Should a Transhumanist just work all the time?
March 3, 2011 2:08 PM Subscribe
How do Transhumanists/Singularity-believers justify living a balanced life? If you believe science might eventually make everyone immortal, then it seems to make sense to focus obsessively on making scientific discoveries. My question is sort of the atheist version of "should Christians really give away everything they own and go preach?"
Recently, life expectancy in developed countries have increased by at least 1 year every 10 years, with science research funding of less than 3% of GDP, and this rate of increase is slowly increasing, so (assuming improbable lucky discoveries or changes that increase the rate of scientific discovery) I might still be here when better medicine starts adding years to my life faster than aging takes them off, after which point I could live happily for thousands of years.
This makes me want to maximize the chance of this unlikely outcome by getting very rich, directing my career towards making more science happen, and staying healthy. It seems like a lucky, skilled and dedicated person can solve one or two serious scientific or technical problems during a career. But, in the short term I'd rather do pointless but fun things with my friends, enjoy nice luxuries and tasty food, plan to have a family, etc.
Basically, I think that rational thinking demands that I do what increases the likelihood of me living forever (defined as being alive when average life expectancies increase by more than 1 year in a year) as long as living forever is not definitely impossible. My assumptions include: I want to maximize the amount of happiness I experience ( enjoyment*time), no one knows what we experience after physical death, and the chance of living forever is very low (maybe one in a billion) but could be increased to perhaps one in a thousand with obsessive self-improvement and work toward this goal. Basically: [(normal life enjoyment)*(normal life time)*(near-certainty of normal life time)] is less than [(greatly increased life enjoyment)*(greatly increased life time)*(very small likelihood of greatly increased life time)] and the value of increasing the (very small likelihood of greatly increased life time) is high.
So: is it better to take the high-return, low-probability path of trying to live forever by lobbying/donating for more medical research, getting rich by diligent skill-building and starting companies, staying really healthy, and (if all else fails) getting cryopreserved? Or is it better to take a lower-return, higher-probability path with less success but more conventionally fun times?
I'm a mechanical engineering grad student. I already see a psychologist sometimes.
Recently, life expectancy in developed countries have increased by at least 1 year every 10 years, with science research funding of less than 3% of GDP, and this rate of increase is slowly increasing, so (assuming improbable lucky discoveries or changes that increase the rate of scientific discovery) I might still be here when better medicine starts adding years to my life faster than aging takes them off, after which point I could live happily for thousands of years.
This makes me want to maximize the chance of this unlikely outcome by getting very rich, directing my career towards making more science happen, and staying healthy. It seems like a lucky, skilled and dedicated person can solve one or two serious scientific or technical problems during a career. But, in the short term I'd rather do pointless but fun things with my friends, enjoy nice luxuries and tasty food, plan to have a family, etc.
Basically, I think that rational thinking demands that I do what increases the likelihood of me living forever (defined as being alive when average life expectancies increase by more than 1 year in a year) as long as living forever is not definitely impossible. My assumptions include: I want to maximize the amount of happiness I experience ( enjoyment*time), no one knows what we experience after physical death, and the chance of living forever is very low (maybe one in a billion) but could be increased to perhaps one in a thousand with obsessive self-improvement and work toward this goal. Basically: [(normal life enjoyment)*(normal life time)*(near-certainty of normal life time)] is less than [(greatly increased life enjoyment)*(greatly increased life time)*(very small likelihood of greatly increased life time)] and the value of increasing the (very small likelihood of greatly increased life time) is high.
So: is it better to take the high-return, low-probability path of trying to live forever by lobbying/donating for more medical research, getting rich by diligent skill-building and starting companies, staying really healthy, and (if all else fails) getting cryopreserved? Or is it better to take a lower-return, higher-probability path with less success but more conventionally fun times?
I'm a mechanical engineering grad student. I already see a psychologist sometimes.
Best answer: I would question whether your assumption that if you, personally, forsake everything in order to focus on life extension, you'll actually increase your odds from 1/1B to 1/1K. It's impossible to say, but I imagine the difference would be very small.
posted by the jam at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by the jam at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
There's a lot of handwaving about when/if the actuarial takeoff point would occur.
Given your end goal, your most rational path would be to spend the next N years accumulating money. Then bribe Mark Roth to lower your metabolism with hydrogen sulfide plus whatever else it is he comes up with in the interim as your body temperature is lowered, just prior to having your head severed and placed in a facility at Alcor (using whatever vitrification technology they master), perhaps in cooperation with an ethically flexible medical examiner. Pay a certain amount to Alcor and leave the rest in some kind of trust to defend the legal rights of suspended clients at Alcor and otherwise pay for research.
