86 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Interesting idea to change 'conquer' to something more closely resembling a non-zero possibility of death chance. This is a Constitutional issue and may take much to change.

Article II. Mission & Function

    * Section 1 -- Main Mission
      The mission of ImmInst is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.

I lean more towards saving 'conquer' because I like the war metaphors - war against aging, war on death, war to save lives. The war metaphor brings out a bit of our tribalism, don't ya think?

Adding information to help explain the ImmInst focus on physical (not spiritual) immortality is quite doable. But rther than mix this statement in with Constitution and Mission, perhaps we could add it to the 'About' page:

http://www.imminst.org/about
# What is "ImmInst"?
# What does ImmInst do?
# What does the logo symbolize?
# What is ImmInst's official position?

Perhaps Add:

# Is ImmInst Secular?

[ag24]

> Adding information to help explain the ImmInst focus on physical (not spiritual)
> immortality is quite doable. But rther than mix this statement in with Constitution
> and Mission, perhaps we could add it to the 'About' page:

Sure. I was more focusing on the prominence. If there were a link to this from
the sidebar, added to the list of subheadings under "About ImmInst", that would
achieve a lot I think.

But regarding "conquer", well, metaphor is all very well, but if we want to take the
high ground in terms of saying what we think and if we agree that "conquer" is in
fact inaccurate, then I would vote to change it, even if it's a laborious process.

Aubrey de Grey

[Bruce Klein]

What are some alternatives to 'conquer'.

[Lazarus Long]

Overcome

[reason]

Just to add some more fuel to the fire, I'll remind people of my "suitable outrageous extreme" comments from a while back:

http://www.longevity...ewsletter_id=44

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Bruce Klein]

"overcome" like "conquer" seems still to allude a finality.. thus not amenable to Aubrey's acid test to better say: ongoing risk of death chance.

[kevin]

my 2c...

Perhaps an acknowledgement that the possibility of death is likely never going to be non-zero might be found in the concept of 'fight for the right to live life as long as you want to' or something along those lines. It incorporates the concept that death should not be 'involuntary' and that one has a choice. It also doesn't focus on death as the bad guy who must be avoided at all costs simply because it is oblivion. There are many people in this world who suffer and look upon death as a rescuer and there are many who look upon these suffering ones and acknowledge that death may be oblivion but that oblivion is preferable to hell. Until the 'human condition' improves substantially, I'm afraid physical immortality will not have quite the attraction for most that we here at ImmInst feel it to have. Focusing on 'fighting for the right to live as long as you want to" places the emphasis on the preservation of life and function as the major imperative, with avoiding death a consequence of living well which I think is perhaps a more emotionally accessible and less scary handle to grab onto. It provides an opportunity as well for the person to think about how long they really want to live and how hard they want to fight for it.

[bacopa]

Until the 'human condition' improves substantially, I'm afraid physical immortality will not have quite the attraction for most that we here at ImmInst feel it to have.

The human condition has to improve substanially or people have to radically change their lifestyle. People can't have the drive to want to prolong life if they're already fighting just to survive. That is why physical immortality seems to appeal to such a small fringe niche. And even the people in that niche are subject to the same vulnerabilities eg. negative mood states, that the rest of the population is.

I am beginning to see the need for some 'guerilla memetic warfare', where maximum effectiveness in transforming spiritual immortality to physical immortality must be accomplished from the inside out.

Yes and Reason believes activism is the best way of accomplishing this. But 'guerilla memetic warfare' sounds so intense, how do we go about this 'war' on ageing? Like Lazarus said It boils down the sameproblem of how do we get the layman to listen up and take notice of our ideas? It's a problem of apathy and attitude. I'm sorry but the problem that I notice truly is a general apathy and terribly pessimistic attitude from the rest of society who are caught in the memetics of the 'rat race' trying to put bread on the table, and focused more on finding a mate, drinking with friends, going to home depot and in many cases are simply not very well read, thoughtful, and stimulated enough to want more life. Have you ever tried talking to someone who is not very thoughtful about these types of issues? They tend to become very defensive, angry, and will label us as strange, scary, and crazy. People get their ideas from sound byte news channels and baseball scores. This is the harsh reality; people are very ignorant I don't know how to say that nicely. And I don't know how to not feel some anger and resentment when I think of that truth.

should by other standards be on the side of extreme life extension,
because it is simply the avoidance of actions that hasten death, and
all major religions deprecate hastening of death

agreed, both imminst and theists don't want to die and therefore we should welcome religious people who want to attain the same goal as us, not estrange ourselves from them. But how can imminst work with people whose belief system is so oppositional to our version of immortality? How do you say to someone religous, yes we're fighting for the same goal only ignore the fact that our version is completely oppositional to everything you've held dearly for your entire life.

