8 ms·
The Rich and Powerful Want to Live Forever. What If They Could?
- otikik 5mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- xandrius 5mo agoVery few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death. Who wouldn't select a part of the population they find unsaveable, say evil genocidal billionaires, and sacrifice them for extending their own lifespan + improving how they believe the world should be? Win-win.
- schnuri 5mo agoI would not because it’s evil.
- keybored 5mo agoStandard fare to excuse powerful people who do actual harm with something about human nature. So who am I to judge? I have impurities in my heart because I dislike people who cause harm. Best wait for the saints to weigh in.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago> Very few wouldn't, unless very much driven by their religion to fetish death. I feel sad that you seemingly have met more people who lack compassion and empathy than ones who have it. Personally, I don't know (or "hang out" rather maybe) many people who'd sacrifice anyone's life just to live a day longer, and I don't think that's a useful default view to have of people, most people I've met don't want to hurt others. Most people will hurt others if they can avoid getting hurt themselves by doing so, but that doesn't mean those same people would sacrifice someone's life to get another day.
- haxiomic 5mo agoThough many would sacrifice an intelligent animals like a pig or dolphin and they’d do this optionally
- bloppe 5mo agoIn the West, most will happily slaughter a cow but never a dog (and by slaughter, I mean allow someone else to slaughter it for you, but never be OK with doing it yourself). In many Indian states, cow slaughter is a crime. Many places in China traditionally ate dog meat. People all over the world make more-or-less arbitrary decisions about which animals are OK to kill, and that's before even talking about their fellow humans. I'm not a nihilist and I do eat meat. I think we should minimize suffering to others. But I can see how anybody could be conditioned to think otherwise. It's not some inherent human instinct to want to preserve others' lives. We've had to develop that instinct culturally.
- yourfavbar 5mo ago[dead]
- therobots927 5mo agoThe evil genocidal billionaires will be the ones killing to extend their lifespan. Not the other way around.
- NoGravitas 5mo agoFriend, I would shorten my life by a day to moderately improve the convenience of someone I barely know. I've spent enough time in this meat grinder.
- otikik 5mo agoWell that is a sad, sad, world view. I think very few people would. Precisely that lack of scruples is a prerequisite and a consequence of becoming rich and powerful.
- islandfox100 5mo agoReminiscent of Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson
- BobaFloutist 5mo agoIt's kind of the opposite in most ways.
- dyauspitr 5mo ago[flagged]
- QuantumGood 5mo ago"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" always seemed to assume all people were the same. Psychopaths are quite different from non-psychopaths. What if increasing lifespan 24 hours required doubling the number of people killed each day?
- dang 5mo agoIf you've read the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), it should be clear that comments like this one—indignant, generic, and fulminant—violate the intended use of the site. Please don't do this here. Thoughtful critique is fine, of course.
- otikik 5mo agoIt’s not “generic”. It refers to, like, 100 people or less. There’s a comment down below that says “most young people would do it”. Why don’t you say anything to that person?
- dang 5mo agoGeneric has to do with categories, not quantity. But this was not a borderline call—it's the kind of comment the guidelines are trying to persuade, cajole, and/or coax you into not posting here! Not that you owe the rich and powerful better, necessarily, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. > Why don’t you say anything to that person? Purely because I didn't see it. It's flagkilled now. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. When you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, that's the likeliest explanation. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- boxed 5mo agohttps://archive.is/RvcQo https://archive.is/RvcQo
- breve 5mo ago> What If They Could? Then they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
- therobots927 5mo agoThey’re already at the front of the queue. Attempts to live forever will only further inflame the general population.
- Nasrudith 5mo agoClass based 'revolutions' are made up of a bunch of idiots who would happily destroy everything while being lead by somebody even worse who is qualitatively identical to the people they despise. They have proven that repeatedly.
- ausbah 5mo agoand you would be ok with an immortal class of tech overlords? history ending with one of the worst sets of ppl of our generation?