You'd want to eject prior to any significant mental decline. And remember, first in, last out!
posted by adipocere at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Given your end goal, your most rational path would be to spend the next N years accumulating money. Then bribe Mark Roth to lower your metabolism with hydrogen sulfide plus whatever else it is he comes up with in the interim as your body temperature is lowered, just prior to having your head severed and placed in a facility at Alcor (using whatever vitrification technology they master), perhaps in cooperation with an ethically flexible medical examiner. Pay a certain amount to Alcor and leave the rest in some kind of trust to defend the legal rights of suspended clients at Alcor and otherwise pay for research.
You'd want to eject prior to any significant mental decline. And remember, first in, last out!
posted by adipocere at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Best answer: All signs point toward proper socialization, happiness, physical fitness, and "balance" being factors in a long, healthy life. You may not have to choose between the two. I guess the key would be placing yourself into a career that allowed you to actually explore the ideas you're interested in.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:41 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:41 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
There's a lot of handwaving about when/if the actuarial takeoff point would occur.
Quite sincerely, I would also factor in the possibility that singularity stuff is not a very solid science, and that nobody will be extending their life indefinitely any time soon. My math says that this is enormously possible, but the OP clearly disagrees.
...I'm not sure how it factors in (if at all) things like peak oil, rising populations, global warming or the dubious value of extending human life.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:45 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Basically, I think that rational thinking demands that I do what increases the likelihood of me living forever...
I don't know how you can attribute this to rational thinking.
posted by hermitosis at 2:48 PM on March 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
I don't know how you can attribute this to rational thinking.
posted by hermitosis at 2:48 PM on March 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
This basically sounds like a transhumanist version of Pascal's Wager. "Even though the existence of God the odds of immortality cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists immortality is achievable, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and [relatively] nothing to lose."
Now, many would argue that wasting one's life on wild singularity chases is more than "nothing." But then, many would say the same thing about wasting one's life worshiping a nonexistent God. It's a hard question, but a very old one.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:56 PM on March 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
Now, many would argue that wasting one's life on wild singularity chases is more than "nothing." But then, many would say the same thing about wasting one's life worshiping a nonexistent God. It's a hard question, but a very old one.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:56 PM on March 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
This basically sounds like a transhumanist version of Pascal's Wager. "Even though the existence of God the odds of immortality cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists immortality is achievable, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and [relatively] nothing to lose."
Now, many would argue that wasting one's life on wild singularity chases is more than "nothing." But then, many would say the same thing about wasting one's life worshiping a nonexistent God. It's a hard question, but a very old one.
Pascal's Wager works as follows:
IF there is a God and I believe in him, I will go to heaven when I die.
IF there is a God and I do not believe in him, I will go to hell when I die.
versus
IF I believe in God until death, and there is no God, I will never know the difference and am dead.
IF I do not believe in God until death, and there is no God, I will never know the difference and am dead.
The described situation is more like this:
IF I spend my life researching, I might extend my life.
IF I do not spend my life searching, I might not extend my life.
This is a much more grey scenario. It allows for things like spending your life drinking beer, and still somehow getting in on the extended life because other people did all the work, or spending your life researching and still getting hit by a car, or finding out that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Pascal's Wager deals only with absolutes and is a very binary, Judeo-Christian scenario, and not IMHO horribly applicable to "real life."
The described scenario is all about probabilities.
...this is one of those discussion that should only be had over beer, so I'm out for now. :D
posted by Stagger Lee at 3:11 PM on March 3, 2011
If you spend your entire life in pursuit of extending your own life, and then one day it does wind up getting extended indefinitely, what will you know of yourself, or of life, that will make it continue to be worth living? The main purpose of your life will have been eliminated, and your entire neurological structure will be geared toward patterns and behaviors that no longer make any sense.
posted by hermitosis at 3:18 PM on March 3, 2011
posted by hermitosis at 3:18 PM on March 3, 2011
Very interesting question. I like how the focus isn't on the viability of human immortality, per se, but the desirability of it. Or at least the desirability of pursuing it. I tend to feel that most folks, after being asked whether or not they would want to live an extra thousand years, wouldn't hesitate to jump at the chance.
I recently read a passage from Denial of Death, however, that questioned the desirability of those extra thousand years. The nature of the question is similar to yours, but it takes a different tack:
"The 'postponement of death is not a solution to the problem of the fear of death ... there still will remain the fear of dying prematurely.' The smallest virus or the stupidest accident would deprive a man not of 90 years but of 900--and would be then 10 times more absurd ... In other words, death would be 'hyperfetishized' as a source of danger, and men in the utopia of longevity would be even less expansive and peaceful than they are today."
All very questionable assumptions, sure, but still valid concerns for the immortality seeker.