The problem here is that we can mean what ever we want but we will not be understood if the word means something else in the average person's mind we are trying to educate to our way of thinking. If this becomes a serious obstacle to communication then it needs to be addressed and I think we have all experienced it as such in our personal attempts to converse with mainstream folks on this topic.

Ok so we are agreed that 'mainstream folk' are so ignorant to this type of thinking that it's more than a little frightening, and that finding the best method to introduce them to these ideas will not be easy. Do we give them comfortable sound bytes that don't threaten them? This seems to be what many, if not the majority, of people are really comfortable with. Seems that we have to get people to, as has been said before, actually like imminst, and like what we're doing. Keep in mind the elections and how simplistic the populace is in figuring out who 'they like.' People, of course, like very very simple and comfortable things, which is why religion and George Bush are so popular.

Nevertheless we are risking being typecast as not merely a fringe group but a cult and we need to step very carefully in this respect IMO if we are to attract and keep people of reputable credentials in the scientific community that see their survival in their professions at risk for association with us.

Yes but we need both layman and scientist in order to maximise our potential, and not isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. But focusing on reputable people should be our first priority, because without them we have no core.

Also immortality sounds better than indefinite which sounds like an insecure term. Healthy Life extension and longevity are still the best and most comfortable sounding words that won't send people running. As to appealing to the fight or flight in people war on ageing sound very cool and I think is a wonderful way of looking at it.

[Bruce Klein]

See what you started, Reason

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24834
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:02:24 -0700
From: Mike Perry
Subject: Inspired by "Forever," Assistance Requested!

Ben Best, #24825:


>>People who spend
>>their time trying to understand "forever" are far less likely to live 200
>>years than people who spend their time trying to solve the practical
>>problems of cryonics and anti-aging medicine.


For me though, thinking about and trying to understand "forever" is
irreplaceable inspiration for trying to solve the practical problems of
life-extension, including those of cryonics.

Now, one very practical problem I am trying to address is that of low-cost
but viable alternatives to cryonic suspension. (Even the cheapest cryonic
suspension is several times the cost of a conventional funeral
arrangement.) Possible alternatives would be chemopreservation of the brain
with or without subsequent, lower temperature storage (refrigerated,
permafrost, or even cryogenic). I am interested in any references on
preservation through such means as glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde, with
emphasis on the brain, and, of course, retaining the fine structure in some
inferable form. (I am not too impressed with what I have read about
plastination. "Defatting" the brain sounds damaging!) Another consideration
is what procedures might be doable through morticians which would make
these procedures widely and quickly available at relatively modest cost.
Does anyone have any reference recommendations--books, articles, urls?
Anything else you'd like to say? Send private email if you like. Many thanks.

Mike Perry

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24832
From: "David Pizer"
Subject: Everything is relevant
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:51:21 -0700

There has been some talk on Cryonet about what are the ramifications of death. and the following questions has been the center of that talk:

"Is death the end of everything - oblivion."

The answer:
Yes, as far as the person who died is concerned!

Since the existence of the universe is relevant to each person who lives in it, their permanent death is the end of them and everything else, as far as they are concerned.


If they don't exit, neither does anything else, as far as they are concerned.

As far as they are concerned there is nothing and there never was.


You want to avoid being dead forever and the way to do that is to obtain physical immortality. Be honest, that is what you *really* want. So go ahead and say it, it is ok to admit it. It ain't selfish (as long as you obtain it not at the expense of someone else), and it is the honest thing to do - admit what you want.

While waiting for physical immortality sometime in the future, you may want to obtain a copy of PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY now.

Venture to the future where physical immortality may become the norm.

Join the Venturists and help us explain what you know to be the truth - that physical immortality is a worth goal.

We need your support and financial support.

Send check for subscription or check for donation to
The Venturists
11255 State Route 69
Mayer Az 86333

David Pizer

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24831
From: "David Pizer"
Subject: physical immortality possible?
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:34:39 -0700

Can a future being live forever?

Of course!


We who are alive today might have a hard time understanding how, but to those who are alive in 200 or 300 years this understanding will be simple.

Immortal people will *know* they are immortal just as we of today know now that the earth is round and it revolves around the Sun. This may sound overly simple, but people did not always know these things.

After we find out how to make ourselves physically immortal, we will learn how to prevent any and all accidents and then we will learn how to prevent the universe from winding down (if in fact that is what is happening).

Also, people will come to understand that there was no beginning of the world as in the Big Bang theories. There might have been a Big Bang or an infinite amount of bangs, but something has always existed from which other things evolve because we can know two things - something cannot come from nothing, and I know I exist when I merely think about it. From these two undeniable points people can deduce the future physical immortality of mankind (if we can just get past the next 200 years without doing something stupid).

Want to know more, read all about it in PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY, the magazine for hard core cryoncists who are not wimpy about what they really desire.

Contact John Grigg by mail, send him $24 USA, $30 Canada, or $45 overseas, for a one year subscription (4 issues) of PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY. The latest issue is coming off the press in a few days and will be mailed out right away.

