24 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

I was thinking about contrarianism. We all notice that there seems to be an overwhelming majority of people that respond to indefinite life extension notions with "but population!" and "death is natural!" and things like that. Why is that? People like to be the devils advocates and things like that. Being the devils advocate seems to be a natural response.

I read recently that it may even be a chemical defense in the brain to prevent it from accepting whatever comes its way more often than not. I received some more "but population!" and "but its natural!" assertions from some more people the other day and it made me think that it seems it goes even deeper than a devils advocate response. Its like, almost every single time? Many of them have never contemplated this cause before. The notions were never sorted and tested by their logic. They never tried to think about it before, but now that you bring it up, they know that population would be an insurmountable problem and that it is so natural that it is absolutely taboo to mess with it, and they assert that to you. They dont even bring it up as a part of the conversation to discuss, they assert what just occurred to them.

It seems that new ideas are literrally like light switches, a light switch always turns on the light, notions of indefinite life extension to people that are new to it seem to always (95% of the time or more) turn on that light of things like population and natural. And dont we all (the vast majority of us, if not all of us) do it with various subjects? Might it not actually be a hard wired chemical response?

So what is a way to get through that? There are many, but Im approaching this from a relatively new angle for me here. And this answer isnt brand new, but it occurs to me again lately that maybe one of the answers is to spread the word by starting the topic off illustrating the devils advocate responses, and then let them respond by being the devils advocate to that.

[Marios Kyriazis]

The majiority of ordinary people live their lives without thinking too much about indefinite lifespans. When they are confronted with the suggestion that this may be possible in the near future, have no true opinion (because they have not thought about it seriously) and so they answer by quoting a most commonly held belief (population etc). This is based on the therory of 'memes', which are phrases or linguistic pieces of information that pass from one person to the other, and spread socially (replicate) like genes do. The difference is that memes are socially based, whereas genes are biological.

The way to stop the replication of negative memes ('it is natural') etc is the same way that we block gene replication. We should inform people so that they will have their own clear opinion about the matter, and not somebody else's. We should prepare others to reject the negative idea when it reaches them (there was an earlier discussion about introducing the subject in primary or secondary schools - that was a very good idea). Also, people who carry the negative meme, (just like nature does to those who carry deleterious genes), should be isolated, and 'eliminated' socially I mean. I.e. make them feel that THEY are the weirdos, not we!


.

[Droplet]

Also, people who carry the negative meme, (just like nature does to those who carry deleterious genes), should be isolated, and 'eliminated' socially I mean. I.e. make them feel that THEY are the weirdos, not we!

I think that is one big problem with our cause is that it's not very mainstream and most people don't like to be the odd ones out. As such, they would not embrace (at least not publically) support of life extension.

[Brainbox]

He, good kind of reverse psychology. However, I think it will not accomplish anything in the general population. But maybe it could add another 5% to the equation.

Most people don't want to be intellectually challenged. Why do you think television is popular?

The concept of comfort zone is very important in the determination of stance towards everything that is out of the ordinary. And the major type of comfort zone is the one that assures to be recognizable to peers. Peer pressure. Or the presure people enact on themselves out of fear to become outcastish.

Average IQ is 100. That's because moderate intelligence is the selection of evolution. Probably because the mean assures relatively stable societal dynamics. In even recent history it has been difficult for people outside the evolutionary norm to find sufficient peers to be able to develop marginal concepts like LE. Now we have the Internet that enables forming of all kind of sub cultural movements that in former times were not able to create a certain critical mass. Let's not become to enthusiastic about this recent success.

We still are a minority although we found individuals that think alike and are sufficiently open minded. The fact that we are here having good exchange of idea's and knowledge does not mean that the average population is changing at the same pace.

Compare the numbers. How many people are discussing in fora like this on the net compared to the amount of people that are watching the daily drool on television? Average peer pressure is as strong as ever.

Edited by Brainbox, 09 January 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Droplet]

Brainbox - I salute your views on the idiot box at its effluent of drivvel!