Anyways, I'll agree with Stagger Lee and bring this up next time I'm having a beer with my philosophy buddies. Thanks for the thought-provoking question!
posted by shiggins at 3:52 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
I recently read a passage from Denial of Death, however, that questioned the desirability of those extra thousand years. The nature of the question is similar to yours, but it takes a different tack:
"The 'postponement of death is not a solution to the problem of the fear of death ... there still will remain the fear of dying prematurely.' The smallest virus or the stupidest accident would deprive a man not of 90 years but of 900--and would be then 10 times more absurd ... In other words, death would be 'hyperfetishized' as a source of danger, and men in the utopia of longevity would be even less expansive and peaceful than they are today."
All very questionable assumptions, sure, but still valid concerns for the immortality seeker.
Anyways, I'll agree with Stagger Lee and bring this up next time I'm having a beer with my philosophy buddies. Thanks for the thought-provoking question!
posted by shiggins at 3:52 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is not merely a transhumanist dilemma. Look at actuarial tables and you'll find you can dedicate every moment of your existence just to avoiding dying way prematurely compared to the crappy average human lifespan. Have fun living in your room because driving is a killer, hyuck hyuck.
Meanwhile you don't get rich and make scientific breakthroughs just because you decide that's what you're going to do with your life. I know it's a cliché, but strive to live in the moment, because there isn't anything else, and, you know, you honestly and truly might be dead this time tomorrow.
posted by nanojath at 4:21 PM on March 3, 2011
Meanwhile you don't get rich and make scientific breakthroughs just because you decide that's what you're going to do with your life. I know it's a cliché, but strive to live in the moment, because there isn't anything else, and, you know, you honestly and truly might be dead this time tomorrow.
posted by nanojath at 4:21 PM on March 3, 2011
Literally living forever is a stupid long-term ambition.
Figuratively living forever is entirely reasonable.
posted by ovvl at 4:24 PM on March 3, 2011
Figuratively living forever is entirely reasonable.
posted by ovvl at 4:24 PM on March 3, 2011
What you're positing is basically "should I be Victor Von Doom."
If you're any sort of even incidental comics geek, you should know the answer. Better to be Reed Richards, by far.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:39 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you're any sort of even incidental comics geek, you should know the answer. Better to be Reed Richards, by far.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:39 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Really interesting arguments so far!
It seems that the OP's argument boils down to whether it is better to enjoy a pleasurable life now and risk a short life or to postpone pleasure until the future so that a platform for a long/eternal and pleasurable life might be built.
I'm sure that others have thought of this, but this seems roughly analogous to the time value of money. Simply put, would I prefer to receive $100 now or at some point in the future? The argument here goes that a rational decision maker always prefers the same amount sooner. But it also follows that there is some amount greater than $100 that I'd be prepared to wait for. I think the same applies to pleasure - lets call this the time value of pleasure.
While economists attempt to factor in things like inflation and opportunity costs when determining the future value of money, we need to consider the risks of deferring pleasure. Obviously, we might die before we can complete our platform for future enjoyment. But we should also consider things like the impact of outliving some or all of our friends and family, the risks of going mad due to the repetitive nature of life, and the costs of continually seeking new stimulation.
Boredom will be the primary negative of an eternal life. It seems to be reasonable that at some point, you'll have experienced everything so often that there is no more excitement to be had. I think that once this point has been reached, "switching off" or suicide would be a very real next step, assuming one hasn't already gone mad. If we consider going mad or choosing to die as the end, then what is the point of eternal life?
I argue that pleasure now is more valuable to me than almost any amount of pleasure in the future. If I knew that I would go mad or become terminally bored with eternal life, then I see little difference in trying to squeeze as much as possible into life now and doing more over a longer time. I'd also prefer to minimise the risk of doing unpleasant things to achieve eternal life or outliving my friends and family. In short, I try to make the most of everyday (well, most days) so that if I leave this mortal coil sooner than planned, then I'd be happy with my achievements. It would be a pleasant upside if I managed to live longer and experience more.
posted by dantodd at 6:19 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
It seems that the OP's argument boils down to whether it is better to enjoy a pleasurable life now and risk a short life or to postpone pleasure until the future so that a platform for a long/eternal and pleasurable life might be built.
I'm sure that others have thought of this, but this seems roughly analogous to the time value of money. Simply put, would I prefer to receive $100 now or at some point in the future? The argument here goes that a rational decision maker always prefers the same amount sooner. But it also follows that there is some amount greater than $100 that I'd be prepared to wait for. I think the same applies to pleasure - lets call this the time value of pleasure.
While economists attempt to factor in things like inflation and opportunity costs when determining the future value of money, we need to consider the risks of deferring pleasure. Obviously, we might die before we can complete our platform for future enjoyment. But we should also consider things like the impact of outliving some or all of our friends and family, the risks of going mad due to the repetitive nature of life, and the costs of continually seeking new stimulation.