John Grigg At the Venturists
11255 State Route 69
Mayer Az 86333

Venture to the Future - be a Venturist

David Pizer

[Bruce Klein]

Man, I love David Pizer.

Pizer - Dec 19, 2003 ImmInst Interview:
http://imminst.org/f...=ST&f=67&t=2717

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24826
From: "Michael C Price"
Subject: Some Problems with Immortalism ?
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:43:24 +0100

In http://www.benbest.c...t/immortal.html

Ben Best says we should be life-extensionists/cryonauts first
and immortalists second. If we ignore Ben's cryo-PR reasons
and claims of psychological maladjustment, which he attaches
to immortalists, we are left with his observation that people
naturally discount the value of money (and other things) in the
future. I presume this discounting is hard-wired into our brains
by evolution; by this reasoning we should get on with reproducing
like crazy and not even bother to try to live to 200. So we can
ignore this argument this as well. Valuing immortality comes
down to our value system, which will include the rate at which
we discount the future. Values are subjective, not objective.
An immortalist (such as myself) does not discount the future
in the way that a life-extensionist (like Ben) does.
Ben says, in his essay,:

"To put the argument in the most forceful terms, if you knew
for a certainty that you were going to be obliterated without
hope of further life at the age of one million years, would that
be significantly more tragic than an age of ten million? Ten
billion? Ten trillion? "

I would rather turn the question around:

"Is it less tragic to die at the age of 100 years than 100 million
years."

For my value system the answer is YES, it more tragic to die
the older you are, because more memories are lost the older
you are when die. (I am assuming that we develop the means
to stop the "slow death" of creeping memory loss / overwriting).
If you have a problem with this answer, try dividing the numbers
by a million! Is the "death" of an hour old embryo more tragic
than that of a hundred year old? Obviously it depends on
your values.

Ben says "with enough time a fatal event is inevitable.
(I don't believe in "back-ups" -- see my essay The Duplicates
Paradox.) ". Ben has, like the fox in Aesop's sour grapes fable,
convinced himself that he doesn't really want immortality after all.

I disagree with Ben's conclusions (or rather lack of them) in his
associated Duplicates essay: http://www.benbest.c...lo/doubles.html

Ben should be applauded for stating that the Duplicates problem is presently unsolved in his opinion, but for me back-ups are a fine way to be truly immortal.
I diverge from Ben's views about backups -- and therefore about the possibility of true immortality -- at the point when
he says:

"Which duplicate is me?" cannot be answered with the
word "both" because one person cannot be in two locations
at the same moment.

My answer is "both", because the "me" in the question is usually
framing the question *before* the copying takes place.
Ben-before-copying asks: which duplicate (Ben1 or Ben2)
*will be* me? The answer is both Ben1 and Ben2.
Asking the question *after* copying is trivial, since we would
have to specify *which* Ben was asking the question. I also
think identity can overlap, to varying degrees, between
individuals i.e. Ben1 and Ben2 initially share 100% identity
(in the first instant after copying they are identical, mentally)
and they subsequently, increasingly diverge.

Cheers,
Michael C Price

[jaydfox]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's wondered about the problem of duplicates, though I see that a wide range of opinions exist and are defendable.

Personally, while I admire many aspects of the materialist point of view, I cannot accept that "both" are "me". Perhaps that is why I am religious, because I am struggling with a question like this. While it seems an innocent thought experiment, in many ways, to me at least, it seems to define the philosophical differences between religion and those who scoff at religion. While I am in no way saying that a person could not claim faith to no religion and yet still find issue with the problem of duplicates (in essence, to believe there is something non-material about one's "self"), it does seem to define for me why I am religious. It's not something that I think about all the time, but for me it's very telling. I cannot accept a materialist view that both copies of "me" are in fact "me". In fact, even trying to decide which "me" is really me is quite complicated and, depending on how the thought experiment is stated, even undecideable. But pointing out contradictions in such a viewpoint does not make me accept that both duplicates are me, or that one new copy of me is me after the original is destroyed (e.g. quantum transporters or a reanimated version of me after cryonic suspension).

However, being a pragmatist, I will probably sign up for cryonic suspension someday anyway. After all, if there is a way for the future mad scientists to ensure that the new "me" will really be "me", then I'll have missed out on that opportunity if I don't sign up. And even if the new "me" isn't me, it's not like I had to give up my life for him to live; after all, if I hadn't elected for cryonic suspension, I'd still be dead, right? And I'm sure the new "me" will be glad he's alive.

[jaydfox]

Duplication is not a viable option as far as I can see.

Are you sure you said that right? "Viable option"? From what you wrote, I'm not sure what you meant by this...