[Brainbox]

You're welcome.

Turning drivvel into drive using idiot box technology:

View on Vimeo.

I did spam this trailer in another thread as well. Not because I'm affiliated with it, but because this is an example of exelent meme promotion. Like BP's example, it's all about clever almost reverse psychology. Almost unheard-of to use environment abusing skiing to promote environmentalism.

Maybe rebuttal of simplistic arguments is not about symmetric counter argumentation, but to use a high quality broad media perspective. What would be a good "meme partner" for LE?

Edited by Brainbox, 09 January 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[brokenportal]

The majiority of ordinary people live their lives without thinking too much about indefinite lifespans

Right, but not to despair, its like how many people didnt think about cars and roads and stuff before the car was invented, but 30 years later you had millions of people whos livelihood depended on those jobs, who went to school to design roads, agencies for rules and regulations were created etc... When we inform them, large percents of them will come around. Many of them just dont respond to the lion that is loose in the camp because they dont know there is one or they dont think they can.

have no true opinion (because they have not thought about it seriously) and so they answer by quoting a most commonly held belief (population etc). This is based on the therory of 'memes',

That could be. What Im contemplating here is that it may not be a meme, but rather, a response that is built in to most people. Most of these people seem to have never contemplated the notion of indefinite life extension before. They almost never give anecdotes about how they read about population, or thought about, or discussed it before. It seems that it occurs to almost each one of them, at that moment. Like, if you told me that... they were going to make floating space colonies, I suppose a typical reaction might be, "If any country can afford the immense amount of money it would take, I dont think they can come up with that much money" and I would bet that you would hear that same thing coming from a lot of people, but we dont, you know, get together in an anti space station forum and talk about things like how it would be too expensive.

I could be wrong though, maybe it is a meme.

Me and a few others have been checking into a variety of options, and think tanking about seeing what we can do to help get the ball rolling to get the teaching of logic and the understanding of fallacy deeper into the curriculum of primary and secondary schools around the world. I found some examples where it was tried in some schools. There are a few options we are pursuing and checking into more. If anybody wants to get in on any of those think tanks then let me know.

Most people don't want to be intellectually challenged. Why do you think television is popular?

The concept of comfort zone is very important in the determination of stance towards everything that is out of the ordinary.

I think I disagree with the "meme" (since we are talking about things in that term), that television is bad. I could be wrong about that. That might make for a good topic.

Im not sure if its so much that some percents of people dont want to be intellectually challenged so much as it might be that you have to get them used to it, ease it to them, and like your talking about, slowly move them out of that comfort zone. If they are in a comfort zone of not thinking about death, thats fine, we just transition them gradually and incrementally out of it into a comfort zone where standing up for indefinite life extension is comfortable.

This reverse psychology Im getting at in the topic might be another way to do it. How successful it might be, I cant say. It might be down around 5% but I wouldnt doubt that it could convert most of the "population!" and "natural!" touters.

[Mind]

Hey Eric, think of it this way. Each time you get the automatic non-thinking response "but what about overpopulation", "death is natural", "what about boredom", just remind yourself that it is probably the first time this person has heard someone say "hey, it would be great to end aging and live indefinitely". This is a great thing. You have planted the idea. The person never had to think about it before. Now they do. The idea will not leave their mind. They might initially fall back on upon uncritical defensive responses but that will pass with time. It is better that they hear and reject it (initially), than never hear at all.

[brokenportal]

Hey Eric, think of it this way. Each time you get the automatic non-thinking response "but what about overpopulation", "death is natural", "what about boredom", just remind yourself that it is probably the first time this person has heard someone say "hey, it would be great to end aging and live indefinitely". This is a great thing. You have planted the idea. The person never had to think about it before. Now they do. The idea will not leave their mind. They might initially fall back on upon uncritical defensive responses but that will pass with time. It is better that they hear and reject it (initially), than never hear at all.

