11 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

I'm quicikly realising how brilliant some of you are. [:o] Some of the ideas that have been discussed are way beyond my small knowlege base at the moment. I'm only starting to understand how serious many of you are and the many complex ideas circulating around immortality. Question, do nootropic drugs really help one understand and think better? Because I feel kind of thick in the head at not quite grasping some of this discussion. Aside from that, and the fact that I want to start trying the nootropics, I wonder about some of the criteria surrounding the immortality issue. For instance should everyone have a right to be immortal, or only a small elite few who have the passion and interest to want to live forever?
Assuming one can become immortal what is our duty to humanity? That's a vague question but I just thought I'd throw that out there. How can we get the average layman to appreciate the concept of immortality? Should we even try or should the idea of "you snooze you lose" take precedence. But a really good question is in a country where ideas of intelligence, thoughtfulness and "genius" are often overlooked and even shunned, how can people who are exeptionally smart start getting more respect than celebriities? I would love to see the day when people who are really really smart start receiving the respect that they so deserve. And in a world where wealth, status and other bullshit factors are worshiped, I would like to start seeing intelligence worshiped in the same way.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Nice sentiment there; sadly homo sapiens probably just isn't built to hold intelligence too highly. To answer your questions; yes, everyone should have the opportunity to achieve immortality, and elitism is wrong; no, I personally don't believe nootropics have much of an effect (although I could be wrong), and they're pretty expensive. Try incrementally training yourself to read more instead. Coffee is good in my opinion, but some people here such as Bruce choose to abstain for health reasons. Our duty to humanity is to make the opportunity of immortality (or extreme life extension) available to everyone, and to prevent existential risks. We shouldn't be focused on the average layperson right now; but rather on the technical issues surrounding achieving extreme life extension and making sure the opportunity is here to stay. First focus on the small group of people who understand; then bootstrap your way up from there. I think that in our daily lives, so many of us interact with laypeople, and see the character of their worldview, and wish desperately to change it, but we must be patient; people will choose what they want to when they want to. We shouldn't look down on them either. Also, we don't need the help of the entire world to make extreme life extension available.

[bacopa]

You're right I'm over thinking it...I'll try to learn enough about life extension as to be a real help in this mission not some abstract questioner

[Sophianic]

Question,  do nootropic drugs really help one understand and think better?

Before you delve into nootropics, balance your diet and get the essentials: essential amino acids, essential vitamins and minerals, essential fatty acids and essential sugars.

should everyone have a right to be immortal, or only a small elite few who have the passion and interest to want to live forever?

Everyone has the right to life, but whether they want optimal health, successful aging, or healthy life extension is entirely up to them.

Assuming one can become immortal what is our duty to humanity?

First, I would question your assumption that anyone can "become" immortal. We can pursue a prospect of immortality, but no one can "become" immortal (i.e., deathless). A duty to humanity does not exist, except in your own mind. We merely have the obligation to respect others, i.e., their rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

How can we get the average layman to appreciate the concept of immortality? Should we even try or should the idea of "you snooze you lose" take precedence.

Lead by example and lead with action; educate and communicate on the prospect of immortality, but only to the extent that you feel inclined to do so.

But a really good question is in a country where ideas of intelligence, thoughtfulness and "genius" are often overlooked and even shunned, how can people who are exeptionally smart start getting more respect than celebriities?

Getting respect is synonymous with being or becoming credible. Forget about comparing yourself to celebrities; forget about becoming a celebrity. Concentrate on setting and realizing your goals in relation to your own central purpose. If you don't have a central productive purpose in life, find one. And then organize your life around it.

[MichaelAnissimov]

I agree very strongly with Sophianic, except for the "duty to humanity is just in your mind" part. In the same way, our current visual fields are "just in our mind". If someone in our current visual field happens to be diving at us with say, a knife, it's "just in our mind", but we do something about it. We should feel the same way about our duty to humanity; the duty is just as real as our breakfast cereal!

[Sophianic]

I agree very strongly with Sophianic, except for the "duty to humanity is just in your mind" part.  In the same way, our current visual fields are "just in our mind".  If someone in our current visual field happens to be diving at us with say, a knife, it's "just in our mind", but we do something about it.  We should feel the same way about our duty to humanity; the duty is just as real as our breakfast cereal!

Duty is "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest." (Ref: Philosophy: Who Needs It, Causality versus Duty, p. 96). Without any sense of duty, your inclinations to help others understand and appreciate the prospect of immortality can stay in harmony with your goals, motives, desires and interests.

[bacopa]

I see

Edited by dfowler, 22 October 2003 - 06:43 PM.

[Sophianic]

I disagree I think he, and myself, see duty as a pre-empt to altruism.  "it's our duty because of an important reason." like helping humanity out in general.  We owe it to humanity because there is a hell of a lot of suffering and poor ideas out in the world for too long.

In your disagreement, you neglect to address the issue of a higher authority. Who says we must do anything? And why? If you want to help others, that is your choice. But by whose authority do you impose that choice on others?

[bacopa]

The more I think about it the more I realize I was off point. Helping others should be a choice, it's sad that society puts pressure on us to feel like we have a duty to help. This is most likely an ethic that stems from a military kind of thinking... and you're right you only have a duty to yourself in this world. People "letting you down" is an idea that seems to be a way to keep people docile and not thinking for themselves.

[Lazarus Long]

Helping others should be a choice, it's sad that society puts pressure on us to feel like we have a duty to help.

This refers to a logical paradox commonly manipulated through memetics and seductive reasoning. It is conceptually absurd to say generosity can be obligated as it contradicts the very idea of intent that is requisite for the act to in fact be generous. Even philanthropy can be motivated by a vision of necessity or "greater good" but it becomes "taxes" when it is obligated, not philanthropy.

All of this is derived from the "tithe" concept of religious institutions and has more to do with the pragmatic underpinnings of social structure than psychology. It is no small hurdle in the task of those interested in defining "altruism" however as there exists no obligation to be altruistic. Though is true conversely that the rewards may be great once this is better understood. Altruism is driven by the same sense of risk and reward as most economic evaluations, what is important is the shift of "values" for the currency of the exchange.

So what defines an "Altruistic Exchange" as opposed to one of simple barter or fair exchange?

A sense of presumed loss? Intentional sacrifice? The measure of loss?

I don't think so, in fact I argue it is the reevaluation of a sense of "higher gain," hence profit by another coin transcendent of the usual market consideration. Here is where we start to read the fine print of the social contract. Here is where we determine the distribution of profit from contracts with devils and gods.

It is the complex idea of shared wealth and advantage that determines an altruist act balanced by the willingness to place the good of other's above one's own self but if this is obligated then it becomes meaningless and instead of being a profound act of "selflessness" it become the destruction of the self and enslavement by the beneficiaries.

[bacopa]

interesting Lazarus...I defintely think socially pressured "altruism" is akin to enslavement and taxation. Destruction of a free thinking individual seems to occur when society pressures us into conformity is how I look at it. So once I'm pressured by say my job to "help the team" I'm already losing my free will and am becoming enslaved. So If Altruism is "driven by the same sense of risk and reward as most economic evaluations," than we are in a sense enslaving ourselves to an established social hierarchy whatever form it takes, like your job etc. I certainly see the paradox as well, philanthropy equals "taxation" as soon as the idea of a "greater good" comes into play since altruism should not be dictated by a higher authority therefore it is not a "greater good" but personal enslavement. so you're saying as long as the individual is not pressured into giving his goods or services than it is true altruism? I'm confused.

[bacopa]

dd

Edited by dfowler, 23 October 2003 - 05:55 PM.