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24840
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:28:17 -0400
From: Francois
Subject: Discussion on immortality

The recent discussion on the value and desirability of physical immortality
has brought to my mind some questions. Why is it that so many people
denigrate the idea of physical immortality in this reality, citing all sorts
of problems like boredom, lack of meaning, selfishness, etc, etc, while they
are quite happy with the notion of immortality in an afterlife? Wouldn't the
same problems on boredom and meaninglesness apply in an afterlife? How are
those problems, and many others, supposed to be solved in that afterlife and
why couldn't those solutions be applied in the here and now? And why is it
good to strive for an eternal afterlife while it is bad to strive for an
eternal physical life?

Francois

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24841
Subject: Re: physical immortality possible?
From: Aubrey de Grey
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:08:20 +0100

Readers may not all be aware that a parallel discussion, initiated in
part by Ben's essay and in part by a related one by Reason posted at
Longevity Meme on September 20th, is occurring at ImmInst. Bruce has
been cross-posting some of the Cryonet posts to that debate, but there
is too much to cross-post it all in the other direction, so please go
and have a look:

http://www.imminst.o...106&t=4298&st=0

One thing that has come up is related to what David writes. The basic
thesis of his post, i.e. that we can live genuinely *forever*, seems
contrary to basic principles: even if we totally eliminate aging, we
still have a "half-life" and thus a very small chance of living a very
long time, and indeed an exactly zero chance of never dying at all.
But if (as David alludes to) we continue to increase our "half-life"
as time goes on, that turns out not to be so: the asymptote of our
survival probability graph is not zero. (I did a worked example at
ImmInst.) This does, as David notes, rely on the Universe not having
the last laugh by udergoing heat death or whatever, but discussion of
that in the context of current physics is too speculative to detain us
when we recall that (again, as David says) the only real point of this
line of thought is to invigorate our short-term efforts.

Where David goes wrong is to suggest that involuntary death will ever
be conquered, in the true sense of the achievement of a *zero* chance
of ever dying involuntarily (or even a zero chance in the coming year).
The discussion at ImmInst is largely about this terminological issue.

Aubrey de Grey

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24849 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:01:29 -0700 From: Mike Perry Subject: Reply to Doug Skrecky Doug Skrecky writes in part (#24829):

>>Subject: everyone on cryonet will be dead by age 110
>>
>
>>> > Message #24824 From: Mike Perry
>>> >
>>> > To me it seems meaningful and
>>> > exciting to be hoping for immortality and acting accordingly, rather than
>>> > accepting a substitute goal such as a very long life
>>> >
>
>>So a million+ year lifespan is more exciting than Ben's yummy 200+ year
>>lifespan.


I didn't say that. I'm not thrilled with *any* finite-only lifespan, that
is to say, a finite period of life followed by eternal oblivion. (As it
happens, I actually think eternal oblivion, rather than eternal life, is
what is most likely impossible--and I realize this clashes with what many
others think, but so be it. Some of my views on this subject will be found
in my "Resurrection" essay at
http://www.universal...surrection.html,
where I also give a justification for pursuing cryonics even if there is a
prospect of eventual return to consciousness by other means. Anyway, to get
back to Doug Skrecky's comments:)


>>Hmmmm. I think this ignores one unfortunate fact. As things
>>stand now, nobody on cryonet will reach even 110 years of age.


So why do you think we are cryonicists?

Mike Perry

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24850
From: benbest@interlog.com
Subject: Reply to Michael C. Price about Immortalism
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:31:54 US/Eastern

Michael C. Price wrote:


>> we are left with his observation that people
>> naturally discount the value of money (and other things) in the
>> future. I presume this discounting is hard-wired into our brains
>> by evolution; by this reasoning we should get on with reproducing
>> like crazy and not even bother to try to live to 200.


Hard-wiring is a red-herring and is also a way of dismissing
the matter as irrational, but I won't argue this point at present.
Your conclusions are a non-sequitur -- reproducing like crazy
will not necessarily extend my life. You are confusing survival
strategies of species with survival strategies of individuals.


>> Values are subjective, not objective.


Yes!! But values should be based on objective facts.


>> An immortalist (such as myself) does not discount the future
>> in the way that a life-extensionist (like Ben) does.
>> Ben says, in his essay,:
>> "To put the argument in the most forceful terms, if you knew
>> for a certainty that you were going to be obliterated without
>> hope of further life at the age of one million years, would that
>> be significantly more tragic than an age of ten million? Ten
>> billion? Ten trillion? "
>> I would rather turn the question around:
>> "Is it less tragic to die at the age of 100 years than 100 million
>> years."
>> For my value system the answer is YES, it more tragic to die
>> the older you are, because more memories are lost the older
>> you are when die.