That is one of methods for getting through to people that I support and spread too, I agree. I think stating the reasons against indefinite life extension as topics out in general society, other forums and other places might be a way through it too.

[Danail Bulgaria]

One possible way to deal with questions such as "What about overpopulation" is to explain why overpopulation is a problem of uncontrolled birth, not to longer life, and give them the examples about the fact, that the countries, that contribute the most for the overpopulation have the shortest average life span, and the opposite - the countries with the highes average life span have a negative population growth. You may point them also the fact, that if all of the people at once become immortal, there will be enough space for all if noone is being born after this moment. These facts should be enough to be explained, that overpopulation is not necessary in an immortal society, as previously is being believed.

[luscar]

One possible way to deal with questions such as "What about overpopulation" is to explain why overpopulation is a problem of uncontrolled birth, not to longer life, and give them the examples about the fact, that the countries, that contribute the most for the overpopulation have the shortest average life span, and the opposite - the countries with the highes average life span have a negative population growth. You may point them also the fact, that if all of the people at once become immortal, there will be enough space for all if noone is being born after this moment. These facts should be enough to be explained, that overpopulation is not necessary in an immortal society, as previously is being believed.

I agree, i have done the same answer yesterday... When i see the "fear of the future" i ask always that this is nothing natural in our life... We live in a completly artificial society, start with fire, agricolture, medicine and, yes, no infant mortality ( that is the real cause of overpopulation ) and that a longer lifespan will be fitted by different reproduction behaviours ( if you life 2 year you have very different reproduction spans ).

[Droplet]

I found an interesting point during a visit to Thackray Medical Museum in Leeds. When anaesthetic was first discovered, some people were against that to begin with due to it being "unnatural" or "God's will that we suffer." I wonder how many people nowadays would forego being put out during surgery just because they perceive killing pain as going against the will of a rather sadistic-sounding God? I feel that it is the same about life extension that as it's a new concept, many are worried about it being somehow immoral. As time goes on, I reckon (and hope) that like anaesthesia, it will become common place and not seen as a wrong path to take.

[b0gger]

I want to try to make captions, could anyone correct the text I tried to catch in Aubrey's vid?


Misunderstanding About Aging and Its Related Diseases

One of certain main thing that people misunderstand - here I mean the general public - misunderstand about aging - is the actual relationship between aging and the diseases of old age. And this if to be honest is largely the fault of gerontologists they are not nearly [sabout of this] now, but in decades passed there was very profound error of judgment on a part of gerontological community to try to emphasize some kind of distinction between aging on the
one hand and age-related diseases on the other hand. People would actually go out and say all the time: "Aging is not a disease" That's not useful. Ultimately is is very counterproductive. What happen was people the people
would think to themselves "well, Ok, aging is this natural thing and not a disease, they will never create a medical intervention, and also if it's not a disease why should we care about it?" So it's absolutely the wrong think to be
saying. And it is even more wrong thing to be saying because it's not even true. The fact is whether aging is a disease or not, it's just the matter of terminology what you mean by the word disease, but what we can certainly say
is that aging is set of collective precursors of diseases of old age. That the diseases of old age are the diseases of old age because the are aspects of the latest stages of the process that goes on throughout life the process of gradual and initially harmless change it is to molecular and cellular
structure in composition of the body. That is what aging is. So the actual relationship between aging and аге-related diseases is something that is not remotely controversial in the field. Everyone understands it. But it's been completely confused in the public eye. That that is on something I spend enormous of my time fixing.

The Worlds Biggest Problem

It's quite clear to me that aging is the world's biggest problem. By enormous distance. In terms of just sheer number of death about 2/3th of the all deaths world-wide are from aging. That means basically 100 000 people a
day out of the total 13000 [tie all cogs de together]. In the industrial world it's much bigger then that, it's like 90% of all deaths are from aging. So of course it's the world's biggest problem. And it's actually even bigger then that, because it's not just the deaths we talk about, it's all the externally astronomical amount of suffering that goes on. Most people die at the age of 80 or so, only doing so after significant period of decrepitude, and disease and disability and general misery and clearly we should be doing something about that.

