The Fable of the Dragon-Tryant

[Heraclitus]

written by the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom

read it


A good read.

Who says philosophy has nothing useful left to say?

[Sandman]

It is a good story. Biological mortality is one thing technology can and should beat.

[Elok]

Re: The Fable of the Dragon-Tryant

Originally posted by Heraclitus
A good read.

Who says philosophy has nothing useful left to say?

I do. The planet's overpopulated enough as it is, thanks.

EDIT: On reflection, I don't really object to the idea of human life extension in general. However, I do find the fable's attitude deplorable, especially the way it chooses to end with "well, we have some reorganizing to do," and trusts that the reorganizing will handle itself. If we do achieve "negligible senescence," as I believe it's now fashionable to call it, there will be a host of new problems to solve. Human society will have to be restructured in a fundamental way with stunning abruptness. So killing the dragon is just the beginning, and failing to emphasize that strikes me as grotesque irresponsibility.

It's really no different, or not much different, from "Let's overthrow Saddam, the details will take care of themselves." Because they won't. The details NEVER take care of themselves. You have to try to anticipate most of them (though you can never anticipate them all) so you can run damage control. It's a far bigger and tougher logistical problem than the relatively simple one of neutralizing whatever biochemical agents cause aging.

I mean, look at the results of medical progress so far. Assuming we stop aging entirely as opposed to dragging it out as we do now, we won't have the social security time bomb issue, but others remain. For one, childbirth will have to drop off quite drastically. Not just spaced out more, but essentially stopped. Even if there's only one child for every two people per century, with only unnatural deaths from murder, disease and accidents, that's still too much. We'll be fighting murder, disease and accidents at the same time. So within fifty years there'd have to be a planet with almost no children on it. Billions of biological clocks permanently set on "snooze." That sounds difficult to achieve by mutual, rational agreement. And I'm not sure it's entirely desirable.

And if you want another argument, look at the current climate change mess and the Industrial Revolution. Wouldn't it be nice if we could travel from New York to San Francisco in less than a day? If we could quadruple productivity? Etc...

[BeBMan]

They want you to believe that it'sa about extending people's health-span, but in truth it's Bush propaganda for ABM systems.

[Sandman]

So within fifty years there'd have to be a planet with almost no children on it. Billions of biological clocks permanently set on "snooze." That sounds difficult to achieve by mutual, rational agreement.

Do you really think that somebody with a 2000 year lifespan will become desperate to have kids by the time they're forty? Sounds unlikely. A society of eternal twenty-somethings might have a lot of accidental pregnancies, but that can be taken care of with a contraceptive implant.

If you removed aging from, say, a low-birth society like Japan, I reckon the birth-rate would plummet to almost nothing.

[Elok]

Do you think somebody who wants to be a mother will wait sixty years, even if she's got forever? I don't. Some people *like* raising kids. Getting rid of that is an even more substantial change than that from hunter-gatherers to agricultural city-dwellers.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Sandman

If you removed aging from, say, a low-birth society like Japan, I reckon the birth-rate would plummet to almost nothing.

This is very true.

Originally posted by Elok
Do you think somebody who wants to be a mother will wait sixty years, even if she's got forever? I don't. Some people *like* raising kids. Getting rid of that is an even more substantial change than that from hunter-gatherers to agricultural city-dwellers.

Yes, but they are a vast minority in several European countries and Japan.

Also your argument mostly ignores another fact, this would not eliminate death, we would still have snakes and tigers. Sure we would be fighting those too, but we've been fighting AIDS with little effect for 2 decades, and the antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are evolving with frighting speed. Also war won't disappear, the war in Iraq reduced the population by 100,000 people.


Also a cultural change will take place as it sinks in that old age isn't a killer anymore


There would also be big economic advantages:
-reduced health expenses for elders (which are running very very high over here)
-educating your citizes becomes much more profitable and worth doing
-you get to keep your greatest minds and experts alive and they can work side by side with future generations
-the end of large subsidize to help support children (the natalist policies many nations currently have)

These would to a large extent pay for any increase of population in Europe, Russia and Japan. Europe produces far more food that it needs, and it could if demand went up easily produce much much more. We are not that densely populated, we could easily absorb another 500 million people just with the technology we have. And by the time the population increases beyond that technology will have advanced.



The real problem with this is if life extension will be cheap enough for it to be affordable outside the first world.
And even some of those countries aren't that problematic.
Most Africans if they would not die of old age would eventually contract AIDS and die because of it.
China with its one child policy is in many ways less dangers than America's quiverfull movement, from a purely mathematical perspective.

Example:
Born in the first generation 100
Second 50
Third 25
Fourth 13
Fifth 7
Sixth 4
Seventh 2
Eight 1

Remember that:
-everyone can have one kid in their entire life.

-Many in the first generation will already have kids

-there will still be great epidemics every few decades (like the Spanish flu) that will kill off many people not naturaly resistant before a medical solution is found

-all the other causes of death

-suicide

When taking these into account you can see that population growth would be manageable by third generation and perhaps even negative by seventh.
Also generations would be waaaay longer for most people, perhaps something like a century. And we have had much more than 50% or 25% population growth in the 20th century and have managed to survive it.

Worst case scenario we are forced to adopt a one child policy.





Even if we assume life extension eliminates age completley and cuts cancer & heart in half we would still have many other "herd thinners" left.



And in the end with life spanns approaching hundreds of years, space travel and even interstellar travel becomes possible. The political prescriptive changes as well, since people cease to see things as global warming, overpopulation ect. as their children problems but their own. It would be easier to convince people to commit to long term projects like reversing desertification or building a space elevator.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Elok
Do you think somebody who wants to be a mother will wait sixty years, even if she's got forever? I don't. Some people *like* raising kids. Getting rid of that is an even more substantial change than that from hunter-gatherers to agricultural city-dwellers.

Industrial societies around the world have gone from 5-6 kids to 1-2 kids per couple within living memory. When you look at it like that, it's easy to see how the trend could continue.

[Vesayen]

I'd certainly give up my right to have children for a shot at immortality, or a few hundred years anyway. I'd even get a vassectomy if it is part of the deal.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I'd certainly give up my right to have children for a shot at immortality, or a few hundred years anyway. I'd even get a vassectomy if it is part of the deal.

Agreed.

Whining about problems immortality would cause is like whining about potential dangers of the Industrial Revolution. Yes, there are going to be problems, but they are negligible compared the benefit of people not dying anymore.

[Pekka]

philosophy of science is very useful IMO even today and in the future as well. IMO it should be part of any serious science anyway.

[Colon™]

The story is great, and it contains a lot interesting lessons, but what's apparently the main moral rests on a flawed anology. The dragon was an external force, whereas death is inherent to life.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Colon™
The story is great, and it contains a lot interesting lessons, but what's apparently the main moral rests on a flawed anology. The dragon was an external force, whereas death is inherent to life.

What does it matter?

Human consciousness is the only thing that really matters. Everything else is external to it. There is no difference between old age, cancer and grizzly bears. If it kills you, it kills you.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Colon™
The dragon was an external force, whereas death is inherent to life.

What are you talking about the dragon IS inherent to life its been around since the beginning of time!

[Heraclitus]

delete wrong thread