If you want to argue against my position it is better not to
mangle it before you reply. Turn the question back to the one
I pose: "Is it significantly less tragic to die at the age of one
million than one trillion years of age?" ("significantly" added
for emphasis, although it was implicit). Even though a trillion
years is a million times longer than a million, by my values
the difference is not significant -- and I am skeptical that it
is even significant by yours -- skeptical that you are not
"discounting" future life. I do have a preference of one
trillion over one million, but from my present position the
difference is practically negligible -- silly to worry about.

And there is another factor, illustrated by listing goals:

(A) live until next year
(B) live to age 100
© live to age 1000
(D) live to age one million
(E) live to age one trillion

(A) may not be difficult. Going from (A) to (B) will entail a
monumental breakthrough in the history of mankind. Without
getting from (A) to (B) there is no hope of getting from (D) to
(E) -- which enormously discounts the value of putting effort
into the latter. It is not only a waste of time, it detracts from
time that could be spent on the former. Worrying about how
to become "immortal" is worse than worrying about how
to get from (Y) to (Z).


>> Is the "death" of an hour old embryo more tragic
>> than that of a hundred year old? Obviously it depends on
>> your values.


Yes, but this is irrelevant to the points I have been arguing
concerning sentient beings.


>> Ben has, like the fox in Aesop's sour grapes fable,
>> convinced himself that he doesn't really want immortality after all.


I did not say that I don't want immortality. I will repeat my
position in the form of a syllogism:

I want to live as long as possible
It is possible to live eternally (be immortal)
Therefore, I want to live eternally (be immortal)

The first statement is a statement of my values and
the second statement is my appraisal of the facts. If I
am correct about the facts -- that it is not possible to
live eternally -- then the final statement cannot be
true. Values are subjective, but must be based on facts.
If I believed it is possible to be immortal (second statement)
then it would follow that I want to be immortal. Your
supposition of "sour grapes" is wrong.


>> Ben says "with enough time a fatal event is inevitable.
>> (I don't believe in "back-ups" -- see my essay The Duplicates
>> Paradox.) ".


I now think that "backups" is irrelevant because I think a fatal
event is inevitable with or without backups. Web publishing
has the wonderful advantage of allowing alteration of text -- which
I do frequently. I will correct this and other aspects of my
essay when this debate has passed.


>> I disagree with Ben's conclusions (or rather lack of them) in his
>> associated Duplicates essay:
>> http://www.benbest.c...lo/doubles.html
>> Ben should be applauded for stating
>> that the Duplicates problem is presently unsolved in his opinion,
>> but for me back-ups are a fine way to be truly immortal.
>> I diverge from Ben's views about backups -- and therefore
>> about the possibility of true immortality -- at the point when
>> he says:
>> "Which duplicate is me?" cannot be answered with the
>> word "both" because one person cannot be in two locations
>> at the same moment.
>> My answer is "both", because the "me" in the question is usually
>> framing the question *before* the copying takes place.
>> Ben-before-copying asks: which duplicate (Ben1 or Ben2)
>> *will be* me? The answer is both Ben1 and Ben2.
>> Asking the question *after* copying is trivial, since we would
>> have to specify *which* Ben was asking the question. I also
>> think identity can overlap, to varying degrees, between
>> individuals i.e. Ben1 and Ben2 initially share 100% identity
>> (in the first instant after copying they are identical, mentally)
>> and they subsequently, increasingly diverge.


You have presented the objective arguement, just as I presented
it in my essay. Subjectively I cannot accept the fact that I can
exist in two or more people and necessarily survive if all but one
perish. I have never had success discussing this matter with
people who cannot *understand* the subjective arguement
(understand it well enough to reply to the issues that matter
to me). I experience a contradiction between the objective argument
and the subjective argument -- and don't believe there should be
a contradiction. So the Duplicates Paradox remains a paradox
to me -- an unsolved problem. I have more important things
to think about and have doubts that speculative philosophy
could resolve the matter, anyway. Perhaps when and if I am
in the position of worrying about how to get from © to (D)
I will find it more relevent.

-- Ben Best, speaking for
himself

[Bruce Klein]

From: benbest@interlog.com
Subject: Reply to Bruce J. Klein about Immortalism
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:50:20 US/Eastern


>> Thanks for your kind words, Ben. You are a great mind.


These are very kind words.


>>> > I believe that it is self-defeating to attempt to live forever by
>>> > presenting one's position as an alternative to religion.
>
>>
>> I see your "attempting to live forever" and "presenting one's position"
>> as separate. One can focus on living forever as a personal goal, and
>> then work to build friendly relations with religion - at the same time.