Suffering and Aging

I think people do understand that specific diseases of old age, the things the doctors took trouble to give the names to are actually just like regular diseases. They cause suffering and we have to do something about them. Пеопле understand that older [people without something to see] suffer and [ultimately end up with] vascular disease of diabetes and cancer they also suffer. But what we talk about the world aging, people somehow [conmpatalise] it differently they think of ageing as a thing that happens that happenns whan you don't get these diseases. Which is nonsensical. Of course aging is part and [parcel of these diseases. And otherwise these diseses would not predominantly be affecting people they would [be born] long time ago.

Lives that could be saved

The number of people to die each day for all causes [.of death.] together is about a hundreed and thirty thouthnd world-wide. About 2/3th of those people, so about a 100 000 die of age-related causes. Causes that predominantly affect older people and do not sugnificantly affect young adults. So if we were to eliminate aging, then we essentially save all those people. All those lives - we keep people in the same state of health asw is was at their's 20's or 30's and therefore in the same state likelyhood of death. That is a hell lots of life saving. People got quite upset with 3 000 people died on 9/11 but actually we are talking about 30 times that number each day. You know, the tsunami that happend in Endonisia couple of ears ago killed about the same number of people that in two days the aging kills, it's just astronomical. So astronomical that pehaps that people can't get their head around it the only way to manage is to put it out of their mind by somehow beeing irrational making peace with all this terrible thing but ultimately we gotta grow up and gotta fix this problem as soon as possible.

Edited by b0gger, 11 July 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Freebytes]

Seivtcho, Luscar, and Droplet all have great points, and I would like to add to their comments.

As was stated by the posters before me, nothing in our society today is natural. Fish are not square, cows do not eat meat, and plants do not genetically engineer themselves. We are not born with wheels. People view any modern technology as mystical, magical, or potentially devastating. (It could very well be.) And, lastly, developed nations (with longer life spans) have a fewer children!

To this, I would like to add, longevity is not immortality. People would still die. The world population is currently over its limit! Even if people died at the age of 50, the population would continue increasing at a similar rate. It is better to begin planning for it than denying it. If this became a serious problem, you could simply impose laws that would restrict childbirth to a cycle of X years of age permitted and X years of age not permitted which would cycle. This would prevent the complaints of "If I reach 50, I can never have children again!" If the average lifespan was 500 years and they were 75, they would simply need to wait 25 years and they could have children again by law. Or, taxes and fines could be imposed for the privilege of having children. There are many solutions.

Mentally and physically healthy and capable people do not choose to die. Age itself is not the killer. Diseases related to age kill people, and it cannot be advocated that we stop disease research because it is a natural process.

I think you should be sure they understand that you are communicating a concept of living until 90 with a body of a 30 year old as well. Many people conjure ideas of crippled individuals being kept alive by machines when you talk about life extension because in medical terms 'extension of life' often means keeping someone alive that should be left to die due to their own pain, vegetative state, and the suffering of those around them.

[Droplet]

Freebytes, you really need to volunteer with the outreach or some sort of advocacy...unless you really don't want to of course. You are smart and would be ace at it!

Edited by Droplet, 07 November 2012 - 10:05 PM.

[Ghostdog23]

There are some elements of popular culture that have the beginnings of discussions of immortality and prolonged healthspan - all the popular depictions of vampires as an example. Plus the pursuit of youthfulness (or appearing youthful) is pretty much 100% of the beauty industry.

[Droplet]

There are some elements of popular culture that have the beginnings of discussions of immortality and prolonged healthspan - all the popular depictions of vampires as an example. Plus the pursuit of youthfulness (or appearing youthful) is pretty much 100% of the beauty industry.

You are very right there.