Boredom will be the primary negative of an eternal life. It seems to be reasonable that at some point, you'll have experienced everything so often that there is no more excitement to be had. I think that once this point has been reached, "switching off" or suicide would be a very real next step, assuming one hasn't already gone mad. If we consider going mad or choosing to die as the end, then what is the point of eternal life?
I argue that pleasure now is more valuable to me than almost any amount of pleasure in the future. If I knew that I would go mad or become terminally bored with eternal life, then I see little difference in trying to squeeze as much as possible into life now and doing more over a longer time. I'd also prefer to minimise the risk of doing unpleasant things to achieve eternal life or outliving my friends and family. In short, I try to make the most of everyday (well, most days) so that if I leave this mortal coil sooner than planned, then I'd be happy with my achievements. It would be a pleasant upside if I managed to live longer and experience more.
posted by dantodd at 6:19 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's a common trope that boredom is the consequence of eternal life.
Horseshit. Ask any centenarian if they're bored of life. A huge amount of what takes of a human's mental cycles are their relationships with other humans, and this is an ever-changing font of interest. The problem is that people fear reduced powers that come with an aged body - solve that problem, and immortality looks like a lot of fun.
Art may wear itself thin after a while, as the sensory spectrum and perfect recall fills up, but the tangible universe is just the beginning of understanding. Mathematics, for instance, is infinite. As is fiction. Hey, since we have complete control over our minds, let's wipe out ennui! Even tho we've seen it before it's still new!
As for how to bring about singularity, well. Care must be taken. Take, fore instance, a giant fetishist. She gets a biological high from imagining a 100 foot tall Duane "The Rock" Johnson squash people like roaches beneath his wrestling boots. What if she's also a brilliant computer scientist who's motivated to realize her biological fantasy, and clings to it even as her mind is transcended into a post-human intellect?
Will Caesar cross the Rubicon?
That's the question.
So concern yourself with scientific advances to achieve extropian bliss, but also concern yourself with who it's advancing, and how.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Horseshit. Ask any centenarian if they're bored of life. A huge amount of what takes of a human's mental cycles are their relationships with other humans, and this is an ever-changing font of interest. The problem is that people fear reduced powers that come with an aged body - solve that problem, and immortality looks like a lot of fun.
Art may wear itself thin after a while, as the sensory spectrum and perfect recall fills up, but the tangible universe is just the beginning of understanding. Mathematics, for instance, is infinite. As is fiction. Hey, since we have complete control over our minds, let's wipe out ennui! Even tho we've seen it before it's still new!
As for how to bring about singularity, well. Care must be taken. Take, fore instance, a giant fetishist. She gets a biological high from imagining a 100 foot tall Duane "The Rock" Johnson squash people like roaches beneath his wrestling boots. What if she's also a brilliant computer scientist who's motivated to realize her biological fantasy, and clings to it even as her mind is transcended into a post-human intellect?
Will Caesar cross the Rubicon?
That's the question.
So concern yourself with scientific advances to achieve extropian bliss, but also concern yourself with who it's advancing, and how.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Work, work, work and no joy might just do the opposite of extending your life, you know.
posted by She Talks To Angels at 9:42 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by She Talks To Angels at 9:42 PM on March 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Assuming that the Singularity will change your life to something currently unrecognizable/unimaginable, shouldn't you maximize the time you have now doing normal, 100% fully human things? These are opportunities you'll never have again if your transhumanist future comes to pass. Whatever equivalent of "having a picnic with your friends" or "playing basketball" or "kissing a girl (or guy)" may exist beyond the Singularity, it won't be the same as the way we experience those things now. So why not maximize the time you have as a pre-Singularity human to acquire unique experiences?
posted by MsMolly at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by MsMolly at 10:21 AM on March 4, 2011 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks for the thoughtful answers! This might be chatfilter since the right answer depends on predicting unpredictable future events, predicting how one person can do something really important, and wading through a lot of wishful thinking and cluelessness. There's also the choice of how altruistic/selfish to be: make money to help yourself or contribute to research to help everyone. Also, people imagine many different things when they imagine a world with much better medical science.
Since an immortality quest probably involves "proper socialization, happiness, physical fitness, and 'balance'" and "spending the next N years accumulating money", it might be compatible with more conventional goals.
posted by sninctown at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2011
Since an immortality quest probably involves "proper socialization, happiness, physical fitness, and 'balance'" and "spending the next N years accumulating money", it might be compatible with more conventional goals.
posted by sninctown at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
You're also weighing known goods of a fruitful life against the unknown outcome of continual life. The psychology, environment effects, and other unknown factors could make an extremely long life less useful than a productive short one.
Also, chatfilter?
posted by mikeh at 2:28 PM on March 3, 2011