I am glad that you can see this distinction. In that case, you could
start by trying to understand the thinking of religious cryonicists who
have made significant contributions to cryonics. Perhaps you or
PHYSICAL IMMORTALITY could interview and analyze the thinking
of such people. I have in mind David Pascal (Roman Catholic),
Joe Waynick (Seventh-Day Adventist), Joe Kowalsky (Orthodox
Jew) and Rick Potvin (unclassified?). All seem strong in their
religious beliefs. I doubt that Joe Kowalsky has ever posted
to CryoNet, but he is a CI Director and loves giving interviews:

http://www.cryonics....Joseph_Kowalsky

>>> > I also think that one can never know that one can live forever and
>>> > that the belief that one has acheived immortality is likely to reduce
>>> > vigilance and hasten death.
>
>>
>> Agree. Immortality is not a state, it's a process - immortality is a
>> way of life. We could be immortal now, unless we succumb to unwanted
>> forces(aging) or kill ourselves. However, saying that one wants to be
>> immortal doesn't mean there is reduced vigilance. On the contrary, with
>> more life, there is more reason to live, more experiences on how to
>> avoid death and more incentive to preserve knowledge gained.


I agree that experience can teach -- and even motivate -- the desire
for more life. However, it seems to me that this urge people have
to attain the feeling that they have achieved immortality is an
urge to "relax" and therefore an urge that will reduce vigilance.


>>> > How impactful would it be to be told that you could only live a
>>> > million years rather than a trillion years?
>
>>
>> Limited lifespan, living 10 more years, or 10 million more years, is
>> irrelevant if death=oblivion. The pursuit of infinite lifespan is the
>> best way to overcome this problem.


I find this statement incredible. If you have certain knowledge that
you cannot live 10 million years you would consider living another
10 years to be irrelevant. I know values are subjective, but this seems
so outrageous that I find it hard to believe you.


>>> > No, my problems with immortalism have nothing to do with my being
>>> > too mentally weak to be "thinking about 'forever'" . People who spend
>>> > their time trying to understand "forever" are far less likely to live 200
>>> > years than people who spend their time trying to solve the practical
>>> > problems of cryonics and anti-aging medicine. A computer that cannot
>>> > survive 200 years can hardly be said to be executing "infinite loops"
>>> > -- except from the point of view of computer jargon.
>
>>
>> Everyone can't be a philosopher. Practical work needs to be done, and is
>> being done. However, without a clear reason to live forever, there is
>> left to much wiggle room for us to copout on life. Rather than water
>> things down or leave the unanswered questions about afterlife to
>> religion, physical immortality needs be the main goal.


Everyone can't be a philosopher, but a true philosopher is able
to realize the futility of speculating about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin -- and will turn the use of his/her mind
to more important issues -- which may be scientific or technical
(or attending to the necessity of getting out of the path of
an on-rushing vehicle).

I have no problem with "copping-out" on life -- I work very
strenuously to survive without believing that immortalism is
possible. You have again opposed your thinking to religion,
which is a poor start on the project of building friendly relations
with religion which you described above.

-- Ben Best, speaking for himself

[Bruce Klein]

Message #24852
From: benbest@interlog.com
Subject: Reply to Doug Skrecky about a 200 year lifespan
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:57:33 US/Eastern

Doug Skrecky wrote:


>> So a million+ year lifespan is more exciting than Ben's yummy 200+ year
>> lifespan. Hmmmm. I think this ignores one unfortunate fact. As things
>> stand now, nobody on cryonet will reach even 110 years of age. To borrow a
>> quote from Red Dwarf: "Everybody is dead Dave; EVERYBODY is dead Dave;
>> Everybody is DEAD, Dave; EVERYBODY IS DEAD, DAVE!".


Things might not stand for the next 50 or 90 years the way they
stand today -- which means that anti-aging medicine may have
succeeded in that time and that many on CryoNet will be alive by
anyones definitions. No one had flown a mechanical vehicle
for very long before the Wright Brothers.

-- Ben

[Da55id]

From Ben Best: A) Live to age 100
--------------
This is the same as a) Don't die before 100

Insistence on rhetoric that cannot and need not be proven is creating growing social headwinds that very likely will result in missing the achievement of A) and thus a)

So, one can be right and cause fatal delays or take great care in their messaging and maybe keep living while helping others do the same. There are very few straight lines in the universe - except in our imaginations.

[jaydfox]

For all practical purposes, the goal of living to 100, assuming you're "young" (define that as less than 30, less than 50, less than 55, whatever), will bring these people in line with the goal of immortality eventually. It's all a matter of perspective.

We need a hell of a lot of people focussed on the goal of effecting actuarial escape velocity if we're going to save the maximum number of lives, immortalists or not. There seems to be a lot of focus on conquering aging in one fell swoop, even if it takes 30 or 50 years, while discounting the very high worth of fighting to achieve incremental victories and a 20-40 year extension of lifespan in the next 10-20 years.

For example, for myself, I am not worried about trying to live to 100, because I'm only 27. It makes sense for me to worry about immortality, because the "living to 100" part will be taken care of. I figure I could *fight the movement*, take up smoking and drinking, and still end up living beyond 200 years, by virtue of the fact that I've got at least 40 years left in me by today's medical standards, statistically speaking. For that matter, regardless of how many millions of people Bush has condemned to premature death because of his policies, I'll still live to be 200, and probably orders of magnitude beyond that.