Thing is that popular culture will often place that immortality as part of being some sort of curse, such as the vampire in love with a mortal who has to watch her irrepairably wither and die. Really is a shame that no one could write something that becomes big where immortality is portrayed as desirable and not a curse that our current time-limit mortality is.

[Freebytes]

Droplet, I am not sure if you have had the misfortune of watching the Twilight series, but that does portray immortality in a positive light even when it is trying to say that it does not. It espouses how terrible and cursed they are while at the same time showing no actual reasons for why it would be a negative outcome.

Avoiding aging, however, does not prevent a person from avoiding the death of their loved ones. After all, no matter how long a married couple lives, one of them must still handle the event of the other one dying.

[Droplet]

Droplet, I am not sure if you have had the misfortune of watching the Twilight series, but that does portray immortality in a positive light even when it is trying to say that it does not. It espouses how terrible and cursed they are while at the same time showing no actual reasons for why it would be a negative outcome.

Avoiding aging, however, does not prevent a person from avoiding the death of their loved ones. After all, no matter how long a married couple lives, one of them must still handle the event of the other one dying.

I can't say I've seen them but I don't think I'd want to, as romance really bores me even though I'm a woman.

You are right what you say about avoiding aging although getting rid of that worthless biological clock would leave so much more time together and avoid so many indignities surounding advancing age.

[Freebytes]

Plus, a concept that is often ignored is not simply increasing lifespan but instead increasing the quality of life during that lifespan. People do not want to live to be 200 years old in the body of a 200 year old. They want to live to be 200 years old in the body of a 30 year old. Even living to 90 while having the versatility of a 30 year old would be a huge improvement. Many people spend the later years of their life in a condition that is reminiscent of death itself. If you have the mental faculties of a young person, you will likely also experience the passage of time differently. It is commonly thought that time passes quickly because you have lived longer and therefore the time is on a smaller time scale than what you have already experienced, but there has been research to show that aging can actually interfere with our perception of the passage of time which means that if we were to have better neurological health, not only would we live longer, but we would also perceive that the time has passed in a way that is favorable to us.

Edited by Freebytes, 08 November 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Droplet]

Plus, a concept that is often ignored is not simply increasing lifespan but instead increasing the quality of life during that lifespan. People do not want to live to be 200 years old in the body of a 200 year old. They want to live to be 200 years old in the body of a 30 year old. Even living to 90 while having the versatility of a 30 year old would be a huge improvement. Many people spend the later years of their life in a condition that is reminiscent of death itself. If you have the mental faculties of a young person, you will likely also experience the passage of time differently. It is commonly thought that time passes quickly because you have lived longer and therefore the time is on a smaller time scale than what you have already experienced, but there has been research to show that aging can actually interfere with our perception of the passage of time which means that if we were to have better neurological health, not only would we live longer, but we would also perceive that the time has passed in a way that is favorable to us.

Thanks for that, Freebytes. You are right about the passage of time...we were only discussing yesterday in the office how the past few years have flew by. It is scary but other than that, I do still feel pretty young and try to have as much fun as possible and squeze as much as I can out of my life. That's one of the things that annoys me most about old age, so much to do/experience and so little time.

[Benevolence]

(Sorry for this necro post, I found this on the top of my forum feed, and neglected to read the post dates)

I am still new and dare not risk publishing my resource links, however there is much information available which suggests that poverty declines as population density increases, the same goes for quality of life goes up as longevity increases. This is because large complex societies have niche spaces for outcast members of society to find a living (think schizophrenic art which sells $$$ at art shows). Additionally, we live in almost entirely engineered environments, our houses, roads, schools, government etc are products of human ingenuity. What if engineers lived much longer, and were able to spend more time teaching and developing? We would be able to engineer a world (even forced to) which can sustain a rapidly growing and nearly immortal population. Space-flight would advance by leaps and bounds, nuclear power would become feasible again (if it isn't already) and agriculture would undergo several more radical revolutions.

