marks some of the factors salient to ‘anti-deathists’* as irrelevant. E.g. from an information-theoretic/knowability of local revival perspective, there is a nontrivial probability that there is a huge difference between medical death and senescence; if aging is theoretically reversible (perhaps even for some neurodegenerative conditions) up to x minutes after medical death for and only for x<100, then the difference between x=-10^6 and x=10^6 is huge and qualitative for practical decision-making purposes.
*I dislike ‘anti-deathist’. Maybe I could call myself ‘pro-life’—that’s never been done before, right...?
Consider rot13ing HPMoR spoilers and indicating that the rot13 contains a major spoiler, or just referring to HPMoR generally without pointing to specific parts, or something.
What is your response to the following proposition: that Eliezer is an example of this, and that he is also your canonical anti-deathist, and you must reconcile these observations?
This post talks past at least one significant anti-deathist line, which is that there is a significant probability that one will inductively desire high lifespan. Now, the basic argument is only a first pass and there are legitimate criticisms that require it to be made more rigorous, but it does go through, and this post doesn’t seem to speak much to it. I guess the evolutionary point sort of touches it, but I’m not exactly clear on where exactly it’s coming up against the deathist position so without further clarification it seems sort of non-sequitur/I put really low weight on it.
I’m not clear where you would claim the optimum/optima is/are, but you should be very suspicious if your arguments prop up the status quo on lifespan, given alternative possible extremes. If your arguments would conclude that in a world where everyone died before 25 or a world where everyone lived to 10^12, humans should reject increasing or decreasing their lifespan to our typical ~100 life span, then you are being hit by status quo bias. I pretty much think that that point constitutes nadegiri unto deathism.
Going too abstract like in SaidAchmiz comment risks detaching from the topic. But yes, I could have tried to avoid calling it death. Could, maybe should have bridged the inferential gap to a balanced treatment somehow. But as I said. I bit the bait when asked to write a post on my position.
I thought I provided enough links and references to point out the trade-off made by senescence. Reversing aging and/or postponing death costs entropy. Entropy that could be applied more usefully, altruistically. This opens a whole side topic (complexity limits of life and technology) which I didn’t want to open.
My response seems to be that my whole post seems to be read wrongly. It is a defense of deathism. Not an attack on the opposite. I have seen too many comments and posts here seeing death as something unquestionable bad. I don’t see it as an unquestionable good. Reverse stupidity is not intelligence. I tried to add some facts to this topic. But obviously I failed. Not that I didn’t know the risk.
That is not the same. And it invites politics.
The optimum depends on the trade-offs made by aging versus the group benefits. I have not seen actual calculations in the material I surveyed so I cannot make an estimate. Presumably technology can tilt the balance otherwise we probably wouldn’t already see a change in average life-span. Hypothetical future technology will likely tilt this much further (and singularity being a pole I wouldn’t rule out infinite life-span in general). But as the basic premise—group benefits—will hold as long as there is a population of individuals some aging seems at least likely.
Done. Sorry.
I assumed that the links/references were to studies or other evidence of points made in the post rather than making new points, and since I didn’t find the points in the post convincing so value of information seemed low, didn’t want to open a bunch of new tabs/risk my browser choking on PDF’s, and didn’t feel up to reading more articles, etc. I didn’t look at them. To some extent this was probably true for other anti-deathists who read the post.
I got that. My points is: If you think the anti-deathist mindset leads to cultures not risking lives when they should (e.g. for high-value information), then how do you reconcile that with the observation of anti-deathists working on ventures like x-risk, FAI, Effective Altruism, etc. over extending their own lives?
My honest opinion (and at the risk of this comment coming across as even more misleadingly nasty than it is actually intended) is that ‘just trying to add facts’ does not mean the reaction in the comments to this post was in error, because I think that regardless of what you were aiming to do, you revealed misunderstanding of the anti-deathist position and your thinking came across as confused and possibly even non-sequitur.
Yep; I was kidding, and aware that that would be an obnoxious/inflmmatory title to apply to oneself.
This makes me way more confused as to your position—that’s not a criticism of you giving more information, just me relaying state—and this is starting to feel like one of those times where actual policies or specific opinions should be clarified and policy disagreements identified. Can you quote actual things LW’ers (preferably Eliezer) have said over which you have specific disagreements?
Ah, don’t worry about me; I’d already read HPMoR! :)