However, for someone who's in their 50's (like my parents), or later, they really do need to worry about living to 100. If they can't get that far, then all the talk in the world about immortality is pointless. (So, it really *does* matter to me if Bush is defeated!) At that point, the focus really does become healthy living, incremental gains in life expectancy, and cryonics! That's why I really focus on all of it, and for different reasons. If I were selfish and cared only of myself, I would focus pretty much all my energy on studying and advocating immortality (hence my interest in the Methuselah Mouse Prize), and just make sure I stay reasonably healthy and purchase a cryonics plan as a backup (life insurance takes on a whole new meaning!) On the other hand, speaking out of concern for my parents, I am really trying to advocate things that bring small incremental improvements as quickly as possible (hence my interest in the Fly Prize).

I'm not sure where Ben fits into the picture: above 50, I figure he's got the right attitude; below 30, I think he's got too shortsighted an attitude; in between, I'd say it's probably healthy to view it either way.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to take up drinking and smoking just because it "won't matter". As Ben says, and I agree, we can't afford to relax because we think things are taken care of already, whether achieved already or achievable in the timeframe that matters.

So even though, statisically speaking, I could do pretty much whatever I want and still benefit from the technology that will emerge in the next 40 years, I should still keep in mind that, statistically speaking, my chances of living to 200 are a lot better if I take care of myself properly, and my chances of getting to 1000 are radically different depending on whether I take care of myself now. I suppose that's one place where Ben has it right! If I slack off on ensuring my own survival by even a little bit, "compound interest" takes over and I could screw myself by focussing on the wrong set of goals.

But the two points of view don't have to remain distinct. Reason strongly advocates SENS, and yet he also strongly advocates Calories Restriction. A very balanced and logical approach. In fact, it's an area where I'd say he's more balanced that Dr. de Grey, who discounts CR's benefits (for supposedly good reasons; I apologize and admit that I still have not read his paper, though I sincerely want to).

Taking the best from the immortalists and the meager life extensionists, one must practice CR, exercise regularly (predominately aerobic exercise, as far as I can tell), purchase a cryonics plan (especially if in a high mortality class), and then worry about advocating (or, if you have relevant credentials, performing) research into anti-aging and advanced rejuvenation/repair medicine.

PPS: Where can I get a copy of De. de Grey's papers?

[John Doe]

PPS: Where can I get a copy of De. de Grey's papers?

At his website. Google "aubrey de grey".

[Bruce Klein]

Feb 2003 - ImmInst Poll:

For how long do you expect to want to live?
threescore and ten years [ 1 ] [0.81%]
100 years [ 1 ] [0.81%]
120 years [ 1 ] [0.81%]
300 years [ 4 ] [3.23%]
thousands of years [ 14 ] [11.29%]
very long [ 7 ] [5.65%]
for as long as I am not feeling old [ 15 ] [12.10%]
forever [ 81 ] [65.32%]

http://www.imminst.o...=106&t=830&st=0

[Bruce Klein]

From: "Michael C Price"
References: <20041018090001.46546.qmail@rho.pair.com>
Subject: Reply to Michael C. Price about Immortalism
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:41:07 +0100

Ben Best wrote:

>>
>> Michael C. Price wrote:
>>
>
>>>> we are left with [Ben's] observation that people naturally
>>>> discount the value of money (and other things) in the future.
>>>> I presume this discounting is hard-wired into our brains by
>>>> evolution; by this reasoning we should get on with reproducing
>>>> like crazy and not even bother to try to live to 200.
>
>>
>> Hard-wiring is a red-herring and is also a way of dismissing
>> the matter as irrational, but I won't argue this point at present.
>> Your conclusions are a non-sequitur -- reproducing like crazy
>> will not necessarily extend my life.


The obviousness of this conclusion should have been a clue that
you'd missed my point. ;-)


>> You are confusing survival
>> strategies of species with survival strategies of individuals.


No, I was not. Let me clarify:
The discounting is hard-wired in by evolution, but so are lots of
other *undesirable* things, ergo the fact that we are hard-wired
to discount the future doesn't mean that we *should* discount the
future. Just as we are hard-wired to invest in reproduction rather
than extend our lives greatly beyond the fertile period, yet as both
life-extensionists and immortalists we have chosen to value
extended lifespan / neural-information survival over genetic
survival through our descendants.


>>>> Values are subjective, not objective.
>
>>
>> Yes!! But values should be based on objective facts.
>>
>
>>>> An immortalist (such as myself) does not discount the
>>>> future in the way that a life-extensionist (like Ben) does.


Do you agree with above statement?

[..........]

>> Even though a trillion
>> years is a million times longer than a million, by my values
>> the difference is not significant -- and I am skeptical that it
>> is even significant by yours -- skeptical that you are not
>> "discounting" future life.