- lopsotronic 5mo agoMmmm. Not just the worst from a moral perspective - which is still bad! - but also some of the dumbest. Ours are not the Masters of Industry from the Industrial Age[1], or the fission-missile-kings of the Nuclear Age. They're not ready to teach a Physics unit at a community college. The tippity top of the uber-wealthy today are remarkably short on actual formal knowledge. This makes sense in their ideological system: scientific acumen as more of a commodity than a value. In this view, everything should look like the stock market. But this is a profoundly stupid view. It requires not just ideology, but willfully not looking at the universe. I'm probably steering afoul of about 90% of ycombinator here, so I'll just pull the throttles back and stop there. [1] "Isambard Kingdom Brunel . . But Got-DAMN did men used to have some proper-ass names" - Achewood
- therobots927 5mo ago
- kpmcc 5mo agoGonna go out on a limb here and say that old age and dying are actually good, and that many of the problems in Western society are due to people living too long and holding onto power longer than they should / not passing on power and resources to younger generations.
- krautburglar 5mo ago[flagged]
- baal80spam 5mo ago> longer than they should Just great. And who is to decide how long is "too long"? You?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- newyankee 5mo agoI am sure people said the same 100 years back when they probably thought living beyond say 60 was too much. I know that in poorer countries due to high infant mortality rate and other issues just reaching 60 was a big milestone for the average person. The bigger question is how will the existing financial system adapt for such a scenario if even 10% of the population manages to extend from 82 to 100+
- graemep 5mo agoAFAIK most societies historically respected the wisdom attributed to old age, and many cultures still do.
- therobots927 5mo agoIf anything, we’ve seen that older generations of leadership can’t keep up with changing technology and fail to adapt to massive upheavals. In times of rapid technological development, the old are not wise. They are reactionary and cannot adapt. Their brain stopped developing before the internet. To expect them to make adequate decisions for the current landscape is to expect them to understand a world they simply weren’t built for.
- Aegis_Labs 5mo ago[dead]
- comrade1234 5mo agoAn interesting fictional book that has this idea as part of the story is Altered Carbon by Richard K. Morgan. Imagine if Elon musk and the other ultra-wealthy could live forever and they become even more out-of-touch with reality as the centuries roll on... In the book almost anyone that has lived could live forever but that could never happen with limited resources/space so only the ultra-wealthy are able to. I'd skip the tv show. Also, the books (it's a series) seem to be unfinished? I could be wrong, it's been so long since I read it but it seems like some sub-story about extinct aliens wasn't finished.
- watwut 5mo agoThe tv show is actually really good from someone who did not read the books. It is well done.
- comrade1234 5mo agoI don't know... I read the books so long ago and there are still things in my minds eye that I can picture from it, whereas with the tv show the only thing I remember is the naked sword fight.
- Henchman21 5mo agoOh come now, surely you remember seeing James Purefoy's penis over and over.
- comrade1234 5mo agoIt wasn't that kind of sword fight.
- tim-tday 5mo agoI saw the show first. I like them both. They’re wildly different.
- kakacik 5mo agoelon is at least barely tolerable despitre being clearly POS, but maybe he has just pressure from stocks/companies he represents. Think more in the line of trump or putin, forever. Such a person, upon becoming say potus, would on day 1 dismantle any option to be removed from power and basically did what trump is doing otherwise, and/or worse. I keep saying this over and over - for greater good of humanity, we should be shooting these immortality scientists, all of them, regardless of horrible it sounds. 1000s vs hundreds of billions. There is no conceivable way this will end in anything but catastrophe for mankind. One could theoretise that there could be Leto II Atreides type of situation (mankind needs to experience absolutely horrible things for millenia to go on a path which is overall better in extremely long term), but I am not holding my breath. We could also just die from our stupidity, and this is one prime example of it thats anyway still far in future. We need to be at least multiplanetary civilization before achieving this, ideally in multiple solar systems so any catastrophe is not absolute.
- fooker 5mo agoPlease read ‘How to Stop Time’ by Matt Haig It’s a beautiful short novel exploring this idea.
- RajT88 5mo agoI vaguely recall a Heinlein novel which explored it too. Methuselah's Children maybe?
- rwmj 5mo agoTime Enough for Love. IMHO much better than Stranger in a Strange Land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
- frm88 5mo agoOtherland by Tad Williams, where the powerful oligarchs of corporations are kept bodily alive bybmachinery, their mind have been transferred to a cirtual reality and they keep on going by making said virtual reality the next hypercapitalist venture.
- techteach00 5mo agoThank God they can't buy immorality.
- amazingamazing 5mo agoWhy rich and powerful? Everyone, no?
- therobots927 5mo agoThey’re the only ones who would be able to afford it.
- segh 5mo agoThis is an argument against all technological progress.
- therobots927 5mo agoNope. Just technological progress in the context of a neo-feudal system.
- tim333 5mo agoAt the moment it's not possible for anyone. If tech cracks it it would likely become affordable like most technology.
- therobots927 5mo agoIf we’re talking healthcare no, it doesn’t become affordable. None of the advanced medical tech is affordable.
- boxed 5mo agoYou just define "advanced" as not "affordable" and your statement can be true forever! Except of course, that's nonsense. mRNA vaccines are super advanced and available for a majority of humans. And tech drops in price if it's popular enough.
- therobots927 5mo ago
- awei 5mo agoAnother good book exploring this idea of not dying is Pandora's Star by Peter Hamilton. Only in this book almost everyone has access to the technology by paying into a rejuvenation fund instead of a retirement one as we have today. It is a pretty realistic exploration of the consequences and benefits of such technology. Good food for thoughts.
- PinkaDunka 5mo agoAltered Carbon on Netflix...
- ajb 5mo agoHah, so many science fiction books with this premise. Another one: "Drunkards walk" by Frederick Pohl, 1961.
- earthboundkid 5mo agoWe don't even know how to get someone to be 130, but sure, let's waste time talking about this.
- joquarky 5mo agoIronic that you waste our time with this.
- goolz 5mo agoLiving forever sounds awful. For one, I am extremely curious what happens when I die. Without death, life becomes a hollow shell, or at least I imagine it would, as you would lack urgency.
- dmd 5mo agoI’ll answer that question for you for free. Here’s what happens:
- goolz 5mo agoI medically died a couple years back. I don’t remember a thing, so perhaps you are right. Still curious.
- dmd 5mo agoThe concept of “medically died” is kind of ridiculous. Are you alive? Then you weren’t dead.
- goolz 5mo agoIt is a clinical term, you are arguing over semantics. Cardiopulmonary death to be specific. My point is: no one knows, not you, not me, and not my dog.
- lostmsu 5mo agoI don't know what's behind a wall I'm sitting next to right now, but I'm reasonably sure there's a street. I'm also reasonably sure the comment about "you've been dead" is also a very accurate prediction.
- goolz 5mo agoThat wall is concrete and material. Death is not so much. I am reasonably sure you can do that with great accuracy while still having zero idea what lies in wait for us after we die. A false equivalence.
- ks2048 5mo agoThey could make progress on cancer, but the way things are going they'll have to learn how to survive a guillotine as well.
- tim-tday 5mo agoWealth and power accumulate. They’d end up owning everything.
- hpjev 5mo agoI would have expected better of HN. I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible. The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise. Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die. And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations.
- keybored 5mo ago> I would have expected better of HN. On a very dark night I would have expected worse. > I agree that wealth and power accumulation are a problem. But the conclusion obviously isn't to have everyone forcibly DIE. If anything, this is an argument to make longevity more accessible. Maybe there is some corner of the article that advocates people forcibly dying... but from skimming it, the topic is about powerful people using things like “brainless clones” to extend their lives. The following is essentially the implied wish of this piece: I solemnly wish, with all my non-power, for tyrannical heads of states and tech billionaires to not live abnormally long. This is what you take offense to. The wish that our overlords do not live unnaturally long. > The article is heavily biased against the evil tech billionaires. So much so, that it has to outright lie about Bryan Johnson? His "proprietary longevity routine" is actually fully public. The most important parts aren't some expensive surgeries but 1) regular sleep 2) healthy food 3) exercise. This I care about. > Either you want everyone to live as long as possible, or you want people to die. May we all live as long as possible, for it is our equal right as human beings.~ But may also tyrants and tech billionaires remain as such. For all men are not equal. > And if the tech elites scare you that much, remember that longevity protocols protect against death by aging, _not_ assassinations. Assassination is forcible death. Something you took offense to above.
- frm88 5mo agoMaybe there is some corner of the article that advocates people forcibly dying... but from skimming it, the topic is about powerful people using things like “brainless clones” to extend their lives. This is the premise in Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, phantastic book but really devastating.
- lopsotronic 5mo agoLiving systems - hell, complex systems - don't do "forever" real well. You end up adding a compounding amount of energy over time, a "negentropic tax", as the universe tries to untie that complexity into radiation. After a while the compounding energy input of the negentropic tax overwhelms the control mechanisms that feed it into the "preserved" system, and it blows up. It's a common feature across disciplines: content management, biology, programming, maintainability engineering, neural networks, chemical engineering . . I imagine the list is pretty close to boundless. Ha, turns out human knowledge is also a complex natural system. So I guess what I'm saying is only dead things live forever. Which should say a lot about the internal life of the standard tech/finbro. "I want to be just like I am right this second for all time!" Speaking personally, I'm always amused by the Eternal Life pitch whether I hear it in church or on the internet. Everyone gets eternal life. We're surrounded by it, we eat it, we poop it out every day. Our grandfathers are in our lungs, old friends in the leaves of trees, giant parts of your brain die every morning as you wake. Eternal Life is not for the selfish. Something that the Bible thumpers could read for themselves, if they bothered to read the thing.
- plomme 5mo agoTo play devils advocate here: could it be a good thing? That way they would be incentivized to think about the long term actions of their actions, like not dying before getting affected by global warming etc. And once aging is understood and solved, maybe it’s possible to iterate on the approach and make it cheaper and more accessible. That would greatly help the aging populations of the west. If you’re around forever I’d imagine you would care more about what people think of you, too. If not your number of enemies would just rise forever.
- steve1977 5mo agoThe long term effects for themselves only though.
- boxed 5mo agoI always find is weird how most super rich don't even seem to care about the life of their own children. If they did, surely they would invest more in basic science, or at least medical science.
- fooker 5mo agoIf you can only afford to have one or two children and accordingly have one or two children, you'll care about how well your children fare in life. If you can have ten, your worry becomes more about how/if your children preserve your legacy.
- boxed 5mo agoMost super rich don't have THAT many kids though.
- steve1977 5mo agoLet's suggest something different. Treat wealth like a game. Whoever reaches one billion has completed the game and has to die. No point in playing further, you made it. The money gets redistributed again to the other players.
- Jamesbeam 5mo agoIf they use immortality. Just use Magic. Putinius Disintegratus! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipex_Alligator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipex_Alligator Poof ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Looks like I’m going to avoid drinking tea in the foreseeable future.
- holybbbb 5mo agoAbsolutely based
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- mongo95476 5mo agoBuddha would advise that as the root cause of suffering is identification of mind with a body this very desire is the essence of the ignorance leading to suffering. If you get attached to a body after 80 years, imagine after 800,000 years. Be careful what you wish for…
- general1465 5mo agoLiving forever is a curse not blessing. They will grow older and even if their body is till young, their brain solidifies. World around them will become increasingly alien and they will yearn for good old <decade of my childhood> isolating themselves into their own small bubble, terrified of the world around them, which moved forward so much that there is no place for them anymore. Their bubble will become skanzen and they will be talking and breathing alas very bitter artifact of a past times.