 

Additionally, the only reason why we have starvation on Earth is because most humans haven't considered sustainable food sources. We like hamburgers, but mention a diet comprised entirely of spirulina algae and cricket meat, and people tend to reject the idea that these are economical, easy, and ecologically responsible means of procuring food. Americans think of food as coming from factories, oblivious to the fact that any single-celled organism on Earth is an infinitely more complex factory than anything man-made. We just need to ad the base ingredients, capture energy from the sun (or nuclear sources) and use bio-reactors to develop food in mass. Unfortunately, we prefer to eat complex animals, and are socially programmed to dislike edible single-celled organisms.

Edited by Benevolence, 30 July 2015 - 05:01 AM.

[Multivitz]

I think the overpopulation jive is overly perpetuated by the establishments media as a psychopathic attempt to slow us down. There are tried and tested ways to slow human reproduction some say (I have no refs on this).
The world can support this many people, after all, we are here! Ok we have modern agriculture and low child mortality for sure. Those help keep the numbers sustained greatly.
If you listen to an elderly person they more often than not say they are happier to go(die)now than when they were younger. I listen to them and think thier attitude is not only the culmination of thier life time but of thier chemical psychology entrancing thier graceful realisation of 'aging'(I don't belive in aging, that's why its in quotes!).
With a fresh mind in an old body, the individual seems to shun ideas of getting old but poor body performance reminds them thier time is nearly up. I found the body performance can be maintained through older life, I'm not unique but very rare. For example their are few people I find I can agree with on every point they utter, a very few. One person I have great admiration for is Alex Putney, I have yet to contact him myself through some extraordinary fears this represents to me atm.
Everyone knows that technologies get delayed and suppressed over the years, one of them is transmutation, this guy Putney explains the basics rather well(with references). I knew of it(Transmutation) in the mid eighties, but was put off by the establishment to make futher study. Just because some one is in authority don't mean they a) know better b) want the best for others c) can do the best.
Society will mend itself, logic will prevail, population will stabalise, people will be herd, authority we transmute as we the people see fit. Theres nothing wrong with the previous statement, if anyone wants to challenge it head on, be my guest, you are only fighting logic with your own social conditioning.
Transmutation, you can only go so far with the current 'nuclear paradigm', because it is only a small branch of natural phenomenon(one of high temperature?), understanding Transmutation in nature can help many things to be understood, better than we are taught at the moment, with the holistic understandings about the world around us it would have a massive impact in all areas of life, all areas of subjects, all creatures. I can't be more clearer than that. Please excuse my writing style, I'm not trying to show off. Self learning is the aim of the Quadrivian.
Thanks for reading.

Edited by Multivitz, 16 December 2015 - 11:11 AM.

[Never_Ending]

There is something more there.

 

Sure Immortality is considered a taboo due to things such as  "is it possible?" or "should we do that?" along with the ones mentioned earlier.

 

I believe Aubrey De Grey answered the questions about population and "natural"ness  very well in many of his videos.

 

But those questions are just a veil, the real thing that anti-immortality people are thinking is: Can they imagine life beyond the current life-death timeline? One more real question is: Is this something they would feel guilty about?  One more is: Would their response fit into a model of what their peers deem as "likeable"? or so they think

 

For most anti-immortality folks I'll bet population is the last thing on their minds. But ask about immortality and suddenly "Hey what about the population?"

 

Going forward anything that does spread the positive message of immorality or just longer healthspan etc will be a step forward and eventually maybe more people will wake up, or allow themselves to.

Edited by Never_Ending, 04 April 2016 - 02:39 PM.

[A941]

I think it has a lot to do with culture and religion.

The old chinese alchemists were not interested in finding gold, but something that would make them immortal, in europe this would have been seen as messing with gods plan, which it is till today.

People dont want to venture into the domain of god, or do things which are seen as unnatural, no matter if they do harm or not, even if they make life a lot easier and less dangerous. Things like the condom, the pill, stem cell therapy, flight, painkillers, organ transplants,...