Scepticism is often a healthy attitude, but you are wrong.
My values rate any finite-length existence to be valueless,
and I am not alone in this view. I agree with Bruce Klein
when he says:

>>>> Limited lifespan, living 10 more years, or 10 million more
>>>> years, is irrelevant if death=oblivion. The pursuit of infinite
>>>> lifespan is the best way to overcome this problem.


And I find your response to Bruce interesting:

>> I find this statement incredible. If you have certain knowledge
>> that you cannot live 10 million years you would consider living
>> another 10 years to be irrelevant. I know values are subjective,
>> but this seems so outrageous that I find it hard to believe you.


You'll have not to believe me either, because that's my position
also, and has been since I was 11. This is the real source of our
disagreement -- you can't imagine that anyone could actually
have immortalist values. I, by contrast, have no problem imagining
that other people, even life-extensionists, don't share my
immortalist values.


>> I do have a preference of one
>> trillion over one million, but from my present position the
>> difference is practically negligible -- silly to worry about.
>>
>> And there is another factor,


which is largely a bogus argument, since Ben and myself
both pursue anti-aging strategies, but I'll try to elucidate.


>> illustrated by listing goals:
>>
>> (A) live until next year
>> (B) live to age 100
>> © live to age 1000
>> (D) live to age one million
>> (E) live to age one trillion
>>
>> (A) may not be difficult. Going from (A) to (B) will
>> entail a monumental breakthrough in the history of
>> mankind.


I think we are already at that stage; i.e. we can expect to
live to a hundred using current anti-aging strategies.
However, that is the subject of another discussion;
perhaps I'll take it up with Doug Skrecky :-)


>> Without getting from (A) to (B) there is no hope of getting
>> from (D) to (E) -- which enormously discounts the value
>> of putting effort into the latter.


This is a strawman argument.

Perfectly true and absolutely irrelevant. *Of course* an
immortalist has to worry about staying alive tomorrow
before worrying about the next day, year, century etc.
This has nothing to do with how much I *value* living
forever as opposed to just another 100 or googolplex
years -- both require that I live another year.


>> It is not only a waste of time, it detracts from time that
>> could be spent on the former.


No it doesn't. Pursuing an anti-aging strategy increases
the chances of being alive at every time in the future.
Living forever means reducing my mortality risk right
now.


>> Worrying about how to become "immortal" is worse
>> than worrying about how to get from (Y) to (Z).


My take is the complete opposite; worrying about how to
become immortal is what makes me take anti-aging
supplements *now*.


>>>> Is the "death" of an hour old embryo more tragic
>>>> than that of a hundred year old? Obviously it depends
>>>> on your values.
>
>>
>> Yes, but this is irrelevant to the points I have been
>> arguing concerning sentient beings.


Not if you regard sentience as a phase along the continuum
of the complexity axis. No point arguing about this, simply
increase the timescales to whatever time-frame you
consider sentience to emerge in.


>>>> Ben has, like the fox in Aesop's sour grapes fable,
>>>> convinced himself that he doesn't really want immortality
>>>> after all.
>
>>
>> I did not say that I don't want immortality.


You seem to be saying that below, where you imply
that your desire to live forever is conditional on immortality
being possible. If this isn't what you mean then my apologies.


>> I will repeat
>> my position in the form of a syllogism:
>>
>> I want to live as long as possible
>> It is possible to live eternally (be immortal)
>> Therefore, I want to live eternally (be immortal)
>>
>> The first statement is a statement of my values and
>> the second statement is my appraisal of the facts. If I
>> am correct about the facts -- that it is not possible to
>> live eternally -- then the final statement cannot be
>> true. Values are subjective, but must be based on facts.


I don't see this at all. There's no reason why you can't
value something you think you can't get. Perhaps you
are saying we *shouldn't* value the unachievable; but
that is itself another value, not a fact.


>> If I believed it is possible to be immortal (second statement)
>> then it would follow that I want to be immortal.


And conversely, you don't value immortality because
you don't believe immortality to be possible?


>> Your supposition of "sour grapes" is wrong.


Actually, what you've said sounds exactly like the
fox in the fable, who decided he didn't want the grapes
[immortality] once he realised he couldn't reach them.


>>>> Ben says "with enough time a fatal event is inevitable.
>>>> (I don't believe in "back-ups" -- see my essay The
>>>> Duplicates Paradox.) ".
>
>>
>> I now think that "backups" is irrelevant because I think a
>> fatal event is inevitable with or without backups. Web
>> publishing has the wonderful advantage of allowing alteration
>> of text -- which I do frequently. I will correct this and other
>> aspects of my essay when this debate has passed.


Fair enough. I will forgo any discussion of the Duplicates
Problem, for the moment, so that we can concentrate on the
immortality issue.

Cheers,
Michael C Price
http://mcp.longevity-report.com
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm